Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 1

Template:Centralized discussion
This page is a soft redirect.

Vectorex[edit]

Advert. Non-notable. Sqpds 00:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No sign of notability; delete. -- Hoary 04:13, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Keep. "Among Vectorex customers are federal and state government agencies, defense contractors, large and medium-sized manufacturers, architectural firms, agencies of local municipalities" etc. Not some guy in a shed with a website. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• So we should have an article on every company that sells product to government agencies or manufacturers? Delete, ad. RickK 20:48, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. RickK is correct. Quale 05:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of companies. Indrian 02:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --MikeJ9919 04:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Paper-to-CAD conversion and Paper-to-CAD Conversion[edit]

Advert. Sqpds 00:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I took out the references to a particular company. Kappa 01:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough it might be worth an article. Sqpds 01:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sustaining this nomination, and I've added the second article under a variant title. Though it's not an advert, I don't think it's going to be more than a dicdef. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both of them, non-necessary dicdefs. I think this can be adequately covered in the main CAD article. --Idont Havaname 03:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redirect Computer-aided design. The issue already covered in nearly the same words in Computer-aided design article by the same anon contributor. Mikkalai 05:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one of these (I'd go for the one with the lower-case conversion) and redirect. Potential for expansion here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is but one of applications of image analysis & pattern recognitioninCAD. It is a usual practice in wikipedia to cover smaller subtopics within larger articles. If the topic grows, it can be easily expanded into a separate article. Right now it is nothing but a duplication of a small paragraph in Computer-aided design article. It may as well be a redirect there. Mikkalai 17:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So how about merge and redirecttopattern recognition? Or to CAD?RickK 20:50, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • There is nothing to merge into CAD: everything is already there. Pattern recognition is only initial part of the job. It still requires a significant manual post-processing. Mikkalai 21:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with the term is that the overwhelming majority of its usage is the name of a particular software service. I can find no academic disuccion of the notion. But probably you are right. Changing the vote. Mikkalai
• Merge, though if Mikkalai is correct, then redirect alone should be sufficient. --MikeJ9919 04:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Civil rights history[edit]

This misleadingly-named article isn't a history at all, but a highly selective list of political issues such as gay rights, fathers' rights, etc. lumped in with Apartheid and the American civil rights movement. Where's the Magna Carta?Suffrage for women? Tiananmen Square? There might be a good article to be written on the history of civil rights, but this isn't the beginning of one. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Um... You need to read the deletion policy. Lack of comprehensiveness and POV are not reasons to delete, why don't you improve the article? Keep. --Dmcdevit 00:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC) I was hasty, a merge and redirect is in order. --Dmcdevit 05:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Gingerly cleanup, merge and redirecttocivil rights, which has plenty of room. Break out a history fork in the future if that's needed. Right now this is an unnecessary and duplicative fork, and confusingly named as at least four of the seven issues listed are current issues, and civil rights is far more historical. Samaritan 01:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing here that doesn't belong in civil rights, and really nothing here to merge anyway. Quale 01:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect. BTW, that article is in poor shape. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I almost just rescinded my own m/r on this basis. But let's trust organic growth. Samaritan 01:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Although it's a list now, this article has potential to become a nice article on civil rights history. - Stancel 23:31 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, nothing here that already isnt in Civil rights. Megan1967 04:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirecttocivil rights. First off, a better title for this article as a stand-alone would be History of civil rights movementsorCivil rights movements. But any conceivable content in those two articles is redundant with civil rights. Why not lump everything in civil rights until that article grows and sprouts sub-articles? Yay, usability! Feco 04:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs cleanup. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Feco. Shimmin 13:18, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There is no history here and nothing significant to merge. Rmhermen 18:37, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I disagree with Rmhermen...there is at least some information that could be interesting in civil rights.--MikeJ9919 19:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Felix Felmart[edit]

Fourteen google pages in English contain the word Felmart (it seems to be a fairly common word in Hungarian). Of those 14, 10 mentioned F.Felmart in passing. Just not notable. Grutness|^hello? 00:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 01:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. Master Thief Garrett 10:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Imperial_Decree[edit]

transwikied dictdef. Grutness|^hello? 00:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would suggest a redirect to "Royal decree", but it is a redirect to Royal family (which contains no information on royal or imperial decrees). --Allen3 ^talk 01:22, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Decree.Capitalistroadster 01:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Decree#Imperial Decree. --BD ^thimk 04:45, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Redirected Yay. --L33tminion (talk) 05:16, May 1, 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.

United States of Africa[edit]

I don't think that page is a type of disambiguation. Mainly because United States of Africa, is in no way similar or has the same name as the links lsited in the article.

