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 both articles. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic. Bus routes change like hot cakes. Could possibly be transwikied to wikitravel, but I suggest delete. —Markaci 2005-04-8 T 00:15 Z
Delete - my city has bus routes too, as does every town and city; definitely not encyclopaedic --AYArktos 01:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not every city has busses unfortunately... Sjakkalle 09:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it noting can be transwikied to wikitravel, not encyclopedic, delete--nixie 03:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep (and remove the links implying articles for each one) or transwiki to Wikisource. Bus routes may change, but usually they keep the same name and general path. --SPUI (talk) 03:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Highly, highly trivial. If I wanted to know the bus routes, I'd check the city's DOT website. Sideline: how often do hot cakes change? Asriel86 05:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
And how many NYC transit officials does it take to change a hot cake? —Wahoofive | Talk 05:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete who'd look up a bus route in an encyclopedia? —Wahoofive | Talk 05:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Information not static and historical value of information is extremely limited. --Fuzzball!(talk) 05:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If Wikipedia documented every bus route in the world that would be a wonderful thing. --Gene_poole 06:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The only thing that would be wonderful about it is that we'd hit our millionth article much faster. "We're pleased to announce that the English Wikipedia has reached one million articles with the creation of Barstow Transit Authority Routes 11-25. Delete. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, bus routes are subject to too much changes, also it's something you shouldn't be looking up in an encyclopedia. Local public transport sites can do a much better job. Mgm|(talk) 08:13, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keepormerge with the New York City bus system article. I voted delete on, and nominated two of, the articles for individual routes, but I will accept a condensed listing of them since they are an integral part of the network. Sjakkalle 09:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic, utterly trivial, and a bad thing Dsmdgold 09:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is not encyclopaedic content --Bucephalus 11:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Bus routes change at least once a year where I live and I suspect it is the same in New York. Capitalistroadster 11:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete very unencyclopedic. WikiTravel wouldn't even want this. Radiant_* 15:55, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic. Bus routes change too rapidly for us to be noting them at wikipedia. Dave the Red(talk) 19:23, Apr 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 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 Jinian 12:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Incomplete article, Google search for Emilio Cecconi returns 20 or so entries that seem unrelated to each other. I'd recommend delete, hard to say what this is about. Rx StrangeLove 22:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The part about "widely known player" suggests either vanity or attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Almost no info on page. --Fuzzball!(talk) 01:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Has anybody else seen A Night at the Roxbury where they are yelling out "Emilio!!!" Hilarious. MicahMN | Talk 05:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn & van Asriel86 05:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn vanitycruft. ComCat 06:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete and redirect to Enlargement of the European Union, though the article cannot be deleted at this time. —Xezbeth 06:52, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
This article (which hasn't been expanded at all since its creation almost a year ago) is inherently problematic and can never become encyclopedic, the way I see it. Though the term "Accession states" is common enough, its true explanation is nothing more than a definition -- namely the countries that last acceded into the European Union. When Bulgaria and Romania join, it's them that are gonna be commonly referred to as accession states, when more countries join, it'll be them, and so forth. I suggest a deletion, since all it contains and all it can possibly contain are described elsewhere, either in History of the European UnionorEnlargement of the European UnionorTreaty of Accession 2003, while the definition it currently provides is at the same time limited and misleading. Aris Katsaris 01:05, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
... both of which would be better served at those points by linking directly to Treaty of Accession 2003. In fact, I might do that right now. Uncle G 12:00, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Hah! I was beaten to it by Joolz. Uncle G 12:00, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Delete, a bit zealous to take the generic term "Accession states" and attribute it to this esoteric and remote article. Asriel86 05:33, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I assume that at some point these countries get to quit being "accension states" and get to be "members of the EU" Dsmdgold 09:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Widely used term to descibe 10 new EU members and a Google search shows 54,300 returns [1] Good stub on encyclopedic topic.Capitalistroadster 11:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No it isn't. It's a simple duplication magnet. We already have articles on this topic. Aris Katsaris even helpfully listed them above. Uncle G 12:00, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Nothing here that isn't at the aforementioned articles. Misleading title. No inbound links. DeleteorRedirecttoEnlargement of the European Union, according to taste. Uncle G 12:00, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Deleteorredirect as above. --Carnildo 23:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete/redirect per Uncle G. Radiant_* 09:29, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
delete and recreate as a redirectMozzerati 20:05, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
Delete Outdated. No redirect - this is so ambigous. Pavel Vozenilek 00:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
RedirecttoEnlargement of the European Union. or make a disambig to articles covering the enlargement of other organisations of states, if we have any. Thryduulf 09:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite to what an Accession state is, in the Generic sense, with references to the EU/Alaskan examples. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:15, 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 proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP Snowspinner 01:08, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
The subject of the page now admits that he created the page, making it less questionably a vanity page. See this article for details. And note that I renominated the page not because I thought that the prior VfD debate wasn't useful, but that it would likely have been different had people known without a doubt that Mr. Farivar concocted his own page. Jason19:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.
Keep -- Roughly 15,000 Google hits for exact phrase, and, imho, the persistent vandalism to this entry shows that author's work is getting noticed. Vanity is not sufficient grounds for deletion if entry is relevant/subject notable. Also, subsequent, critically analytical [if POV, and in need of neutralization] changes have been made to this article, showing interest from the non-vandal side of the fence too. This is an entry that apparently provokes strong feelings in some, and is in need of expansion / input from editors other than the author, not deletion. -- Adrian19:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note. There aren't 15,000 entries. There are 317 unique hits, many of which are posts to blogs and sites like budding-romance.com. SlimVirgin(talk) 02:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
My only comments to this would be: (a) persistent vandalism of this particular entry is probably less reflective of its relevance and more reflective of the author's reference to it to garner attention. For example, the vandalism appears to be concentrated around the times of mention by the author on his weblog or in the column that prompted this relisting. (b) While Wikipedia is great at the multiple author expansion/edit model, self-written bio pages like this are the best examples of the single-editor problem -- precious few others are in the position to contribute about a subject as narrow and unknown, and when they do (as in the current Metafilter adds/deletes), it's mass-deleted as vandalism rather than edited and tuned to remain neutral. Jason19:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't agree with making one's own page, but he looks like a legit, fairly-widely published journalist to me. Friday19:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vanity is not sufficient grounds for deletion. As discussed in the past vote, subject's writing credits seem to make him a legitimate figure, and this new debate about him seems to only increase the relevance of his entry. (and in reply to Cjr2q below, he created this page eight months before his article appeared -- that's hardly correlative. And when did glib encouragement of anything merit deletion of an article? Attack the page, not the person.) -- Jsnell19:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is clearly a vanity page. Chronicling every single person who's ever written for some two-bit website is a project unto itself. There are a lot of google results for my name too. And for "Bill Jones." Doesn't mean anyone cares who we are. We have user pages for this sort of thing. --Leadingbrand19:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Slate is a recognized media entity, as are most of the other publications Farivar has written for. "Cyrus Farivar" is a bit less common of a name than Bob Jones -- most of the 15,000 hits are Farivar's bylines and stories written for publication, and other information related to him. The number of people showing up here speak for themselves as to whether anyone cares about this topic. ---- Adrian20:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteorUserfy. In addition to vanity, subject is insufficently notable. Thousands of people write for significant publications and not all those people are encyclopedic. Gamaliel19:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The world is full of freelance journalists who could claim the same credentials as this guy, and none of them is notable --Dtcdthingy19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --JPotter 19:50, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, merely one of myriad free-lancers who occasionally contribute to the web; self-authored self-promotion. The very model of the modern blog-whore, wikipedia-style. I agree with the suggestion that this would be an OK user page. --Rodii20:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to his user page. Moriori 21:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Wikipedia:Vanity page, as he states in his article that others should also create a wikipedia entry on themselves. --TIB(talk) 21:13, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to vanity page or add it to his user page. He admits on http://www.slate.com/id/2123673/ that it is a vanity page. It's a classic case. If he was truly notable, someone else would have created a page about him.-GregNorc (talk) 21:16, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Yes! You're right! All notable subjects have pages already! Oh wait, no you're not! Snowspinner 21:42, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
I've never heard of a notable subject having to add themself to the wikipedia, maybe you can enlighten me. -GregNorc (talk) 22:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't care if it was vanity created, it is a notable subject. In fact, I will go a step further. This article is being kept. I do not care what the outcome of the usual VfD suspects straw poll is. The article is being kept, and I will undelete it until the arbcom or Jimbo tells me to stop. Snowspinner 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Wow, Snowspinner, you'd go so far as to decide that your opinion is more important than the outcome of a VfD, a full community process? You'd engage in behavior specifically meant to subvert the outcome of that community process? However anyone thinks about the page in question, I think that your attitude speaks for itself. Jason23:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'd go so far as to declare the circumstances of a page's creation irrelevent for whether the current version should be deleted, and to ignore all votes involving "vanity" since the article has been edited by people who are not Farivar. Snowspinner 23:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
It's really surprising to me that a Wikipedia administrator would declare an intention to use their powers to oppose the results of community consensus. That's not what those powers are for, and this is inappropriate behavior for a sysop. --Grouse23:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And VfD isn't for a small band of regulars to railroad articles to deletion with no reference to policy. So, you know, we're all in the doghouse. Snowspinner 23:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
That's an interesting point of view but it certainly has no relevance to me, as I am not a VfD regular in any way. And you are the only one threatening to abuse your power as a sysop. --Grouse00:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-- I've repeatedly and strongly supported my position in favor of this entry being kept, but I think Snowspinner needs to more clearly articulate his reasons. Out of respect for the community he serves, it would be appropriate to explain specific reasons for disregarding specific votes, or rationales. To his credit, he's done so somewhat, but I'd be uneasy about this article being kept, despite a majority opinion, without explanation -- ie, specific suspect accounts involved in the voting, votes not grounded in solid policy, etc. That said, I still support the whole not-deleting-this-entry thing. -- Adrian03:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Here's my position. A journalist with notable publications writes an article on himself. Is this bad? Yes. Should we assume that he knows about our policies on vanity pages? No. Assume good faith. Don't bite the newbies. This is someone who is giving Wikipedia good press, and who probably made an honest mistake. Regardless of the original status of the article, it's been edited by many people who are not him now - that makes it not vanity anymore. It's just wrong to delete an article because of a genuine mistake of a user who is being a real ambassador of good faith and for whom a strong case for notability can be made. If I had started this article, saying he was a journalist with publications in Macworld, the New York Times, Wired, and Slate, there would be no objection. The issue is that people are pissy that he made a mistake. And even more pissy that he made his mistake publicly on Slate. That's not a reason to delete. Reasons to delete have to do with the content of an article. Too much of this discussion has to do with the article's creator. And those aren't valid votes. Snowspinner 04:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I have supported a person editing autobiographical pages in the past. But that guy was notable, and it was appropriate for him to have a Wikipedia page. Not so for this guy. But whether you have compelling reasons for ignoring each vote is irrelevant, because you have already made it clear that you will ignore the results of the community process, even before it is completed, and no matter how compelling the popular consensus is. This is the very definition of prejudice. --Grouse08:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a quote from a previous VfD which also began as an autobiography: The biography proposed policy, which says in part "Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia...Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." Mr. Farivar meets this criteria I believe. The article and VfD can be found at Jesse Liberty, a precedent exists for these situations. Hall Monitor22:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He does have a certain degree of fame on the Internet, and writes for a major company (MSN). However, the article's references to itself "....which led to a debate about the validity of this very page" should be removed. Aleron23521:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So now every freelance writer who manages to place an article with a "major company" merits a Wikipedia page? That's madness.
Keep Despite having started the article himself, the author is a journalist, working for a fairly well-known publication, and is syndicated to various portals. I don't believe Wikipedia should drive journalists away. They do contribute lots of insightful content to existing articles.--Cioxx21:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of little interest to anyone but the subject in question. Serves little purpose other than being a magnet for vandalism by people angered by his bragging over outing a hoax.VelocityJE23:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Funny, I had written this entire vote before and now it's disappeared. I guess someone doesn't like other people's opinions. The entry is valid - it's not touting himself, has no bias, only lists a quick bio which is pretty full of valid media outlets. And as I said before, if Mr. Hankey or Washingtonienne can have an entry, so can Cyrus. Mrtourne23:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mildly notable journalist. Besides, if we delete this the terrorists-- er, vandals-- win. --Tysto 23:20, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
Delete and Userfy. This is appropriate for a user page, but not notable enough for inclusion as a regular page. And yes, I think Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo is far more notable than Mr. Farivar. Mr. Hankey is a cultural phenomenon who is probably known by millions. --Grouse23:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page, and he smugly encourages others to do the same in his Slate article ("Why haven't you?") --Brett A. Thomas 00:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
No, we are to delete vanity pages, as listed in the rules of engagement. I find it interesting, especially given your connection to Macworld, Mr. Snell, that you so vigorously defend the author. Although he is one of your employees, and I'm sure a good one that you respect, this does overstep the bounds. The New Zorker01:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe my knowledge of Mr. Farivar disqualifies me from having an opinion. (And my user talk page makes it clear who I am and what my affiliations are.) In addition to being someone who has been dealing with Internet content since 1991, I am also the originating author of two Wikipedia articles and have contributed substantially to a handful of others; I am not a Wikipedia veteran by any standpoint, but I have come to appreciate Wikipedia and what it represents, as well as how it works (and in some cases, fails to work) as an information system. I believe I have a legitimate perspective to share; if you choose to disagree, that's what makes this a beautiful place to be. Jsnell18:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Just because you might not of heard of someone doesn't mean they aren't notable. I mean, he's published... isn't that enough? But keep for reasons beyond just that. MShonle01:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. Lots and lots of people are published. Publication alone can't be sufficient.
