Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 13

April 13

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Inspectigate

Made-up word, vanity. Delete. 137.222.10.57 00:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity neologism. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 00:56, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Added to Wikipedia and Wiktionary by 12.207.23.146 (talk · contribs) at the same time. Wiktionary was quicker off the mark, and had Wiktionary:inspectigate marked as a protologism within 5 hours, whereas it has taken Wikipedia over a month. ☺ Amusingly, the first page of Google Web hits now includes the Wiktionary deletion listing for this word. (Other entries are mainly self-submission dictionaries. The same user appears to have hit them all along with Wikipedia and Wiktionary.) Since there's no such verb, there's no appropriate noun to redirect to. Delete. Uncle G 01:05, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete. neolog. Mikkalai 04:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity neologism. Megan1967 07:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete made up words. Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hydrogen triiodide

The only piece of information in the article is not verified and there is no readily availible information on this substance (if it is actually spelled correctly).

• Delete? - Stoph 03:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now. This article is of course highly rudimentary currently. However, a casual Google search shows this compound is real (if obscure) and probably merits an article. --Durin 03:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - the article creator meant nitrogen triiodide, which already has an article. Besides, hydrogen triiodide can't exist. DS 00:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - if it can't exist then we must delete! Although, I had a logic class once and we learned that thinking about something makes it exist, at least I think that's right. MicahMN | Talk 00:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." —Shakespeare, Hamlet
  • "Nothing happens unless first a dream." —Carl Sandburg
  • Even if you hould such a position, impossible objects would probably not be included. (Assuming it is an impossible compound, I'm not ruling on the chemistry).--Samuel J. Howard 03:18, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a mistake. (By the way I thought it was ammonium triiodide the author was thinking of, so I learned something today. There is such a thing, it is a delicate explosive, but it's basically a form of nitrogen triiodide and I've added a redirect from ammonium triiodide accordingly). Googling does not give me the impression that it's a common mistake that would warrant a redirect. And unless I'm misinterpreting the Google results, they are not for "hydrogen triiodide" per se, they are for "lots-of-stuff-and-hydrogen triiodide." And this article is not about any of them and is not a useful start on any such article. So just delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Since hydrogen triiodide doesn't exist, it should not be a redirect. Dave the Red (talk) 03:07, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wrong info. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GDH

A dining hall at a college, need I say more? Thoroughly unencyclopedic. Rje 00:41, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - There isn't even a link on the college's page. No reason this should be on here. REDIRECT per Megan1967. MicahMN | Talk 21:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability is established. -- Brhaspati\^talk/_contribs 00:59, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Oh man, your tempting me to write up stubs for notable college dining halls. (I can think of several.--Samuel J. Howard 01:01, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Anonymous Cow 03:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. The info can be merged into the college's page if it's really that important. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into the main universities page. Klonimus 07:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Glutamate dehydrogenase. GDH is the abbreviation for that enzyme. Megan1967 07:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into the main universities page or Redirect to Glutamate dehydrogenase. Klonimus 20:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content, replace with redirect per Megan. Radiant_* 09:05, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Fuzzball! and Megan. Delete and redirect Glutamate dehydrogenase. Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Fuzzball, Megan and Mgm. Merge the info, delete this content and redirect to Glutamate dehydrogenase. - Lucky 6.9 17:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Oliver Keenan 19:27, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• del NN, just another TLA that probably has dozens of meanings. BigFatDave 23:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Megan1967. --bainer 00:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn collegecruft. ComCat 06:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Megan1967. VladMV ٭ ^talk 17:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Megan1967. Pavel Vozenilek 00:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep CDC (talk) 23:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frankie J

While I appreciate the amount of work that has been put into this article, it is obviously a hoax. Delete. Joyous 01:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I think there is a major label music artist with the same name. Google Page results for "Frankie J" He is pretty popular with the American-Hispanic population. Although the contributor that did that "Frankie J" article is not referring to him. If you look at the history, the first contributor stated that he is the R&B singer. Someone is vandalising the page. --Anonymous Cow 01:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I revert back to the last legit edit and that was Brother Dysk's edit but leaving the Vfd table. --Anonymous Cow 01:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep non-vandalized version. RickK 04:44, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Same as above. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per RickK. Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly meets Wikimusic Project guidelines with his latest album The One debuting at #3 on the Billboard album chart earlier this month and the track Obsession (No Es Amor) reaching #3 on the Billboard Hot 100. Don't Wanna Try was top 20 in 2003. As well, he qualifies under the two or more albums released by major label or significant independent label with three albums released on Sony. I have put this and other information in the article. Capitalistroadster 10:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster and Anonymous Cow. I'll add a disambig link to Frankie J Holden (Australian actor and musician) when I get around to creating it. --bainer 00:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge then delete. ugen64 20:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Transport system in animals