• SPEEDIED as Patent nonsense. There was nothing in the history to suggest anything coherent. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Request expansion (or if it's deleted, request as a new article) to discuss the serious and significant use of the term, notably by Qadaffi (and by Star Trek as an aside?) as a proposed political union of African countries. Samaritan 01:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless somebody gives it some meaningful content. There's actually more on the African Union page than here. — RJH 02:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RedirecttoAfrican Union - Stancel 23:39 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• expand or delete but don't redirect. Kappa 04:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, duplicate content. Megan1967 04:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RedirecttoAfrican Union Feco 04:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that it's done I won't disagree with Tony Sidaway's speedying. (The page was an attempt to disambiguate, to the opposite effect, leading to the likes of United States of America and European Union, and only one link actually of Africa, African Union or maybe the OAU, with no context or explanation and it didn't look like a work in progress. Samaritan 16:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Swanny[edit]

This article appears to be a dicdef of a neologism. (The word apparently does exist with a different definition, but wouldn't ever be more than a dicdef.) Delete. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Okay, Grutness' redirect (listed below) seems reasonable. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• SPEEDIED as Patent nonsense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neologism or hoax. Quale 01:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 04:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oops. By coincidence, recreated today by me as a redirect to Swanndri. All New Zealanders know what a Swanny is. Grutness|^hello? 06:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the redirect (of course) :-) -- BDAbramson ^thimk 06:12, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

This page is now preserved 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.

Lower middle class[edit]

No content, and hardly expandable. Also most of the info related to this theme can be found in Middle class .

• Delete. Nothing to see here. Quale 01:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It's really empty, just the signature jen--68.91.131.0 01:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC) and nothing more in history. Speedy delete under CSD 1 & 2, but a perfectly good article could exist here in the future. Leave it alone; don't redirect. Samaritan 01:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep organic growth. Important social topic. Klonimus 06:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. Martg76 18:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• You really want to keep an article whose entire contents are jen--68.91.131.0 01:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)? This has gone beyond extreme inclusionism and into the absurd. Clearly a speedy delete candidate, properlyly speedy deleted. If you want an article with this title, then go ahead and create one. RickK 20:54, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess they don't read anything beyond the title when they vote. Postdlf 23:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Souter Code[edit]

Uninteresting private cipher. Non-notable (4 google hits on only 2 separate sites, one being an exact copy of the article on LibertyWiki), vanity (the name is a pun on pseudocode and Joe Souter), and would also classify as original research if only it were in any way original. Quale 01:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons above. -- Hoary 04:57, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Delete original research. Gazpacho 07:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOR. Master Thief Garrett 10:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

BZPowerCommunityWiki[edit]

I'm sure you think your site is great, but this really sounds like an advert. Lenev 01:46, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

• Delete. Advert for a non-notable website. Quale 02:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's all well and good for you to make a reference for your community. Just don't do it here. This is an encyclopedia. R Calvete 02:02, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Delete: Ugg, this should be speedied and I'll tell you why, if you look at the page the creator seems to go on and on about the site's forum, and then includes a ton of red links to very specific forum events (IE: 10,00 recognition post, April Fools Day Post etc.) my feeling is the author is trying to get members of his forum to post her and create these pages which would create a flood of VFD canidates. Cpuld we handle it? Yes but why not just delete the whole thing now so we don't have to deal with it. Deathawk 02:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In cases like this, it's acceptable to put a "nowiki" tag at the beginning of the article. That way we avoid both the speedy and the horde of duplicate articles. Meelar (talk) 03:02, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • You say "author"... are you implying that this forum perhaps belongs to the person who added this article? If so, I think not. From what I've seen the BZPower community are a very professional and above-board group, and I cannot see that this is an officially-sanctioned action. Therefore if we are flooded with rubbish one of us could post about it on their forums, and leave the rest up to the people in charge. I'm sure they would leave their members in no doubt about the punishments for spamming WP. Master Thief Garrett 04:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, website promo. Megan1967 04:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While BZPower is certainly worthy of inclusion in WP from what I've heard (they even get exclusive sneak peek pictures from The LEGO Company themselves!) I can't see keeping this *particular* article. Seems like someone's cut-n-pasted the non-meta Google search description (you know, where it lists all the links and such the page contains...) Master Thief Garrett 04:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's an advertisement, and a terrible quality one at that. Ben Babcock 18:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Pro-Evolutionism[edit]

Neologism for a non-notable or nonexistent group of video game fans. Although the article claims usage on Usenet, google shows no group hits for "Pro-Evolutionism football" and "Pro-Evolutionism soccer" and only one web hit. Quale 03:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't actually find the word "Usenet" in the article(?), but that doesn't make the fake any less/more fake. Master Thief Garrett 04:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, you're right. The article says "Internet forums". Introducing Usenet into the situation was my mistake. Quale 04:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems a vanity article for a seemingly non-existent group, or a grouping that someone wants to create. Maybe merge a small part of this article with the main Pro-Evolution article, as the majority of it seems to be poorly written and opinionated, without even external references. - Master Of Ninja 11:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Others commets respect at Manchukuo Finances,Industry and Commerce[edit]

