This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 22:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
An operation with no real-world uses. Is now 2 months old, but has not been updated since it was just one day old. Is this article useful in any real way?? Georgia guy 00:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, with possible Merge of a sentence or two. Something about "the idea of quintation" might fit into the hyper operators article, but quintation itself (having only a few non-trivial cases) doesn't need an article. Philthecow 00:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep -- a lot of mathematics (especially a lot of the work done by the Bourbaki group) stands on its own with no real relation to the real world. Haikupoet 00:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 07:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As with Binilnilium, this kind of operation could basically be extended forever. It should correctly be named Pentation though (quint = Latin, penta = Greek, and since tetration = Greek...) Google indicates that the term Quintation is in fact more commonly used in music. Since the content is already present at Hyper operator (which lists the entire class thereof), this text should be deleted and changed to a redirect to whatever the musical term is relevant to. Radiant_* 10:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This operation is not used in the mathematical literature (or anywhere else as far as I know) and the article gives no information beyond the obvious. Jitse Niesen 12:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, interesting article. Grue 20:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete under the heading of totally irrelevant mathematics. Denni☯ 01:23, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
keep. Draw the line at heptation maybe. Kappa 02:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why the arbitrary distinction? I could write an equally interesting article on ikosatation. Radiant_* 09:18, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Because we need an arbitrary distinction. 2 of these isn't really enough, but 20 would be overkill. Kappa 19:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the proper term is pentation not quintation. Given Wikipedia's policy regarding not adding non-peer reviewed material and that no peer reviewed material exists, this page shouldn't exist. If Wikipedia wants to change this policy then I'd be happy to add non-peer reviewed material. I'm giving a talk next month where I will discuss how to define pentation for complex numbers, so if folks want to read non-peer reviewed material, I can help you out, but I don't think it would be a good idea. Daniel Geisler 08:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep (or move to pentation, or whatever). Find citations, I'm sure they are out there. "Pure mathematics. May it never be of use to anyone." -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
I am equally sure there are no references. Not only because I didn't find any in the databases of maths publications that I looked at, but also because Daniel Geisler says so above and he has done research on tetration. However, I am happy to change my vote to "keep" if you can find a reference. -- Jitse Niesen 12:22, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 22:26, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. POV. Not encyclopedic. Take your pick. And when did oxymora become the plural of oxymorons? dictionary.com lists the plural as oxymorons. RickK 00:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep First of all, no offense, but dictionary.com is useless. Merriam-Webster and American Heritage (the two true dictionaries) both list the plural form as oxymora. Besides that, this list is no less "encyclopedic" than many other lists we call articles. Saaga 23:05, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as not encyclopedic. POV, too, but that's to be expected since Neutral point of view is apparently an oxymoron. Philthecow 00:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Language changes, and many of the terms here would be accepted as oxymorons by most people. If I were looking for oxymorons, this is exactly the article I would be looking for. This article is no less encyclopedic, or less POV, than other lists which have passed unscathed through VfD. Agree this could be cleaned up, but deletion is silly. Denni☯ 01:18, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Strong keep. I see no logical reason for this very interesting, useful list to be deleted. Rename as List of oxymorons as appropriate. --Gene_poole 01:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but purge the POV ones like "Alberta environment minister" - SimonP 01:59, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I think I've seen this before in the form of an internet joke. Microsoft Works? Funny, but not encyclopedic. Eixo 02:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, rename/cleanup as necessary. Kappa 02:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And you could add motor sports too, but the booze and ciggies industries would be up in arms at such a slur on a manly activity. So yes, it's PoV and unencyclopedic. Delete. -- Hoary 05:19, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Keep, Rename and Clean up. A list of oxymorons could be very encylopedic. This list has a lot of problems though. Needs to be purged of POV and false examples.
Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 06:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a rather funny and potentially useful article. — JIP | Talk 06:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Rename and POV-purge Lectonar 07:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
MovetoList of oxymorons. Purge POV phrases if they are not of note. "Military intelligence" may be a POV condemnation of the abilities of the military, but it's one of the most famous "humorous oxymorons" there is. DemiT/C 07:51, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Okay, the mora who created that plural should be whacked with pieces of ira. Anyway, this needs to be treated with extreme care as it's a prime target for adding jokes to. Merge the subset of interesting oxymorons onto Oxymoron#examples. Radiant_* 10:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
What is the etymology of the word "oxymoron"? If it's Greek, then "oxymora" is the correct plural. I doubt it comes from the word "moron". As to your jocular plurals, note that "conundra" is a correct plural for "conundrum" but "kettledra" is not a correct plural for "kettledrum". — JIP | Talk 15:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's Greek. I love derivations like these, hence my jokes with them (also 'boxen', 'pentia' etc). For reasons that elude me, Latin words such as conundrum tend to keep their Latin plurals even in English, but Greek words get English -s plurals. There are probably exceptions to both, though, and double plurals like 'museas'. I guess this is similar to English dropping suffixes from nearly all classical authors (e.g. 'Homer' rather than 'Homeros'). And I'd love to have some dra in my room :) Radiant_* 16:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
The exception to the rule being "criterions". :-) Chris 21:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't have a pick to take, and the list as a whole is nice to have. As for the name, I suppose it doesn't matter either way. For the record, most OneLook hits don't give a plural at all, but those that do variously give both forms or only oxymora. So would seem rather futile to claim that one's right and the other's wrong. -- Smjg 16:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I split the contents into categories, and remove some of the less humorous or more pointless examples. DJ Clayworth 18:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Especially with the recent category split, which better clarifies the nature of the entries. Dtobias 19:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep rewrite, but the previous version which did not differentiate between true oxymorons and the joke ones was pretty bad. -R. fiend 19:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect back to Oxymoron#examples. Keeping this "list of" as a separate article is just bait for vandals. Rossami(talk) 07:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Oxymoron, along with some further cleanup. Several of the examples are not oxymorons. Arkyan 08:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:28, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Self-promotion of a mathematic theory. Google [Average Tangent Theorem Gabriel] gives >630 hits, most of which describe the theory as lacking proofs and unsound. Seems to have ony appeared online, and going on what I've read I think it should be deleted--nixie 01:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable theory. I looked at Gabriel's web page and it seems he thinks this theory will revolutionize all the theory of calculus. While I suppose that's possible, perhaps we should wait until it does? Eric119 02:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity theorem that (yes) rehashes the Fundamental theorem of calculus. Mr. Gabriel's enthusiasm is commendable, but he should try some humility and listen to experienced mathematicians, lest he become a crank. Gazpacho 09:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete - at best original research. Charles Matthews 17:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep - The article clearly states the theorem has yet to be proved or disproved. That it's a rehashing of the fundamental theorem is non-sense. It offers a unique perspective and is worthy of investigation.
Keep - I placed this on the google forum and regretted it. No one was able to conclusively disprove it. I have communicated with the author on several occasions. Eric119 reckons we should wait until the theorem is notable. How ironic since this is a vehicle to expand and share information. Why not let the readers decide for themselves whether it be true or false? Jason Wells
(Both of these votes by User:68.238.98.122, who has no other edits but is on the same subnet that created the article) Gazpacho
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:28, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
0 google hits leads some of us to believe this is a hoax. If it isn't I suspect it is the very definition of non-notability. Delete. -R. fiend 01:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since this does appear to be a hoax --nixie 02:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If this turns out to be a hoax, its organiser should be deleted as well. Mgm|(talk) 09:29, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete 0 Yahoo Search hits, 1 MSN Search hit (wikipedia entry). CheekyMonkey 09:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Zero google hits so not notable. Sjakkalle 10:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just to say that User:Calton thought this page was something to do with me, but it really isn't! Grinner 12:35, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons stated by R. fiend. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I used to live there and I think this is real - I could be wrong though. Robinoke 22:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think we could probably find some Wikipedian who lives in that area and who has enough of a finger on the pulse of the LGBT scene that they could tell us whether it's real or not. However, even if it's a real festival, if it made so little impact that it gets no Google hits -- is it notable enough to be worth keeping? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, at least not yet...Ganymead 02:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 22:30, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary had had Wiktionary:-id for three months prior to the creation of this article. The editor who added the {{move to Wiktionary}} tag asked if there were any way to make this article more encyclopaedic. The answer appears to be "No.". Uncle G 01:29, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
merge and redirect as per Kappa. Thryduulf 22:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as the final step in the transwiki process. While Kappa's suggestion to redirect to list of English suffixes is appealing, I believe that article is also one which should be moved to Wiktionary. Rossami(talk) 07:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The move to wiktionary notice on list of English suffixes that was placed today has been moved to the talk page as the move is being disputed. Currently there are three editors (inlcuding myself) who oppose the move, and none who support it. Thryduulf 09:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 22:32, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Student rowing club at Liden University. Delete since it has no potential to become encyclopedic. The name is also not in english--nixie 02:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no indication of notability. Edeans 02:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. It's not "Liden" but Leiden. An indication of notability is the vigorousness of its website (linked from the article): take a look at the front page, and the amount that has been added just in the last week or so. The article therefore may have the potential to become encyclopedic. And I haven't a clue why anyone would object to the fact that its name is not in English. Why should it have a name in English? (Would you prefer it if Matsushita were "Under the Pine Tree", or indeed if Kodak were an English name?) But I agree that there's no indication of notability within the article, and for this reason do not (yet) make a "Keep" vote. -- Hoary 05:39, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC) ......... PS Meester's comment below has persuaded me to say keep. (Not the royal connection but the historical importance.) -- Hoary 11:23, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
Delete. So we should keep it because they have a put a lot of effort into their website? Not notable, no matter how nifty their website is. DaveTheRed 05:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, not what I was suggesting at all. Activities described in the website, not effort put into the markup, etc., of the website. Did you see the website? Take a look -- just knowing that maart is Dutch for March shows us anglophones that a lot is going on. -- Hoary 06:15, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 07:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Question is, what is the consensus on student societies (including frats and the like). This is one of the larger student societies in Leiden, which has a major university in the Netherlands. About 250 members if I recall correctly, and they participate in international varsity rowing contests. Abstain for now. Radiant_* 10:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
From what I've observed, national frats get kept, local ones and clubs almost always get merged. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Based on what Radiant! says about their participation "in international varsity rowing contests", they would seem to be at least as notable as a lot of US college teams having articles. Can we have more details? How much do they compete? Have they won anything? Abstaining but leaning towards keep. / Uppland 10:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As it looks now, the most appropriate thing seems to be to work it into a "student life" section in the university article. Merge and redirect. / Uppland 16:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep based on what Meester says below. But please expand the article and write something on the Njord club as well. / Uppland 11:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. I've tried my darnedest to rewrite this article, but though I'm Dutch, I'm no rowing expert, and both Google and their homepage didn't help me much. They're real, they're notable enough in Leiden, but as far as I can tell they never participated in international contests (and they're not the only rowing club in Leiden). I can't even find membership statistics on their homepage, so I'm having trouble adding verifiable facts. No doubt I'm looking in the wrong place, but as I said, I'm no rowing expert. This article should have been created at the Dutch Wikipedia first, that would have made things a lot easier. No doubt this is fancruft by an enthusiast; I wish said enthusiast would add a little more meat to flesh out the bones it is now. Oh, and Megan: advertisement? What, were you tempted to sign up? JRM 14:08, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Delete student clubs unless truly famous or notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nn rowboatcruft. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:47, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep internationally active rowboatcruft. Kappa 21:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep One thing that might be considered: this is a piece of rowing history, as Njord was the eldest rowing club in the Netherlands and De Vliet the eldest female club. Also, current Queen of the Netherlands Beatrix rowed at De Vliet... Meester 13:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:33, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
There don't appear to be any suitable nouns to redirect this adjective to. Needless to say: the article is a dictionary entry about a word, and not an encyclopaedia article about a person/concept/thing; and Wiktionary already had Wiktionary:extant before this article was created. Uncle G 02:02, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Delete Non-encyclopedic,can not imagine a worthy expansion.