Keep; there are lots of annoying vanity pages that are, unfortunately, notable enough to keep. I quote from Wikipedia:Vanity page: "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of importance is." He is sufficiently important, so this is keepable. Antandrus (talk)01:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see this person as a notable journalist, unless we're saying all journalists should have an entry. He doesn't seem to have written for any mainstream publication, and I haven't found any Google entries about him, which means there are no third-party sources. Also, his article says he's 25, so he's unlikely to be notable yet in terms of his profession (it's not impossible at that age, but it's unusual). SlimVirgin(talk) 02:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
There are only 317 unique hits, most of them to blogs and little known websites. Can anyone who has voted to keep produce a single article he's had published in a mainstream publication? SlimVirgin(talk) 02:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and Userfy - Vanity, non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Popularity or notoriety must not be mistaken for notability. This sets an awful precedent. If every person with comparable achievements should see fit to make Wikipedia entries about themselves, then it serves to elevate the signal-to-noise ratio to uncomfortable levels. That he links to his own Wikipedia entry on the Slate article and incites others to do the same encourages this. This entry would best be relegated to a userpage. Journalism is about the articles, not the journalists, and at this point, Mr. Farivar's case for being notable or well-established is highly debatable. Delete, and let someone else start an entry about him as they see fit. To put it in another way: it just doesn't smell right. -- Lush04:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Lush. Pure vanity; junk the clown. --DoubleCross 05:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, a lot of less notable people have biographical blurbs in wikipedia. Just because he originally wrote it himself does not make it useless. I wish that many of the people with biographical articles that I have edited would come on and do a little fact checking and adding to their own entries. This is the power of wikipedia. --Darkfred05:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It's a useless vanity page and not worth the time and the effort that the constant vandalism it will be getting will waste. Urbanski08:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep comment: this is legitimate journalist published in various notable media; 15,000 google hits; users would want to be able to look him up. Kappa09:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'317 unique hits' means 317 different websites have his name on them, according to google (albeit most are just blogs), the figure of 15,000 includes multiple pages of single websites/blogs. Prototc11:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps he didn't know the vanity policy. Doesn't really matter, because this particular tempest in a teapot isn't exactly watergate. Vonfraginoff10:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is my first VfD. In fact, this discussion has been highly illuminating for me, teaching me much about Wikipedia and the process of creating, editing, and deleting entries. The entry should be kept as a sort of "meta-entry" about what Wikipedia is, can be, and shouldn't be. Because you have to keep the discussion about the VfD, you also have to keep the article to which it refers. Although, in fairness, if you can both keep the article, and keep the links to it alive, and at the same time perform a redirect, then the article should be slid to the User Pages section. Like it or not, the Slate article that tweaks Wikipedia is now a permanent part of the ether - people will be reading it and linking to it for years to come. Malangali11:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A vanity article if ever I saw it. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I guess we need the self-agrandizers in the Wikipidia too. Michael L. Kaufman 15:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep -- It's evident that this article as important as Franz Melde, where Franz Melde was somewhat important in physics, Cyrus Farivar is somewhat important in a particular even regarding online forum scams. At one point this may have been a vanity post, but now it's a part of history. Werty8472
Wikipedia is not a tool for reward or punishment. For a biography, the question isn't how annoying the subject is; it's whether the subject meets the generally agreed-upon Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies. It is independently verifiable that Farivar has written for "periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". Therefore, a biography of him merits inclusion, according to Wikipedia guidelines. (And, yes, I think it would actually be a good thing to have articles on every writer for the New York Times. Wikipedia is not paper; there is no shortage of space here. More information is better than less information.) That's why I vote keep--but for those who are unpersuaded, I point out another possible solution that was used in a previous situation.
When I joined Wikipedia, I am embarrassed to admit that I created an article about myself, because I met the criteria for inclusion. After becoming more familiar with Wikipedia standards, I came to understand that it was inappropriate for a user to judge his own notability. I therefore put the article I had created up for VFD. The consensus that emerged was that it would be deleted--but that a user who felt the information was worth preserving would recreate it from independently verifiable sources. This might seem like a rather roundabout approach, but I'd argue that it is reasonable compromise that is true to the spirit of Wikipedia. So... My vote (and first choice) is that this article be kept. My second choice would be that, if it is deleted, a user recreate it from independently verifiable sources. Jacobw15:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, self-promotion. Just because "his writing has appeared" (how often?) in some notable papers doesn't make him a notable journalist. I see no particular achievement here, and no one except himself would have written an article about him. NoPuzzleStranger 16:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Not Notable, User added 'facts' about himself that are in dispute. Also the circumstances around the creation are highly disruptive to Wikipedia, and encourage violation of policy. I admit I am of two minds as to whether or not sure this last part should be held against the article, but even without it, the first two points stand. --John Kenneth Fisher 16:44, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - If I can't have a vanity page, he can't either. --lesalle 17:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, borderline notable within his field. It is interesting to note that during the first go round on VfD there was nearly a unanimous consensus to keep. Are some voting to delete solely on the grounds of vanity? Hall Monitor17:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy this would have been excellent stuff for Cyrus to have put in a user page of his own, and would have been just as findable when querying the wiki for his name. He isn't anywhere near notable enough to need an actual article of his own. --Jrssystemsnet04:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination misunderstands the circumstances that would warrant deletion of a vanity page. We discourage people from editing articles about themselves, but that doesn't necessarily mean we destroy the content. --Michael Snow04:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On what planet? Until this Wikipedia page popped up, I'm sure a lot of us here (Mr. Snell excluded) had never heard of Mr. Farivar. Putting up a Wikipedia entry on yourself to make yourself "notable" isn't exactly the way to go about doing it. I'm going to agree with the recommendation to userfy, as that seems to be the most graceful way to solve this problem - Mr. Farivar stays on Wikipedia in some fashion, and all the arguments used against it thus far would become irrelevent, as he's a user, not a "very notable Internet personality." The New Zorker11:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-- This article meets Wikipedia policy criteria for inclusion of biographical entries, which include several standards under which a subject may qualify as 'notable' -- Farivar meets enough of these standards for his entry to be valid. Votes to delete based solely on "this is vanity!" are not reflective of valid cause for deletion under WP policy, and may be disregarded unless amended to show objective reasoning recognized by existing WP policy. I note again that there's enough interest in this topic that it's highly probable that the community will polish and update it as time goes on, the lack of faith in the WP process shown by some notwithstanding. -- Adrian13:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I first heard about Cyrus Farivar before even knowing he had made a Wikipedia article about himself. It was from a mailing list my former work colleague manages. He sent a link to Cyrus's blog, where he explained how he busted this "greenlighting" thing. There's no law saying no one should ever write a Wikipedia article about him/herself. Only you have to be someone that a Wikipedia article would be written about anyway. — JIP | Talk20:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-- Nor should we discourage vanity by nuking relevant content out of a mistakenly strict interpretation of WP policy on 'vanity' pages, or dismiss the work of subsequent editors that have worked on the page by painting every word and every edit with the 'vanity' brush. -- Adrian13:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If I were a cynical person, I might wonder if the frequency and number of comments from Mssrs. Lamo and Snell here and in the original VfD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyrus_Farivar> talk defending C.F. arent more about other agendas, rather than a genuine discussion among Wiki members about the merits of self-posting one's own accompishments - regardless of the content value - but then, I am not such a cynical person... m1key16:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am glad you are not cynical. To correct you, however, I did not participate in the first VfD. There are multiple Jasons at work here. I'm user Jsnell, and the other Jason is not. Also, one of us voted to Keep, the other to Delete. I don't believe Mr. Lamo has even met Mr. Farivar. Jsnell18:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created as a non-notable vanity page. If this person is truly notable, or has gained notability simply due to the flap over his Wikipedia page, let somebody else create or recreate a new page. Polpo14:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity. If this guy gets further press, I wouldn't object to someone coming along and writing a vanity-free non-recreation-of-original-content article on this guy. --Deathphoenix18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current version is accurate, reasonably neutral, and summarizes his involvement in a briefly newsworthy even (the greenlighting hoax). While hardly a hugely important person, he is reasonably widely read reporter. Certainly far less well known or significant people are in Wikipedia. I loathe his decision to write himself up, but ultimately it should be the content that matters. Alan De Smet | Talk 13:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Even if he is important enough, creating his own page and editing it regularly is a no-no. Encouraging others to follow suit is asking for disaster. If we don't draw the line clearly on this one, it will be exceedingly difficult to draw the line on other vanity pages. BTW, I'd vote the same way if GW Bush created a page on himself. The notability doesn't matter, its how the content came to be. -Lommer | talk18:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Criteria for inclusion have been established and it has been stated that this person meets those criteria (writes for periodicals with circulation of 5,000 or over). All other considerations (did the user create the article himself, is the user a nice guy, etc.) are irrelevant. That is what policies are for.
I am a little confused, howver, as his page says he is an intern at MacWorld and when I search for him on MacWorld all I get from them is that hew as an intern there.
[Disclaimer: I created my own article, and went through this same process; my objectivity can certainly be challenged]. Jliberty 17:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Votes from new users, IP addresses, and unsigned votes[edit]
Delete -- The guy had to hype his own page in a Slate article. Isn't this what blogs are for?
If someone had walked in off the street and written this entry about Farivar, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. As it is, we're contemplating disregarding his relevance because we don't like his conduct. I recognize, respect, and disagree with the original reasons for this Vfd, but some of the votes here smack of a desire to tear others down, not make Wikipedia better. To me, one of the fantastic things about Wikipedia has always been the potential for controversial entries to grow and evolve. This one won't be given a chance if deleted, and that's a shame. Also, I'm a bit concerned regarding the number of extremely new accounts participating in a VfD regarding a vandalism-prone entry. -- Adrian20:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the "the number of extremely new accounts participating in a VfD regarding a vandalism-prone entry" is a reaction to Mr. Farivar's somewhat inaccurate Slate article. It reeks of masturbatory grandstanding at best, and is a bad practice of journalism at worst.
Agreed -- if I sat down with Farivar, interviewed him, and wrote a third-party bio page for him, it would no longer be a vanity page. Would he be reknown enough to keep a page on Wikipedia? Who knows, but clearly that is not what is motivating many people within this discussion. Jsnell00:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-- Have you sat down with Farivar, Jsnell? Just asking to make clear the only conflict of interest is the Macworld one and not a personal relationship. Jaysus Chris02:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The author writes a vanity entry about himself, then writes an article about it to stir up a little notoriety. Not cool. Also glibly encourages others to create their own vanity entries: "Yes, I added an entry on myself to Wikipedia. Why haven't you?" --Cjr2q19:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteJoel de Bunchastu Delete, delete, delete. Self-promotion in such a blatant manner is in bad taste, as is his amazing exploits in [i]outing an internet hoax[/i]. He is truly an american hero. vote from User:69.174.57.96
Delete -- 1) He admits authorship and 2) it's not interesting. A "degree of Internet infamy" is like a Mickey keychain from Disneyland. Gramschmidt19:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I see my name on Google all the time. I have occasionally been the subject of "internet controversy." I am a published journalist. I have the common decency not to create a Wikipedia page about myself. This opens the door to countless other "vanity pages" by would-be actors, writers, etc., and I see no benefit in having Cyrus Farivar on a list with H.L. Mencken. When Mr. Farivar writes something on the same level as Mr. Mencken, I will be the first to argue for his reinstatement. Hell, I'll even write his entry. Until then, he doesn't belong here. -- The New Zorker (note, no Wikipedia page) 209.113.141.7420:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
note: user's IP is new, but the user himself wrote the original entries for All Along The Watchtower and Blind Willie McTell ages and ages ago. The user is also here referring to himself in the third person.
I have to ask: at what point is someone "Wikipedia-worthy?" And who decides that? Surely Mencken doesn't define the bottom limit. Does David Pogue? Does Steven Levy? Does Maureen Dowd? And what if that decision is influenced by the behavior of the author or the subject of the page, rather than his/her own merits? In addition, what if this wasn't a self-created page? Then the "vanity page" arguments have to turn into something else. Ego page? Nepotism page? Jsnell21:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, you're right. It's unfair to put a "bar" down in terms of these sorts of arguments. If he didn't create the page himself, there would be less of a "delete this page" upswell. But the fact remains, David Pogue, Steven Levy and Maureen Dowd are all fairly well-known, or at least have a following of some sort. I see no Farivar Fan Club. If I create a page on Murray Chass, an author whose name I currently see on the front page of the New York Times website, does that grant him legitimacy? While I acknowledge Mencken is a poor bar to set, a bar does exist, and Mr. Farivar does not clear it. The New Zorker21:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.
Delete and move to his user page. He has admitted this entry was created for vanity and is urging others to do the same. If the authorship of this page had been known during the first VfD the outcome would likely have been different. Entry is non-notable self-promotion. 65.31.115.145 21:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC
Delete This is a vanity entry created to garner him personal attention by whoring it out with his new job at Macworld. He made sure everyone on Slate knew that he had a wikipedia entry, and is using Wikipedia as a way to stroke his ego and hopefully make himself more popular or valuable. This is not helpful to the awesomeness of Wikipedia.
Thanks for the vote, invisible user. I don't really appreciate your mention of "whoring" in conjunction with "Macworld," but since your sentence is completely nonsensical I can't really question it directly. The Slate reference was a joke -- we professional writers, we makey with the jokey sometimes, see? I see what's going on here. Cyrus stepped on a landmine that was armed with the sanctimony of Wikipedians. And he is being punished (in various ways) for that. I'd like to believe that this article is being voted for/against deletion on its merits (or lack of same), but it's clear that some participants in this process are slagging on the spirit of Wikipedia while claiming to endorse its tenents. It's too bad, but very enlightening about the weaknesses in a system as strong as Wikipedia. Jsnell23:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome Mr. Snell. I am sorry that my entry was nonsensical and difficult for you to interpret. However, this is a vanity entry designed for others to see and help increase his "fame." I am not a writer, unfortunately I cannot phrase things as eloquently as you. And I am not invisible, I am looking at my hands right now. Wakka Wakka Wakka! I makey with the jokey! Note: Unsigned edit by Maiael -- Adrian22:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assuming no one deletes the paragraph fairly explaining the current situation (and allowing users who get to Wikipedia from his Slate piece or his blog to see that they shouldn't really create their own entry), there's no reason not to allow this. Jaysus Chris00:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First edit.
