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. Golbez 03:06, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Clearly not a vanity piece, since he didn't write it. (unsigned vote from 68.249.89.128[1]R Calvete 21:26, 2005 May 16 (UTC))
i vote against deletion, this article is informative and true.
-Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka
the above vote is from 216.179.3.225. Something tells me it's not really LowtaxR Calvete 01:29, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Keep. As for vanity, Kevin Bowen is a relatively well known writer for Something Awful and has been a contributor there for quite a while. As for being nonsense, the article appears to have been vandalised a bit recently. That doesn't merit deletion. R Calvete 01:29, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Keep prolific writer (he also writes for gaming sites), cartoonist, Flash animator, voice actor, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:01, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Like others said, he's not just some random nobody.--DooMDrat 02:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Sheesh without context and even sometimes with Indonesia is borderline nonsense I mean what the heck Internet Police--nugz 02:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - above the bar of notability. Oliver Keenan 20:58, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Well rooted internet personality and one of the staples of something awful. (unsigned vote from 64.198.233.104[2]R Calvete 21:26, 2005 May 16 (UTC))
keep -well known from something awful. (unsigned vote from 195.92.168.170[3]R Calvete 21:26, 2005 May 16 (UTC))
keep - He's an internet superstar. -GregNorc (talk) 17:40, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - "well known"? It's an internet writer who gets 10x less hits than an ESPN Page 3 writer. Let's all start up pages on every person who writes on the internet. This isn't a vote its a joke, the SA fanboys and gals are banned from discussion. (unsigned vote from 68.77.90.72[4]R Calvete 21:26, 2005 May 16 (UTC))
Keep - doesn't seem like much of a vanity piece to me, since it's just a factual entry; other something awful updaters are included on wiki as well, so if he's up for deletion, we should get rid of the rest, as well. (unsigned vote from 172.148.89.73[5]R Calvete 21:26, 2005 May 16 (UTC))
Keep - well known from SA. Avertist 23:11, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Keep - perhaps deleting the 'well-known', as anyone outside of SA would probably not recogize him (unsigned vote from AmishCellPhone[6]R Calvete 21:26, 2005 May 16 (UTC))
delete - I see SA stuff here all the time its like they're spamming the site. Even in goatse's entry they have something SA related. It's ridiculous, you can't reward spamming. (unsigned vote from 68.77.90.72[7]R Calvete 21:26, 2005 May 16 (UTC))
Keep - Fragmaster is known for more than his SA contributions, and has written for other popular websites such as those he worked for on the Gamespy Network. - Shitties
Remember to sign votes. Use ~~~~ R Calvete 21:26, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
Of 19 votes, I count 7 invalid ones. Wow. →Iñgōlemo←talk 03:12, 2005 May 17 (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. Golbez 03:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Information here sounds very dubious. Contributor claims that the information is based on "inside industry information" that he cannot verify. Thus it is either false or unencyclopedaic. — Adam Conover† 00:44, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
(Read the entry on Abigail and Brittany Hensel for insight into why the information in this article is highly dubious.) — Adam Conover† 00:56, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
No, that source is full of copies of Wikipedia content that violate GFDL. It's listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/GFDL Compliance under a compliance level of "Low: Fail[s] in a very significant way such as claiming their own copyright without including a GFDL notice". Go to juiceenewsdaily and see at all the "Who is" articles that are copies of Wikipedia biographies... There's absolutely no verification of this other than from Wikipedia mirrors or Wikipedia thieves. Delete. Samaritan02:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - the information has been sourced. Difficulty finding more citations on Google? This is one instance where Wikipedia is ahead of the curve, we should be proud. 70.177.90.3907:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The information has been "sourced" from a copy of Wikipedia material. A shortly upcoming ABC network sitcom about conjoined twin teens who solve mysteries (!) would have been discussed somewhere else on the interweb. Samaritan14:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. Radiant_* 09:05, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:08, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. But what a compliment... they wrote their Wikipedia vanity before they wrote their own website! These guys have their priorities right... (;-> Andrewa02:06, 12 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.
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. User:Mindspillage was actually the one who passed the judgment, but did not close the debate, so it is now done. For the record there were 21 to delete and 11 to keep, one delete vote short of a two thirds majority. Sjakkalle13:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I vote KEEP! This man is so brave to put himself in a position of being burned at the stake for his beliefs, and his position that all humans - even pedophiles - have basic human rights. Anyone voting to delete this page is against liberty. - Kaliko Kat (By the way, I have an account, kalikokat, but I do not know how to post replies here.) By the way, I had this account for a half a month before posting this vote here, so it is not a sock puppet vote.