Obviously written by a non-English speaker. It is so bad that I imagine it would be easier to erase the article and start from scratch. Although, there is already an article at Manchukuo. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:59, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic, fork. Megan1967 04:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is unclear even what the title can be. Ideally, the information could be merged into Manchuko, but just extracting the information may be more difficult than starting from scratch. Terrace4 10:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "if others cyphers and analizes why demostrated the enormous interest why poses Japanover Manchoukouan resources since your intervention". This is a cypher no-one will ever "analize", no matter how hard they try. — P Ingerson (talk) (contribs) 14:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Still think delete) The author is rewriting the article under a different title: Dates of Manchukuo Finances,Industry and Commerce. Evidently he has made excellent contributions in the past, but just needs help with the cleanup. Terrace4 16:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect now to Manchukuo (financial, industrial and commercial data). And cut it out with the snide stuff about non-native English speakers. The English Wikipedia used to be a more tolerant place, I think. "if others cyphers and analizes why demostrated the enormous interest why poses Japanover Manchoukouan resources since your intervention" is (are) other figures and analyses which demonstrate the enormous interest which had for Japan Manchukuo's resources, after the intervention. Charles Matthews 17:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article as it stands reads like an excerpt from Finnegans Wake Klonimus 06:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read Finnegan's Wake. I wouldn't dream of using it as a comparison deisgned to offend a valued contributor. Charles Matthews
  • We can keep the ad hominem attacks out of this, both re:the author's English skills and re:whether critiques of a poorly written article are designed to offend the author. Regardless, why keep the article with this title, which will never be searched (what is "commets"?), when another article with the same information and a better title has been started by the same author? Essentially, the information should be moved (which the author has already done) and this title deleted. Terrace4 11:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. That can't be done under VfD rules, though, until we are all done here.Charles Matthews
• Redirect as above and cleanup. Is there a translated article cleanup template? — RJH 19:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, {{cleanup-translation}} Kappa 02:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I had made some changes to the article under its original title, and today discovered that the same original content has been duplicated under the better title that Charles Matthews reported above. For that reason, I put a notice near the top of the original asking people not to edit it, but rather to edit the new one. This series of articles is turning into a valuable in-depth look at several aspects of Manchukuo. Fg2 03:48, May 5, 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.

Agriculture,Farming,lumber,hunting and Fishing in Manchukuo and Mengchiang lands[edit]

Obviously written by a non-English speaker. It is so bad that I imagine this should be erased and started from scratch. Besides, there is already an article on Manchukuo. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:57, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and give more time to cleanup. It's understandable and informative. Interestingly enough, their agriculture was 34% mice... Kappa 04:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even cleaned and rewritten, the scope of this article is way too broad. Who is going to search for that title? The potential content that's purely historical belongs in Manchukuo. The potential content that's current belongs in Manchuria. Also, it has the smell of a Babelfish copyvio... direct translation of a webpage is a derivative work. Feco 04:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic, fork. Megan1967 04:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no one will search for this title as it stands. Ideally, this would be merged with Manchukuo and Manchuria, but extracting useful information from this may be more difficult than searching from scratch. Terrace4 10:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Still think delete) It looks like the author is rewriting the article under a different title: Manchukuo and Mengchiang (agriculture, farming, lumber and fishing). Evidently, he has made excellent contributions, just needs help with the cleanup. Terrace4 16:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, the shame of it is that I think the author has good intentions, his English just isn't good enough to make anything comprehensible. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:40, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

• • I think delete here, but the article he's doing to replace this is actually shaping up ok, with the help of Charles Matthews. "All for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds". Terrace4 16:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to that. And please do not use VfD as clean-up. And please be very ashamed of your attitude to unclear English. Charles Matthews 17:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll never be ashamed of expecting Wikipedia's articles to be of excellent quality. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:22, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • Won't the editorial process work more efficiently if shame is not involved in discussions as to the merits and deficiencies of articles? And why keep this title as a redirect, when no one is likely to put in a search for this particular title? The content has already been moved, we should keep the new article and remove this title. Terrace4 11:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. The title could be made shorter. — RJH 19:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you possibly want to keep this, when there's another version at Manchukuo and Mengchiang (agriculture, farming, lumber and fishing)?RickK 21:12, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this version, don't take people to task for wanting to make non-English speakers create articles with intelligible titles and intelligible subject matter. RickK 21:11, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any useful info can be merged into Manchukuo, if anyone wants to do it. —Lowellian (talk) 01:35, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original analysis of regional statistics, no references are provided so the stats may not even be real--nixie 01:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Ho ho ho[edit]

We read: The way that Santa Claus laughs. "Ho, ho, ho! Merry Christmas!" Yeah, right. It's also the way that Clarence Carter laughs and the start of the US-gummint-baiting chant "Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh!" Big deal it isn't. Feeble and non-encyclopedic. No no no. -- Hoary 04:06, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