Above vote was by Tjc 18 Mar 2005 2:32 UTC DemiT/C 07:54, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Delete, Can't see this as more than a dicdef. DemiT/C 07:54, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Again. dbenbenn | talk 23:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. There's an HTML comment warning not to create these things in Periodic table (extended), I guess the contributor missed it :( Kappa 02:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I added that comment after my annoyance with all these pages. I've recently made the comment stronger with lots of exclamation marks so that (I hope) people notice it. (As evidenced by the VfD, it didn't work before.) Eric119 03:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. And please join the discussion here. Dpbsmith(talk) 02:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. My comments in discussion above, but basically extensive scientific conjecture can be notable in itself, but if it's not there (and cited) the thing should go. DemiT/C 08:13, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Delete and replace with redirects to Periodic table to deter recreators. Radiant_* 10:05, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Oh and btw, speediable as recreation of previously deleted material. Radiant_* 10:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect all such titles to Undiscovered elements or something like that. Such a page can have a table of all these elements along with their chemical symbols. In that way you will avoid the recreation of such articles until the elements are discovered, and some users might have some interest in such an article. Sjakkalle 14:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, preferable undelete and revert to earlier, more nicely formatted versions. From the deletion policy: If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. I see no reason to delete a set of harmless placeholders; they will be needed when the scientific community learns about the properties of these elements. Okay, we likely have to wait some time for the discovery of Binilnilium, maybe delete all with atomic number > 130? jni 18:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Question NOT rhetorical. 1) Are these elements known to be physically possible in any meaningful sense, or are they just a mechanical exercise in applying IUPAC rules and extrapolating mathematical sequences? 2) For which of these elements are there laboratories actively pursuing their discovery? There's a big difference between saying "the source of the diamondiferous kimberlite float that occurs 900 metres west of the Jericho kimberlite has not been discovered," knowing that there must be such a source, and saying "a method of squaring the circle with ruler and compass has not been discovered." Dpbsmith(talk) 19:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete (house matters first). These elements will without question be produced in one of the world's particle accelerators. It is only a question of when. For practical purposes, the larger the atomic number, the more difficult it is to create an element, so lower numbers are on the job card first. I see no need, however, of creating articles with extremely generic names for elements whose properties will not be fully known until they are actually brought into existence. Denni☯ 01:32, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
I beg to differ. It is not without question that the elements will in fact ever be created, because of the amount of energy required. There is already talk of creating an orbital particle accelerator, since the existing ones on Earth (e.g. CERN) aren't big enough. Since the costs of such would be, well, astronomical, I find it highly dubious to assert that binilnilium for instance will ever be created anywhere. Radiant_* 09:45, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete again. Jayjg (talk) 20:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect them all into Undiscovered chemical elements. There's obviously a demand for such info. And this is the least messy solution that avoids constant recreation. Mgm|(talk) 20:59, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, atomic number 200? Although I'm loath to say flat-out that theses substance cannot exist, Radiant's comment about the sheer quantity of energy required is valid. Even an island of stability only goes so far, and for most of these I think we'd need a collider the size of the solar system. In theory, we can build an arbitrarily large collider, and use it to synthesize arbitrarily large nuclei, and so we should have an entry for every single possible undiscovered element, from 120 to 100000000 and every integer in between. In theory, every vanity page should be saved, expanded, and heavily interlinked, because everyone is notable for an arbitrary definition of "notable". The currently-accepted model of nucleosynthesis says this is simply not going to get made, ever, not even if we bankrupt our entire civilization (for the broadest possible definition of 'we' and 'civilization'). If you come up with a better model of nucleosynthesis and a compelling reason to accept it, then MAYBE there'll be a reason to have an entry for binilnilium. This is not like eka-silicon, where we already knew about several elements beyond the empty space. Delete, delete them all, and do not not not not not not create Undiscovered chemical elements unless you've come up with a radical new theory of nucleosynthesis. DS 14:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete all again. Wikipedia should not be in the business of predicting future events. The mention that already exists in the larger article is sufficient. Rossami(talk) 07:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep any that could conceivably exist. There are plenty of concepts in math and science that can never exist in real life, but they can be modeled by computers and can be used to determine things about the elements that really do exist. Bear in mind, some of the heavier elements that have been manufactured in the lab have only existed for nanoseconds before falling apart, and yet they are not kicked out. Also, who knows what we may discover in this universe - perhaps conditions in black holes or other such phenomena are conducive to creating these elements. What we do know is that if such elements are ever created (or found to exist somewhere), they will be bound by the laws of physics to meet certain characteristics. --BD2412 20:37, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:34, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
A particularly ugly blog related neologism, this article is the first place I've seen it used, google gives 36 hits--nixie 02:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neo-logism. Edeans 02:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If it was widely used it would at most merit being a redirect to Weblog, but with just 36 hits, Delete as non-notable neologism. -- Infrogmation 18:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neo-loggism. Mgm|(talk) 21:00, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 04:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This was submitted by the same anonymous user to both Wikipedia and Wiktionary within the space of 2 minutes. Wiktionary turned it into a dictionary entry. Wikipedia didn't expand it into an encyclopaedia article, probably because there isn't anything to be said on the subject of moonglades. Uncle G 02:45, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. [1] Never mind. Kappa 03:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 05:53, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Not encyclopaedic, and a wiktionary entry already exists. Fawcett5 02:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep real things. Could be expanded to mention materials used, and why people put rocks along the sides. Kappa 03:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep driveways can be expanded. Mgm|(talk) 09:33, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with street to avoid redundancies. Radiant_* 10:05, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep A driveway is not a street. Wincoote 13:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth. --GRider\talk 18:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to assume you meant 'concrete growth' since driveways aren't particularly organic. Radiant_* 12:46, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable architectural feature. Capitalistroadster 20:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete What's the point of having a policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary when we keep dictionary entries? This entry is nothing more than a definition of a driveway. Is someone going to take the time to research and write about the history of driveways? Is someone going to comment on the notable driveways of the past? Does someone know who the inventor of the driveway is? Will we solve the age old question of why we drive in a parkway and park in a driveway? If someone gets passionate about the driveway to the extent that they want to write an encyclopedia entry on the topic they can always recreate it when the time comes. As it stands now it warrants only deletion. Being a real thing does not an encyclopedia entry make. Kevin Rector 20:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
The point of the "not a dictionary" policy is to get rid of things like adjectives and phrases which are inherently non-encyclopedic, in contrast to real things which are the opposite. Kappa 02:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep It's an architectural feature, why not keep it? Ganymead 02:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Ganymead. 212.50.160.44 20:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Concur w/ Kevin Rector, Delete.Lacrimosus 22:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept, could be merged somewhere - SimonP 22:36, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
A gathering of 200 people on an IRC channel does not warrant an entire encyclopedia article. Perhaps it could be mentioned in Unix epoch, so either mergeordelete outright. Let's not hold this article to some lowered standard because it's about a geek subject and because it involves the network that hosts the Wikimedia IRC channels. --Slowking Man 03:06, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keepormerge. gcbirzantalk 03:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It made the front page on slashdot, and I've heard it mentioned elsewhere. Jonathunder 03:08, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
After reading the arguments of other editors, I would like to change my vote. Merge with Unix time, perhaps under a "milestones" section, as was suggested below, and redirect. Jonathunder 20:58, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Keep. It's not the gathering that warrants the article, but the fact that it was a momentous moment, that was noted and thus notable, so it should remain and be linked to fromUnix epoch! --JavaWoman 03:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A mention on Slashdot does not automatically mean we need an article. Delete unless prior or lasting notability is shown. —Korath (Talk) 03:20, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
The mention on Slashdot is not the primary reason to keep this article. It is a landmark. —Tcwd 03:27, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
But who decides that? Slashdot? People who like ones? --InShaneee 03:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think this was a special time, and it deserves an article :) Needs to be wrote up a bit more though. TheJosher
Keep. At the very least, it achieved a quite high peak throughput. Diskspace is cheap, too. But it definately needs more content. --SamB 06:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Note: User's seventh edit. --InShaneee 22:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As I mentioned on the talk page, I recommend a Merge and redirecttoUnix epoch as Slowking Man says. Front page on Slashdot seems to establish this time as notable (so as not to suggest that any other times would suddenly warrent mention), but a whole article? There really isn't much to say other than it's a big, cool looking number, and there were a lot of people on IRC at the time. Give it its mention on the proper page, nothing more. --InShaneee 03:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deleteormerge - I don't really see why this is important at all, but there is nothing that needs to be said in a separate article that can't be said on unix epoch. Adam Bishop 03:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Unix time. The topic does not warrant a separate article. Zzyzx11 03:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, not possibly encyclopaedic. At the absolute most it might warrant a mention on Unix time but even that's pushing it. Where's the article on 111111111? Or 11111111? --bainer 05:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's worth noting here that 111111111 and 11111111 would have occurred on Jul 09 1973 (17:11:51) and May 09 1970 (07:25:11), respectively. Wikipedia existed, and IRC was in such widespread use that it prompted such a widespread interested back then, yes? Xore 09:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Note: this is Xore's only edit. --InShaneee 21:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Who gives a frack? He made a comment, he didn't vote. gcbirzantalk 10:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
010001000110010101101100011001010111010001100101. Concur with Thebainer; this is amusing, but I have no idea why it's being called a "landmark" or "momentous." android↔talk 05:34, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I really don't see how this is in any way notable. Bad socks! DaveTheRed 05:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. May I propose that if a voter votes merge, they at least indicate WHERE it's supposed to be merged into? RickK 06:16, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into unix time. My vote might not carry much weight, but its a voice non the less. If merged, possibly a list of intresting times & dates that will come out of repeditive numbers could be included. NeoThermic 07:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this is as notable as Pi Day or any similar fundamentally meaningless yet aesthetically pleasing--to some--confluence of digits. Yes, there should be a 1234567890 as well. If consensus is not to keep, it could be merged into a List of digitally interesting dates or something (I'm not sure it belongs in Unix time). DemiT/C 08:20, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
I am in favor of merging to Unix time because it makes the information here more accessible. Radiant_* 10:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; non-notable event. Psychonaut 10:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Squirtleordelete if that's not acceptable. The base ten number system is a deliberate raping of childrens' minds. --SPUI (talk) 11:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please read WP:POINT. The existence of articles that you'd prefer deleted (in this case, anything pokemon-related) has no bearing on the discussion on an unrelated article. Radiant_* 12:00, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hah, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? I'm just "disrupting Wikipedia" to have a bit of fun! --SPUI (talk) 12:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, you're just a goatse troll.</personal attack> gcbirzantalk 06:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wowie, a whole 200 people in an IRC channel. Can you believe none of the major news networks had it as their top story either? Ted Koppel, why hast thou forsken me? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't only for things on the news you know.... Tcwd
Not necessarily, but a mention or two in some mainstream news sources would help to back up claims that the event was "momentous" or a "milestone". I was being a bit sarcastic about major news networks covering it, but a Google News search for "1111111111" currently brings no hits, so it seems even the niche/techie press have ignored it (save perhaps for Slashdot as claimed above). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:29, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Less than 24 hours after the event, I think its a little hasty to be wrtiting it off as having no media coverage at all. Not all the technie news sources are updated daily, and google's indexing isn't instantaneous, even of those that are. Thryduulf 22:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it's now been several days and still no Google News hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keepormerge. -- 213.119.138.79's fifth edit.