Delete as redundant with information about the heart, the circulatory system, etc. which are easier to find under those names. Merge any useful info out to those articles. FreplySpang (talk) 01:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with FreplySpang. It's not likely that people will search under that title so no redirect either. --Fuzzball! (talk) 04:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useable to Circulatory system. Megan1967 07:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and text and history, then delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Circulatory system--Jetru 07:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Like Megan1967 says. Pavel Vozenilek 00:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect (already done) CDC (talk) 23:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ryu te

The article for Ryu te needs to be deleted, as the name is incorrect (should be "Ryu Te," with a capital 'T'). The article cannot be moved, because Ryu Te already exists. The two articles contain identical content as of today. Alue 2005-04-13 (UTC)

• Couldn't you just redirect one to the other? Kappa 01:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as redundant/duplicate article. Megan1967 07:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Kappa, redirect. If it was misspellet once it is probable to be mizpelled again. Radiant_* 09:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. --InShaneee 18:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I did a redirect when I saw both pages on the new list, about 30 minutes after they were created. Vegaswikian 06:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. This should be common procedure, not needing vfd. Pavel Vozenilek 00:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mindat.org

Tagged for speedy deletion as "Nonnotable, Alexa rank 93,672, 119 google links". There's a comment on the talk page discussing notability. No vote. Kappa 01:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the creator of the mindat.org website and the mindat.org entry on Wikipedia I will of course respect any decision made on this matter, because of the sites status within the mineralogical and geological communities I thought it was worth adding an entry about it, I have tried to keep the entry factual and consistent with Wiki style. No vote. --Jolyonralph 01:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmm oook weak keep. I just wish someone else had written it, Joly. Not good practice to write articles on your own site, looks like self-promotion. --Halidecyphon 06:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: It may not get the most google hits but it's value as a mineralogical database makes it noteworthy. In cases like these I feel that the issue is not lack of notability in general but rather the smaller size of the communities, mineralogical and geological in this instance, that would give it higher hit rates or Alexa ranking. --Fuzzball! (talk) 09:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment How are you expecting a large community given the nature of the subject? SYSS Mouse 14:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but start a hostile takeover process to merge all content from Mindat into Wikipedia ;) Radiant_* 09:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with taking the mineral data from mindat.org and pasting it into wikipedia - these are scientific facts and aren't subject to copyright (although you might find the data on other sites such as webmineral.com is better suited for that purpose). Photos are copyright of their original posters so you'd have to check with them before using. I have made some changes to the mineralogy section on Wikipedia in the past, correcting some mistakes, and I'll continue to come back to do the same. --Jolyonralph 17:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Minerals isn't as wide a field as pop culture, so I'm not going to trust google or Alexa on this one. Keep as noteworthy database. Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Useful technical database on minerals, keep--nixie 11:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wait, what? Why wouldn't this be notable? Strong keep. DS 12:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, classic demonstration of weakness of google testing for encyclopedic nature. Klonimus 16:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - there are three excellent sources for online mineral info that I use regularly and add to most mineral articles on Wiki as ext. links and/or refs. and Mindat is the least commercial of the three. Search for any mineral name on google and Mindat is there, that's a bunch more than the 119 hits reported above. -Vsmith 14:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)#
  • It's funny, the 119 number is approximately right for unique hits, I guess wikipedia only gets counted for once. Kappa 19:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this is indeed a very important database for mineralogists Moumine
• Keep. Some cleanup woudn't make a harm, too. Pavel Vozenilek 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ameersing Luximon

Non-notable, possibly vanity. Zocky 01:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vanity - Delete Srcastic 05:01, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) Delete Vanity.Klonimus 07:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless can prove notability. --Fuzzball! (talk) 09:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Dsmdgold 23:34, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 00:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect Rancid CDC (talk) 23:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brett Reed

• A drummer for a relatively unknown band who is not notable on his own. As it says on the band page: "Brett Reed hasn't done any work for side project bands." - Marcika 02:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Man, you must not listen to college radio because they're a popular band. Never ever heard of "Fall Back Down?" Oh well, the drummer is not notable but the band is. --Anonymous Cow 03:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rancid. BTW, Rancid is a notable band. Dave the Red (talk) 07:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 07:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rancid. --Fuzzball! (talk) 09:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Relatively unknown? Time Bomb was quite a big hit single, IIRC. Not notable on his own, however; Redirect to Rancid. android↔talk 18:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect only important in context with Rancid --Dr Ingel 01:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Known in several countries, if my knowledge of them in NZ is anything to go by. But that's the band - redirect this to there. Grutness|^hello? 08:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per DaveTheRed. VladMV ٭ ^talk 17:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Rancid. --Myles Long 20:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Super Eurobeat