• RedirecttoSanta Claus or else delete. And Hoary, I liked the edit summary ("Ho ho ho, no no no"). Meelar (talk) 04:08, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Santa Claus doesn't even mention the phrase yet. There is no Merry Christmas! Bah... Keep and expand per Klonimus below, or request creation of Merry Christmas and redirect there. Samaritan 16:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yes, I checked and the only reference to Merry in the very extensive Christmas is a throwaway nod to "merrymaking." These are among the most iconic expressions in the English-speaking world and their history and use well deserves to be discussed. Samaritan 17:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, Happy Christmas, and, more extensively, Happy Holidays, are on the rise, since Happy Holidays has no religious or cultural connotations so could be applied to Hanaka or whatnot. So if we add Merry Christmas, we may one day soon need to add Happy Holidays too... Master Thief Garrett 00:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So what if we have to add an article? It's not like we'll run out of paper. R Calvete 01:05, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
          • Is that a Keep Vote? Klonimus 06:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nothing, I'm just saying there's lots of expressions we don't cover that, by this logic, should also be worthy of addition here. Master Thief Garrett 01:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Quale 04:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. While a redirect sounds plausible, I can't imagine that many people would actually search for "ho ho ho". Master Thief Garrett 04:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would. And Hee Haw as well. Klonimus 06:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable expression. Klonimus 06:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Santa Claus. Martg76 18:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Extreme delete, what Megan said. RickK 21:16, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Samaritan, else delete but do not redirect. Kappa 23:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable expression R Calvete 01:05, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for expansion. ElBenevolente 02:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then make into a redirecttoSanta Claus. — JIP | Talk 04:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Although several people have claimed that this is a "notable expression" or that the article otherwise deserves preservation, so far none has taken the trouble to expand it beyond The way that Santa Claus laughs. "Ho, ho, ho! Merry Christmas!" So what are you waiting for, chaps? I have an open mind, and I'm willing to change from "Delete" to "Keep" if the article is rewritten to be worthwhile -- just as I did in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/In Defence of Marxism. -- Ho ho Hoary 07:21, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • I second that. Come on people, open up our narrow little minds! Show us this is worthy of our deletist leanings! (note the slight sarcasm) Master Thief Garrett 07:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, bah-humbug. Leithp 11:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I have expanded the article. Mwa-ha-ha! — Smerdis of Tlön 20:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Heh heh. Good work, Smerdis. -- Hoary 22:51, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done Smerdis of Tlön. 165.228.129.11 00:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, that's me.Capitalistroadster 00:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- article has improved since VFD listing. - Longhair | Talk 02:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is now a perfect example of why a delete is almost never justified.--64.254.131.77 15:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I should qualify that: a delete is almost never justified for articles that are not clearly vandalism or vanity pages.--64.254.131.77 15:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thanks to Smerdis. Noisy | Talk 12:47, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Questions: Pardon me for party pooping, but something here strikes me as dodgy. How is "ha ha" any more "nasal" than "ho ho"? And (cough) is the content of the revised and hugely improved article sourced, or is it original thought (intriguing original thought, but what might in the VfD context be termed "original research")? -- Hoary 13:11, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
• keep please its expanded Yuckfoo 00:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I like it. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 06:15, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Harmless enough, has potential. -- taviso 10:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Fine, fine. Keep. Bah. DS 15:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep new version by Snidely of Tlön.  :^P - Lucky 6.9 18:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "How many people will get THAT joke?" he wonders... Master Thief Garrett 23:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Barfooz 23:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Klonimus. —Markaci 2005-05-6 T 03:06 Z
• Delete. Incorporate the info into the Santa Clause page, if it's needed. Jacob1207 01:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The rewrite turned it into a good enough article. --cesarb 05:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Foxism[edit]

joke entry ... Samw forgot to sign this

• Delete - joke entry ... Samw forgot to sign this
• Delete -- unfunny would-be-joke entry. -- Hoary 04:37, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Delete, mildly amusing but not funny enough for bjaodn. Megan1967 04:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unfunny nonsense. Quale 04:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not funny, just weird. I'd have speedied it myself. It probably doesn't *technically* fit, but if it's not BJAODN-worthy then it probably shouldn't be dragged through the Vfd... Master Thief Garrett 10:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe Wikimedia should sell space on the starting a new article page to GeoCities? (Delete patiently; let it wait out the vote.) Samaritan 17:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and I would have speedied it myself too if it hadn't been put on VfD. --Golbez 20:24, May 1, 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.

Meanie[edit]

Yet another dicdef. Delete. -- Hoary 04:43, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

• Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 04:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quale 04:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, slang dicdef. Master Thief Garrett 10:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)transwiki to Wikitionary. I can't believe they don't already have it! Amazing! Master Thief Garrett 21:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There's nothing there already, so might as well transwiki to Wiktionary. Extremely widespread slang. Samaritan 17:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I just transwikied it. --Dmcdevit 04:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Local-political vanity, unencyclopedic, addressed to the wrong audience, likely copyvio. In a word, Ugh. (And if I feel like biting a newcomer just once in a while, you'll have to indulge me or ban me.) Delete. -- Hoary 04:52, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

• Keep this need alot of work, but I think aldermen for major cities are notable. Klonimus 06:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You are (and anyone else is) very welcome to work away at it. I'll revisit it later, whereupon I might change my vote. -- Hoary 07:01, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Delete. All reasons given by Hoary plus non-notable. Klonimus, you should read the article more carefully. John Colautti is not an alderman. Colautti is Executive Constituency Assistant to Councillor Sylvia Watson. He has been involved with the Parkdale Village Residences Association, and he lost a municipal election in 2000. Quale 08:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, since you say it's misleading. Oh and even if it's not it's still bad as per Hoary. Master Thief Garrett 10:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It is a copyvio, so I'm sending it there rather than VfD. (By the way, for an executive assistant to a Toronto city councillor notable for a prior job: Anthony Perruzza.) Samaritan 17:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Kevin and Bean[edit]