Delete. Nothing notable here. Gamaliel 17:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge into history section of Unix time. — RJH 18:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Unix time (note that Unix epoch is a redirect to Unix time). Create a 'milestones' section or somesuch. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
rm -f There is nothing important about this moment whatsoever. What makes it any different from, say, 1111111112 or 1096836582? Certainly 1048129200 is a much more important moment. Chris 20:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete1) Will anyone ever need to look this up? 2) Will this be relevant in 2 years? 3) Is the time 1111111111 different from the number 1111111111? 4) Is this information connected to any other concept in any special way? No. Interesting in passing, interesting if you were there, but no. Maybe that transcript should be linked to from Geek, however :-) -- PhyzomeisTim McCormack 23:11, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Delete and add a small note to Unix time about it. cesarb 23:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect with Unix time for reasons stated above. Article as it stands has no potential for growth. JRM 02:55, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
Mergeordelete. In two weeks time this article won't be anywhere near as notable, and in a year I doubt anyone will care at all. Hedley 02:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Unix time. This isn't as special as Pi Day. :-( Ghost Freeman 04:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's even more special [sic] than Pi day. gcbirzantalk 06:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) It's even more special [sic] than Pi day as it only happens once, as opposed to once every year. gcbirzantalk 06:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 05:58, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I should have nominated this straightaway. Wiktionary had had Wiktionary:handout for 21 months when this article was created. I think that there's not much to say about handouts except that they are handed out. Uncle G 03:09, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Comment: I've rewritten the page. Though it needs more work and more rigor (well, any at all) I've indicated how I see the page covering an encyclopedic subject. DemiT/C 08:39, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Keep rewritten page and expand. Mgm|(talk) 09:35, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Well done Demi for the work on the article. I am concerned about the current trend of nominating nouns which have encyclopedic potential. Just because Wiktionary has an article is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't as long as it covers the topic in a way appropriate for an encyclopedia. Capitalistroadster 20:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You may also be concerned at the trend of transiki-ing nouns with encyclopedic potential and then dumping them in CSD. I believe this is being done by a bot. Kappa 01:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:38, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. It's hard to tell what this refers to; AFAICT, it's a newsletter for American immigrants from a region of India called Assam. Google for "luitor pora mississippi" yields 12 hits. android↔talk 03:12, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This in reality is not a news letter but a yearly journal of archaic value, and the journal is a publication of the Assam Literary Society of North America.
You would need better reference than Google Search in order to qualify.
Qualify for what? And what do you mean by archaic?android↔talk 04:52, Mar 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 - redirected - SimonP 22:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Whilst this was sitting in the Wiktionary queue, Wiktionary went and grew Wiktionary:contribution from scratch, all by itself. There's scant prospect of an encyclopaedia article here. Uncle G 03:25, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Delete. Clear cut, as above. --InShaneee 04:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, duplicate entry. Megan1967 07:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I can't see this going beyond a definition. DemiT/C 08:41, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of making this a redirecttofundraising. Meelar(talk) 21:57, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Contained only translation of German word into English. Mgm|(talk) 21:03, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
There is no scope for an encyclopaedia article here, and the title is in the wrong language for a redirect to be worthwhile. Uncle G 03:33, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Speedy for no content. --InShaneee 04:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedied. Content was: Schwein is the german word for pig. All useful info about pigs should go to the English language article about them. Mgm|(talk) 09:37, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:40, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
The same anonymous user added the same original article to both Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Wiktionary turned it into Wiktionary:dork. Wikipedia has done pretty much nothing to the original text apart from attract vandals and add a note supposedly supported by a web page that doesn't actually contain the word "dork" anywhere. I'm tempted by the idea of just putting a {{wi}} on the page, but the fact that even the original author submitted the article to Wiktionary where it belongs sways me towards outright deletion. Uncle G 03:52, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Delete, duplicate entry. Megan1967 07:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There needs to be a redirect here. Possibly geek, to capture the modern meaning; but wasn't this also the guy whose job it was to bite heads of live chickens at a freak show?Redirect or disambiguate as necessary. Meelar(talk) 21:57, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as the final step of a successful transwiki. Do not redirect to geek. It is has a different definition entirely (though some of us manage to be both). Compare Wikt:dorktoWikt:geek. Rossami(talk) 07:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:49, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This article about a word was Wiktionarified and moved to Wiktionary:frisson by what appears to be its original author (Look at the article's second edit.) and sole editor (apart from me). So I haven't bothered too much about the niceties of transwikification in this case. I don't see any potential for an encyclopaedia article here. Uncle G 04:29, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Speedy delete as the final step of a successful transwiki process. Rossami(talk) 07:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 22:51, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
1. To move about clumsily. 2. To intrude or interrupt, especially rudely: barged into the meeting. It's hard to believe that anyone who would take the trouble to create such an elegant dicdef would (i) fail to notice that dicdefs don't belong here and (ii) fail to correct "Barg" (sic). So it smells of copyvio, too. -- Hoary 05:05, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Comment: That's what I did (and added an appropriate note there and definition in Wiktionary). I suppose this might be moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, but we can also keep it as a misspelling redirect (though I doubt it's very common). DemiT/C 08:55, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 22:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Redundant with Prime mover, and not particularly encyclopedic. Delete. -- FP 05:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete (orredirecttoprime mover if there is any evidence that this phrase is in common use). Psychonaut 10:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as it doesn't actually seem to be talking about what it is to be a prime mover at all, but instead about being the first business man to sell something . . . Heah 17:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 06:00, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Ahhh, now it made some sense. I'm not into dogs so I thought it was some miniature figure. ;) - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup per Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds, wherein various discussions have taken place (and also on Talk:List of dog breeds) about how exactly to choose the names of breeds to put into the list. This would be correct. Elf | Talk 20:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I was going to say delete as hoax but since people here confirm that this really exists, keep. Radiant_* 09:44, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Real dog. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:44, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
FYI, I have edited the article so it looks like real text instead of a joke. And since Mailer Diablo says it was all a misunderstanding anyway (and as a dog project person--if we had seen it first & cleaned it up, it never shd've been VFDed :-) ), I'm going to remove the vfd. Elf | Talk
Sorry, but since there is no such thing as 'speedy removal from VfD', please keep the tag for a couple more days. Radiant_* 12:57, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Well, when the original poster said it was a misunderstanding, and the dog project clearly identifies it as a valid article, it's misleading and confusing to leave the vfd on an article that everyone knows is not going to be deleted. In other words--this was a mistake to be listed here; surely the policy doesn't insist that mistakenly labeled vfds must remain so labeled? Elf | Talk 14:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The name is consistent with the conventions developed by the dog breeds Wikiproject (four out of the five main English language breed associations use this form of the name, only the US doesn't) -- sannse(talk) 13:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but do make sure that redirects from the US naming convention exist. No early removals, but I think this is a very safe keeper, especially now that the article has been improved. Geogre 14:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, waffling nonsense. Megan1967 07:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy deleteCarnildo 04:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Made no sense to me. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's patent nonsense and should be speedy deleted -- not listed here. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:16, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed patent nonsense, speedied. Mgm|(talk) 09:41, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, would even agree with speedy. Hedley 03:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 22:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Correct spelling and transwiki to sep11 wiki. Mgm|(talk) 09:42, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not good enough even for the memorial - SimonP 22:55, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:02, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable. Google results returned 8 results, all on a high-school student instead. - Mailer Diablo 06:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not only does he not google, but the term "robotic constant" only gets two unrelated hits. DaveTheRed 01:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:02, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Advertising. Google results had little signs of such a virtual airline. - Mailer Diablo 06:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unimportant game trivia. Average Earthman 10:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:03, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Comment:576 Google hits do not maketh a dictionary entry. By the way, you voted once already, RickK. --Andylkl 07:10, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry about that, my connection died as I was posting the above, and I didn't think it took. RickK 07:11, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism. Gazpacho 09:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism, no evidence of widespread use. Average Earthman 10:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete minor neologism, apparently mostly a joke from one forum. CDC(talk) 19:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Please read my defense on the article's Talk page. If anyone desires it, I will copy it here. — Xiong (talk) 00:11, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
Delete. Then create a new redirect to binary. ComCat 02:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The quote 'Relax, it's all just zeroes and ones' is a rather common message tagline, and I find the unsubstantiated implication that it would have originated on this BBS rather bold. Delete as NN, then replace with redirect to binary. Radiant_* 09:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be titled Zeroes and ones? -- Riffsyphon1024 09:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to binary. DaveTheRed 18:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not to get contentious, but has anyone asking for a redirect read the article itself? zeros and ones (all lowercase) was the BBS name. Binary is a disambiguation page and nothing in there refers to a BBS by name or BBS's in general. And, no, it was never named "zeroes and ones". And no, I don't maintain that the BBS originated the slogan; it was named after the slogan and adopted it as its motto. — Xiong (talk) 02:18, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
We realize that the article is about a BBS. The point is that we do not believe it to be a notable BBS that should have its own article, or even be mentioned in Wikipedia. And you are correct, since binary is a disambig, we should probably redirect to Binary numeral system. DaveTheRed 05:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm missing the point. The BBS has nothing whatever to do with the binary numeral system. It doesn't make any sense whatever to redirect a user who is looking for information about the BBS to a page discussing binary*anything. If the article is deleted, there's no point replacing it with a redirect. Nothing points to it that does not point to it in the sense of a BBS name; check it out.