Wikipedia is not a directory. However, I know that Super Eurobeat is quite an important music record from AVEX Records (See Eurobeat). Delete page but leave redlink stand. SYSS Mouse 03:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep we have thousands of album pages, this is just like a merger of several of them. Kappa 03:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless list, trivial. Megan1967 07:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is the AVEX compilation. Not sure if we want to have the lists all in the same article or what. --SPUI (talk) 08:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Fuzzball! (talk) 09:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• While it is good to have lots of album pages, I don't see what's so encyclopedic about album compilations like the 'best <number> songs in <genre> and <year>'. As such, delete. Radiant_* 09:10, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • In this case, the compilations seem to be better known than the original albums, assuming they even exist. --SPUI (talk) 09:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes as I see it, basically these compilations are the most important part of the genre. Kappa 11:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Really? How odd. Well, I admit I'm not very familiar with the genre, so abstain. Radiant_* 12:39, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• keep this as well Yuckfoo 01:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite RadioActive 17:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

P:ano

• Delete This looks like mere self-promotion. And I'm for the inclusion of all high-schools, etc! Zantastik 19:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 02:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. They get 7010 hits [1] and AMG has an entry on them. Dave the Red (talk) 07:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Seem notabile but the page needs to be expanded. --Fuzzball! (talk) 09:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, they'll vanish into obscurity by 2007 if not before. Master Thief Garrett 05:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PSI: Politics and Social Issues

Seems to me to just be an advertisement/vanity page. Sholtar 03:52, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 02:42, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know... isn't making "godh8sme" your Minister of Agriculture just about inviting a famine? Delete. Samaritan 06:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable forum. The article itself is kinda funny. Poor Jeeves was recalled as president for being a douchebag. Dave the Red (talk) 07:04, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Heavily biased and "roughly two dozen regular contributers" doesn't indicate notability or ability to spell. --Fuzzball! (talk) 09:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete way under the notability bar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Nicely done, but Delete. Satires are unencyclopedic!! ---Isaac R 22:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Such crap. Pavel Vozenilek 00:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paul Bristow

This is not encyclopaedic. It is the biography (likely autobiography) of a minor functionary in student politics, and says nothing of note. His primary distinctions are i) chairman of Conservative Future, an organisation with approximately 300 active members and ii) researcher for an MP. There are 659 UK MPs and literally thousands of researchers. I can safely state none of the latter category have articles besides this person, and most of the former category do not have articles.

I am sure that Mr. Bristow's achievements are considerable, given his youthful age of 25. But I do not think he is ready for an entry in Wikipedia quite yet. Perhaps when he becomes a front-bencher himself it might be more appropriate. Matthew Platts 15:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 03:07, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete , not encyclopedic, if Paul makes it in real world politics he can try again --nixie 06:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete till he becomes an MP or whatever. -- Hoary 08:19, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete NN. --Fuzzball! (talk) 09:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I thought that that name rang a bell. Read Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chris D. Kelly. Uncle G 11:35, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Oliver Keenan 19:24, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment' I don't know the etiquette as well as I should, but if it's appropriate for me to vote (as I proposed it) then Delete. Matthew Platts 16:49, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 00:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paul Moss