Not notible. "Kevin and Bean" yields 4 kiloGoogles. I seem to think this is a bad precedent. Plus it's a substub. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Non-notability not established. It seems to be a popular Los Angeles radio morning show, and has connections with both Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Carolla. Besides, being a substub is not a reason for deletion. An article can always be expanded upon (unless, of course, it's deleted). R Calvete 06:31, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Keep even though I think Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Carolla are vulgar Klonimus 06:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I dont think this show is anymore notable than other breakfast programs that have been deleted in the past. Megan1967 07:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per R Calvete. Kappa 08:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing in the article establishes notability. If it's deleted, someone can always write a better article later that explains why this particular morning radio show is notable. Quale 08:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, still keeping a few fans aroud [1] - Svest 09:04, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Megan and Quale. Master Thief Garrett 10:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Merge and then RedirecttoKROQ as per below. Master Thief Garrett 23:47, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps a redirect to KROQ would be appropriate? Average Earthman 10:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good plan... but how many people are *actually* going to search for that keyword and expect it to be on here? Probably not many... Master Thief Garrett 11:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep/expand. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns - if a radio station is so iconic their annual countdown lists are notable, their longtime morning show should be notable too. I've never heard it and I live in Eastern Canada, but I've heard of it, frequently, from casually following the radio and music scenes. Samaritan 17:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — completely redundant with content on KROQ page. The pair can be summarized on their radio station page, unless there is a ton of content that can be added. — RJH 19:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Notable radio hosts. Capitalistroadster 19:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirecttoKROQ. When I lived in LA, I used to listen to them, but I don't believe any local-only radio programs should have their own articles. I see no problem with mentioning local-only radio programs in the articles about the stations they're from. RickK 21:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand.--Prem 06:29, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundant stub content for radio shows that Klonimus thinks are vulgar, then RedirecttoKROQ. Barno 15:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirecttoKROQ, though I wouldn't cry over deletion of this substub. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Kevin & Bean is very, VERY well known..my google search for "Kevin & Bean" came up with 3000+ hits. Singer Tori Amos even wrote a spoof of the song "Whoomp There it Is" that incorperated their names; they have released a vareity of charity albums as well, mostly Christmas Themed. This is another case of something being regionally significant but people arguing it to be not so because it's not global. Pacian 08:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with KROQ as above. ESkog 18:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how long a vote usually runs but this one has been running for 9 days now and the votes are Keep: 8, Merge: 3, Delete: 6, so I guess the vote is to keep it. As such I have begun an expansion of the article (which IMHO also displays more clearly the notability of the subject.) When is it acceptable to remove the VFD tag? Pacian 07:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

8 to 6 ain't a consensus, bro. Vfd'ing is about consensus, not majority rules. It's not exactly a democracy. Master Thief Garrett 07:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, not your bro, sweetie-pookums. :) Secondly, a consensus is a general agreement or accord: a decision reached by a group as a whole. There is no way that decitions at wikipedia VFD could ALWAYS be determined by an actual consensus because then it would mean EVERYBODY has to agree on one outcome. As far as I am aware VFD is is supposed to last for around five days at which point an action is supposed to be taken based on the GENERAL consensus of the votes accumulated, and in this case, the majority of the votes indicate that the article should be kept. An 8 to 6 to 3 vote is as close to a consensus as we're going to get, unless you forsee some way to FORCE everyone to vote one way and one way only...?Pacian 04:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the "guide for votes for deletion": At the end of a period from when the nomination of an article was listed, known as the lag time, an administrator in the VFD cleaning department reviews an article's VFD discussion, determines what the rough consensus is, and closes it. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and although this mechanism is named "votes for deletion", the votes are a guideline only to administrators. Pacian 04:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Discounting sockpuppets, there were 9 keep, 3 delete, and 8 merge votes. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (Mariah Carey song), I do not think there is enough consensus on what action should be taken. However, I did move the article to O Holy Night (Mariah Carey single). Robert 23:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O Holy Night (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

See above discussions. FuriousFreddy 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with O Holy Night, or the Mariah Carey Christmas album. Jkelly 03:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But this really shouldnt be here. It was already put on the VFD before and it survived. OmegaWikipedia 04:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last VfD ended in "No consensus". You can renominate such articles a second time. By the way, I suggest a merge to the Mariah Carey article, with a mention at the O Holy Night article. --FuriousFreddy 04:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous arguments. Kappa 06:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the album it's on. Failing that, delete. Not notable enough to stand as a separate article. Jonathunder 07:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with O Holy Night Joaquin Murietta 07:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, individual songs have to be exceptional to justify their own article. I would suggest adding this information to the albums in the future. -- Kjkolb 08:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ultimate Star Wars Freak 15:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I vote merge and redirect for this one. Again, might have voted for weak keep if the infobox wasn't half of the article. Need more content and/or notability for me to change my vote. --Jacquelyn Marie 21:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Everyking 03:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with O Holy Night. Extraordinary Machine 11:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it was released as a single. Would you nominate other singles' articles for deletion? Alensha 11:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...if they didn't make siome sort of important impact to warrant writingg an encyclopedia article about them, yes. And especially if they are covers of Christmas standards. --FuriousFreddy 16:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Friday (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete outrightormerge. Pop-music-cruft. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP : Mariah's singles are an important part of knowing the work she has accomplished throughout the years. Why delete this page? What have we got to lose? I think that having the most information as possible about a singer, like Mariah Carey in this case, should be keeped if possible.Mczelda 04:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is all of two paragraphs long. It could easily be merged into either O Holy NightorMerry Christmas (album). Extraordinary Machine 20:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an official single release by Mariah Carey, and is part of her discography. It will be kept. Winnermario 14:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will have done whatever should be done with it. --FuriousFreddy 16:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Anittas 21:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Musicpvm 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment. The article as it stands will easily merge int othe article on its proper album. As this is a Christmas song, with likely dozens of succesful covers over the years, it does not stand to reason to retain it as a seperate article. --FuriousFreddy 22:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with O Holy Night. -- DS1953 02:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteormerge. Individual recordings of songs are intrinsically non-notable. Susvolans ⇔ 15:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Do not request for deletion just because you do not like an artist. DrippingInk 20:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who here is requesting for deletion because they don't like Mariah Carey? Certainly not I; serveral of her songs are among my favorites, and she is a great singer. This nomination has nothing to do with whether or not I like the singer or not; it has to do with the neccessity for an article. --FuriousFreddy 23:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Carey's version of "O Holy Night" is notable.
  • Previous unsigned comment is by User:WScott. It is also his seventh edit. --FuriousFreddy 23:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Yamamory Noodles and Il Posto[edit]