I seriously doubt that many editors will create a link of the form zeros and ones that desires to point to the binary system of notation. The more common form, when discussing the binary system, is ones and zeros (118K Google hits vs. 74K)
As for "notable", well, gee, we've got at least 22 distinct articles, each one profiling a single Pokemon character. I admit I know little about Pokemon, but just shooting straight from the hip, I'd be willing to agree that whichever 1 or 2 characters are most important within the Pokemon world might be sufficiently "notable" to pass the test. But all 22? Not to mention (literally) dozens of articles about every detail and aspect of the world of Pokemon, including several categories, subcategories, and sub-sub categories. This is not so much a set of articles about Pokemon as a wikification of the game itself; I worry about infringement. Personally, I would not like to be the one to defend Regirock in a VfD. But you don't see me over there tearing it down, either.
I offer a bone to those who, I suspect, doubt the mere existence of zeros and ones. I believe it is still in operation; at any rate the domain is up: [2]. If you're wondering why there is no content on the page other than a pretty background, it's probably because they are inside discussing, among other things, hacking, phreaking, piracy, and all the other 3l33t topics BBSs were known for. Like most former dial-ups, I suspect they've made the transition to the net, but you'd need a First Class client to connect. I'll see if I can dig that out.
Searching for tracks of this BBS on the web may be very difficult. BBSs, taken together, were an extremely closed world in some ways. Many illegal things were discussed (and some done), plus an aura of danger, secrecy, and mystique was cultivated for its own sake. Each BBS maintained lists of other BBSs, but these lists were not published in other media (for obvious reasons). The rise of the net, with similar subcultures, coincided with and brought about the decline of the dial-up BBS; users made the transition, but few systems.
While researching, I have come across a few more recent references to entities named "zeros and ones". If this article survives, I should like it renamed to zeros and ones BBS; zeros and ones itself should be a disambiguation.
I have no idea why this article upsets Wikipedians so much. I find it hard to believe it is just that we feel this BBS was insufficiently influential -- I'd be happy to reduce the claim if that would satisfy anyone. In some way, the article must touch a raw nerve or violate a taboo, and I do wish Somebody would be more explicit.
When dealing with websites and BBS's, Wikipedia tends to only have articles on those that are notable. There are literally millions of BBSs on the web. Having articles for all of them would be unencyclopedic. Your analogy with Pokemon is falacious, because while Pokemon may not be important in the grand scheme of life, Pokemon is instantly recognizable to a large number of people, and therefore notable in its own right. The bottom line is that zeros and ones is not notable enough to merit an article in Wikipedia. Therefore the only options are to either delete it outright, or to redirect somewhere that it might do some good. Since zeros and ones is a conceivable search string someone might use when searching for the binary numeral system, I argue that we should redirect there. Hope this explaination is helpful. DaveTheRed 07:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't touch a nerve or violate a taboo with me. I've been part of the BBS scene and there are thousands of BBS'es, for many of which the claims you make about illegal discussions or happenings, or society impact, are equally valid. The point is that the BBS scene as a whole is notable and merits articles, but an individual BBS in general does not (along the same lines, we have articles on the Internet but not on each individual website). Radiant_* 13:01, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I've been in touch with Gil Burns, the zeros and ones sysop. He says the BBS (like so many of its time) is no longer running, but he has graciously sent me some of the old graphics, which I intend to unpack and add to the article.
I don't think the discussions of blue boxes and occasional exchange of contraband were themselves "notable". Rather, it was the spirit in which these discussions were conducted -- often acrimonious -- and the philosophy which enabled the community to survive contention: It's all just zeros and ones! While I don't assign credit to the BBS for originating the slogan, it did assume it as its name and put it forward at every opportunity; thus the BBS is a notable step in the slogan's etymology.
Ididn't compare zeros and ones to Pokemon. I compared an article on zeros and ones to the article Regirock. Can you, without visiting that page, name a single characteristic of the subject of this article? I certainly cannot, but let me go look again:
"Regirock was sealed away by people long ago....Its body is composed entirely of rocks." Well, that is certainly notable. There does not seem to be a single thought in this article that is not copied directly from its single reference: [3]. I wonder if Nintendo might not consider the large repository of similar articles, taken together, infringement.
More accurately, I am comparing the class of articles written about online communities to the class of articles written about individual characters within fictional universes. Am I the only person who feels that a group of live human beings and their doings is at least as "notable" as a rectangle of cardboard with a rather hastily-drawn imaginary character upon it? — Xiong (talk) 15:07, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
I believe that live humans are more important than characters from pokemon. But not necessarily more notable. Regirock is instantly recognizable to hundreds of thousands of pokemon fans. Can you say that your BBS is instantly recognizable to hundreds of thousands of people? None of this is relevant, because an article must be notable in its own right. The fact that there exists an article that you think is less notable has no bearing on whether this one should be kept. DaveTheRed 18:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Extreme weak delete. There is nothing here in this article that is particularly distinctive or notable. Compare, for example, to Monochrome BBSorRusty n Edie's BBS. If this article is improved, please contact me on my talk page and I will reconsider my vote. —RaD Man (talk) 19:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Withdraw -- I have looked at both the BBS articles to which you refer; they are mighty thin. The one under consideration is thinner still, but I expect to bring it up to the minimal standard set by Monochrome and Rusty & Edie. As I said, I'm in touch with the former sysop; he's sent me some graphics from the site, and I can probably pump him for a lot more content. Nor have I entirely given up mining my own archives or the web at large, particularly Usenet archives.
But all of this is *promises*. I agree with DaveTheRed that a big pile of rubbish over there does not justify a little pile of rubbish over here that might someday prove "notable". I hope I am permitted to withdraw the article in question and join the concensus to delete. I have moved the existing content and Talk to a user subpage, User:Xiong/Zeros and ones BBS. I'll develop it there and put it back on when I have more to show for it. The move has left a redirect, which in accordance with concensus I have altered to redirect to Binary. — Xiong (talk) 02:20, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
I altered the redirect to point to binary numeral system, since I think that's the more useful redirect for now. DaveTheRed 06:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:08, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Lucky 6.9 marked it as a speedy, but I think it qualifies more of as band vanity if it were to be deleted, so I'm putting this through VFD. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Cute band name, though. Jonathunder 09:28, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
Agree the name's cute, but the article's gotta go one way or the other. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 06:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:08, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not even vanity, but poorly humored prank, created unbeknownst to Chris by our schmucky housemate. -- Dan Litwin 22:52, Mar 22, 2005 (EST)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 06:02, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism coined in a sci-fi novel. Doesn't seem to have taken hold anywhere else. Google searching is problematic, since the phrase "Lie to children" is popular enough, but none of the hits I went through used the phrase as a noun, or used it with hyphens. A search for the phrase "lie-to-children" + Discworld returns 23 hits [4]. DaveTheRed 07:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
speedy strong keep Not a sci-fi novel. Used in at least 2-3 books, as referenced, useful definition, recall hearing it before seeing it in print. Not a neologism anymore at this point in time. Was proposed for vfd before, consensus KEEP after article had been edited&improved to make it acceptable. vfd consensus already reached at an earlier date, hence speedy qualifier.Kim Bruning 08:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I still think re-vfd should be an automatic speedy keep (Say no to double jeopardy!) , but that's not policy yet. Kim Bruning 11:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What was lost in the edit conflict between me and Radiant! was my request for you to point at the prior VFD discussion, because I cannot find it. Looking at the edit history of the article I see that this is the first time that the VFD notice has been applied to it. And this discussion page was newly created by DaveTheRed. Uncle G 12:40, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Interesting. I specifically remember making a comment to the then nominator along the lines of him using vfd to make me tidy up my work ;-) (which I subsequently did :-P ) I'll try search too, but vfd history is notoriously difficult. Perhaps the article had a slightly different name at the time? It's changed around a bit. Kim Bruning 13:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ouw dear, all I can find is a comment in the history by User:Stevertigo, which inquires if vfd might be nescesary, but I don't see him subsequently put up a vfd posting. (I checked his edit log for april 2004), and that's what I likely remembered. *Slight embarresment*, please be kind, this was almost a year ago now! The discussion I recalled is on user talk here: [5].
Since both articles and consensus can change over time, a blanket rule preventing re-nomination for deletion is a bad rule. In any case, there's no problem to solve with m:instruction creep here. The only re-nominations that are really problematic are the few ones such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Professor Birch (recount), where an article is re-nominated an excessively short period after the a discussion was closed as "keep" (11 hours in this case). Such nominations have been generally dealt with reasonably, in my experience. Uncle G 12:40, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 10:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Phrase is used in some Terry Pratchett novels (particularly Soul Music; also lies-to-wizardsinScience of Discworld). If someone can substantiate that it is also used elsewhere, keep. Radiant_* 10:44, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
AsKim Bruning said, The Science of Discworld is not a science-fiction novel. Google searching is easier if one uses Google Groups, as this phrase for describing the concept of progressively closer approximations to reality in education has gained popularity in discussions where rigour is habitual. Here is an occurrence from sci.stat.math and here is another from rec.games.frp.dnd for example. Keep but without the speedy appellation. DaveTheRed's nomination wasn't vandalism. Uncle G 10:50, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Ah oh ok, sorry, though I think speedy for a re-vfd (even if accidental) is probably still appropriate, I'll switch for now and wait for policy to catch up. Kim Bruning 11:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It happens rarely enough that it doesn't require a separate policy, and any article voted 'kept' is usually 'kept' on the second vote as well. Various proposals for speedy keep have been rejected by consensus (mostly because of potential of being POV and abusable), and I don't see how this would fare any differently. Radiant_* 11:59, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, roger! Those proposals are just on vfd talk? Kim Bruning 12:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Some of them. Also try deletion policy talk, and the category of rejected policies. I'm afraid there's no easy indexing system here. Radiant_* 09:42, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep I'm familiar with the concept, but wasn't aware it had a name (nor that mass wasn't a constant when you do physics beyond GCSE level). Thryduulf 13:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable online humorist/blogger. DaveTheRed 07:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 10:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Lacrimosus 04:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.
Comment: In the future, please manually edit the VfD nomination to link to a new sub-page such as VfD/pagename (2nd nomination). We really do want to preserve the prior discussions intact. Rossami(talk) 04:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page was initially created as vandalism; most likely an attack.
I nominated for deletion. (see below)
During the debate User:Remes made a commendable rewrite of the article, but apart of him, only one person, yours truly, commented on it (I changed my vote from delete to weak delete).
I have now submitted this for deletion again for a new debate.