Paul Moss is a Malaysian Idol judge. Source: http://www.malaysianidol.com.my/judges.asp
If Simon Cowell can have his own page, so can Paul Moss. Wikipedia policy states that their differences in fame should not be considered "not notable". Refer to Wikipedia:Notable --Celviano 04:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Vanity, not notable --Briangotts 01:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sounds notable enough to me. English-language Google hits will certainly be lower than actual, if this guy is mainly famous in Malaysia. — Asbestos | Talk 08:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even given the rather idiosyncratic way that 'vanity' is used here (well, it's more of a dialect I suppose), I can't see any ground for deleting this. I'd bet that he's better known than half the people with articles on Wikipedia (and 90% of the places, companies, etc.). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - not less notable than a lot of fancruft. Guettarda 16:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The article is informative, and this guy is probably pretty popular in Malaysia. I mean, he's on TV. Bonus Onus 02:50, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - He definitely is a celebrity in Malaysia. He also used to be in a band that I think got a US top 40 hit ("Sensation", IIRC), which should be enough for entry. Dzof 05:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 03:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • This page was on the Vfd pages, someone must have deleted it inappropriately. RickK 04:46, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agreeing with every keep voter above. Samaritan 05:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Uninteresting to me - and no doubt most Wikipedians - but nonetheless clearly notable. - Mustafaa 06:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep passes the Pokemon test. Klonimus 07:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: As you see shortly below, I'm already voting "keep" (though as it happens this person is of no interest whatever to me), but what's this "Pokemon test"? -- Hoary 08:26, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
    • Basically, it means that its user considers articles on pokemon stupid, and thus argues that any article on a subject he does not consider stupid, should be kept. Note that millions of people in the world can recognize any pokemon at sight, and as such this guy obviously IMHO fails the pokemon test. Also, delete as NN. Radiant_* 09:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • As Malaysia has a population of nearly twenty-six million people, I'd bet that more adults world-wide would recognise Paul Moss than would recognise a Pokemon character. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd bet there are more pokekids in America and Japan combined, than adults in Malaysia :) Anyway, ok, I'll abstain on this one. Radiant_* 12:50, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability, idolcruft. Megan1967 08:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Tacking on "cruft" to the end of a random word does not make a sound argument for deletion, dear. Mike H 16:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Funny that. The article is about an Idol judge therefore it can hardly be called random. Since cruft has been an accepted suffix on VfD by many editors for sometime now, I see no reason not to use it. Megan1967 12:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • It's random in that you just tack cruft to the end of it and hope it's a deletion argument. Mike H 19:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
        • It is but one part of a deletion argument. If you are making an allegation that I just made it up your "assumption" is obviously incorrect. Since another editor has used idolcruft and other editors before this have used it, I am dismissing your claims as nothing more than a personal attack on your part (I dont ever see you criticisng anyone esle for using cruft). Another thing... unless you are a girlfriend of mine dont ever call me "dear". It is considered patronising given the tone of your argument. Megan1967 00:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, polevaults over the clothesline of notability, for that presumably large percentage of Malaysians (and perhaps their neighbors) who like this kind of thing. -- Hoary 08:26, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable. --Fuzzball! (talk) 09:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't like any Idol article one bit, but if American judges can have articles Malaysian judges can too. BTW why did nominator put it here if he wants it to be kept? Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As an Idol udge, he makes regular appearances on television. Capitalistroadster 10:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as below the bar of notability. Oliver Keenan 19:21, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC) Keep - reconsidered as it is clear that the chap is actually more notable than I originally thought. Oliver Keenan 20:47, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn vanity idolcruft. ComCat 06:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paul Peek

GRider marked this vfd on March 14, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 03:12, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Is this encyclopedic? Does this increase the sum of human knowledge? Discuss. Seriously, strong keep. Discussion over. - Lucky 6.9 05:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May a point to Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Dealings_with_banned_users about mocking banned users? Anyway, notability is established, so keep the article, but cleanup as well. Sjakkalle 13:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • You're absolutely right. My apologies. Rider, if you're out there, love you, man. No offense intended. - Lucky 6.9 17:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Salon profile. The sixth person in the world to be inducted into the Rockabilly Hall of Fame. Lots more here. Samaritan 06:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets Wikimusic Project guidelines as being a member of a notable group namely Gene Vincent's backing band. Being a member of the Rockabilly Hill of fame should count for something too. Capitalistroadster 07:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable. --Fuzzball! (talk) 09:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peace burial at sea

same/better article at differently capatilized artice: Peace_Burial_at_Sea the page in question is Peace_burial_at_sea.

a merge doesn't even seem necessary.

Somedude 05:53, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

• delete, as above, Bluemoose 18:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect Trampled 00:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 03:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• In cases like these, you should redirect, and thus don't have to bring it to vfd. Meelar (talk) 05:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. There was no need to bring this to vfd. Dave the Red (talk) 06:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. Megan1967 08:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect all obvious variations in capitalization. Radiant_* 09:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. This shouldn't be on vfd. Pavel Vozenilek 00:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pentesting

Slang neologism. Perhaps a candidate for wiktionary. --LeeHunter 21:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 03:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• {{move to Wiktionary}} It doesn't belong in Wikipedia. CatCrofts 10:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to penetration test. "Pen testing" is a reasonably common short form used in the computer security world. --FOo 01:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Penetration test. Megan1967 09:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per FOo, Megan1967. -- 8^D ^gab 00:23, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge. ugen64 20:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Petroleum maturation

Much of this info already in other articles, such as kerogen and oil. This doesn't need a separate article, I suggest merging and deleting. Solver 13:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 03:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Petroleum. Megan1967 08:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• As Megan1967 says. Pavel Vozenilek 00:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Philip Ellul

Pcb21 marked this vfd on Feb 26 with comment "vfd-ing - not sure whether this guy is in need of an article or not", but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 03:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• He has a geocities website, no rererences to awards or publication anywhere other than the geocities page, probably vanity by him or a fan, delete --nixie 06:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. He only gets 31 hits on google, but I have a feeling Maltese poets are under-represented on google. I would change to keep if anyone could show that he was notable in Malta. Dave the Red (talk) 06:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 08:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, several of those 31 google hits are about someone else with the same name.CatCrofts 10:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, his own website fails to load, provide proof of notability. ecb29 17:06, 17 Apr 2005 (EST)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 01:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Phillip S. Pittz