Actually, I think that if this page survives it must take note of the controversy it engendered -- including the concept of Vanity pages. (As the writer of the aforementioned paragraph, I thought I'd toss that in.) Jsnell02:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep;Subject announcement of a Wikipedia page about himself will do more good for Wikipedia than harm. Might bring a large number of new readers to Wikipedia. (This is the first time I've ever edited anything here.) Furthermore, his role in outing the 'greenlighting' hoax will have done a lot in bringing to light the existence of 'hoax communities' like WookieFetish. Finally, what's so bad about vanity pages? Is disk space not getting so cheap as to be free? Won't vanity pages make people care more about Wikipedia? If a person gets used to writing a page about themselves, that should introduce them to the process of Wikipedia and might get them to start editing other pages about subjects they care about. All of this is a good thing, right? 63.197.5.4
Delete - I am in a position to know that Cyrus Farivar was one of the ringleaders in developing the "Greenlighting" hoax - the purpose was to see how far the traditional media could be hoaxed before Cyrus would "uncover" the hoax and be the hero. The whole "Greenlighting" hoax was designed in large part by him in order to get recognition for himself (his blog had been receiving very little traffic or attention). Unfortuately Cyrus jumped the gun and pulled the plug on the hoax before it really got going. Therefore since Cyrus was a conspirator in creating the hoax in the first place, this entry is only serving to perputate his self-grandeur. 209.225.104.12402:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
-- Please cite your sources on this. I don't know the policy for comments on VfD pages off the top of my head, but this statement seems potentially libelous, as it basically accuses him of falsifying a story, unless supported by verifiable evidence. -- Adrian03:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, To the question of whether Mr. Farivar is "important" enough to merit inclusion in the Wikipedia, counting the number of Google hits is hardly the right measure to use unless you would argue that Jessica Simpson having twice as many hits as Isaac Newton fits your definition of importance. I have to agree with the Fernand Braudels of the world who assert that the lives of peasants (translate: small time journalists) are just as significant as those of kings and emperors (translate: presidents and CEOS) in the shaping of the modern world, at least in aggregate, and thus should be included in any historical or contemporary account of it. --scottdwhite11:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC) vote from User:68.8.79.126[reply]
Delete, Stupid vanity post, I bet all the google hits were from his Grandma.
Keep -- If it is not fiction, why delete it? Isn't having all this info here what Wikipedia was for?
Delete or at least keep up the more honest references to his dubious reporting skills re the "Greenlighting" thing, which seems his main claim to fame. And bragging about being on of the first reporters to write about Podcasting in Oct 04 seems equally dubious... Anyway, all-in-all he seems to just be trying to build up some personal propaganda and, well, that shouldn't be what Wikipedia is used for. - Mr. Knowles (Preceding comment by 213.7.176.105.)
Delete. Trouble, right here in Wiki City, Capital T and that rhymes with E and that stands for.... EGO. Having waded through all the comments, my nickels worth is that y'all either have Policies that everyone agrees to adhere to - or - suggestions that one can cherry pick deli-style. I have not RTFA on policies, but it seems to me that is what is germane here, not personality, popularity, relevance etc. Clearly, there are other ways to utilze the wiki-resources to announce oneself to the world, and while I do slightly tip my hat to C.F. for the brazen marketing, I also offer a slap upside the head for not following the posted TOS. Life is not a lockstep process, however every exception degrades the value and meaning of the concensus you have achieved. Tempest in a teapot? Yup. This should be an easy big D. - m1key m1key14:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First edit.
Delete - Not Notable. I worked as a tech journalist -- can't see how he's 'notable' within his field. He's not a Mossberg, Pogue or Dvorak. This audience is obvious biased to be more aware than the general population of technology reporters and other tech personalities, yet the wide majority here obviously had not heard of him prior to the current discussion. His name has almost zero recognition, much less fame or respect. Leaving the entry contributes to dilution of the content base by inserting low-value, low-return data. Tom K.17:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First edit.
Delete The guy may be a newsreporter, but he created the entry for himself, trying to raise his own reputation/self importance.
Delete vanity. The author seems to be attempting to increase his notoriety by writing an article targeting a tech-savvy group, and then referencing to his own wikipedia entry in the article. Regardless of whether this brings 'positive press' to wikipedia (which I doubt, self-aggrandezment isn't exactly what this site is for), it's still a bald attempt to increase his own visibility. 128.146.232.23920:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As others have said, it's a pure vanity page. What's worse, the subject admits that he created it for purposes of self-promotion, and urges others to do the same. He regularly edits the page to make sure it stays flattering to him. The Google hits on his name are likely the result of similar self-promotion, while the vandalism of the page is probably a reaction to it. 67.81.189.16121:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article was created to drive more traffic to the subject's blog, and is purely a vanity page.
KEEP This deletion petition was started by the people who tried to create the greenlighting hoax. They are putting it up for deletion out of spite that their plan failed. Cyrus is just the easiest target for them to lash out at. Besides the guy is a journalist and writes for a well known magazine. It seems to me that most people just don't like his attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnEnglish (talk • contribs) . First edit.
Whatever your opinion on the VfD, don't make up reasons. As you can see by the very first paragraph of this page, this "deletion petition" (VfD) was started by me, and I haven't a single thing to do with Greenlighting or any other faux trend. The first time I heard about it was in reading Mr. Farivar's article, which brought me to his admission that he authored his own WP page, which struck me as Not The Way Wikipedia Does Things, which led to me starting the VfD. Please don't make things up. Jason00:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or so you say... ;)
Keep "Keep -- Roughly 15,000 Google hits for exact phrase... -- Adrian 19:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC). what more do you saddos need. 212.101.64.416:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not notable. Bring back his entry when he is noted for something other than being a party pooper. Wait, I think I just contradicted myself. He's not even a notable party pooper.Fgarriel14:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it started as a vanity page, the interest seems to be subtantial. Further, the information appears to be accurate, and increases the total knowledge available on the Wikipedia. Gearyster16:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:11, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Cleanup, expand. Colleges are inherently notable. This one just got off to a poor start, article-wise. Also, once vfd is done, movetoNorth Central College. -- 8^Dgab 04:39, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Comment, since the vfd nominator has changed his vote to keep, I believe we can speedy keep it, and remove the vfd tag - is this correct? -- 8^Dgab 15:00, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
No. Let the process run to completion normally. Let's reserve speedy keeping for bad faith nominations, which this was not. Don't close a discussion 13 hours after it was opened. Look to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aaron Dunlap and bear it in mind. Come back to this discussion when the lag time is up, and if it's still a unanimous "keep", close it as keep. Uncle G 18:15, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
True. In retrospect, pages on vfd that are really worth keeping tend to get a lot more positive attention while they're listed here. -- 8^Dgab 20:09, 2005 Apr 8 (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 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. Marked for deletion, not deleted due to block compression errors. Jinian 12:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok, so it gets a few thousand Google hits, but this is an internet radio station. I doubt it is notable. The article itself is quite poor, and needs cleanup, and the fact it includes a list of (presumably) forum user names isn't very promising. Internet radio stations generally aren't notable and I think this one isn't notable enough for it's own article. As it is part of a MMORPG, I think it should be merged in to Kingdom of Loathingordeleted. Hedley 02:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've formatted the above IP vote properly, it was inserted as 'delete anon ip'. Hedley 02:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Radio KoL is run seperatly to the main Kingdom of Loathing site. The radio station is paid for by donations to itself and out of the pocket of (I think) artsychick and SeveredToe. Its only connection to KoL is its recognition as the Radio Station for KoL. Yes, the article is poor. In fact, ive noticed the link to the featured stations is broken (though, the replacement page fails to work, which is why im not going to update it just yet). Im hoping on improving the contents of this article. I dont think the article should be deleted. I would prefer if it was maintained as its own seperate entry. but if the need be, I wont argue about merging it into the Kingdom of Loathing thread. DaCyclops 02:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Users only contributions have been to Radio KoL, an article related to Radio KoL and this VfD. Hedley 02:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you wish to improve the article now is the best time. I don't think the fact it is not ran on the Kingdom of Loathing site is relevant, it is the KoL station and hence is best placed in the KoL article, otherwise I can't see the encyclopaedic notability. Hedley 02:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep This radiostation is extremely notable. We have a lot of poor stubs on webstations and I don't know why you decided to choose this particular article. I'll quote myself one more time. "I could explain in many ways, why the station is notable, I'd just say it's THE ONLY radiostation based around a MMORPG, not even Everquest has something similar. It works 24 hours a day, all djs are people who play the game and they waste up to 4 hours a day on the radio. A truly notable radiostation.". radio "kingdom of loathing" gets 5000 hits. The station is fully independent from the KoL, it is not part of the game and it's real, working and popular radiostation. It shouldn't be merged, but rather stay on it's own. Please research before proposing such ridiculous deletion requests. Grue 04:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd hardly say it was ridiculous. Web stations generally aren't notable, I did some research, and nothing came my way to show why this is notable. If this stays, the show articles should definetly go, or be merged. As you are the writer, i'd say strong keep is a bit POV, because its a 'Keep' at best. I'm perfectly justified in listing this VfD. Hedley 16:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your Google search is unfair, and brings up too many Kingdom of Loathing results. The search "Radio" "Kingdom of Loathing" brings up the same amount, although less than 5,000 hits is hardly notability.
Keep but needs revision, if it's a popular radio station, then it's a popular radio station. The language is poor though, so I say keep&revise. Asriel86 05:27, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. I think this is important enough within the KoL community to deserve a section in the KoL article, but I would be shocked to learn that it had any signifigance outside of said community. Indrian 15:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per the above. Radiant_* 15:56, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC) convinced now. Merge per the below. Radiant_* 09:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete No better than any of the millions of Internet radio stations. If this stays, then every real station with an actual radio-frequency output must stay, and a good deal of those don't make the cut either. Chris 00:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Furthermore, this station isn't one of the most popular ones - None of Shoutcast's front page stations have an article, bar Virgin Radio, as it is an FM feed. The fact Radio KoL only has 200 slots on a 24kbps mono stream means it could never be as notable as any of those stations - Why should this be an exception? The fact it is the only known MMORPG station is irrelevant, it can be explained in Kingdom of Loathing. Hedley 01:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So how many radiostations can you name that have 24/7 of live shows, without replays or hour-long music sequences. I bet only a few. If there is one web-based radiostation that deserves its own article, it's that one. Grue 04:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See [3], theres a lot there with five times or more the listeners of Radio KoL. To my knowledge, only stations like Digitally Imported deserve an article. Thats on Wikipedia and it is one of few that deserve inclusion. If this survives theres no way you can VfD any station with more than 120 listeners, which is just above what KoL had when I checked last night. Hedley 17:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You know, these with thousands of listeners are commercial radiostations. As far as indie radios go, they couldn't be much more popular than rkol. However I was not talking about popularity here. You could have a bland dj-less top 40 radiostation, and it could be very popular. Or you could have an adfree radiostation with ~20 djs, each having his/her own unique personality, working for free, playing music that you won't hear anywhere else. Which of these deserves an article more? Grue 18:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
NoteUser originated Radio KoL article, and has most contributions to it.Chris 15:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The notable one, which is the Top 40 radio station with a lot of popular. A lot of those stations are not commercial. I've worked for non-commercial, 'indie' stations more popular than 'KoL'. One of our rivals was deleted; They picked up five times as many listeners as KoL. KoL doesn't need its own article, it should be merged. Hedley 18:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For the info of both of you, I've worked on what Gure would call an "indie" radio station. We easily have loads more than 200 listeners while on FM, not to mention several national industry awards over the year. If this keeps up, I'll have to write an article about it. 131.251.0.8 15:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) (This is me forgetting to sign in. Chris 15:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Merge and redirect. Not inherently notable. -Sean Curtin 22:18, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Meelar(talk) 22:19, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to where? You don't have to be a Kingdom of Loathing player to listen to this radiostation, which is notable by itself, and is independent from the Kingdom of Loathing creators. Grue 06:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If it isn't merged into Kingdom of Loathing it should be deleted. That is the only place it could be reasonably put. Hedley 16:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Does the delete include the presenters that have pages? Things such as Inari-chan feel more like vanity pages, and I don't feel that they are notable. - Estel (talk) 13:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Most of them are already listed. Since this one wasn't linked from the main page, it slipped through. Grue 14:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think this situation should be handled in the same way that any other article would. It is possible that someone might search of the phrase "Radio KoL". Would this search go to the appropriate page if it was merged with the "Kingdom of Loathing" page? If so, maybe they should be merged. yawgm8th
Keep but needs revision. RKoL is unique. I don't really feel that comparisons to other streaming radio stations is fair, since it's not remarkable for being a radio station, but rather for being the only MMO-related, player run station. It's like comparing Koebergtoa lot of the US reactors. The only reason Koeberg has an article while they don't is because Koeberg is South Africa's only commercial Nuke power plant. Same with RKoL, it's the only MMO station. And yes I am a South African KoL player Synkronos 13:09, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
(Above user has 10 edits, of which 5 are to the KoL page.) Being the only commercial nuclear power station in South Africa is a convergence of three general qualities - there are loads of commercial power stations, loads of nuclear power stations, and loads of power stations in South Africa, but only one which is all three. "MMORPG-connected", however, is verging on the trivial. OK, there are lots of radio stations, and lots of Internet sites. Most netradio operations are run by amateurs with no experience of broadcasting for real, so "player-run" doesn't really say anything. But while there are lots of MMORPGs, there are few things which you can say are MMORPG-related. It's like saying I'm notable for being the only DJ on my small station to recycle TV presentation elements from the 1980s on a music quiz show (which I do, to great effect). 131.251.0.8 15:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) (This is me forgetting to sign in first. Chris 15:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Keep and possibly merge. I have edited the entry at great length - and yes, this is the first time I've contributed to Wikipedia, but hopefully that does not count against me in some nebulous manner (considering the point of a wiki is for people with knowledge of an article to edit it, even if it's the first time they've done so or even stumbled upon the page.) Hopefully the new entry describes the uniqueness of the station a bit better. That being said, I don't believe there's a problem with making it a sub-section of Kingdom of Loathing as long as that does not obstruct a search for Radio KoL - and the personality pages that have popped up should definitely be sub-sections of Radio KoL. 155.41.112.1 15:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have edited above users signature to direct to the IP, as Haplo3k signed with the link [[User:155.41.112.1|Haplo3k]]. Hedley 16:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Darn - I guess I didn't get it all right on my first try after all. I assumed that would be the correct format, due to the others I was seeing. How's this instead? Thanks. 155.41.112.1 (Haplo3k) 17:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You sign by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. When you do that, it'll automatically change. I changed your signature as IP votes don't count often. Hedley 21:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the use of four tildes as a signature, and used that originally. However, I wished to indicate that I did have a name beyond an IP address, so I assumed a change that would still point to the IP but with different link text was valid. This is where I was apparently wrong, and I'm fine with admitting that. Especially as it's not really an issue anymore, as I have gone ahead and registered. Haplo3k 02:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment What happened to the vote for deletion template? --Randolph 16:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is not notable or encyclopedic. --Randolph 16:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete While I see conceed that it does appear to have a fair listenership, the bar of noteability for radio stations, like tv stations, is set fairly high. --InShaneee 16:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Request for Clarification. Is that bar set similarly high for games? If so, I am curious why Kingdom of Loathing itself ranks worthy of an article but its radio station doesn't rank worthy of a sub-article (since this user voted for deletion and not merge). Haplo3k 02:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This would be based on Grue's claims that the station doesn't belong in Kingdom of Loathing, which I think it does. As for games, they are published material, but again games get deleted often if they aren't notable. In this case the MMORPG is just about above the line of notability, but 'just another internet radio station' isn't notable. The fact it is the only one attached to a MMORPG doesn't change that fact. Hedley 15:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Right, I know your stance and I agree with it - add the article to Kingdom of Loathing. As I said, I was commenting on the fact that the above user voted for deletion, not merge, indicating the game is worthy of note but the station is not (in fact, I'm sure you'd find many people to argue that one of the reasons the game is notable is because of the station). Haplo3k 17:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment On Shoutcast.com, Radio KoL is currently ranked 323 by number of listeners. Even with their capacity filled the station could not enter the top 200. This removes any suggestion of 'popular radio station', because by wide standards, it isn't 'up there' with the notable stations. Hedley 15:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impression that sometimes things are notable because they are unique, no matter how popular they are. Radio KoL caters to a specific group of people, and is the first internet radio station to be created with that purpose. There's no way we could increase our listener numbers without losing our individuality (not to mention the fact that we couldn't afford it). The reason I, and others, think that Radio KoL is worthy of note (whether as article or subarticle) is because of this uniqueness. I completely understand that this is a slippery slope, that you don't want to be forced to include every internet radio station with 5 listeners that pops up claiming to be unique - but please note that I am arguing here against votes for deletion and completely support a merge. Haplo3k 17:06, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above was a note to counter 'keep' comments suggesting it is a popular radio station. Increasing the capacity would be irrelevant, the station listener number fluctuates inbetween 100 and 130 daily. As for uniqueness, everything that is unique does not warrant an article. Stations for online gaming (MMORPG goes under that on a wider scale) are common - a lot of clans have small stations, like Radio KoL. None are notable. Hedley 18:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wow, 323. It is actually much higher than I expected. Certainly very high for a non-commercial station. Grue 18:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Most of those in front of you aren't commercial. Theres about 75 commercial stations in the top 300, i'd estimate. Hedley 15:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep for several reasons. 1) It's pretty notable 2) So that the individual show/DJ articles can have someplace to be merged to and 3) if merged into the main KoL article it would eventually be merged right back out when that gets too big. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like you to explain the notability more. How is it any more notable than any other random 150 listener internet station? The argument presented is that it is the only MMORPG station, which contradicts the argument for not merging that it isn't an MMORPG station directly. It doesn't seem to be any more notable than your typical clan station or IRC radio. As for the article getting too big, that doesn't seem to be the case. The individual DJ articles can easily go into Kingdom of Loathing under a Radio KoL section. Hedley 21:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep, prefer "keep", based on size. Kappa 22:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I voted to merge the DJs and content writers to this article, but after reading a few more days of postings and asking some friends with interest in MMORPGs or independent broadcasting, I still think RKoL is sufficiently pioneering to be worth keeping an article. In a year or two, there will be dozens of these, and most won't have notability worth WP inclusion, but RKoL seems to have begun something more significant (technologically and socially) than "your typical clan station" or radio-game-chat. Barno 14:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge or Keep -- If kept, it needs some work. For starters the specific DJ names should be removed, and some note of the station's interactive nature with respect to the game should be included. The inclusion of DJ names makes this sound less like a presentation of interesting information so much as self-congratulatory back patting. If that's the point, then e2 might be a better place for this. As a DJ on said radio station, I feel it's unique enough to warrant its own article, but only if it's written in a way that explains why it's unique (24/7 live staffing, its interactive nature, the back-and-forth with the game, etc.), but I don't really have an issue with merging it either. Chungkuo 15:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As mentioned, user is biased for station as is a member. I'm looking forward to adding the two hundred or so stations more notable than KoL.Hedley 15:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"More notable" in which sense: innovation, listener count, Google hits, or what? I agree with Chungkuo that the most noteworthy bits need to be added or expanded so the article establishes the notability that some voters don't see, but how many of those "two hundred or so" stations have done some substantially new thing like RKoL seems to have done? I write this as someone not associated with KoL or RKoL, and as someone who doesn't do any similar form of online gaming.