My vote is still delete. I know it may seem paradoxical that I keep voting keep on fictional Pokémon characters and delete on real people; but I think that fictional characters are often known to more people, and therefore more notable. I am not saying that they should be more notable, but I feel that they are. Sjakkalle 08:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page was undeleted out of process. It's supposed to stay on VfU for 5 days before the article is undeleted. I see nothing notable about this person. Delete. RickK 08:47, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, agree with the average college professor criterion. DemiT/C 09:15, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Keep but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 10:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, notability not established (and no, having an Erdos number of 3 doesn't count). Radiant_* 10:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless there is evidence put forth he clears the average professor bar. I would encourage zealous admins to follow the VfU procedure. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Still not notable, and undeletion was out of process. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete.51 Google hits. 44 if references to the VfU/VfD discussions are omitted. Several of them are personal home pages and class schedules. His CV shows eight publications. To me, these don't add up to encyclopedic notability yet. Maybe in a few years... Dpbsmith(talk) 20:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fails the average professor test. Out of process undeletion. jni 20:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not more notable than the average professor. DaveTheRed 21:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Math professors are not inherently notable, and there is nothing in the article that indicates this one is exceptional. --BM 22:37, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. First, to quote from my comment on the original VfD: "I have absolutely no knowledge of mathematics, so I can't say whether he's notable, although I doubt it, since essentially he's a postdoc at NYU." I'm not voting in this VfD, although I'm not going to be sad if it get deleted. It would be nice if someone who knew about academic mathematics could say whether his articles are notable or not, since I don't really accept a Google test as a reasonable gauge one way or the other in this case. Remes 19:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete I was among those who voted to undelete, as I figured it deserved another go as rewritten (the original was a silly attack page). While this is a vast improvement, the subject is just not notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Still not notable. Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:03, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
The article freely admits that Mr. Deville is "of little merit". THat does not sound particularily notable. I suggest that this article be deleted. Sjakkalle 15:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, or perhaps just nonsense. Remes 16:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I have just rewritten this article as a stub about the real R.E. Lee DeVille. I have absolutely no knowledge of mathematics, so I can't say whether he's notable, although I doubt it, since essentially he's a postdoc at NYU. Someone who knows more about math could look at it and comment here about whether he's worth keeping in. Also, my stub is really inadequate, because I can't really understand his CV or his research interest statement. Again, someone who knows more about math could do much better than I did. Anyway, I'm going to withhold a vote at all now, because while this is no longer the attack or nonsense that it was before, I'm still not sure whether he's sufficiently notable or not. Remes 22:58, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This sounds like nonsense to me. Insufficient information to even contemplate verifying.Average Earthman 16:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete He's real, a research mathematician at NYU... but this article smells more like an attack page than an attempt to start a bio stub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like an attack, may not merit a page anyway. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, could be speedied as a personal attack/vandalism, else a rant. Wyss 00:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I was on the verge of nominating this for a speedy deletion, but I was a bit unsure. I was sure that this article merited a deletion or massive cleanup. Sjakkalle 07:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Still delete but weakened, Remes has made a valiant attempt at saving this page, and the page is no longer an attack (or perhaps a self-deprecating vanity?). I do not think that Deville passes the average college professor bar (I believe that has been the standard on whether to keep or delete such articles) for notability however, being an associate research scientist would suggest that he does not. Nonetheless, Remes should be thanked for his attempt. Sjakkalle 07:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - SimonP 23:10, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Spam. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 20:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC), Mike Rosoft 19:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Changing my vote to a weak keep and cleanup following a rewrite. - Mike Rosoft 12:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn spamcruft. ComCat 03:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What do we do about User:Mindtree, which has the same verbiage? RickK 00:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete if policy admits deletion of such spammy userpages. Since they are his/her only edits, I think they were especially done with the intent to spam. Mgm|(talk) 08:34, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as vanity and ad. Radiant_* 15:09, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Advanityspamcruft. Also delete Mindree, MindTree and either remove redirect from or delete User:Mindtree.Chris 20:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dear Administrator, Please delete User:Mindtree, Mindree as they are wrongly entered.I will update Mindtree as per wikipedia requirments, Thanks Nabler
Would this be the same user that blanked the VfD twice? Article still capable of producing a full house in wiki:BuzzwordBingo. So my vote remains delete. Chris 21:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You have persuaded me. I looked at it once again, and it still looks like a promotional. - Mike Rosoft 19:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:11, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge and/or Redirect to Novelty Theory. ParkingStones
its not original research at all; none of those ideas were mine. They've been talked and written about for 30 years. it may be patent nonsense but if its a notable meme that shouldn't matter. only 14,000 hits on google, so its not that big, but not completely insignificant. i vote to keep; if not as an article, at the very least as a redirect to Novelty_Theory. (oh, i was the one who posted the entry.) Heah 17:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
clarification: the 14,000 google hits are the combined results for the exact title searches of "timewave zero" (4,730) and "time wave zero" (9,370), not a keyword search . . . Heah 18:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yikes, where's my tinfoil hat?? I beleive that if this is true, there are Big Problems in the offing for dollar stores!! (Oh, and delete)Denni☯ 01:48, 2005 Mar 19 (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 - should be merged or turned into a disambig page or something - SimonP 23:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Unencyclopaedic, not sure where it could be taken from here. Maybe if the thrust of the article was on the poem, it would work, but not as is. Grutness|hello? 09:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
delete If we keep this we'd need articles about everybody's personal motto, whereas imho only exceptionally notable ones deserve an article of their own. If anything this article should be added to the article on Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, but I'm not certian it merits even that. Thryduulf 13:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep as disambig between that guy's motto and minimalism. Kappa 14:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge onto ludwig. Radiant_* 16:12, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
If true, then Least is most. To maximize utility, I vote Delete. I agree with Thryduulf. Barno 17:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, more is less. Delete to increase encyclopedic content. Alphaxτεχ 18:00, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and make more room on wikiservers. ComCat 02:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 23:27, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:28, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Question it's reality, iv'e never herd of it, have yet to see it sited anywhere, and it just sounds out their as a syndrome anyway. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Pubmed returns no results. I'm not buying it. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 12:31, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, probable hoax and vanity. Alphaxτεχ 18:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. Article created by another user of this IP address, and I can vouch for its non-existence. 16:05, 19 Mar 2005
Delete, unverifiable. All google hits [6] are from Wikipedia. vlad_mv 16:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Advert for a political site. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advert. Megan1967 22:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I've added the link to Himachal Pradesh as an External Link. The rest of the article is a completely POV advert. -- Brhaspati (talkcontribs) 07:24, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This is blatent advertising and has no place on wikipedia. Delete please... Vanky 11:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Partially copyvio'd from here. Mgm|(talk) 12:33, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pure wikispam. Agree this should be a speedy, but I can't find a justification for that in the current policy. Andrewa 13:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Isn't being a copyvio a valid reason? Mgm|(talk) 21:05, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: No, or not in terms of current policy, anyway. The policy on speedy deletions is at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Notes explicitly states Please note that copyright problems are not candidates for speedy deletion unless they meet one of the above criteria. The policy on copyvios is at Wikipedia:copyright problems, and the procedures there don't include speedy deletion as an option. No change of vote. Andrewa 09:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I just typed that and got an edit conflict :) anyway if you see a copyvio, you should blank the article and slap a {copyvio} tag on it, then list it on the page indicated by that tag.
Comment: IMO the policy on what to do if a copyvio is already listed here is not terribly clear in some cases, but to now list this one as a copyvio seems a complete waste of time to me. It will not make deletion any faster, and will make it a lot more complicated. What's the point? Ideally, check for copyvios before listing on VfD, and list pure copyvios in the proper place and not here. In this case, the copyright owner will probably give permission anyway, and the VfD case is strong, so surely just VfD is the go. No change of vote. Andrewa 23:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Spam. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary had had Wiktionary:intensive for 7 months prior to the creation of this article. I don't see scope for an encyclopaedia article about this adjective. Morever: although we do have intensive care medicine, intensive farming, and intensive quantity, I don't believe that any of these are commonly referred to as simply "intensive", so there's no need for a disambiguation or a redirect. Uncle G 11:23, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Delete, already in Wiktionary. Megan1967 22:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was NO RESULT. It's been deleted already, and is now a dab page....which has only one entry. A new nomination would be needed if a definitive result were sought. -Splashtalk 01:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
GAH! User:Zoe speedied it, per CSD G4. Then User:Cyde recreates it as a redirect to Mutation. How does that make sense? Jamie 07:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Deleterious mutation" is the only encyclopedic context that deleterious is used in. I suspect most people looking for "deleterious" are actually looking for "deleterious mutations". If they are looking for a strict dictionary definition then, well, Wikipedia is not a dictionary! --Cyde Weystalkcontribs 00:38, 13 December 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 a deletion review). 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 - deleted - SimonP 23:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This is another adjective with no obvious noun target for a redirect and with no scope for expansion into an encyclopaedia article. Wiktionary had had Wiktionary:deleterious for 1 month prior to this article's creation. Uncle G 11:29, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Delete, agree. -- Infrogmation 17:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, already in Wiktionary. Megan1967 22:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - should be merged somewhere - SimonP 23:32, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:34, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This is not an encyclopedic article, it looks more like a personal travel reminiscence. Sjakkalle 12:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment — I'm not sure if this is a delete; at least it's a semi-interesting read. But it does need cleanup, &c. See also Culture of Haiti, which covers voodoo in Haiti. — RJH 17:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV essay, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:36, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary had had Wiktionary:contiguous for 1 month prior to the creation of this article. There's no noun that this adjective could readily redirect to, and no scope for an encyclopaedia article. All hyperlinked instances of this word in Wikipedia were uses in its normal dictionary sense. Uncle G 12:19, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Redirecttocontinuity or similar. I think. Maybe. Perhaps. Alphaxτεχ 18:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, already in Wiktionary. Megan1967 23:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Deleteorredirect. -Sean Curtin 06:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete continuity doesn't really mean the same thing. - SimonP 23:36, Mar 30, 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 - kept - SimonP 23:37, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
This operating system appears to be the creation of a single person as a hobby. Very few google references exist, other than Wikipedia or DMOZ mirrors, and other uses of the unrelated word "bugos". I don't think an operating system someone wrote themselves as a hobby that is historically insignificant, insignificant in terms of operating systems research, has insignificant production use, and which no one seems to have heard of, is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in wikipedia. Sure, its a cool thing to write your own operating system (I've always wished I had done it), and it takes some effort. But merely doing so does not in and of itself warrant your work's inclusion in an encyclopedia. --SamuelKatinsky 13:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete and wait a few years. Honestly, who would create an OS with the look and feel of DOS, in this day and age? Alphaxτεχ 15:53, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep amateur operating systems are valuable starting points in programming learning. User:Cdosoftei 19:34, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep provisionally. I can certainly see the value of this article if this OS is specularly stable or something else revolutionary but it certainly needs to be expanded. In particular where's that link to the official site running on this OS? Sirkumsize 02:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
Merge back into peninsula and delete resulting redirect. Mgm|(talk) 21:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:41, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
"Gerbiling is a sex act involving the insertion of live gerbils into the rectum. Some people say this is an urban legend."