NN restaurants in Dublin. Rl 07:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Uninteresting reviews of non-notable restaurants. Quale 08:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless notability can be established. — P Ingerson (talk) (contribs) 08:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pending proof of notability of course. Master Thief Garrett 10:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, not notable. Megan1967 10:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki into Wikicities. Zscout370 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Salem vs Madurai[edit]

Plenty of cities have rivalries with other cities - there is nothing inherently notable about this one. The link in the article goes to a newspaper article which requires subscription. I managed to find a cached copy at [2] however it doesnt even mention Madurai. Article fails to establish notability. The anon editor which created the article in all fairness must not have a good grasp of English. JamesBurns 08:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. Of course were this kept, it would need a redirect from Madurai vs Salem — how do you decide which city gets named first in these feuds? Quale 08:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd go for the city that "cast the first stone" although that is even harder to decide upon! Master Thief Garrett 10:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete', does not appear to be notable. Sietse 09:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless notability can be established. Master Thief Garrett 10:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A news or gossip item. I'm not convinced this is capable of being encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apparently created by the anonymous user as part of his joke at P Anandha Kumar, which I have just listed here as well. ESkog 18:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Waleed alrowsa[edit]

Vanity Svest 08:49, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, non-notable. Quale 09:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Sietse 09:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 11:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, he should just make a user page. Hmib 00:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Rage Shenron[edit]

Utter tripe. silsor 09:47, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

note 1: the original author of this page removed the Vfd header so I re-added it. Master Thief Garrett 23:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Tripe—uh, I mean, Delete. Master Thief Garrett 10:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC) --UNLESS Merged with Dragon Ball GT charactersorShenlong (Dragon Ball) or similar. Master Thief Garrett 23:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 11:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Quale 17:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN Klonimus 19:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable fancruft. Also see Naturon Shenron and Oceanus Shenron Nestea 22:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that! I added these to the header. The characters are of similar non-notability to this one (or perhaps they are evolutions of the same character like Megatron->Galvatron?), so it's only fair that they should be dealt with on an "all or nothing" basis. If one goes, they all go. If one stays, they all stay. Simple. Master Thief Garrett 23:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC) oops, someone else already Vfd'd them but didn't add that tag within the page! I've now done that. So go cast similar votes on the others. Master Thief Garrett 23:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Najafabad[edit]

This is apparently an article in Persian about a city in Iran. It has been listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for two weeks, but no one has translated it in that period. I think it should either be deleted or moved to the Persian Wikipedia. Sietse 09:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
  • Possibly Arabic? --Wtshymanski 20:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Najafabad seems to be a city in Iran, so I'm guessing the language is Persian. — Ливай | ☺ 01:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not Arabic. It is probably Persian. Eagle 12:28, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is indeed persian--216.105.212.33 06:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not English. No translation in 2 weeks. --Wtshymanski 17:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Delete or transwiki to persian WP, and let them deal with it. Klonimus 19:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwikitothe Persian Wikipedia and delete. — Ливай | ☺ 00:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved 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.

Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi[edit]

Vain, an advert, non-notable, etc. Master Thief Garrett 09:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "phenomenally successful"? This thing nets me 651 Google hits. If that's what you call phenomenal, then what's Homestar Runner? It gets 371,000 hits. Need I say more? Master Thief Garrett 10:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC) Withdraw vote, until I can get a better idea of the minimum notability that the webcomics project requires. I'd say if it meets the webcomic minimum then it's a Keep for me. Master Thief Garrett 11:11, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harg 10:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt you've checked the DeviantArt page's stats as well...(The official page's only a showcase, the pages are also put up to DeviantArt.)
  • I'm not very "up" on all this art stuff, so no I didn't know to check there... Master Thief Garrett 10:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So did it pass this time? (To know if I should spend time on expanding it) Harg 10:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, golly, I haven't checked. I have no idea about how to do this stuff! You should probably check on it yourself. Or wait for other Vfders to cast judgement. Or something. If you think it's fine you could expand it, but you should maybe wait a day or so to see if the Vfd's gonna mercilessly slay your hard work. Master Thief Garrett 11:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well there IS a Wikiproject on webcomics and I just wrote an addition to "Our home planet" which made it to the top of the importance list in spite of being much shorter and crappier that this one. So I think I'll finish it anyway. Harg 10:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, cruft. Megan1967 12:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'd put Our Home Planet on VfD too, if I weren't feeling so lazy... ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 16:30, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought of doing that one myself, but I'm not that brave and foolish... maybe by lunchtime I'll have the guts to... Master Thief Garrett 21:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non-notable. (Merciless Slayer), Quale 17:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh geeze, what would you need to make it "notable"? The DA site pockets 10,000 pageviews a day, the artist inspired more fanart than any webcartoonist I see on the Webcomics project. Don't worry, I won't struggle to put it back. It just seemed sort of odd. Harg 8:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment / Abstain. All I know is that it updates only twice a month but the art is VERY good. Is it popular? Has anyone heard of it? No clue. I rearranged the links to make it easier to find the actual comic, though, so maybe we'll get a bit more response. Marblespire 23:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's actually weekly though there had been a few omissions. I suggest you click on the "has ... pageviews" for the number of views for the last mont and "Watched by"'s complete list on the DeviantArt page. A five-minute google search gave a