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. Mike H 03:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and revert to pre-copyvio (10:41, Nov 5, 2004) version (which I've done). In general, you want to mark these {{copyvio}} and list them on WP:CP, not here. —Korath (Talk) 06:08, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
My bad. Thanks. 67.101.9.98 05:18, 9 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Besides, they've stopped practicing for lack of a drummer. Delete —Wahoofive | Talk 06:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, I wonder if the previous drummer spontaneously combusted. Dsmdgold 09:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 10:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, insufficiently notable band. Not all drummers spontaneously combust; actually a majority die of drug overdoses. Barno 15:00, 8 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?) 14:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They are definitely notable (ignore the "underground" claim? - one of the two members is probably the most prominent and commercially successful rapper in Germany at this time; there are articles about both of them on de: de:Sido, de:B-Tight). However, this version is no big loss. expand or delete. regards, High on a tree 13:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup based on High on A Tree's comments. Bands with notable members qualify under WikiMusic Project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 08:51, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sido has had three Top 40 hits in Germany so qualifies under Wikimusic guidelines under requiring at least one top 100 hit in a big or medium market.Capitalistroadster 09:07, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless someone expands the article to state why it's notable. Remember, VfD is about the article, not the subject. Chris 00:48, 10 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:15, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Controller.controller have gone on 1) a national tour of Canada (which is a large country) 2) multiple international tours (of both the United States in 2004 and 2005, and Britan in 2005). This band unquestionably meets the notability standard.
Keep, tentative. Has allmusic.com entry and one album and tour so this would be the bottom limits of inclusion for me. Megan1967 11:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep per anon and Megan1967, also many google hits Kappa 12:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The national tours mean that they meet Wikimusic Project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 09:22, 9 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I apologize to everyone for putting this on VfD. I missed that this actually passes criteria #5 on Notability and Music Guidelines: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable."Zzyzx11 | Talk 18:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Debbie Harry has made albums with them [4]. Also their guitarist Marc Ribot has an article. Kappa 03:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Meet WikiMusic project guidelines with notable former member Marc Ribot and six albums since 1987 one of which made the Billboard jazz charts. Another of the members Bill ware toured with Steely Dan All Music Guide says that Debbie Harry has recorded and toured with them so they qualify on notable members and touring guidelines. Performing with Jeff Buckley and Mavis Staples both notable musicians further adds to notability. [5]
Hope to have time to write article. Capitalistroadster 11:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep and expand as noted above. Encouragement to CR. Barno 15:03, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 11:09, 8 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:21, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
This article lacks notability, and it has not been touched since 18 Feb 2005. Zzyzx11 | Talk 03:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's an album by Yngwie J. Malmsteen, as minimal research would have shown you. I've stubbified it. sjorford→•← 09:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I apologize for putting this on VfD instead of looking carefully at it. I was in the process of putting a bunch of non-notable music articles here on VfD and this must have slipped by. Zzyzx11 | Talk 18:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Album by notable artist. Capitalistroadster 11:57, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "Eric the Half a Bee" is notable. Bisected bunnies aren't. - Lucky 6.9 05:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Since the band can't manage to get an article, we don't need the bass player. Dsmdgold 09:51, Apr 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 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 11:10, 8 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 to delete). Mindspillage(spill yours?) 15:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A letter to the editor of a newspaper doesn't make for notability I'm afraid. Hard to verify notability with Google too with a name like that. "Ian Clark Global Warming" gets a few hits for petitions he's signed and a course he teaches, etc. Fawcett5 03:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep — Published co-author of award-winning book. Page updated with some more info. — RJH 15:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Um, so what? Adding where he went to university doesn't make for notability. Hundreds of us here, including myself, are university professors with books and publications to our credit - doesn't make us particularly notable though. Provide information that makes it clear that he has been **influential** in the global warming debate and you might have an argument. And, uh, what award exactly did his book allegedly win?Fawcett5 17:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology was selected by Choice Magazine for their Outstanding Textbook of the Year award in 1998!" [6]
What is Choice Magazine, and what makes their textbook decisions notable? RickK 21:49, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Weak deleteDelete. Not notable for writing a letter; probably notable as prof; would change vote to keep if anyone is interested enough to fill out the article so there is more of prof than letter in it... - William M. Connolley 15:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) (changing vote to delete, since no-one has bothered to fill it out William M. Connolley 11:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)).
Delete. Article does not establish notability. Is The Hill Times a notable newspaper? RickK 22:54, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand to include coverage of his notable work in hydrogeology. Most research Professor's are notable enough for a truly great encyclopedia. Klonimus 01:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. for textbook and hope for expansion. I don't know that the letter to the editor is worthy of note though. Capitalistroadster 09:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, does not pass the 'average professor' test--nixie 03:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn newscruft. ComCat 06:24, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Vandalism, self-promotion, POV, you name it Asriel86 05:21, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 11:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, gushing drivel with no evidence of success to back it up. Average Earthman 11:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE CDC(talk) 16:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think this is all true I remember having a history lesson on it. The writer is obviously an amateur or just young and has strayed away from some of the basic facts, making it sound like nonsense. Clearly it should be refined. - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article is so opaque I couldn't tell whether it was just very bad writing or a hoax, until I got to this bit of patent nonsense: "james was assasinated in 1954...after embarking on a...mission to kill the king of china." Jonathunder 05:18, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Also Howard Bettany. I can't believe this was tagged for cleanup and "vandalism" was reverted. DDerby 08:41, 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:30, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Notability not established. Appears to be a run-of-the mill MP, who died young and had 8 kids. Why does that establish Wikipedia notability? Smoddy | ειπετε 16:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
James Maitland Balfour was the father of Arthur Balfour, a prominent prime minister at the beginning of the 20th century during the "Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy" - as discussed in the book of the same name by David Cannadine. I followed his link because I wanted to know the kind of family that Arthur Balfour came from, since he staunchly backed the preservation of the House of Lord's traditional powers. Thanks to it, I found out other aristocratic links within the Balfour family, through James' mother and through his own marriages and those of his children. Joshyoua 03:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I followed the link for the same reason as Joshyoua. But maybe the solution would be to say more about Arthur Balfour's background in his own article. The most important point, that Arthur Balfour was the nephew of Prime Minister Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury is already there. I agree with Smoddy that this article doesn’t suggest that James Maitland Balfour deserves an entry in his own right. Chelseaboy 18:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, what those two said. Meelar(talk) 11:03, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Member of UK House of Commons and of notable UK political family. Capitalistroadster 12:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Elected MP of what was at the time the world's foremost power. Would you delete a US congressman or senator? Average Earthman 12:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak vote to merge and redirect as per Wahoofive. Yes, I would vote to delete (with a merge) a US legislator who had not done anything considered significantly influential (other than being related to an important one). How many MPs have there been since the Magna Carta? Ignoring the Pokemon Comparative Importance Test, are they all important enough and verifiable enough for articles? Wikipedia is not Burke's Peerage. Barno 15:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
By my very rough calculations, there have probably been somewhere around 5000 to 8000 MPs since the Reform Actof1832. I don't think this is too many for Wikipedia to handle. Being a member of the national legislature of a major world power is an important enough feat in itself, without any further achievements. And information on MPs, even 19th century ones, is certainly verifiable. sjorford→•← 15:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, either. All officials democratically elected to national bodies of world powers are inherently notable. -- 8^Dgab 15:41, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
"Democratically"? This is 1841 we are talking about, here. ☺ Uncle G 18:16, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Keep. All MPs are inherrently notable. Dave the Red(talk) 19:17, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. While I would not go as far as making a blanket statement that all MPs are notable, I think I would be hard-pressed to find one that is not notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. Indrian 00:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. CDC(talk) 05:10, 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. —Korath (Talk) 01:33, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
While this is a nice remembrance for the original writer (and I really like Joe Morrison, too), in a effort to keep Wikipedia factual, I believe this entry should be deleted. 149.152.20.106 19:04, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:40, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 11:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No vote as yet, but was there actually an NFL football player named Joe Morrison? If so, he may in fact be notable enough to be article-worthy. -- Smerdis of Tlön 11:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes there was and a notable one with the New York Giants playing between 1959 and 1972. Holds team record for receptions with 395 making nearly 5,000 yards and scoring 47 touchdowns as a wide receiver. [8] His number was retired by the organisation. Will keep if turned into even a decent stub, delete on current state.Capitalistroadster 12:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have gotten some info about him from the web and attempted to turn this into a stub. -- Smerdis of Tlön 13:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Now a definite keep for me. Well done on Smerdis of TlonCapitalistroadster 09:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 14:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity/not notable Refdoc 21:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:42, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
mergetofido.net or the other way. Borderline below deserving an article. Mozzerati 20:30, 2005 Apr 10 (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable. Possible vanity. Gamaliel 19:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Del. non-notable. Mikkalai 19:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:43, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 11:16, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete: Although I do admit that I editted the page, I think that it was created solely for the purpose of self publicity - that is, I believe that Jonathan created the page so that he could brag to his friends about it. The user who created this page even added Jonathan Keslow to the notable alumni list of Thomas Sprigg Wootton High School - he had to add himself because the student who knew all the famous alumni didn't list him becuase he's not famous! I might have cleaned it up but I definitely want this page to be deleted. — mathwiz2020\talk 21:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
So, these reasons I see listed here, aren't actually there? Christalk back 03:22, 12 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 to delete). Mindspillage(spill yours?) 14:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep I noticied growth once this as listed on the vfd, I suggest we put this on the list for attention.--BrenDJ 20:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 03:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Same reason as always.--Gene_poole 05:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete same reason as always, lack of content and small likelihood there will ever be any. This school is in my hometown, btw, and it's a great school, but still doesn't merit encyclopedia status. —Wahoofive | Talk 05:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The deciding sysop should take into consideration that user account Wahoofive was created one month ago, immediately gravitating towards VfD-related discussions. —RaD Man (talk) 10:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wahoofive, as may be seen from his contributions, made his first edit well over six weeks ago, and his first edit to a vfd about two and a half weeks ago. The above seems to be in retaliation for Wahoofive's cleanup of one of Radman1's bad-faith template votes. [9] —Korath (Talk) 12:38, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
The point is that this user immediately jumped into VfD discussions and began disruptively editing votes right after account creation. None of my template votes are in bad faith if I honestly believe all schools are worthy of inclusion, which I do. :-P —RaD Man (talk) 18:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Another non-notable school. --Bucephalus 11:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Only of local geographic interest, and the existence of this school is already mentioned in the Palo Alto, California article. Average Earthman 12:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. —RaD Man (talk) 18:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons stated by Wahoofive (except the "same as always" part among VfD regulars). Schools for students younger than US "high schools" have a higher bar of notability under WP school guidelines. I don't see a reason to keep a redirect, since there's no significant content we need to keep for history / GFDL attribution. Barno 20:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, just another middle school. Rje 21:49, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Its a school. It has x number of students in certain grades. It is named after a person. It has a mascot. It has cross-town rivals. Nothing here to set it apart from thousands of other institutions. Indrian 00:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable Palo Alto middle school. I just added some material on the school's administration and library. (Which is being reverted by deletionists attempting to bolster their arguments claiming a lack of notability for Jordan Middle School.)All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia. Klonimus 23:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing encyclopedias with the Special Olympics. --Calton | Talk 19:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When deletionist's lack plausable arguments for deletion they turn to personal insults. Klonimus 23:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When trivialists lack plausible arguments for including the hopelessly unencyclopedic, minor, and commonplace they turn to content-free question-begging like "All schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia". And if you didn't understand my reference, you should have just said so instead of pouting. --Calton | Talk 12:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I do understand your reference, and having worked at a state hospital for the mentally retarded, I am not amused by it. Your insults only add strength to my assertion that when deletionist's lack plausable arguments for deletion they turn to personal insults. Klonimus 18:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apparently the most notable thing about this school is that 'The library offers a "Homework Center", every Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday from 3:15 to 4:30pm,' as you keep trying to insert. —Korath (Talk) 00:51, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