24.67.193.207 marked this vfd on March 22 with coment "vfd - vanity page", but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 03:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• This guy seems to exist [2] howevre there is no film called Lycanthrope made in 1988 and teaching english in Japan is hardly encyclopedia material in the 21st century, delete --nixie 06:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 20:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pind Dadan Khan Tehsil

83.71.42.52 marked this vfd on February 19, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 03:19, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Dont delete this I am from the region and I certify its facts. 82.34.77.254 16:45, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 08:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and put on cleanup. The article is not very clear to an outsider (what is a PIND?), but judging from the Google results it appears to be a district (see the article Tehsil) in Pakistan. / Uppland 09:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD 01:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pogo sick

Mike1971inter marked this vfd on January 27, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. My vote is delete, and I was pretty tempted to just {{nonsense}} it, but what the hey. —Korath (Talk) 03:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• You should have gone with your first instinct, delete as nonsense, exact phrase on google brings up nothing about this supposed practice --nixie 06:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:10, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied as nonsense. Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 20:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Political efficacy

578 marked this vfd on March 14, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 03:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Dicdef. Wiktionary already has an entry for Efficacy so I don't think a transwiki would be useful. Dave the Red (talk) 06:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. Dave the Red (talk) 04:34, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• I've rewritten and expanded this, although it's still a crappy stub. Strongest possible keep--this is a very notable concept in political science, and a lot of research has been done on it. I'm not really up on it, and I've got enough term papers to do as is, but there could be a very legitimate article on this concept. Meelar (talk) 19:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• I like the rewrite, but wouldn't it help to merge it into context? Radiant_* 08:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, for one thing, it's a fairly distinct topic; I wouldn't be sure quite where to merge it. Also, I can really do a much better job than this once I have some more time to hack this out. If you'd like, I could move it to my user space until I get a non-stub version, but this should be useful as a placeholder. Meelar (talk) 19:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, no, that's not what I meant. I simply felt that, unless expanded (which you just promised to do anyway) this would be rather short for an article. Improving it would be great, and it's certainly something that belongs in mainspace. Radiant_* 09:08, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. Encyclopedic topic. Klonimus 16:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 'SUPER KEEP. Very valid topic. Neutrality^talk 04:01, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Polyphonic ring tone

Delete after merging usable contents with ring tone.--Wtshymanski 05:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 03:28, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Far easier to merge and redirect than to delete, and the term seems legit. Meelar (talk) 05:20, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect --Halidecyphon 05:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with ringtone --nixie 06:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Ring tone. Megan1967 08:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Is viable term. Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect the term is in very widespread use, at least in the UK. Thryduulf 10:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Good example of a title that is useful as an "index entry" (redirect), for content that much more sense in the context of a larger article than it does by itself. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to ring tone, there's nothing to merge, this is a flat copy of content already there. I also agree with Dpbsmith, this is good larger context title. --bainer 00:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD 01:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ponyism

141.225.252.167 marked this vfd on March 23, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. This is another I was tempted to just {{nonsense}}. Delete in any case. —Korath (Talk) 03:30, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, hoax. Dave the Red (talk) 06:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 08:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable/ very possible hoax. Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have no idea what it is, and I'm sure I don't WANT to know. Very un-noteworthy, and, as said, almost certainly a hoax/invention/etc. Master Thief Garrett 05:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Nonsense, I marked this as a speedy. Firebug 05:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 20:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Alexander II of Alexandria