This is a somewhat cleaned-up version. I can confirm the South Park bit, which I added. I don't really want to research the rest. Kappa 14:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic. The original version should have been speedy deleted as a troll. --Henrygb 14:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Very weak keep as very well-known bit of folklore. I would have to say that more people have probably heard of this than some of the other sex acts with articles in Wikipedia, such as the always-controversial autofellatioUpdate agree with merge as below. Didn't know this was a fork. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
I suspected that this would come to VFD. Redirecttofelchinggerbilling. Uncle G 15:42, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Comment I've merged the bit about Southpark to gerbilling, which has been around for a couple years. dbenbenn | talk 15:57, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy delete --Carnildo 04:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity/Non-notable --DaveC 14:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is clearly a joke (Zamboni driver for Zimbabwe's first outdoor ice rink? "deparment of redundency department"? Um hum.) though IMO not a good enough one for BJAODN. -- Infrogmation 17:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Looking at it again, I have Speedy deleted, as the prank looks to be an insult of someone's school teacher, with potentially libelous remarks about venerial disease and incest. -- Infrogmation 17:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy delete
Non-notable and vanity, I expect. Rich Farmbrough 15:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Incomplete nomination by Rich Farmbrough, who claims this is vanity. No vote. Radiant_* 15:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
* Hadn't finished the edit, sorry Rich Farmbrough 15:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Smells like vanity. JFW | T@lk 15:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Self-promotion of non-notable web designer. jni 17:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - should be moved wikisource - SimonP 02:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
A very nice collection very positive about Judaism and the Jewish people, but nothing more than quotes. Delete or transwiki to Wikiquote. JFW | T@lk 14:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Transfer to Wikiquote, then delete. -- Infrogmation 17:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to wikiquote. That's what it's there for. DaveTheRed 17:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikiquote and delete. Jayjg (talk) 18:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki and delete. ComCat 02:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was redirecttoWalsh Street police shootings. —Korath (Talk) 06:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
Police officers that were slain in the Walsh Street police shootings. All information that is contained in the substubs on the officers is also provided in the first paragraph of the article on the shootings. Delete--Allen3 15:22, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, don't delete. I'm skeptical about whether a separate biography is encyclopedic outside the context of the shootings, but it's eminently possible that someone might search for information on the subject using these names, and we should send them to the relevant article. --Michael Snow 19:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Michael Snow. Mgm|(talk) 21:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect -- I created these articles myself when the wonder of Wikipedia was still new. It was a major news event in Australia at the time, and I agree the names of the victims are very likely to be used in searches to locate information on the crime itself. In hindsight, they're better served as redirects unless someone can expand on the articles, which is unlikely. -- Longhair | Talk 12:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perfect candidates for redirection - even the pages' creator thinks so. Grutness|hello? 11:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was redirecttoabnormality. —Korath (Talk) 06:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
This article is about a word, and not about a concept. Wiktionary had had Wiktionary:abnormal for 27 months at the time of this article's creation. Given that the only uses of "abnormal" elsewhere are in the ordinary dictionary sense of being the opposite of normal, I don't see much scope for an encyclopaedia article here. Uncle G 15:32, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Delete. Agree. -- Infrogmation 17:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Above user has nine edits, all to VfD pages. Rhobite 02:41, Mar 21, 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 - kept - SimonP 02:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Article repeats text in an already existing article Five Iron Frenzy. Not notable and adds nothing not in the original. Propose Delete or merge into Five Iron Frenzy if any original content exists. Velela 20:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The article was never properly listed for deletion. I'm fixing it now. dbenbenn | talk 15:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually I was moving that informarion there so it wouldn't clutter up the Five Iron Frenzy page, but I got interupted and hadn't removed it from that page yet. STAREYe 20:42, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Even so, delete, Not notable, not encyclopaedic. Jdcooper 17:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, duplicate. Megan1967 00:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What's more, the title's misspelled! (Nazareth, not Nazereth). Stemonitis 09:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Title fixed now. dbenbenn | talk 15:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep all real albums. I'm assuming this is a real album. dbenbenn | talk 15:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is indeed a real album charting on the Billboard Christian contemporary chart and Heatseekers Chart in 2003. It is notable within the Christian contemporary genre. I have added information to the article. Capitalistroadster 01:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep for all the reasons already mentioned, but then delete this one: [[Cheeses%85]] (or merge the two articles. The later one is also an orphan). Sarg 13:44, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was BJAODN. User:MacGyverMagic has carried out the execution of Maxx, but did not close the debate here, so it is done now. Also, if anyone is sorry to see the article go, take a look at the entry in Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense. Sjakkalle 06:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Unknown Jedi warriors are not notable. Sjakkalle 16:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Uses powers from Legend of Zelda and Dragonball Z. Right. Can we say Mary Sue?Delete as hoax, vanity, fanfic, RPG character or just plain nonsense. Or all of the above. Radiant_* 16:11, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Radiant. Vanky 16:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... should have been a speedy, it's a feeble joke. - DavidWBrooks 16:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
From the article: "Screaming "Ka-Meh-Ha-Meh-Ha!" adds to the effect of the attack." Okay, then, Ka-Meh-Ha-Meh-Ha-Delete! as almost certain vanity, lame Mary Sue fanfic ("started off as a screen name and evolved from there"), non-canonical, no potential to become encyclopedic even if this kid somehow got a job with LucasArts. Barno 17:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It should be noted that in early 90's Sega and Nintendo games (Metroid? Chrono Trigger? Mario?) it isn't the "Argh!!!!" that adds to the effect, but saying the name of the attack in full that makes it work. Invariably, such attacks have a somatic component as well, but rarely a material component. However, in the case of "Crossbow attack!", a bolt is expended. Alphaxτεχ 18:02, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
<grin> yup. I remember a DBZ parody where the warriors kept shouting punch when punching. Radiant_* 09:48, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
This has spread to Transformers cartoons as well. For the last couple of years, Transformers characters have needed to shout transform! in order to transform. Somehow they forgot how they managed to do it without shouting for almost four years. 85.76.152.179 16:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The above comment was by me, I had forgot to sign in. — JIP | Talk 06:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete agree with Radiant. Mgm|(talk) 21:10, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn lucascruft. ComCat 02:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Some of the minor Star Wars characters nominated for VfD are OK, but this isn't even a Star Wars character. It's a Star Wars fan character, not even canonical. Looks like someone's character from a fanfic or a MMORPG. The article's text even describes Maxx Skywalker as the greatest warrior ever, without any imperfections, making him look like a Mary Sue. It isn't even an interesting description as it only talks about how good Maxx Skywalker is at fighting. He could be a combat droid for all the article tells us. — JIP | Talk 08:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Definitely not Star Wars when he "was originally started as a screen name". -- Riffsyphon1024 08:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing else needs to be said that hasn't already been said. WhiteBoy 11:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Or should that be "anniahlate"? Clearly, the author can't stop thinking about Maxx Skywalker. Reading the article, I think that (i) Maxx Skywalker is a mammal, (ii) Maxx Skywalker fights all the time, and (iii) the purpose of the Maxx Skywalker is to flip out and kill Jawas. And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Jedi!grendel|khan 16:26, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
I have to agree. This article is actually so bad I've become addicted to it. I can't stop reading it over and over again and laughing at how poorly "Maxx Skywalker" is described. Perhaps this should go to BJAODN? — JIP | Talk 08:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just be bold and do it! I agree with you, this is BJAODN material. --cesarb 21:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep-extremely encyclopedic, this guy has been in at least 3 fanfics, his attacks are so cool, Starwars needs more dragonballZ
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) 06:13, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
DeleteNon-Notable Article was created by user Daniel C.Boyer in 2003 to promote Surrealist Movement in the United States. A Google Search yields over 19,000 hits for World Surrealist Exhibiton, note that those are keywords. The first page of hits on Google are for the Wikipedia Article and various encyclopedias. This, "1976 World Surrealist Exhibition" was only a local art event held in Chicago back in 1976 (that did exhibit over 500 artworks from relatively unknown, "surrealists") yet is not notable ebough to warrant any attention from the International Art Scene and Art Historians. This event was referenced in the book edited by Franklin Rosemont, "What is Surrealism", who was also organizer of self-promoted event. Note that the editor, Franklin Rosemont (a noted labor historian and self-described surrealist) claims to be the one chosen by Andre Breton to lead surrealism after his death. No credible evidence can prove that this man even met Breton. His event, "1976 World Surrealist Exhibition" was never acknowledged by art historians and surrealism experts like Mary Ann Caws. A very misleading article that should not be referenced as credible by students and researchers studying surrealism. Not Notable.
Keep. With 499 google hits for the exact title, I'd otherwise be neutral or weak keep, but as this listing argues for deletion almost entirely on the basis of taking sides in a surrealism clique war rather than sticking to Wikipedia notability standards, I oppose this call for deletion. Sheesh. -- Infrogmation 17:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Infrogmation, this listing argues for deletion according to Wikipedia notability standards. Please do not make allegations.Classicjupiter2 17:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: There is so much wrong with this it's difficult to know where to begin, but here's a shot:
Classicjupiter2 assumes bad faith on my part by saying that I created the article to promote the Surrealist Movement in the United States but fails to give any support for this bald assertion.
Classicjupiter2 states that this was a "local art event," but unless he is using "local" in a highly idiosyncratic way (every event takes place in some locale) it is certainly strange to describe something in which people from 31 countries participated as "local".
Franklin Rosemont never claimed that he was selected by Andre Breton to lead surrealism. I would challenge Classicjupiter2 to give me any source on this. He won't be able to because it never happened.
The World Surrealist Exhibition was extensively (if somewhat negatively) covered in the mainstream press.
Mary Ann Caws being an "expert" on surrealism is certainly open to debate. ("Too many gaps [in history of surrealism she acknowleges, i.e. post-1966] to establish credibility." I might also say, "Classicjupiter2, can you produce a picture of Mary Ann Caws? How do we know she even exists? Who is this person? Did she ever meet Breton and why don't we have a picture of them together?" but I won't.) --Daniel C. Boyer 18:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dear Daniel C.Boyer, regarding your request to produce a picture of Mary Ann Caws, along with her biography and publications, please go here, http://www.maryanncaws.com/bio.php
Now that page contains the proper references and notability that can help someone with their research and is also looking for an expert on surrealism to help guide them. Oh, Daniel, Andre Breton died in 1966, in case you did not know.Classicjupiter2 19:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Notice how you did not address even one of the points I made. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It seems to be real, and notable to the surrealist movement. Low google hits can be accounted for by noting that it happened back in 1976. Classicjupiter2 sure does seem to dislike surrealism. DaveTheRed 21:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
DaveTheRed, I love surrealism. I do not like bad articles that don't belong on this encyclopedia misrepresenting surrealism.Classicjupiter2 21:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 23:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep this article. Delete classicjupiter2. Denni☯ 01:58, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
Denni, I cannot be deleted, for I exist as data.Classicjupiter2 03:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Fails to meet deletion criteria.--Centauri 04:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep despite Classicjupiter2's apparent vendetta - David Gerard 17:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep get a clue, classicjupiter2. Your argument for deletion actually highlights the reasons for keeping the article. It was referenced in a book, it has over 19,000 google hits. Way to go. joan53
Keep. Notable enough for me, and does not meet any criteria for deletion. I'm concerned that this VfD is a personal attack. Foobaz·o< 21:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, And A Call To Arms. Would all competent wikipedians please go to ""? It, too, is a legitimate article in danger of deletion because of someone out to, "prove a point." Just like this article (which should stay), it has an abundance of references but is still being attacked. Not to be confused with the absolute foolishness of, "" which was at best a grossly exaggerated feature/prank loosely based on an actual family.