No less notable than if 'The library offeres a "Homework Center", every Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday from 3:15 to 4:30am.' It's a regularly scheduled library program, no different from poetry readings, or ESL tutoring. The school is notable, the school library is notable, the school library's programs are notable. Klonimus 03:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
These facts you are adding do not bolster any case for notability. Take the word of somebody who had to study the Dewey Decimal System in graduate school, I assure you that it is entirely non-notable that this school's library employs it. It's like saying they have books and walls and ceilings. It's no hyperbole to say that 95% of public schools use Dewey. Gamaliel 00:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My opinion is that all schools are notable, therefore their school libraries are also notable. The librarians, special collection's, physical plant, and classification scheme are also notable. Any regular programs the library runs are also notable. Wiki_is_not_paper. What bothers me is that people are reducing the amount of information in the article. Klonimus 03:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pointing out the obvious is not information, it is clutter. Whatever your opinion on the notabilty of schools, the fact that a library has "homework time" or uses Dewey is not informative. It would be a surprise if these things were not there. Gamaliel 05:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The key question is if the information is relavent, not if it's obvious. It's good to know that fish are aquatic creatures; an article that did not mention that fish live in water would be deficient. Klonimus 18:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That information—that a North American middle school library makes use of the Dewey system—would be quite appropriate for an article on middle schools. It's redundant in the article on each and every school, and just bloats these articles unnecessarily. A middle school that didn't use the Dewey system for a substantial library collection might be worth mentioning. To use your example, the fish article does indeed describe them as "water-dwelling vertebrate"s. The article on trout, on the other hand, says that "trout are usually found in cool, clear streams and lakes". The article doesn't explicitly state that trout are always found in water since expect the reader to know this based on his general knowledge of fish. Our lungfish article makes explicit note that these creatures can breathe air, because it is unusual and contrary to expectation. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 02:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Schools are notable.--BaronLarf 02:12, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Having read the stub, I agree with Indrian. Jonathunder 02:24, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
Delete for the reason Inrian gave. When it comes to schools I'm a deletionist. I generally have no problems with things like fancruft but I don't feel that anything interesitng can be said about the average school. Jeltztalk 14:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
School's are inherently interesting and worthy of being a great encyclopedia. I am slightly annoyed that someone reverted my attempt to add information about the school. This is very illustrative of deletionist, obscurantismKlonimus 22:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. It's had over a month to grow "organically" and all that's happened prior to VfD is the addition of a category and the addition of a cleanup tag. I am afraid, Klonimus, that the fact that "the libraries collections are sorted using the Dewey Decimal System" does not do much to distinguish it from other school libraries; it would, on the other hand, be very interesting if it used any other classification system. Dpbsmith(talk) 20:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete and just look at the time being spent on this process. Non-notable schools can always be recommended for speedy deletion with the "db|non-notable" formula. Anyone can then object, and we can go through the "long form". --Wetman 00:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
But, given that many VfD voters are inclusionist about all schools (rather than all universities or all secondary schools), someone will always object, with a good chance someone will be upset that you tried to speedy it. Until non-consensus changes among the WP community, it's safest to waste spend the time getting the usual mix of "all schools are notable" and "all middle schools are non-notable unless (they make the national news / somebody kills a record number of people / haven't seen a notable one yet)" reasons. Also, I think many more people usually see VfD than CSD. Barno 02:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Although I believe that not all schools are automatically encyclopedic, and although I believe that "notability" plays a legitimate role in deletion discussions, it is simply not a criterion for speedy deletion under current policy. I have no idea where that template came from but it should not be used. The criteria for speedy deletion are quite clear and quite restrictive—and a recent proposal to allow speedy deletions on the basis of non-notability appears to have overwhelming opposition. Dpbsmith(talk) 02:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Middle Schools should be included. --Zantastik 07:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Absolutely nothing is mentioned that sets this middle school apart from others. I agree with Indrian. - Sango123 20:13, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
delete insufficient information to justify a separate article and probably not interesting enough. Make a table in an article on educational provision in the region. Mozzerati 20:34, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
Delete. Average middle school with no (apparent) distinguishing characteristics. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep Schools should be included and Wikipedia is not paper. - Jersyko 05:48, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep There is no size restriction on WP. Burgundavia 07:28, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel 14:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, needs to be expanded. -- Lochaber 16:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Jimbo Wales: "Put another way: if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it." - [10]ALKIVAR™ 00:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is a whole lot closer to the "Randolph School is a private school in Huntsville, Alabama, US" sort of entry he advocates mass deletion of than the "decent 2 page article" that he says should be accomodated. —Korath (Talk) 01:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, sufficiently encyclopedic, and I agree with Alkivar. JYolkowski 01:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, because GRider's vote should not have been removed from this page. Also fully agree with Jimbo's direction on schools articles. -- Netoholic@ 03:10, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
Actully as per an ArbCom proceding GRider is banned from editing VfD's for a year. IMHO the decision is a bad one, but that is how it stands User:GRider/Schoolwatch for more info on schools on VfD. Klonimus 05:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion as to the ruling, nor a complaint that it shouldn't apply to anything else. I despise that a non-disruptive vote was removed for any reason, and the voter recieved a one week block for it. It gives me a twinge in my stomach. The ruling does not say that his edits may be freely reverted, just that there is a consequence if he edits. --Netoholic@ 05:13, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
The ruling is in place as punishment for past abuses of the deletion process. The Arbitrators made it explicitly clear what the punishment was and made him explicitly aware of it, and he deliberately violated it knowing full well what the consequences would be. Any edits he makes to any deletion-related page, regardless of what the edit is, can be reverted on sight (this is confirmed by the Request for Clarification at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification by anyone and any administrator can (and imho should) block him for up-to a week. As you have had dealings with both GRider and the ArbCom, I presume you were aware of the case. Everyone has the right to comment on the talk: /proposed decision page if you feel it too harsh/too lenient/whatever. See also the discussion at WP:AN/IThryduulf 08:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I actually never have been involved. I think it was probably a mistake on the part of the ArbCom to not consider voting as part of the ruling. GRider seems to have made trouble in posting frivolous nominations, but not for disruptive voting. I think it is practically barbaric to remove a vote and then block for the maximum. --Netoholic@ 15:59, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
Everyone had the right to argue about the case: it's closed now. IMHO it's stupid to block somone to genuinely and with good faith contributes to wikipedia, and is filled with wiki-spirit. As I see it, his sanction ought to be reduced. Censorship from VfD is all that is needed, and even that is excessive. The blocking is purely punitive, and IMHO serves no correctional purpose in a voluntary project. Klonimus 18:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
GRider is welcome to ask the ArbCom for relief from a particular aspect of their decision. I note that just last week ArbCom lifted some of the sanctions they had previously imposed on another user, based on a polite request and the markedly improved behaviour of the user in question. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2). I would also note that GRider's decision to violate the ArbCom's ruling while the "ink was still wet"—the day after the ruling, and less than two hours after he blanked the ArbCom notice on his talk page—doesn't seem to show good judgement. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I personally wish that GRider would not try to demonstrate the unjust nature of the decision by having it fall upon his head. His choice though. But, that leaves other people like myself to defend GRider against an angry and organized bunch of deletionists for the sake of a greater good. A great encyclopedia is not built by obscurantism and deletionism. Klonimus 18:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're right,a great encyclopedia is not built on obscuratism and deletionism; it is built on high quality articles on distinctive topics. If wikipedia is inundated with thousands of school stubs that are barely distinguishable from each other, then that poor level of quality hurts the reputation of the project and causes observers to think us sloppy and frivolous. I have no problem with schools being identified on the pages for cities even if they are not notable enough for there own articles. I also have pretty low standards of notability (though not as low as some). If you could show that the school has an innovative curriculum or a long and distinguished history or was part of an important local news event or just about anything that makes it stand out, then I will vote keep (the Dewey Decimal system does not help), but on nearly every school article up for deletion, not one person tries to find this information (including myself, but I do not care passionately about keeping every school article). If anyone actually went to that effort, I bet a lot of interesting facts would be found and a lot more schools would be kept with overwhelming support without all the divisive argument. Wikipedia is not paper, but those people who use that as an excuse to eliminate all quality control are not helping the project. Indrian 19:49, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
keep this please. it is unfortunate what is happening lately. Yuckfoo 05:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Because he's banned from voting. Needless to say votes from anon IPs are not counted. Christalk back 23:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability for this particular school, and all schools are not inherently notable. VladMV ٭ talk 13:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Vote to keep, as I do with all schools --Irishpunktom\talk 13:43, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
above user has (probably inadvertently) voted twice in this discussion. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment Why is there a VfD notice in the middle of this discussion? Hedley 15:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
because the vote that it immediately precedes was produced by using a template. It was originally marked at WP:TFD but as it is hosted in the user: namespace, it was decided that TfD didn't have jurisdiction but that WP:VfD does. The link in the box does work if you are interested in commenting. Thryduulf 16:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Schools can be encyclopedic — but this school is not. -- Dcfleck 03:24, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
Keep this school article. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ HELO 19:07, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Keep all schools are notable by virtue of being schools. --Zero 03:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Agree with Dcfleck. The JPS 10:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep all school are inherently notable -CunningLinguist 01:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep There is a place on Wikipedia for schools. --ShaunMacPherson 03:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not notable; vanity page. Final page I looked at which is linked from the Gaming_Horizon article; all of the editors were pretty much one-liners with external links. Chaz 03:18, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
CommentComments removed by their author, see history if you're interested
Delete, vanity. Not only was this never properly listed on vfd, but Asriel86 improperly removed the vfd notice; this was going to be an independent nomination. Gaming Horizon should be looked at very carefully as well; I'm not nominating it at this time, though I'm sorely tempted. —Korath (Talk) 03:52, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I was never able to expand this article and I don't think it would be very interesting if I did. Wiki-newb mistake. Asriel86 04:48, Apr 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 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 20:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not notable; vanity page. Also looking at the other pages linked to by the Gaming_Horizon article to see if they are similar...
Note: The page was just a placeholder for me to add more content later when the deletion submitter flagged it, I had just submitted the full version before I saw the deletion vote. Working on too many pages at once, methinks. (My second day as a submitter) Asriel86 03:45, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Note (again): Regarding the lack of notability, some staff members of Gaming Horizon are notable members of internet culture. Aaron was the first person to bring hands-on Phantom coverage (including the first ever pictures) to the public, and he is probably GH's top editorialist. I realize some of the other staff members lack notability, so I will hold off on the creation of stub pages for them until they do something interesting =) Asriel86 03:54, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Asriel86 is the subject of the article (despite refering to himself in the third person), these claims are invalid without verification. --bainer 07:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Revising my vote to Keep. (I'm allowed to do that, right?) For this article only; his response makes sense to me. Chaz 04:01, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you're certainly allowed to do that. Radiant_* 15:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
I suppose I ought to post the obligatory Keep. Thanks for hearing me out. Yay democracy! Asriel86 04:08, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Not only was this never properly listed on vfd, but Asriel86 improperly removed the vfd notice the same day it was applied; this was going to be an independent nomination. Gaming Horizon should be looked at very carefully as well; I'm not nominating it at this time, though I'm sorely tempted. —Korath (Talk) 03:54, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe take a nap? Other than some pointless staff pages that I later admitted I shouldn't have made, I don't see what the problem with Gaming Horizon is. If IGN can have an article, why can't it? And as for this article, I'd be glad to see some outside votes (didn't know it wasn't listed correctly, wondered why it was so inactive), but I'll contribute my obligatory keep. I was planning on adding articles for several gaming journalists in the future, and this would make a poor precedent for the legitimacy of professional journalists (internet ones especially) on a resource so closely connected to the internet and its culture. Asriel86 04:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
'Keep', contrary to what people believe, this is not a vanity page. I see not one speck of information that this is a vanity page, and if the "flagger", (not derogatory), could please share some disdinct proof. Tobb 05:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Aaron Dunlap - Me. Tee-hee. There was a VFD on it when I first posted it, but it was decided that I am significant enough of a person to have an article. Huzzah!
Is that sufficient? —Korath (Talk) 07:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it probably isn't, since Asriel86 made the first edit to Tobb's user page: [11] —Korath (Talk) 07:20, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Quite a vendetta, Korath. TOBB is a different guy, you can check the IPs if you're so interested in trudging through ever back cannal of this site to find all my misdeeds here. If I have to defend every comment I make here, which I dont, I Tobb is someone I know through a forum. Asriel86 15:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Korath has a valid excuse. Guess who edited your article the most in December? That's right, Tobb].--Anonymous Cow 18:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Tobb has made one edit on this page, that link highlights the difference between a version from 5 months ago and one from last night. Please don't use skewed evidence against me, I'm getting very sick of being treated like a maluser. The person who edited this article the most in December was ME. I don't know why I'm arguing this anymore. Just delete the freakin article and stop throwing accusations at me and scrutinizing over every last edit I've ever made.