bleedman fanlisting, a17th on thewebcomiclist.com, 57th on the Buzzcomix Top 100

mentions on Digital Strips as well as other comic pages. I also suggest you take a good look at the Wikipedia webcomic project before throwing your weight around. Harg 10:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. And is it a vanity article if it's not made by the person who actually writes the doujinshi? Ketsy 23:33, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "phenomenally successful". Now while that isn't automatically POV of its own accord, this particular comic doesn't get nearly enough Google hits to be "worthy" of such a claim. Master Thief Garrett 02:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed that part as soon as you drew my attention to it. If that's the problem you could have simply edited it instead of terminating the article as a whole.Harg 8:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, I'm not Vfding it because of grammar and wording, that would be stupid! No, wording doesn't matter, but it's still the noteworthiness that's the problem. Master Thief Garrett 09:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "powerpuff girls doujinshi" gave me 1,900 hits actually...(which is less then it would if 'Dojinshi' didn't have a dozen ways of writing "doujin" "doujinshi" etc.) and if you type "powerpuff girls" the comic's right on the first page...("bleedman" gets 4,490) Harg 10:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You fools. Let the article blossom into a noteworthy and interesting piece, rather than killing it preemptively. The series hasn't even gotten into its full stride yet. Give it some time. And you all know my views on the Google test. That isn't even the most comprehensive search engine out there; just one of the most popular at the moment. 24.54.208.177 03:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no time to wait. The article must be deleted. It may never become noteworthy. Marcus2 12:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not noteworthy enough. Marcus2 12:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Well it certainly won't blossom into an interesting piece if all the good bits are edited. Whatever, just let us let it go down the toilet. Harg 15:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, there are four deletes, two keeps, and several abstains, so it may fall under "no consensus". The article as rewritten is probably fine (compared to what it was like when I nominated it), but I still can't work out how these noteriety tests work... Master Thief Garrett 23:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got some VERY mixed results for webcomics I've searched on Alexia. Megatokyo 12,382; RPG World 64,890; PPGD 84,436; Bruno the Bandit 123,448; It's Walky 132,247; Newshounds 361,229; Irritability 475,064 etc. (all are picked from the already existing articles)Harg 8:09, 6 May 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.

Boo Koo[edit]

Back-o-the-Can text (or website copyvio? will check) but even so non-notable promo/ad thing. Master Thief Garrett 09:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, any company that can get Shaquille O'Neal to endorse its drinks is notable. [4] Kappa 15:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC) [reply]

keep, real energy drink. Kappa 23:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC), informative article, useful example of its type. Kappa 22:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge if not a copyvio. Meelar (talk) 17:45, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I typed it all out without copying directly from anything, and I state that I got extra information from their website (without copying straight from) and the can. Which part of my article is copyright violation? The part that I wrote myself? The nutritional information? You're a bit delete-happy I think. Mrd00d
• Delete. 236 unique Google hits for "Boo Koo" +drink. Let's not create articles based on who gets paid millions of dollars to endorse their products. RickK 21:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Search "BooKoo Energy" or "Boo Koo Energy" then you would only get 85 page results. I tried to find proof if Shaq is really promoting their product. I can't find it on Google. The only website that I'm getting is Bevnet saying that Shaq is promoting it. --Chill Pill Bill 22:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 04:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Energy drink. Klonimus 07:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promo for commercial product with no notability established. If S O'Neal is proven to have endorsed the product, that adds no encyclopedic relevance, in which case my vote will remain delete. Barno 15:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a question. How is this a promo for a non-notable thing. How is this a promo? Are you putting up deletion notices for the other energy drinks listed? No. They aren't promos, they are encyclopedic articles detailing what these drinks are. These drinks are all known. These drinks are all popular. And they are all real. What is the relevance of it being endorsed by Shaq or not? It is a popular drink. It didn't have an article made yet, and now there is one. This isn't a promo, it is an informative article on a drink. Mr d00d! 21:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep it too please Yuckfoo 00:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason why? -- Hoary 03:16, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
• We read that it is mainly consumed by those people wanting to get extra hours into their day. Rather than "those people", how about "gullible people"? Oh, but then it would diverge from the company line. In effect if not intention, a promo. Merge anything notable within and redirecttoEnergy drink. -- Hoary 03:16, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Your vote is valid, of course, but I am curious why it should be merged to the energy drink page. Should the rest of the energy drinks that are linked to from the main energy drink page going to be merged as well? If yes, merge it. If not, leave them all on their own individual pages. Is it necessary to do these things on a case by case basis? Do with one drink as is done with the rest. It is given a separate page because there are separate pages for many other energy drinks. Mr d00d! 04:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you don't like it as is, why don't you edit it so that it is valid and neutral, non-promo. I see it as neutral, and not a promo, so maybe someone else should fix it up so that it fits people's needs without needing to merge it for no reason. Mr d00d! 04:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tend to think these all these so-called energy drinks are just minor variations on a (snake-oily) theme, and could all be merged into Energy drink. Unless, that is, there's something about these drinks (either in general or in particular) that has escaped me. I can't easily add to the article, even if I wanted to, as I've never heard of the stuff. There seems to be an assumption that the reader is in some nation where dollars are used; I'm not (we use yen here), and though I'm vaguely aware of a few so-called "energy"/"sports" drinks here (notably the divinely named "Pocari Sweat"), I really don't think that this one is for sale here. What I think is encyclopedic is medical and similar info (see this for example). Or again, the main article says energy drinks today are commonly associated with the image of a hacker or IT professional, sitting up late at his computer trying to stay awake. This is not an entirely inaccurate picture; if somebody who's interested in "energy drinks" has the, uh, energy to write more, how about a clarification of this (to me) extraordinarily woolly statement? (Does it mean "Much of the sales of energy drinks are to people who want to stay awake and alert", and if not, what does it mean?) Incidentally, the "energy drinks" sold in the Czech Republic have more explosive names. -- Hoary 05:03, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Yes I did notice the dollar values it gives. I suppose if it said "USD$" or similar that would be OK.