Above vote by Nanaszczebrzeszyn, who has only three edits and is alleged to be a sockpuppet. Please don't go spam another VfD thread that has already been sockpuppeted to death.
Oh and btw keep this article, but if half of what CJ says about it is true then it requires cleanup and dePOVage. Radiant_* 13:11, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Valid article subject, invalid VfD nomination from sockpuppet. Notability is subjective. ~leif ☺ HELO 22:25, Mar 21, 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.
I have now moved most of the images I put onto en.wiki to the wikipedia commons. The following en.wiki pages should probably now be deleted, as they are no longer linked to by wiki pages, and are duplicates of wikipedia commons pages:
I have now moved most of the images I put onto en.wiki to the wikipedia commons. The following en.wiki pages should probably now be deleted (also see above).
The following images have the same names on commons.wiki as on en.wiki, so they could be deleted from en.wiki
These belong on WP:IFD, where they'll be dealt with much more quickly (and much less contentiously). —Korath (Talk) 17:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Are you using different names in the commons? For example I couldn't find an Image:Florence duomo.jpg on Commons. -- Infrogmation 18:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The first four have different names (they are a bit more specific):
The other images have the same names.
Rnt20 20:45, 18 Mar 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 - deleted - SimonP 02:31, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Is this notable? DJ Clayworth 18:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable forum. Webcruft. jni 18:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. One forum out of thousands. DaveTheRed 21:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, forumcruft. Megan1967 23:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn forumcruft. ComCat 02:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consenus - SimonP 02:32, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Note: Orphaned nomination by Marcus2. Resubmitted under today's date. No vote.jni 18:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This 'arcade game' is apparently fictitious and even sounds fictitious to me. Marcus2 21:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, probably fictitious. —tregoweth 16:51, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This article seems to get all the facts wrong, but there is a Powerpuff Girls arcade game according to [klov.com]. Kappa 18:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was pending deletion (block-compressed revisions). ugen64 00:28, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that this company is notable enough for an article. Its not quite advertising, lacking a link to the companies website, but it reads like an "about us" webpage. Thryduulf 18:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Google results suggest non-notability. Article's phrasing suggests self-promotion. Neither quite comes out and says it, but the sum is enough for a weak delete. —Korath (Talk) 06:16, Mar 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 - redirected - SimonP 02:44, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know, GRider, is it? What do you think? I can't figure a good way to Google it without getting a whole bunch of other game sites and game-related webcruft. I suspect that at most an external link to this site in Sonic Team would suffice. Delete. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, gamescruft. Megan1967 23:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn gamescruft. ComCat 02:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The only A-list this belongs on is the deletion log. Hedley 03:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete and replace with redirect to Sonic the hedgehog (as it's the first level of a number of Sonic games). Radiant_* 09:49, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Here we go again. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:51, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
I would have said redirecttoGreen Hill Zone, but that's now a redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog (Genesis) so let's go with that. If we want to delete the current content first like Radiant! said, that's okay too. JYolkowski 02:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:45, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Neologism; article even names the creator of the terms and states that the terms are "unofficial". "Transagedness" gets 0 Google hits, "Transaged" gets one. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism. Fire Star 18:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Oh, and if an old man wears trendy hiphop baggy jeans in a totally absurd way, he is a cisvestite. Or "mutton dressed as lamb." -- Jmabel | Talk 01:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The subject matter is funny enough for BJAODN, but the author failed to amuse me enough. Pity. grendel|khan 16:44, 2005 Mar 22 (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 list on WP:IFD (where, incidentally, it looks likely to be kept). —Korath (Talk) 06:18, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
(Commented out image; we don't need this making the page load time even longer. android↔talk 19:34, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC))
moved to commons so the German entry can include this screenshot as well (clem 18:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC))
You're in the wrong place. You need WP:IFD. Uncle G 19:12, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
COMMENTBeneath a Steel Sky is pretty notable... 132.205.15.43 02:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes; the article isn't up for deletion, however - the image is. And not even that, really; it's been moved to the Commons, so this is really just administrivia. In any event, I've listed this on WP:IFD where it belongs, and where it'll get taken care of much more quickly. —Korath (Talk) 04:08, Mar 22, 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 - kept - SimonP 02:47, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Likely hoax? Or notable and encyclopedic anonymous blog writer? Which is it? --GRider\talk 19:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Should a nominator give a reason for a nomination? Or is this old-fashioned? Is truth beauty? Does the tree continue to be when there's no one about in the quad? Is there balm in Gilead? If not, why not? Discuss, referring to Plato's Euthyphro and the concept of arete. (10 points) Dpbsmith(talk) 02:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What are you asking me for? This is your VfD nomination. Chris 19:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a rumourmill. Megan1967 23:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn rumorcruft. ComCat 02:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, oh and please note that a nomination counts as an automatic delete vote according to the Wikipedia:Guide_to_Votes_for_Deletion (unless specified otherwise, which this clearly isn't). Radiant_* 09:37, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete; it's not a school. Jayjg (talk) 19:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep Does anyone bother doing research before voting? He's definitely notable. There are 38,000 hits on Google for "Rance blog". Here's a Reuters news story on him [7]. --Lee Hunter 03:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 02:49, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary already has an independently grown Wiktionary:take the piss. I don't see what could be written about the acts of taking the piss or taking the Mickey (rather than about the phrase) that wouldn't be more than a simple redirect to ridicule, which itself points to Wiktionary in any case. Uncle G 19:05, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
Delete. Dicdef of slang, not encyclopedic. The phrase would be 'take the piss out of' anyway. Average Earthman 20:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopaedic, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 23:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn slangcruft. ComCat 02:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, pisscruft. Um, I mean unneeded reexplanation of slang. Okay, I just wanted to say "pisscruft". But if anyone makes an article called "pisscruft" I'll vote to delete that too. -- Infrogmation 04:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:00, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
This page was listed to be Moved to Wiktionary as it is merely a dictionary definition. Now it's marked as a disambiguation except that it's just disambiguating between two dicdefs and PowerBook Duo. A disambiguation page should not be disambiguating definitions, but rather should be pointing to articles that would naturally have the same name. The only way I can see that this page warrants keeping is if it is redirected to PowerBook Duo. Also, Wiktionary already has independently created articles Wiktionary:Duo and Wiktionary:Duo-. Kevin Rector 19:29, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
How come this is the only one of the numerical prefix articles being put on Vfd?? Well, because most of the numerical prefix articles are stubs, a probable future of them would be to merge the info and re-direct it to the number article itself; that is to re-direct this article to 2 (number). Georgia guy 21:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Because no-one has got around to the others, yet. Most of the articles in Category:Numerical prefixes are dictionary entries duplicating Wiktionary articles in Wiktionary:Category:English prefixes. And Wiktionary simply does a far better job of these things. Wiktionary knows that the prefix is actually Wiktionary:hecto- and not hecta- as Wikipedia has it, for example. Wiktionary also has etymologies, translations, and better word lists for these prefixes. Latin numerical prefixes and Greek numerical prefixes should (at the very least) be lists of interwiki links to the Wiktionary articles. Uncle G 11:47, 2005 Mar 19 (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 - kept - SimonP 03:02, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Wiktionary already had an entry for Wiktionary:Brayer so I moved the contents of this article along with the relevant edit history to the Wiktionary article's talk page. The wiktionarians can do with the info what they like. I don't see this every becoming a meaningful article. Kevin Rector 20:06, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, already in Wiktionary. Megan1967 23:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep real things. Real things often have a history, methods and materials of construction, people who make them, people who use them, techniques with which they are used, asthetic considerations... Kappa 01:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If Wiktionary has an article on lion, should we get rid of our article on lions. The article is currently a useful stub and the brayer is used in printmaking, linocut and collography. Given its uses, I am sure that the article can be expanded further. Capitalistroadster 06:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While it's true that brayers are real things, that doesn't mean that the Wikipedia article about it is anything more than an dictionary definition. I sure hope that the inclusion criteria for the Wikipedia is more than being a noun. Kevin Rector 07:42, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Kevin's comment. So merge this into an article on some common application of brayers. Radiant_* 09:52, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Comment The relevant criteria is not whether the article is currently a stub but whether the article can ever be expanded past that point. Im my view, this article can be. As the brayer is useful in a number of crafts it is difficult to merge. Capitalistroadster 15:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, can't think where it would merge. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:04, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this article is certainly not based on fact and is largely irrelelvent. Tkessler 07:52, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a film gossip column. Only films in existence, or in certain rare exceptions films that fail to get made in notable circumstances, warrant an article. Average Earthman 12:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Speedy delete. --Carnildo 04:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The article claims he is one of the formost artist advocates of gay rights, but he has no relevant google hits. Delete as not notable. Thue | talk 21:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as probable and likely hoax or personal attack. --GRider\talk 21:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I have followed this up with a {{speedy}} tag combined with a note on the talk page. --GRider\talk 21:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would think this is vanity rather than a personal attack. Thue | talk 21:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No matter if personal attack or vanity, it's not worth to keep. --Neigel von Teighen 21:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible personal attack. Megan1967 23:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn attackcruft. ComCat 02:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, per the request ... before wikipedia gets sued by libel. - DavidWBrooks 03:37, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:06, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
The article makes no claim of notability, except being a child of someone notable. I believe the consensus on wikipedia is that that does not make a person notable. Redirect to Terry Anderson. Thue | talk 21:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not established. --Carnildo 04:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 03:08, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Don't be too hard on GRider, at least he has the courage to nominate things that would certainly get deleted if they were from a minority field like Digimon or Oscar Wilde. ...Now to make this into a template and spam it all down the page...Kappa 01:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Middle-Earth-cruft. --Carnildo 00:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Instead of cluttering up vdf by voting on every single article, I'm going to vote Merge here, and say that it applies to all of the Tolkien articles GRider has nominated. Merge all locations to Middle earth and all characters to List of Middle-earth peoples. You know, it is possible to nominate one article as a test case for a group of articles. DaveTheRed 00:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps GRider is trying to find the lines between what should be merged, what should be kept, and what should be deleted. Merge or keep assuming it's Tolkien cruft as described. Kappa 01:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This nomination is not correctly formed. Please read the instructions. Perhaps he can begin this quest to find these lines by making arguments to VfD instead of asking it questions. Chris 02:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 02:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as minor concept. And people who nominate this should already know the answer from precedent, and be bold and just merge it rather than putting it on VfD. Radiant_* 09:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Merge as a minor concept. Looking at a number of these minor articles, they all seem to refer to each other anyway, so merging four paragraphs could well leave a two paragraph article at most. Average Earthman 12:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ignore nomination as made made bad faith, otherwise keepormerge - SimonP 15:33, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Expand how? The contents of the article represent the sum total of all knowlege of the location. --Carnildo 06:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 03:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
This stub reads: In J. R. R. Tolkien's fictional world of Middle-earth, Barad Nimras was a tower built by Finrod, on the Falas between the havens of Brithombar and Eglarest. It was built to keep watch, should Morgoth try to assail them from the sea. Should this article be deleted, or kept to allow organic growth and expansion? Please discuss. --GRider\talk 22:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Invalid VfD VfD is not Kilroy. Chris 22:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 03:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as minor concept. And people who nominate this should already know the answer from precedent, and be bold and just merge it rather than putting it on VfD. Radiant_* 09:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Again, a minor concept, and as a fictional one, it therefore cannot be expanded on beyond what Tolkein originally wrote. Average Earthman 12:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ignore nomination as made made bad faith, otherwise keepormerge - SimonP 15:32, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Expand how? The contents of the article represent the sum total of all knowlege of the subject. --Carnildo 06:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 03:10, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Also, if you want to appear on next week's Ricki Lake, does your pet elephant have a drink and drugs problem? Is it becoming unmanageable? Does it insist on knocking through the conservatory when it uses your bathroom? If so, join us next time, when we'll also be learning to read. Chris 22:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge. A geographical location mentioned in passing in a book. Since it is fictional it cannot be expanded beyond the description by the original author. Average Earthman 12:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ignore nomination as made made bad faith, otherwise keepormerge - SimonP 15:32, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Expand how? The article already contains all information about the subject. --Carnildo 06:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 03:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
This stub reads as follows: Bellakar is a fictional location from J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth. It is a large area south of Umbar, an ally of Gondor. Does this stub illustrate enough notability for even a redirect? How cheap are they, exactly? --GRider\talk 22:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep. Redirects are essentially free. Kappa 02:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This nomination is not correctly formed. Please read the instructions. Chris 02:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. nn, less than 10 google hits. ComCat 02:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable on its own... barely a mention in the books... nuke it ALKIVAR™ 03:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as minor concept. And people who nominate this should already know the answer from precedent, and be bold and just merge it rather than putting it on VfD. Radiant_* 09:36, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Such geographical concepts mentioned in passing cannot be expanded on (since the original author only wrote a short description, and will not expand on it on account of the dead not being the most prolific of authors). But since it's Tolkein, merging them all into a decent length article is warranted. Average Earthman 12:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ignore nomination as made made bad faith, otherwise keepormerge - SimonP 15:33, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Expand how? The article contains more information on this location than any Tolkein work I am aware of.