And please don't ride Tobb's back from now on, I don't want this elitism to scare him away. --Asriel86 18:56, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC), considering buying a Brittanica now.
Oops, I screwed up. I accidentally clicked the wrong link (curr). My apology with that screw up. --Anonymous Cow 19:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You just bought yourself off of my craplist =) I need to go for a walk. --Asriel86 19:09, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. If he's notable enough, someone besides himself will write the article. --Halidecyphon
Self-serving Comment again, since Korath is turning this into a character arugment. The VFD was added to this article when it was just a stubb that looked like all the vanity pages here, name & birthdate. Once I added some content, he retracted his delete vote. I ASSUMED that if the person who flagged the article in the first place changed his vote and that there were no other delete votes, it would be ok to remove the flag. I guess I was wrong. Also, I guess I should have used an anon IP to contribute this article, as I doubt most bibliographic articles about internet-culture people haven't been edited by their subjects. Sarah Lane, for one. If you're voting delete just because I made a mistake with the tag, then you're doing it for the wrong reasons. If you do want to delete the article, I'd say merge it with my user page. --Asriel86 15:35, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Excerpts from the referenced Sarah Lane: "Sarah is currently dating (a named co-worker)"; external link to "What Sarah Wore" fan site. Barno 02:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity. I went back to his articles that he edited and it seems like he was advertising him and his website. For example on The Phantom (game system) article, "On May 12th, 2004, Aaron Dunlap, from the gaming news site Gaming Horizon, posted the first ever pictures here" and "Gaming Horizon has a summary of the Phantom's history published in a two-part series titled Phantom: Rewound. Part one is available here and part two is available here. [Used with permission] *Currently unavailable*" In my opinion, there should be only one journalism site should be mention in that article is HARDOCP.--Anonymous Cow 18:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Where do you get that from? GH was the first place to host pictures and a hands-on preview of the system. Just because the site is getting lambasted as advertisement, it doesn't mean it cant even be referenced. Once the Phantom: Rewound features go back up (they got dropped in a server move), I will link to them in the external links section, since they detail the entire running history of the system. Unless, that is, I'm not supposed to provide valid information if I'm the person who compiled it. I also think that article containing the first pictures of the system is a notable piece of information for Phantom history. I'm fine with excluding that link as it is included in the Phantom: Rewound piece I mentioned before. For cripes sake, you dont have to discount every edit I've ever made because you don't like the ones pertainant to myself -- I built that Phantom page from the ground up; I'm more than a vane advertiser. I don't need to have all my legit contributions removed. --Asriel86 18:35, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 00:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Deleteoruserfy, vanity. Writing articles on a volunteer basis while still a full-time student doesn't look exceptionally notable—a lot of Wikipedia editors do exactly the same thing.... --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete solely on the grounds that I do not think that the article establishes the notability of the person. Whether they wrote it themselves or not is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. --G Rutter 15:20, 12 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Radiant_* 09:54, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete My LUG includes in its members a major kernel hacker, and no fewer than three people directly employed by distro folk, and it's not here. No evidence provided that this group is of that calibre. Chris 00:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
May I suggest you make an entry for your notable LUG. Klonimus 02:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say mine was notable. Only that it is more notable than this one. Chris 15:44, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rock band entry. Nothing of relevance comes out of a Google search, I tried searching for the name, the name with some of the members and didn't come up with anything. Delete, non-notable. Plus when attempting to access the web site it seemed to attempt to install a piece of spyware. Rx StrangeLove 04:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable, although you do have to admire a band with a cello AND a cowbell, Dsmdgold 09:39, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 11:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete all bands not meeting musical notability guidelines with cello, cowbell, and spyware installer. Barno 15:21, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 20:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is pure dicdef with no potential to become more than that; no potential encyclopedicity. Now, I know your first instinct, then, is to just say move to wiktionary, but it has just been transwikied, and so that is why it needs to be deleted.--Dmcdevit 05:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dicfef, nothing useful to merge. Dave the Red(talk) 19:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Err, why not redirect?. DON'T BREAK LINKS WITH GOOD REASON! Pcb21|Pete 22:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, my reasoning was that no one is going to type in "Fag (cigarette)". No one ever types in those little disambig paretheticals. If anything, they'll search for fag and get a disambig page directing them where to go. Most likely, if they want cigarette, they'll just type that anyway, not the slang. --Dmcdevit 22:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
According to "what links here", 7 pages link here, not including those related to VfD. It wouldn't be too hard to go through each one and change the link to being ciggarette, but than again it also wouldn't be to hard to make this a redirect.-LtNOWIS 23:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there's only 6, as I wouldn't count the transwiki log. Four of these are disambiguative in nature: fag, faggot (slang), fag (disambig), fag (pejorative). That only two obscure pages link here as compared to the hundreds to cigarette, I think, supports the idea that a redirect is unnecessary. --Dmcdevit 00:36, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 22:21, Apr 10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete until and unless the article is enhanced to indicate some notability. RickK 22:58, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Climb as common misspelling by MortaL Kombat fans? Nah. Delete. Radiant_* 09:49, Apr 9, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, troll vanity. Notable pranksters are people like Chris Morris, these people are just boring. Average Earthman 12:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep The mma trolling culture has a major impact on the sport of mixed martial arts like the UFC to the point of actual trolls stepping into the rings with professional fighters. The term boring might not be appropriate if one had actually seen the events unfold.--The Donbreakyourarmi 12:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(This is this user's 13th edit, and the previous 12 were to this article)Dave the Red(talk) 19:08, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Extreme delete. GNAA was a notable exception, this is not. —RaD Man (talk) 18:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I tend to think that all web-forum trolls should be required to engage in Mixed Martial Arts combat with professional fighters. Let's get GNAA's WP-contributors into the circle first. No vote until I see evidence of this phenomenon garnering widespread attention beyond an obscure niche. Barno 20:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. RickK 22:59, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn trollcruft. ComCat 06:25, 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 --Carnildo 23:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete using the "patent nonsense" criterion. -- Karada 16:28, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm new around here, but seems to be either original research or nonsense. If it isn't, it REALLY needs editing. Delete. 141.211.138.85 03:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment, appears to be an obscure psychology term. About 1600 Google results, mostly for some band. Content appears to be copied from here - they are described as "public documents", but the site has a copyright notice. Can we have a psychologist's comment on how 'real' a term this is? --bainer 07:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. IANAPsychologist, but Googling on "mortido Freud" provides a fair amount of support for it as a legitimate term in Freudian psychology. It's the drive towards death, in opposition to libido. I'm not sure how it relates to destrudo. FreplySpang(talk) 22:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Appears to be a Freudian term but the article as it stands is a waste of space. Would vote to keep if turned into a reasonable stub. No vote as yet. Capitalistroadster 09:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable Freudian term. The fact that the stub is poorly written should not be a reason to vote delete. I did some basic wikifying and tagged it as stub. Please note IANAP either: if this survives VfD, it should get some attention from a specialist. For instance, my researches could not clarify whether this is a synonym of destrudo (in which case a merge & redirect would seemed more appropriate): apparently, it is still controversial within the psychoanalytic theory how to name and describe the basic drive that is the opposite of libido. VladMV ٭ talk 14:31, 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. Jinian 16:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Vanity websitevertisement. From Asriel86's user page:
Aaron Dunlap - Me. Tee-hee. There was a VFD on it when I first posted it, but it was decided that I am significant enough of a person to have an article. Huzzah!
Please note that the VFD that "decided he was significant enough" was removed by him three and a half hours after it was placed on the article, [13] and that the subpage was never properly listed on vfd. —Korath (Talk) 07:17, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, advertisement. No significant edits other than those by User:Asriel86 - compare. --bainer 07:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment I would consider it a high probability that there are wikiusers whose position of occupation have articles here. I wouldn't discredit them for that reason, or just because the article was added by someone on their first-day wikispree. The article in question is Gaming Horizon, and whatever I may have said about or however I may have missenterpreted the vfd policy regarding Aaron Dunlap should have no baring on this article. This isn't a character trial, Korath. If this article goes, so should IGN and Gamespot. Asriel86 15:26, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep it's valid. — Unsigned vote by User:Tim G; user's 3rd edit, and his 1st since Dec 6, 2004.
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. - Mailer Diablo 16:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn vanitycruft. ComCat 06:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 14:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect as above. — RJH 14:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge, Redirect per Smerdis of Tlön's excellent suggestion. -- 8^Dgab 15:28, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
delete not all clandestine operations are necessarily espionage so that redirect is not approriate. This information can not be merged with Lacrosse (satellite) as the two articles seem to contradict each other. Clandestine operations claims the Lacrosse system is a "infared (sic) technology system" while the other article claims the Lacrosse satellite are equipped with a "synthetic aperture radar" which to my, albeit limited, understanding is not the same thing. Dsmdgold 02:07, Apr 9, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Goodness only knows what this is supposed to be. It's a bit long for speedy deletion. Deb 11:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's bilge. Lack of capitalization once again proves to have a strong correlation. No suitable Francis Masseys present themselves as candidates for a rewrite. Delete. Uncle G 12:27, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting enough to permit further comment. [User: Edward Fife] — (Improperly signed comment by 195.171.106.169.)
Keep. Well known that massey is not capitalised when used as title. [Blade Bradley] — (Improperly signed comment by 195.171.106.169.)
Delete This is not an encyclopedic article. (Note: The last two votes which appear to come from two different people are from the same IP address, which is also the one which created the article.) Shoaler 13:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep The massey legend is an important piece of Ulster lore. The unconventional style of the article is sensitive to the subject matter User:Yotemaster 13:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) — (Improperly signed comment by 145.229.156.40.)
Delete. Near nonsense, sockpuppet-supported. android↔talk 15:07, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hoax, senseless, candidate for Dr. Scholl's products. Barno 15:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Kill the socksDelete as hoax. Radiant_* 15:58, Apr 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 03:05, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
The article is essentially simply a list of articles on types of Korean art (most of them non-existent); it is essentially doing the job of a category. I've created the category, Category:Korean art, and added it to all the extant articles on the list. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Definite potential for encyclopedia article but deletion would allow someone to create new article. Would vote keep even if decent stub created. Capitalistroadster 13:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I thought that, except that the actual and projected articles seem between them to cover everything that might be said on this page. Still, if it could be shown that a useful article could be created, I'd certainly change my vote. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep now that article discusses Korean art. Still some room for expansion. Capitalistroadster 10:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, categories cannot replace lists, due to lack of annotation, lack of red links, lack of flexibility to merge/demerge, inability to cope with duplicate names, etc. Kappa 16:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I thought that lists were deprecated? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They aren't yet. The idea was to have categories deprecate (some) lists - but currently lists have some functionality that cats don't. This is expected to be fixed some time in 2005. Radiant_* 09:48, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Categories can handle redlinks. They go on the category page or on the category page's talk page. Uncle G 18:25, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Comment: apart from the list thing, we don't have a history of Korean art yet, and this would seem to be a good place to start it. Kappa 18:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep'. Lists are not categories. RickK 23:08, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The article is now an article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep The article is progressing well indeed and should be of great use to everyone on this obscure subject. Raffles 22:02, April 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 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 article rewritten from scratch. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 14:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why does every other forum software on Comparison_of_Internet_forum_software and many on List_of_Internet_forum_software have a page whereas this one does not and worse it redirects to a generic page? I wrote short page for it with a link pointing outwards to where users can get more information. Someone marked it for speedy deletion and someone else put in the redirect. SLWK 11:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment This had the VFD template added but was not listed on WP:VFD, so I added it. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see any evidence of a previously written version on DiscussionBoard so someone must have deleted it. Maybe you should request it be restored at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion? I'm going to write a stub for it anyway, it deserves an article. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment. There was one, but it was a copyvio. « alerante✆✉ » 23:47, 8 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?) 14:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - v. funny episode, as ever, but this is already covered in Little Britain. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Little Britain and redirect (redirects are cheap). Mgm|(talk) 22:41, Apr 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 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This was nominated for speedy, but doesn't fit any of the criteria. Nevertheless, delete--one google hit for the phrase, and the "none to date" under criticisms seems suspicious. Meelar(talk) 14:31, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable, at least. Fire Star 14:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, has the word "sex" in the title so it's wrong and dirty and offensive. Obscure, could be a note under a sexual psychology article perhaps. --Asriel86 16:53, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Just a note--are you sure this subject actually exists? I wasn't able to find any evidence. Meelar(talk) 19:03, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it has its own distinctive segment, the article sounds like regular cognitive psychology (even neo-freudism), only poorly formatted and even more poorly explained. --Asriel86 19:14, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I have a Bachelor's in Cognitive Science and can assure you it's nonsense. This subject doesn't exist as worded, and the article's content has little to no basis in fact. --Chrysaor 20:13, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn sexcruft. ComCat 06:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. CDC(talk) 05:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't appear notable. No allmusic entry, "Compassionate Witness" (his one and only album) + Ananiah garners 4 google hits, and his official website is an angelfire page. Xezbeth 15:26, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 20:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There are more Google hits than four. You must not have been looking carefully.