128.235.249.80 marked this vfd on April 7, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 03:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. RickK 04:47, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Coptic Popes are inherently notable. - Mustafaa 06:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable coptic pope. Klonimus 07:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. If an anonymous contributor puts a VfD notice on a page and never follows up with actually creating a VfD-page - isn't that just a form of vandalism which could be reverted and ignored? (Or is there a slippery slope I am missing here?) / Uppland 09:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've been trying to be as transparent as possible with these foundlings, though I do note that WP:GVFD#Nomination says, "Incomplete nominations may be discarded or ignored." I'll bear this in mind in the future, and if anyone wants to close this as a speedy keep, I have no objections. —Korath (Talk) 11:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • Your transparency is appreciated. The sentence in WP:GVFD#Nomination is true in several senses, as I see it. Several of these incomplete nominations have been ignored, for weeks in some cases, so it's true as a purely descriptive warning that incomplete nominations may be ignored. It's also true in that there's leeway to choose to roll back incomplete nominations, to prevent vandals from overloading the system. I'd argue that anonymity isn't the deciding factor. But lack of an edit history comment when applying the VFD notice, and lack of any attempt whatever to create a discussion page, certainly weigh heavily against completing a nomination. On the other hand the other contributions of 128.235.249.80 (talk · contribs) from the same period appear to be in good faith, and relate to a campaign to do something with a whole series of Pope articles. On the gripping hand, if that user has a reason for this nomination, xe has incentive to come back and do it properly. ☺ Uncle G 18:45, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)
  • Keep - not that his vote appears to be needed. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. After all, he was Coptic Pope for 25 years so he must have done something notable in that period. Capitalistroadster 11:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep I think that VfD noms by anons who don't even bother to follow through the whole process can and should be safely ignored. Especially when there's no clear reason for deletion, as is the case here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - we might as well delete this vote already :) Oliver Keenan 19:20, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although this vote appears to be unneeded (everyone's agreeing) I need to say keep as all the Patriarchates of the See of Alexandria are worth notable persons. And if an Anonymous person is willing to put an article up for voting. He or she should post a reasoning. -Markio 16:29, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand stub. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 01:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Povl Ole Haarlev Olsen

Delete non-notable - probably a pal's joke. - DavidWBrooks 17:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable -Rholton 23:43, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 03:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy under first Speedy criterion. No useful content in very short article. Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it can't be deleted at the moment - has that block-compression thing. - DavidWBrooks 10:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 01:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poxy

Atlantima marked this vfd on March 28, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 03:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete band vanity. Sjakkalle 08:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 08:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity, not notable... there's been lots of this lately. EDIT: they have two releases, oooh wow, they'll vanish by 2007 if not before. Master Thief Garrett 05:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. ugen64 20:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prosoft Learning Corporation

This article, along with a series of others was created by username Prosoft Learning. Clearly, this is advertising. Someguysomewhere 00:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) And Microsoft's isn't?

• Delete I've heard of Microsoft. I've never heard of this company, and I can't find anything on them beyond press releases and company pages. I don't see why they are noteworthy. A.Kurtz 00:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 23:04, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Prosoft Learning is noteworthy because it manages two industry standard certification programs: CIW and CTP

The Prosoft listing is not promoting anything - just briefly informing people about what it does and what it offers for those who may be curious. Other companies are doing the same on Wikipedia. SA 23:02, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC) Prosoft Learning

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. —Korath (Talk) 03:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Prosoft gets over 500,000 Google hits. I know that can't always prove anything, but it has a website. I think it should be expanded a lot though. Howabout1 03:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• You should check how many of those hits were unique, prosoft learning corporation gets only 31,000 hits, and an exact search for the name gets 188. Their website has an Alexa rating of 1,834,490. They may provide a useful service to someone, but that is not sufficient grounds for inclusion in an encyclopeida, delete--nixie 06:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Nixie, delete. Radiant_* 09:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nixie. --bainer 00:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If Prosoft manages CIW and CTP they're notable. The article is blatant self-promotion -- but that would be OK, if the article were more informative. (Note that some useful info was lost when Hodg "de-commericalized" the article.) So the thing to do is keep it, maybe roll it back to a more complete version, and add an explain significance template. If they don't come back and fix it up, then we can do another VFD.---Isaac R 23:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. ugen64 20:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Nightly Business Report

Page should be deleted since:

• No potential to become encyclopedic
• Completely idiosyncratic non-topic
• Also unclear if topic is a Film, TV show, Play, whatever
• Nothing links to it (although that is fixable)

Wendell 03:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Nightly Business Report. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I assume the original author of that article meant this program because Paul Kangas and Susie Gharib are the anchors. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I grew up watching NBR! I'm being bold and redirecting. Samaritan 05:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Let redirect stand. --InShaneee 19:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 21:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gabriella valsecchi

Delete I'm new, but this looks like a vanity page to me. Chyel 03:44, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, yes...and not a very good one at that. Delete. Speedy if possible. It's barely literate. - Lucky 6.9 05:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• A better bio. There could be something encyclopedic if, say, she's pioneered some of the alternative training methods for horses that she uses in her practice and writes about in her Ride! magazine column. This information is not on the visible web. If the creator of the article is reading this, please describe significant contributions Gabriella Valsecchi has made to the world. Wikipedia is not a free website to list just anybody. Samaritan 06:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 21:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sachiel