Comment: Upon further research, I believe that the article is either a fabrication or only appears in fan works. No mention of the location is made in the Encyclopedia of Arda, the most complete online Tolkein reference, and a Google search only shows hits for a Middle-Earth role-playing game. --Carnildo 06:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of Arda excludes the entire History of Middle-earth series of books for whatever reason, from where this reference comes. Jordi·✆ 12:03, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 03:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
This nomination is not correctly formed. Please read the instructions. Chris 02:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 02:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as minor character. And people who nominate this should already know the answer from precedent, and be bold and just merge it rather than putting it on VfD. Radiant_* 09:36, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Two lines on a minor character, not expanded on in any further Tolkein work, and therefore not possible to expand beyond a sub-stub. Average Earthman 12:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ignore nomination as made made bad faith, otherwise keepormerge - SimonP 15:32, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What is there to expand about this? The article already contains the sum total of all knowlege on the subject. --Carnildo 07:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're right. Keep as is. No need to expand.--Gene_poole 05:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 03:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Quoth the entire stub: In J. R. R. Tolkien's fictional universe of Middle-earth, the river Brithon was a river of Beleriand that had its wells in the hills lying north-west in West Beleriand south of the Ered Wethrin. It ran to the bay of Brithombar where it met the sea Belegaer.Is this encyclopedically notable? --GRider\talk 22:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This nomination is not correctly formed. Please read the instructions. Chris 02:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete if possible. ComCat 03:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as minor concept. And people who nominate this should already know the answer from precedent, and be bold and just merge it rather than putting it on VfD. Radiant_* 09:35, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Merge, more geographical locations mentioned in passing in a work of fiction. Average Earthman 12:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ignore nomination as made made bad faith, otherwise keepormerge - SimonP 15:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Expand how? The article already contains all there is to know on the subject. --Carnildo 07:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 03:11, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
This nomination is not correctly formed. Please read the instructions. Chris 02:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 03:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as minor concept. And people who nominate this should already know the answer from precedent, and be bold and just merge it rather than putting it on VfD. Radiant_* 09:35, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Merge, mentioned in passing, cannot expand. Average Earthman 12:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ignore nomination as made made bad faith, otherwise keepormerge - SimonP 15:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Expand how? The article already contains the sum total of all knowlege on the subject. --Carnildo 07:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, no less notable than many of the other Middle Earth articles. Bryan 00:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:18, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:18, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be non-notable server host [8]. Delete as advertising. --Henrygb 22:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable server host. DaveTheRed 01:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:15, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
A single point on a scale of measuring "superhuman strength". Not only is this just a single point on the scale, and not only is this scale only in use in Marvel Comics specifically, but unless I'm very much mistaken, it isn't even used in the comics themselves, but only in the role-playing games about Marvel Comics published in the late 1980s by TSR, Inc. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) DeleteorMerge. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete minority interest unlikely to be of any use to anyone Dave 22:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete I believe it was used in some of the collector cards too, but still, I don't see how it's notable. --InShaneee 22:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 23:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete - supercruft. Chris 02:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn supercruft. ComCat 02:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with article that should be written about the actual Marvel Comics role-playing game, which, I confess, I once owned and played. --BD2412 04:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And now there is such a page, to which I copied all the info on the page to be deleted, so delete away. --BD2412 04:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately this creates a problem with the GFDL, if content has been merged, the history must be preserved. I think you can get around it by crediting the original contributor on the talk page. Kappa 12:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good point - I have now done that - the talk page now says: > Material on this page concerning "class 100 superhuman strength" was originally under the article titled class 100 superhuman strength, written by unregistered user 12.18.155.16. I copied it to the current location during the VfD discussion. < --BD2412 15:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep fancruft. Kappa 12:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not in any way separately notable or in use from the card games. Average Earthman 12:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Since this has now been merged so that it is explained in context and since GFDL attribution has been solved, it can be deleted. Is there a reason, however, not to redirect?Rossami(talk) 07:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:18, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Band founded in 2004. Article makes no claim of notability, delete as not yet notable. Thue | talk 22:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete Concur, probable vanity. --InShaneee 22:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 23:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh, how I dislike these kinds of "articles." Wish this was a speedy. Just so long as it goes away. Delete after their five days of fame. - Lucky 6.9 01:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 03:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Precedent has said before, Wikipedia is not Gamefaqs. --InShaneee 22:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No vote as of yet. Would you please cite your references for past precedents? --GRider\talk 23:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Changing vote to merge and redirect as this appears to be the general consensus as of late. --GRider\talk 21:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If precedent hasn't been set yet, let us set it now. Delete, because wikipedia isn't gamefaqs. DaveTheRed 01:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
May I ask; Why did you vote to delete this article yet merge Ginglith? --GRider\talk 21:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, un-encyclopaedic, gamescruft. Megan1967 02:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Wikipedia is not GameFAQs in that it does not provide strategies and tips (to the extent that that would be POV), but it should be at least as good as GameFAQs when it comes to covering information about these games as encyclopedic topics. Everyking 13:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So where's the line? Does every secret item in every notable game get its own 'How-to' article? --InShaneee 21:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Of course not. But the content can always be merged and redirected later, as long as it isn't deleted. Everyking 22:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So are you voting merge and redirect then? --InShaneee 22:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Either one is fine; I'd rather let someone else determine whether it should be merged or have its own article. Everyking 22:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Final Fantasy X and redirect. This info might be useful for fans of the game, but it's not encyclopedic enough to merit its own article. — JIP | Talk 17:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect because Final Fantasy X already has more complete coverage of the Magus Sisters and it looks like a pain to merge. Kappa 20:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. In order for this to have a point, it would need to actually describe the Magus Sisters - and as there isn't a single word about them in the article, that would mean starting from scratch. And they aren't notable. QED, to quote the Human League's classic 1978 album track 'Zero as a Limit'. -Ashley Pomeroy 23:21, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as minor concept. Actually, concur with Kappa and replace with redirect since information is already in the main article. Radiant_* 13:12, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. The concept is adequately covered in the game's article. No merge-worthy information.Sinistro 20:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 03:22, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Although this stub is longer than most, please allow me to quote it in its entirety:『In J. R. R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion, Cabed-en-Aras (translated as Leap of the Deer) was a deep gorge near Brethil through which the river Taeglin ran.
Túrin slew Glaurung when the dragon was trying to get through the ravine to attack Brethil. Later both were found by Nienor. As a result of Glaurung's machinations she cast herself down the ravine, which was later named Cabed Naeramarth, the Leap of Dreadful Doom. The spot was later considered haunted, and even animals did not come there.』 What do the last four sentences have to do with the first? How is it relevant? Is this encyclopedically notable? --GRider\talk 23:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On second thought, merging would be okay as well. Eric119 05:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as minor concept. And people who nominate this should already know the answer from precedent, and be bold and just merge it rather than putting it on VfD. Radiant_* 09:36, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Ignore nomination as made made bad faith, otherwise keepormerge - SimonP 15:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Expand how? The article already contains everything there is to know on the subject. --Carnildo 07:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - found to be a copyvio - SimonP 03:21, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
On second thought, merging would be okay as well. Eric119 05:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as minor concept. And people who nominate this should already know the answer from precedent, and be bold and just merge it rather than putting it on VfD. Radiant_* 09:36, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Ignore nomination as made made bad faith, otherwise keepormerge - SimonP 15:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Expand how? The article already contains the sum total of all knowlege on the subject. --Carnildo 07:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The article appears to be a copyright violation from [9]. --Carnildo 07:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Copyvio. Gamaliel 19:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment on this & all the other Tolkien stuff: they're harmless. I could imagine people looking them up not knowing whether they are real. Even the ones that seem inevitable stubs could merit more, by way of etymology (since Tolkien played with that a lot). I have no problem with merging a lot of this into fewer articles, but the names should all at least be kept as redirects. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:10, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 03:22, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Again, if I may quote the entire substub:『In J. R. R. Tolkien's fictional universe of Middle-earth, the river Celebros was a river of Beleriand, a tributary to Taeglin that flowed past Brethil forest. Glaurung was slain by Túrin near where this river met Taeglin, and Nienor Níniel committed suicide by jumping in it.』 In this particular instance, how is notability worthy of inclusion being illustrated? --GRider\talk 23:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On second thought, merging would be okay as well. Eric119 05:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge as minor concept. And people who nominate this should already know the answer from precedent, and be bold and just merge it rather than putting it on VfD. Radiant_* 09:36, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Ignore nomination as made made bad faith, otherwise keepormerge - SimonP 15:31, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Megan1967 02:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Expand how? The article already contains the sum total of all knowlege on the subject. --Carnildo 07:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a non-notable neologism. Delete. cesarb 23:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 01:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. According to imdb, she was in one episode of Providence and played the role of "Jury Foreman." Not exactly a large role, I'd guess. DaveTheRed 00:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn filmcruft. ComCat 02:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
03:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
09:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