No I doubt you'd find this product over there. I looked around here (in NZ) and other than being swamped in Red Bulls and Vs, there's no Boo Koo.

Does Pocari Sweat actually *taste* like sweat, or is it just a horrendous Engrish misnomer? I've always wondered that since my Golden Axe days... hehehe... Master Thief Garrett 23:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Red Bull Super Charged Delete. Patent nonsense. Unsupported medical claims. Vanity page. Commercial page. Not encyclopedic. Not factual. Not notable. Not wikified. Copyvio. Creator registered on wiki for sole purpose of creating this page. Probable sock. Spammed my email inbox, too. — Xiong 熊talk* 06:16, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

• Keep But it needs major improvement or rewriting. Why delete it when it is a real product. The article needs to be improved, thats all. --Munchkinguy 18:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The product is real, but is it notable? "Boo Koo" gets ~85 Google hits. "Red Bull Energy Drink", a rather narrow keyword to use, still gets 19,400 hits. Master Thief Garrett 23:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's misspelled. Searching for "BooKoo" or "BooKoo energy drink" would be a better comparison. FreplySpang (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still the same, page result numbers "86 for "BooKoo energy drink" --Chill Pill Bill 19:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a real drink, why not have it up?Xyphon 04:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why delete it when it is a real product. -- Is this a door we really wish to open? We cannot get rid of the fancruft. Do we want an article for every can, jar, box, and bottle on the aisle at the local supermarket? — Xiong熊talk* 08:27, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
  • Also note the first edit Xyphon has ever done is a vote for this. --Chill Pill Bill 19:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is spelled "Boo Koo" if you are looking at the website or can. Maybe the other websites cant spell. Xiong, I didnt mean to send you an email, sent it to the wrong person. One message isnt spam. It is factual, it isnt commercial because im not with them or advertising, no medical claims are made, and not a copyvio. Those are all the ones Im bothering to adress. Mr d00d! 04:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not factual -- non-notable, commercial, fraudulent, and a patently nonsensical medical claim. And yes, one single instance of Sales, Promotion, Advertising, Marketing = SPAM. Perhaps it is not a copyvio -- if you are the copyright holder of the can label. Almost certainly a violation of federal Pure Food and Drug Act. — Xiong熊talk* 08:43, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Explain the nonsensical medical claim, and if you mean "energy stimulance", then you better argue with all the other drinks. Which makes no sense. Also, my email wasn't SPAM because I didnt market anything. I sent an email to you ACCIDENTALLY thanking you for your KEEP vote, but you probably hadnt even seen this page yet. I went to someone's talk page and saw your email there, and assumed it was that persons, because it just said "email me here". I didnt advertise the page or promote it to you, I mistakenly sent you a message that you werent meant to get. You are wrong, sir. And are all people that get nutritional information from a food product, and list a slogan, violating a copyright? No. You are being unreasonable. You are wrong.Mr d00d!

Since its been way more than 5 days, Im removing the up for deletion notice, especially since there are more keep votes. Mr d00d! 05:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not remove vfd notices--nixie 05:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? Kappa 07:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like after 12 days, they havent succeeded to delete it, so they want to extend the deadline or something. I don't really know. It's 7 days over! Mr d00d! 17:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes they take a while to close things, it's not a conspiracy. Kappa 18:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that way sometimes! Hahahaha.... Mr d00d! 00:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick eyeball tally 7 to 5 keep -- not an overwhelming endorsement. If I were a deletionist, I'd be angry; it does look like this bit of commercial advertising will survive -- for now. — Xiong熊talk* 03:22, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

This page is now preserved 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.