I'm not sure if this is true. I'm pretty sure it's not. Kyle543 03:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless somebody can explain what sort of cruft it is. RickK 04:48, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• It's Neon Genesis Evangelion cruft. Redirect to Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion). —Korath (Talk) 05:00, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Smerdis of Tlön's rewrite. (I'm going to remove the original content, though, in favor of a disambig line, since the information was already at Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion).) —Korath (Talk) 21:16, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Agree to redirect to Angel (Neon Genesis Evangelion). Or else delete - nonencyclopedic Srcastic 05:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Meelar (talk) 05:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 08:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I can live with a redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rewrite I wouldn't consider myself highly religious or anything, but I think it's pretty sad when so many people assume that a certain angel is just something from Evangelion! Evangelion borrowed the names of numerous biblical angels for its monsters. Sachiel is a "real" angel, at least in Christian lore, and also the pseudo-Christian new-age angel mysticism that seems to be going around these days. Try a Google search for "sachiel +angel -evangelion" and you'll see what I mean: hundreds of hits, very few are EVA-related. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • If and when someone rewrites it, he can do so over the redirect. However, the content that's currently here is all about the anime, so should be redirected to the appropriate page so it doesn't fork. —Korath (Talk) 14:27, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I found a bit of information on the web about the archangel Sachiel and have added it to the article. There may be more in Davidson's Dictionary of Angels, which I can check later. Not wholly sure we want separate articles on all the qabalistic angels of the weeks and planets (they get demons as well) but this data is no doubt as worthy as other (fictional) characters. -- Smerdis of Tlön 20:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten article. —Xezbeth 05:23, Apr 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 keep. ugen64 21:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Export-oriented

• Delete. Dicdef/adjective... I can't see it ever being encyclopedic... concept is better covered in other economics-related articles. Feco 04:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move to wiktionary if this is actually a specific term used in international commerce and then delete. Just delete if not. Postdlf 04:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I have made a rewrite. Unless there is something to merge this with, I suggest keep and expand. Sjakkalle 13:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, although I'm not sure there's not somewhere this could be merged. Also might need a disambiguation for export-oriented growth (the development strategy). Meelar (talk) 18:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 21:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yucai high