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. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Submitted for speedy deletion, but advertisement is not a criteria for speedy. No vote from me, but the name gets 3400 googles. Meelar(talk) 15:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable advertising. 3400 googles isn't worth much; it's just three common jargon-tastic words strung together. CDC(talk) 22:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually only 424 unique hits, for the three words in a row, not all of them refer to this product. Not notable. Delete. RickK 23:13, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, possible advertisement. --Carnildo 23:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, ad Dsmdgold 01:23, Apr 9, 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 20:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, extremely minor software. Grue 16:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. CDC(talk) 05:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why are other MMOG sites such as There and Second_Life allowed to have a page whereas this one is claimed to be an advertisement? SLWK 11:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, it depends on a variety of factors, including whether the company itself or someone associated with it made the page, how many people play the game (e.g. how notable it is) and so on. For what it's worth, 159 google hits on "perfectcompetition". Meelar(talk) 15:43, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It appears to be a very, very minor online game: Google shows 159 hits, most for something else, and no links. The forums only have about 100 posts, and are password-protected, so I can't check how long a time period that covers. --Carnildo 23:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is fairly new. Launched a few weeks ago. The thing about the game is that it is unique. It is a new genre of MMOG. Whereas There, Second Life etc are all roughly carbon copies of each other. SLWK 06:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If it's only a few weeks old, then maybe in a year or so, it'll be big enough for an article. And as for MMOGs all being like each other, as a former player of Astronest, RuneScape, Everquest, and There, and a current player of Second Life and StarStrike, I can assure you they are not "carbon copies" of each other. StarStrike, for example, is similar to AstroNest, but the turn-based combat of AstroNest and the turn/time hybrid of StarStrike are nothing like the real-time action of Everquest and RuneScape. Further, There is basically a glorified chatroom, and the only thing I've found approaching Second Life's ability to modify the game world is the Open Source Metaverse Project. --Carnildo 07:20, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Carnildo. Radiant_* 09:29, Apr 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 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Apparently Mr. Chauncy Covington arrived on Wikipedia and set up a vanity page for himself. He was scolded for doing so (see his talk page) and has retaliated by writing an article featuring the views of Chauncy Covington, "existentialist philosopher", on his perceived enemies at Wikipedia, the "elitists". This page has no value aside from its unintentional humor. Delete. Zora 15:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
delete obviously --Bucephalus 15:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) Vote formated to standards by Asriel86 16:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, while the article is humerous to an extend I agree with it to an extent. --Asriel86 16:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. But as a "Wikipedian Eitist" (sic), I would say that... P Ingerson 16:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Oh my God, it isaDiscordian prank! The thing is, most pranks are not funny. Especially those executed with the use of hipster diction. 195.148.74.159 18:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I, as a being, am too far removed to know not to vote delete. Meelar(talk) 19:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, rant, meets "original research" deletion criterion but contains nothing we haven't heard at least once a month in someone's temper tantrum. Not nearly funny enough for BJAODN. Not worth cleanup. I'm torn between "don't bite the newbies" and "wipe your poopy undershorts, your philosophy is smelly." Barno 20:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV essay. Also provides false info as the author didn't develop the concept "Wikipedian elitism". Mgm|(talk) 22:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Additional comment: The concept has already been described disgrunted vandals (I'm not saying the anon is one), so it's not new at all. Mgm|(talk) 22:52, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article not created by a member of the cabal. RickK 23:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mildly amusing, perhaps even mildy factual, but totally inappropriate. Indrian 01:10, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete AMusing and to a certain extent true.Xiaoping choi 05:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear! I read the article and discovered I was a pseudo intelectual and all this time I thought I was a real one. 'delete but keep his neologism, "benfactual" ping 08:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So true! Delete as neologism, original research, vanity and because the contributor is a poopy-head. Dpbsmith(talk) 17:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That was me that "scolded" him on his talk page, although I was trying to avoid that impression. Our friend Chauncy seems to regard Wikipedia as a forum for original research and self-promotion... Delete. —Miles (Talk) 17:55, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV. Personal research. No credible third party references. Zzyzx11 | Talk 20:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV rant. Elitism is good, though I'll stop short of jumping on the "Jimbo says" bandwagon. Christalk back 23:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Elitism is something different than what I see on Wikipedia, should it be mess on WP... Pavel Vozenilek 00:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn povcruft. ComCat 06:28, 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 invalid listing. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 14:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Arguably, this page is already on VfD via Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Warsaw/Vote. But that's not entirely clear. To ensure prompt deletion of the page presently containing the poll, please vote here as well --Jerzy (t) 15:46, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Delete (vote by nominator) for reasons i gave on the other VfD page. --Jerzy (t) 15:46, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Query. If this page is already on VfD, what is the point of nominating it twice? Doesn't that just unecessarily increase vfd bloat? And what would happen if the result of one vfd was keep, but the other was delete? Dave the Red(talk) 19:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Redundant. Treat it like any other page that's moved during vfd. One debate's enough. —Korath (Talk) 21:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, i shan't reread the less memorable portions of those pages, until i need the info: While i have an active interest in policy, and value the Wiki-lawyers who keep it codified, becoming a Wiki-lawyer is not part of my calling. And i don't need that info bcz none of it could change the clear fact that either the nomination for deletion names a page that was a redirect when nominated (obviously (to anyone who knows of RfD) improperly), or the instruction (placed on the page via template in the process of nomination) not to move a nominated page has been contravened. A VfD that does not make sense on its face has unacceptably high cost in distraction of participants -- as would an RTFM msg like the one above, if it went unanswered.
My disambiguation of the situation at a point immediately visible to the VfD participants is a mediocre solution, but superior to what i found. I welcome a yet better solution; one might be
but IMO only a Wiki-lawyer is in a position to judge the acceptability of that means of making the VfD sensible on its face.
IfWP:CfD and Wikipedia:Deletion processdon't provide for that or some other means of achieving face-value sense, i'm prepared to wait for the Wiki-lawyers to correct that deficiency in the codification and/or the on-the-scene instructions, and will continue, until they get to it, to edit, VfD, and responsibly improvise for the sake of face-value sense.
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. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete concur nn. Fawcett5 17:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, since it had been blanked by the originator. RickK 23:17, Apr 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 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
16-year-old from Chicago suburbs who's found the website of the Universal Life Church. Ultravanity. Meelar(talk) 15:48, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Nothing against those under 30 here, but subject isn't notable. Delete --Asriel86 16:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Well, admit it, you are not very notable too. Grue 16:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Was that nessessary? My word, it's starting to seem like junior high in the vfd list. Just as contribution, then, you smell bad. --Asriel86 17:13, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 20:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I concur with the votes above, nothing futher to add. Oliver Keenan 20:39, Apr 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 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User:MaxTresmond has made no other contributions at all, ruling out Userfy. Delete. Uncle G 17:44, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
I wish to keep this page, as I have started a Logic Project. As I have been very busy, I am adding to this page as I get the chance. Please do not remove this page, as I believe I deserve a right to publish an article in regards to my area in the acedemic arena.
Actually, now that I think about it, the page should be deleted, and I will write an article one the project itself.
Delete. And, I would not recommend writing a Wikipedia article about your project either. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. FreplySpang(talk) 22:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I (--JimWae 22:48, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)) have already deleted his vanity insertions into
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. - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looks like nonsense. If by some bizarre twist of fate it is true then it's unverifiable/non-notable. Xezbeth 16:12, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If he really is a hitman, then we're doing him a disservice by making this information available to the public. --Asriel86 16:39, Apr 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 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?) 14:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is the user's first edit here. --Conti|✉ 17:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
No, it's not. I have good reason for not using my real account. This is not a true sock puppet account in that it constitutes my one and only vote. The other two are not me. --GF 22:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could you elaborate, in general terms at least? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is the user's first edit here. --Conti|✉ 17:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep: don't see any harm in it, interesting to know -- MattGemmell 16:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is the user's first edit here. --Conti|✉ 17:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not a subject worthy of a list. DDerby 17:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not useful information. Eric119 17:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting list. Why not? Dave the Red(talk) 18:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Comment if it were up to me, most of these trivial song lists would get the boot. They are sometimes mildly interesting, but I cannot imagine a need for them except to pad a really boring research paper. --Asriel86 19:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep--that said, I strongly discourage the use of sockpuppet accounts and/or vote spamming. Meelar(talk) 19:17, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not a notable genre of song. P Ingerson 20:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Yes, I even added a song to the list, but it's so thematically unconfined that I don't think it's wikipedic. Unlike the lists of songs about bipolar disorder, unrequited love, and masturbation, this is not about the theme of the song, but about some gimmick that it contains... which does not reflect anything about, say, the nature of our society as a whole, which the other lists do. -- 8^Dgab 20:38, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Delete per Asriel86. --Angr/comhrá 20:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. List of songs that contain Foo will quickly spiral out of control and consume us all. Does anyone really need to know the eight songs that contain the sound of cows lowing as the sun crests the eastern horizon? Feco 20:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete with prejudice and move to BJAODN. — Asbestos | Talk 22:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Acceptable level of sock puppet keep votes has been surpassed. RickK 23:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Interesting List Klonimus 01:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Feco. Radiant_* 09:47, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Comment Further to my vote and after a little consideration, I can understand why this might be considered to niche and/or creepy. Might I suggest broadening the list to something like "list of songs containing children in the backing track"? Less creepy, less niche, more useful.--GF 22:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete Beyond the sub-trivial, somewhere between "list of comedy sketches not containing the letter 'e'" and "list of kebab shops with no known cases of food poisoning". Chris 00:31, 10 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Promotional lawfirmcruft. Seriously, no law firm should be listed on Wikipedia unless it is notable in some way, e.g is the oldest or largest in a region, or has handled some major case, or been implicated in some delicious scandal. -- 8^Dgab 19:36, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 19:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, sweet mother of Wiki, delete this cliché-ridden, poorly titled ad spam. - Lucky 6.9 23:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Same anon spammed the Greensburg, Pennsylvania article with a link to their website. It was captioned "Law Offices in Greensburg." Naughty. - Lucky 6.9 23:06, 11 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?) 14:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Way too specific list. --Conti|✉ 17:10, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not much point merging with Bipolar disorder, since many of these are actually about other forms of madness or drug addiction. P Ingerson 17:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep unless a valid reason for deletion can be supplied by the nominator. —RaD Man (talk) 18:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we need lists of songs about every kind of disease, or wouldn't you object to List of songs about athetosis as well? --Conti|✉ 18:43, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the list of songs about bipolar disorder is slightly larger than the list of songs about athetosis. Dave the Red(talk) 18:48, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that this is a common song theme makes this a notable list... also, won't work as a category, because most of the individual songs are not notable. -- 8^Dgab 19:43, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Delete, most of the songs listed aren't really that notable. Megan1967 19:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as pointless subdivision of songs. Radiant_* 09:50, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as inherently POV--it is impossible to tell what most of these songs are really about, and bipolar disorder is merely one interpretation. Incedentally, I also agree it is non-notable. Very interesting though, someone should make a personal webpage about it.
Strong keep. "Too specific" is not a valid criterion for article deletion. --Gene_poole 04:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's wrong, and you know it. Delete as songPOVcruft. Christalk back 17:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. These songs that insult bipolar victims should end up in the garbage.- User:Pleasehelp
Delete - irrelevant list of irrelevant songs in irrelevant context, possibly done for want of nothing else to do - Skysmith 07:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, relevant to anyone interested in the disorder's affect on culture. -- user:zanimum
Keep. There's no reason trivia should be deleted from Wikipedia. Much of the information here is trivia.... — J3ff 02:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
KEEP I would like the submitter to explain what is "too specific" for wikipedia. Likely this wouldn't fit. Bipolar disorder is a rather common mental health problem and in our culture songs are the most relateable form of media for addressing personal subjects like this. Seeing these kinds of nominations makes me question why I have begun to spend so much time working on this site. Lotsofissues 13:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. How did "too specific" become a criterion for deletion? - Scooter 16:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, "too specific" is not a persuasive argument. Kappa 22:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, are we going to delete List of protest songs as well? (On the other hand, the article probably needs work.)--Fermatprime 22:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Way too specific list. --Conti|✉ 17:09, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Unrequited love is a popular subject for songs, and always has been. P Ingerson 17:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I've changed my mind. What Wikipedia needs is an article about the influence that unrequited love has had on songs, not just a meaningless list. P Ingerson 21:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
delete Its very popularity means that it will encompass a large portion of the songs songs created since man started writing songs. DDerby 18:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I would actually argue against the nominator's reason. The problem with this list is not that it is too specific, rather that its scope is too broad. There are so many songs out there about unrequited love that this list would quickly approach the usefullness of List of Songs. Dave the Red(talk) 18:53, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this list needs to be more specific to be managable. Megan1967 19:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that this is a common song theme makes this a notable list... also, won't work as a category, because most of the individual songs are not notable. With respect to the possibility of the list being too broad, oh pshaw. Maybe the list can be narrowed to notable songs within this category (by which I don't mean encyclopedic notability, which most are not anyway, but in terms of being ancient, like Greensleeves, or being, say, a top-40 hit). -- 8^Dgab 19:53, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Delete, way too unspecific, ditto what Dave the Red said. Plus, given that the subject of a song is subject to individual interpretation, I could easily foresee never-ending wars over whether or not any given song should be included in this list. Soundguy99 20:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable trivia and song-cruft. — Asbestos | Talk 22:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Every song that isn't about love is about unrequited love. Except those songs about masturbation, of course. --Asriel86 23:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, too broad to be workable. —Korath (Talk) 23:48, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Trivia; scope too broad -- it could almost be titled List of songs. --Carnildo 23:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See, now, that would be useful for aerobics instructors (um, if you meant BPM). Unlike this, which should be deleted (or turned into a whole wiki of its own?) FreplySpang(talk) 21:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Is there anything bad about leaving it for a month or so and see whether it keeps growing, or stagnates (and if stagnates, delete)? Rad Racer | Talk 00:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear. Delete. Christalk back 17:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
''''''EXTREME KEEP!'''''' What other category will vive la rose fall into? 205.217.105.2 21:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Which happens to be a brand new entry. DDerby 21:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not useful, too many such songs to list. -- Curps 17:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is article is useful. — J3ff 02:20, 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. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 14:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and get rid of the "this list may never be complete, but you are welcome to add.." introduction. Hedley 17:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Extreme keep. "Too specific" is not a valid reason for deletion. Its both interesting and unusual. Plus, if it really were too specific you wouldn't see dozens upon dozens of songs about masturbation listed. —RaD Man (talk) 18:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, even though I have added songs to this list in the past. I'm not sure this list serves any encyclopaedic purpose other than being trivia driven. Megan1967 19:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per my copied-and-pasted determination that the fact that this is a common song theme makes this a notable list... also, won't work as a category, because most of the individual songs are not notable. -- 8^Dgab 19:59, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Weak delete all three of these song lists as trivia, topic(s) not encyclopedic and inclusion of some songs not verifiable. Apparently any song that mentions masturbation or contains allusions that someone thinks refer to masturbation can get listed, without verification of the songwriter's intent. For instance, when I was young and shallow enough to listen to Billy Joel, I thought "Captain Jack" was a drug song, an anti-drug song, rather than having any onanistic content. Wikipedia is not a music guide or a collection of insignificant lists. But I would have been entertained (albeit not informed) had I found these lists on a music-discussion website. Barno 20:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge with masturbation and be done with it. I, too, am sick of all these song lists. Soon, people will argue as to how obscure of a song you can list, and there'll be accusations of band promotion, and the internet itself will collapse. I would say delete, but this list is actually semi-interesting, and could be worth-while in the masturbation article. --Asriel86 23:43, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Neither masturbation nor songs are too over-specific topics -- their combination is neither so overspecific, nor so general as to make such a list needless. It'd be better though if the songs were listed by year -- we'd get some more interesting cultural info from that, like knowing who the first singer/band was who talked about such a subject. Aris Katsaris 01:47, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep When I think about this list, I touch myself. Klonimus 01:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as pointless subdivision of songs. Radiant_* 09:51, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Fairly interesting, so keep, but I think it's a bad idea for thousands of these lists to crop up. Fantom 10:00, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep this and thousands of other song lists. Rad Racer | Talk 17:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Asriel. Zscout370 02:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. "Too specific" is not a valid criterion for article deletion. --Gene_poole 04:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's a perfectly valid criterion. That said, this one looks like a keeper. Some of the songs on this list are culturally important because of their subject metter (e.g. Pictures of Lily). On the other hand, someone needs to check the list to make sure that it is only a list of songs about masturbation, not one which simply mentions it. Mentioning this kind of thing is all too common a fad, but writing a song about it is something different. Christalk back 17:48, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Clearly a vanity article trying to make the person sound important. Do a search on him and you see why. --Anonymous Cow 17:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. One would think though that if you were to say "Paris" you would be thinking of Paris Hilton, not this person. Megan1967 19:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ParisPresleycruft. Non-notable - most google hits for the term refer to Elvis tours (e.g. while in Paris, Presley ate lots of french fries). -- 8^Dgab 20:03, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Delete. More likely hoax than vanity: The "Paris Pepi Show"?? — Asbestos | Talk 22:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: If this was true, the article would be fine. However, it seems not to be. --Asriel86 23:39, Apr 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 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 --Carnildo 23:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't seem real. I did a Google search but I didn't see anything relevant (felt foolish doing it I have to admit). I sure haven't heard of this concept. Delete. Rx StrangeLove 17:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge. Mindspillage(spill yours?) 14:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Abscam blog disclosure was an issue for only a week or so. It's now mostly moot and discussed in the sponsorship scandal article. The paragraph on the ethics of publication bans should go into an article on Canadian publication bans in general. Mwalcoff 18:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per above or keep & expand is fine by me. The Cuban Missile Crissis was an issue for only a week or so, too. =) --Asriel86 23:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to sponsorship scandal. Would be good if we had an article on Captain's Quarters, the blog that broke the story though. Capitalistroadster 10:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Concur with merge. Before someone creates the article, is Captain's Quarters notable for anything besides its role in this incident? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge Certainly do not delete. This is a notable scandal History21
Merge with Sponsorship scandal. While notable within the confines of this scandal, certainly not noteworthy on its own. Ntm 22:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Merge; I concur with the above. Iotha 04:27, Apr 24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looks like neologism. After reading it, you would think you would find some good references for it on Google, but there currently isn't one. Zzyzx11 | Talk 18:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 19:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We've just gotta make a name for every last bloody thing we do, don't we? SugarDelete. --Asriel86 23:33, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Usually people aim to get their protologisms into the dictionary and miss, hitting the encyclopaedia instead. For a change, this one hit both, and is up for deletion in both. There can be no encyclopaedia article about sugarpics simply because there's no such word. Delete. Uncle G 12:40, 2005 Apr 9 (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 02:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable student vanity. P Ingerson 18:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Knoopcruft. Sorry to be losing a fan, but if he really "loves Wikipedia.com", then he'll understand that this is an encyclopedia, restricted to notable folks. If Mr. Knoop wants the info in this article to be available herein, he's welcome create an account and put it on his userpage. -- 8^Dgab 18:52, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 03:10, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
In light of the outpouring of support, I'm persuaded that this is not so clearcut a case, and therefore withdraw my earlier vote. -- 8^Dgab 03:48, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
Keep - I'm not a Microsoft fan but I heard of this guy before. He has been featured in mainstream press stories such as The Economist[14] ("a celebrity blogger on Microsoft's payroll"), Fortune magazine[15], and Wired News. [16] ("a prominent technology blogger") --Anonymous Cow 20:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yep, this press attention certainly makes him notable. Keep. Mgm|(talk) 23:06, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've heard of him, and that's good enough for me. --Asriel86 23:31, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per press attention. Radiant_* 09:56, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete(see revision below) tech writers in any media on Microsoft's payroll as untrusted. Where does the SCO money paying Laura DiDio or Maureen O'Gara come from? Do we want articles on people with ideas of journalistic ethics contrary to WP's? Barno 02:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we do. That's because we're (trying to be) objective. Keep. Radiant_* 09:30, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
keep Scoble is a top chap, and has made history in the way that companies have now found a new avenue for communicating with users.
comment if those articles are clear about what they have done which suggests ethical violations, whilst remaining verifiable and accurate then the answer is yes. Mozzerati 21:05, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)
Comment: Actually, I agree with Radiant and Mozzerati that we should keep articles on MS-funded tech writers if the subject is particularly significant and the article content is verifiable. A better way of expressing my point is that people in this position need critical attention when considering their notability, given that (1) tech bloggers are a dime a dozen -- self-weblishing does not equate to encyclopedic notability, and (2) some of those known to be on the payroll of Microsoft or its partners have proven (see, for example, www.groklaw.net) to disregard journalistic ethics in favor of FUD supporting corporate interests that don't correspond to the public interest. My guideline isn't really "delete them all", but "view them with suspicion and strong attention to notability and verifiability guidelines." For the comment between those two, has Scoble actually "made history", or just been one of the first to sell out in an old way in a new medium? I haven't read enough of his material to judge, and the article doesn't help me resolve this. No vote, just a cautionary comment. Barno 15:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've read the article and its edit history, written only by anon 69.248.116.97 whose only other contribution was to blank the Kevin Rose page. I don't think the stories cited by Anonymous Cow above really establish any WP-worthiness, and certainly the substub (to which I've added an NPOV tag) does not. If someone can add factually verifiable evidence of not-just-another-0wn3d-blogger notability to the article, then expand; otherwise my vote returns to Delete. Barno 15:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This guy is definitely noteworthy. The article requires some cleanup and more substantial content, but should be allowed to grow. --NormanEinstein 02:04, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, more nn blogcruft. ComCat 06:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this guy's just a noisemaker.
Above vote was from anon 67.161.42.199, who has been doing a lot of apparently legitimate editing in recent days. Barno 14:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 20:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sad story, but essentially just another non-notable child abduction bulletin. — RJH 20:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, transwiki to Wikinews. RickK 23:23, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure that that's possible. Wikinews is currently public domain, not GFDL, and I think that legally we cannot transwiki from GFDL to public domain. In any case, Wikinews doesn't take news that is over 1 year and 1 week old. If the abduction had happened recently then it would be news, but even then Wikinews would have at this article for being seriously biased and completely unsourced. Uncle G 13:04, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
Delete, the small lull of popularity granted by vfd listing should service this article enough. --Asriel86 23:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Kidnapping by non-custodial parents is common. --Carnildo 23:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A bulletin, not an encyclopaedia article. Delete. Uncle G 13:04, 2005 Apr 9 (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.
A generic mid-boss (that doesn't even get any dialogue) from Final Fantasy doesn't really seem to be that notable, even if it appears as a minor character in 8 Bit Theatre. A Man In Black 20:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete I have played Final Fantasy I. Not even worthy of an article. The stub even stated "semi-boss" in other words: "It is like a somewhat major character." --Anonymous Cow 20:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's not a character, though, just a generic monster that serves as a boss in one dungeon. That said, it is a minor character in 8BT. A Man In Black 17:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, gamescruft. Megan1967 21:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I've got nothing against game characters having articles, I just don't think every character from a series that's dragged on through every generation of game consoles since 8-bit needs their own page. --Asriel86 23:27, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Oliver Shimmin 03:01, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Merge any content not already in Final Fantasy and 8 Bit Theatre, which appears not to be much from a one-sentence substub. If none then delete. Minor gamecruft; per WP:FICT I might have voted to delete-without-redirect without the webcomic appearance adding a tiny bit more notability. Barno 02:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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. - Mailer Diablo 16:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nominated due to: no content, unlikely to be used or referenced by any other articles. Could be a candidate for speedy deletion. Oliver Keenan 20:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, because MacGyver knows all. --Asriel86 23:23, Apr 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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. CDC(talk) 05:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No vote, need advice on articles like these. I plead to You my comrades. I guess democratic or communist, both are important, but one from Shropshire...? Feydey 20:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In Soviet Russia, articles on non-notable communist parties Delete YOU!
I've waitied so long to use that joke. Feco 20:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's a shame that you used it in a case where it isn't actually a real communist party at all. ☺ {{spoiler}} For those who don't see the joke: "Shropshire Anarcho-Leninst Organisation of the People" abbreviates to "SALOP", which is, of course the old name for Shropshire. The "Craven Arms" is undoubtedly a pub. And so forth. Uncle G 01:05, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
well...mutter, mutter.... in Soviet Russia, my parade rains on Uncle G! Feco
Actually, Craven Arms is a town in Shropshire, with a fairly important railway station. However, this is still a patent hoax. DeleteChris 00:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete it, so. None of usefull or serious... José San Martin 00:03, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
A joke article. Delete. Uncle G 01:05, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 01:10, 9 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. (IP votes not counted) - Mailer Diablo 17:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be a vanity page. Even if Arlo Rose didn't write this, I don't believe he is noteworthy enough to warrant an article here. Oliver Keenan 20:53, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons above. Oliver Keenan 20:53, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete softwaredeveloper-cruft. Heard of Konfabulator due to last year's announcement of Mac OS X Tiger's feature Dashboard. [17] The person is just not notable, enough. --Anonymous Cow 20:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, though I've heard of Konfabulator, which could alternatively be "merged" with this article. --Asriel86 23:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable Dsmdgold 01:29, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I get an email or so a week asking why my link in the Eazel entry is a dead link, so I added one. Delete if you want, but then someone should edit the Edit the Eazel page (where someone felt I was notable). --69.238.246.117 22:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Another quick note... I asked some folks that were more familiar with the Wikipedia etiquette, and they suggest how to rewrite the entry to be more like Darin's or Andy's. I've now fixed it so that you all will find it more acceptable. --69.238.246.117 01:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but still agree with the Delete votes above. If asked why your link is red, you might consider unlinking it. Radiant_* 09:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I guess I'm not clear on how Darin Adler, Bud Tribble, Dave Hyatt, or any of the other software developers I see on here are okay, but I'm not.--69.238.246.117 18:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rework This man is probably significant enough to deserve a least a small biography. Nothing radical. The current article does suck, though. --huwr 14:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep He is a valid contributor to the Eazel project. More information is better than less.
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 - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not notable enough to warrant an article of her own, even if she was one of the founders of Fisher Price I don't think her name well known. I will vote to delete this article. Oliver Keenan 21:05, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Founder of a notable corporation. Needs expansion though/ If that fails, merge into Fisher-Price (did I spell that correctly?) Mgm|(talk) 23:12, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, borderline. In need of expansion. Megan1967 01:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep all founders of major companies. N-Mantalk 09:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Co-founder of notable organisation. Capitalistroadster 10:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Keep founders of large companies. Dave the Red(talk) 05:39, Apr 10, 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 02:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A group of students at a Texas high school, not affiliated with school, and by admission "contribute nothing to the world around them". On the other hand, they weren't too lazy to capitalize both letters. Well done! Delete. Meelar(talk) 21:04, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Meelar, You are so wrong. Delete. Feydey 21:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would take offense, but I can't work up the energy. ;) Meelar(talk) 22:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Less article creation, more homework completion. --Asriel86 23:20, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:12, 9 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 name of this page is incorrect, and there exists already a page with the correct name, Ferenc Martyn, with the same information, but in a wikified form. This page is completely unnecessary. --Adam78 21:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
SoRedirect it; seems to be a plausible misspelling. If this page is truly entirely superfluous, the VfD process isn't even necessary for this. android↔talk 21:59, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Case closed. The article created by the same anon, who most probably didn't know about redirects. The content is the same in both. I am turning it into a redirect. Mikkalai 22:18, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is already a page, Szilágy (with a correct title), which deals with this disambiguation. Szilágy (disambiguation) is unnecessary. --Adam78 21:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original article looks like the right place for a primary topic disambig. — Asbestos | Talk 22:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Shouldn't such situations be handled by admins. Vfd is overloaded enough. Pavel Vozenilek 00:55, 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
Keep alone, very notable part of Russian culture. Could easily be expanded. VfD is not cleanup. We have articles on Kovbasa and Kielbasa even if it's the same thing. Samogon is a cult beverage in Russia and deserves its own article. Grue 18:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia will be of no obstacle to spawn "samogon" out of "moonshine" when you will have a decent text for it. Mikkalai 19:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While I agree with Grue, I do not think samogon deserves its own article. A section on samogon in the moonshine article should be quite sufficient. Delete and redirect to moonshine. By the way—kovbasa??? Definitely a VfD candidate.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to wiktionary and redirect or keep. Kappa 22:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redirect and merge. It's not just Russian; samohon is a notable cultural artifact of the heavily Ukrainian-settled Manitoba Interlake region. (Similarly, kielbasa should be merged with a more culturally-neutral rewrite for kovbasa.) —MichaelZ. 2005-04-14 06:43 Z
I just wanted to tell you all that I just transwikied it, in case that will affect anyone's vote. --Dmcdevit 04:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Sole, anon editor continues to remove {{vfd}} tag. However, there have been significant revisions (by said anon) since initial vfd flag. Take those into account.
Even more likely now vanity... Refdoc 11:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, obvious vanity page Jez 15:14, 11 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Request for deletion by entry's original author (myself) the page was created under the wrong title, this has since been corrected, apologies for the inconvenience, creating entirely new entries is new to me
Just redirect it to the correct title by replacing its contents with #REDIRECT [[Article with correct title]] — JIP | Talk 06:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm reinstituting the VfD request. This is advertising, no matter which version of the article name is used. RickK 22:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, site in question is a notable alternative to keenspace/spot. With expansion, it should be fine. --Asriel86 23:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep webcomic hosting sites. Nerd Boy is hosted there, among other things. Grue 18:30, 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 02:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Seems like vanity, just some guy with a website. Nothing links to it, either. Adam Bishop 22:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sole anon editor previously removed delete tag which, I'm told, is bad. --Asriel86 23:07, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 02:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable Dsmdgold 01:30, Apr 9, 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.
Template:Centralized discussion
00:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