• del non-notable high school. Mikkalai 04:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as woefully incomplete two-sentence nanostub by non-native speaker. - Lucky 6.9 05:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC) Changing vote to keep the rewritten version. Still stubbish, but I'm convinced there's enough online info available to justify keeping it. - Lucky 6.9 07:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a school that is notable by nature. This article needs some more Organic Growth. Is there a board of chinese wikipedian's who might be able to work on this article? The article should also be moved to Yu cai High School. Klonimus 07:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately it looks like organic growth is not going to be allowed in this case. Kappa 20:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Kappa, if you feel this article passes the Toowoomba Grammar School test, then list in on User:GRider/Schoolwatch. Klonimus 16:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, schoolcruft. Megan1967 08:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - BEEFSTEW score of 0. Thryduulf 10:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not to invalidate your vote, but under the latest revision this article achieves a BEEFSTEW score of 6 (items A, B, D, F, H, and J) and still holds a great potential. —RaD Man (talk) 09:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep notable high school. What gave you the idea this was non-notable? Kappa 10:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Who gave you the idea that an average high school is notable? There should be a solid proof. Why teaching music makes in notable? What is "Yu cai" in Chinese? there may be plenty of reasons that the schools were named "yu cai". For all I know from Chinese, i.e., less than zero, it may mean "comprehensive school" or something. The article is useless as it is. Its existence in this form is bad precedence to pump millions of high, middle, secondary schools over the world without sufficient reason. With all due respect to the education system. Mikkalai 15:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Being founded as an experiment by a famous educator makes it notable, or at least important to the history of education in China, although I don't suppose wikipedia has any ambition to cover that. He only founded half-dozen or so schools. "Yu Cai" (育才) means something like "cultivate talent". Thanks you for clarifying that this important school is being deleted in order to prevent the addition of other schools. Kappa 19:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • All schools are worthy of inclusion into a truely great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 16:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Please don't confuse the notions of deleting an article and disallowing an article. Many people believe that bad stubs actually do more harm that no stub at all. Please think what will person learn about thye school fom the text. If it is prominent, it must have a prominent article. Otherwise a person reads the article, just like me, and shrugs: "why is so much fuss about this school?" As for amition, no reason to be so pessymistic. If you care much about the subject, please drop a notice at the Wikipedia:China-related topics notice board. If they will not address your concern, then alas... Mikkalai 20:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • They will learn that it was built by a prominent educator during wartime in a partially occupied country, and they will get some idea of the theories he was testing, and how influential it was. How can wikipedia grow if everything has to be created as a full-size article? Kappa 20:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I fully sympathize with your bitterness. I myself tried to defend a couple of miserable articles about things that looked important to me. But so far even the referenced link don't impress. From the link I see that it was one of numerous Tao's schools. From wikiarticle it is even unclear whether the school exists at all now. Google does give some hits, but it is not at all clear what are they. I suppose if I searched in chinese language, I'd got more. That's why I suggested you to talk to the Chinese board. Another issue is verifiability. You cannot base a wikipedia article on a short paragraph from another internet site. As for full-size, please don't overkill. No one requires a 1000 thousand text. Mikkalai 20:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • This stub does enough to establish notability and proves that the subject deserves to be allowed organic growth. If it wasn't a school, it would be left alone. Kappa 21:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • The referenced link isn't "a short paragraph on another internet site", it's a paragraph about halfway through a peer-reviewed journal article -- exactly the sort of reference we want. --Carnildo 22:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established. Radiant_* 12:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • When a notable band releases an album, that's generally considered notable enough for an article. When a notable author writes a book, that's generally considered notable enough for an article. But a prominent educationalist founding a school... doesn't establish anything. Kappa 21:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not exactly so. We don't have articles for every book, do we? A book establishes the notability of a person. Why don't we start from an article for the undisputably prominent educationalist Tao Xingzhi? If the text about this school in the Tao Xingzhi article will be long enough, no one will forbid you to make it into a separate article. Mikkalai 23:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • When an author's book is published, we generally agree that the author is notable - but we list the book in the author's main article unless there's something exceptional about the book. The same applies to schools - they are created by (the government of) a city or town. The city or town deserves an article. I hold that we should list the school in the city's main article unless there's something exceptional about the school. Radiant_* 08:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
        • If someone writes an article about a book by a notable author, we don't delete it, even if it's a stub and the author doesn't have an article. Also the fact that this is a prototype school not a "copycat" one makes it exceptional, a creative and influential work. Kappa 18:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete lots of good reasons already given. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete gibberish, notability not established. --InShaneee 19:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No longer gibberish thanks to Kappa, so I took the liberty to strike this out. Mikkalai 23:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable school with low BEEFSTEW score. Dave the Red (talk) 19:52, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• del or establish notability. as an experimental school that many others were based upon, it may be notable, but the article as it is fails to establish notability. BigFatDave 23:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails to establish notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just "making sure my voice is heard". —Korath (Talk) 22:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • That would be a "delete all schools, even the notable ones" vote then? Kappa 22:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Just the ones where there are attempts to pack the vote. —Korath (Talk) 22:46, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your honest reply. Kappa 22:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A quick Google search shows at least half a dozen schools named after it, so it seems to have been notable. --Carnildo 22:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Lincoln High School gives 123,000 hits, but we have only Abraham Lincoln High School (San Francisco) and don't have the very first one, probably long forgotten. Besides, what makes you think they are named "after it"? "Cultivate talent"-school (see explanations above) may well be a standard buzzword, kind of "Academy of Arts". Mikkalai 23:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The source says many schools are named after it. Kappa 00:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • And still another source says that Tao founded Yucai Middle, not High. The article is extremely poor and unconfirmed. Mikkalai 00:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - its a high school, its notable, enough already with these repeated VfD's to make a point. EVEN JIMBO IS AGAINST DELETING SCHOOLS!  ALKIVAR™ 23:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you sure that this school exists at all? Mikkalai 00:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this Vfd was more because it was a substub and may not establish enough notability for people who haven't heard of Tao Xingzhi. Kappa 00:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, and reading unverifiable and contradictory info in wikipedia does not help to learn about nim. Mikkalai 00:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia.—this has gone on long enough. It's OK though, the horse doesn't feel a thing. —RaD Man (talk) 01:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, only because of the Li Peng connection. -- Dcfleck 03:40, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• Delete, one notable graduate is not enough. Imagine millions of chinese schools aricles! Oh, the pain! Grue 19:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thankfully Wiki is not paper, so that isn't a problem. Klonimus 22:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • How many notable graduates do you need? and would it be better if they were American, not Chinese? Kappa 22:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep  The Steve  21:20, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• keep as rewritten please Yuckfoo 01:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. --Zero 04:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a notable school in China. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:08, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A good encyclopedia article could be written on this subject. This is not it. A good encyclopedia article is not cobbled together from short mentions on a pair of websites. A good encyclopedia article does not leave one with the feeling "Is all of this true?" or "Does this place even exist?" Gamaliel 07:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a lot better than the first stubs on some very big topics. Oliver Chettle 23:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Ejrrjs | What? 22:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable -CunningLinguist 02:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is a place on Wikipedia for schools. --ShaunMacPherson 03:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Houshuang 00:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The board received a mail from the Thomas Kevin Cullerton, stating

Dear Wikipedia:

Someone has misused my name at www.wikipedia.com, my name is now showing up on your website and in search engines referring to your website:

<snip>

Please remove any reference to my name on all wikipedia websites.

Best regards, Thomas K. Cullerton address anonymised

I have informed him of the deletion.

Anthere 08:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)