Whether the article is notable or not, "disgusting" is not a criteria for removing something from Wikipedia. I'm going to abstain for now. --FCYTravis01:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever you think of Ashford and his "self-identified pedophilia", you can't get away from the fact that he's a well-known individual. That fact that he disgusts most people actually adds to notability. ---Isaac R01:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Disgusting-ness is not a deletion criteria. It's not our place as editors to judge this fellow's activities or interests. We have articles on the Holocaust and plenty of other unpleasant subjects. However, it seems to me that the subject and author user:Zanthalon are the same person, which makes this vanity. Delete and if the notability is genuine, let someone else write the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:56, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain.Delete. "Disgusting" is not a valid criterion for deletion. I only get ~200 unique Google hits for "lindsay ashford", not all relevant, some of which being Wikipedia links, so I'm not convinced of the subject's notability. However, I'm not sure I want to continue researching this subject, so I will abstain for now. Not notable, self-promotion. Change vote. android↔talk 21:55, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikispam. But agree that disgust etc is not a valid criterion for deletion; Wikipedia is not censored. So if the article is rewritten to establish notability, I'll change my vote. Andrewa02:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just by judging the current revision and the top 5 search page results for "Lindsay Ashford," the article doesn't really establish notability. Getting many results for a British author [10] than the pedophile. --Chill Pill Bill03:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the delete votes; maybe new information could convince me of sufficient notability per the abstain votes, but it's been well edited and is about a Wikipedian so I wouldn't expect much. Samaritan04:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. The guy may be disgusting, but he's known and therefore relatively notable, though I don't go much on the quality of the article itself - very biased and badly written. Jamyskis 12:43, 12 May 2005 (GMT)
But is he known? Not much that I can see. Just 776 web hits for lindsay-ashford, many or most of which seem to be for the British female author of that name Chill Pill Bill mentioned. He was interviewed in a local newspaper in New Jersey, not really for anything he did uniquely but as an example of a pedophile. It identified him as an unemployed business consultant. The other claim to being known is his website, relatively low-Alexa especially given, I imagine, the subject. :l Samaritan14:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when I tried a search I mostly got links to the British woman crime writer of the same name, which suggests this person is not notable. A notorious paedophile should be included. PatGallacher 14:15, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Strong Delete - primarily because he's not a notable person. Secondly because I don't feel that W/P should contribute to his attempts to become famous. Oliver Keenan 21:01, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable - but if he was? Is it morally permissible to risk facillitating the networking of such people - and hide behind an accademic NPOV policy? "It's not our place as editors to judge this fellow's activities" - perhaps not, but I'm afraid then I'd have to be a father first and an editor second. --Doc Glasgow21:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hedley 16:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Abstain because theres 700+ google results for "Lindsay Ashford", however as CryptoDerk points out below theres only 37 unique websites for a reasonable search term. I agree with IRC discussion that there is voting here simply on disagreement with the subject. Hedley17:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps rewrite googling the name seems to establish notoriety. The subject could be quite interesting if made properly NPOV, the article appears to be heading in that general direction (it's not a complete POV soapbox). I am disappointed of the votes by wikipedians here.... Will you be putting Adolf Hitler up for VFD next? --Gmaxwell16:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite.Abstain It's not our job to be a moral judge for the world. We simply need to establish facts. Inclusion on wikipedia is in no way an endorsement. A general look around seems to establish noteriety, and also linked to by a number of wiki articles. I am uncertain about notability, once we remove the mists of moral anger...--Fangz16:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why does people want to delete an article about subjects they are uncomfortably with? The world won't change if you just ignore its revolting parts. -- Wegge17:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's disgusting, but there appears to be enough verifiable information about him for an NPOV article. Icky isn't grounds for deletion. Jon the Geek 17:05, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete due to likely self-promotion and non-notability. If a significant part of your claim to fame is a website, you should be able to do far better than CryptoDerk's Google count. Isomorphic22:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Lindsay Ashford is very notable--among girllovers. He returns few google hits, but in this case the google test is inaccurate; two pages define virtually half his "encyclopedic" importance. The first is his own site, puellula: a celebration of the splendor of little girls (and its central section The Human Face of Pedophilia). This page was the first of its kind, and remains the most important by far. It made him the first girllover to leverage the power of the internet to spread the moral girllove movement. The second is the online hub of the online English-speaking girllove world, Girl Chat, on which he was a former moderator and frequent contributor (under the psudeonym Amator Puellularum). The online girllove community is, by necessity, small, tight-knit, and heavily defended. There are only half a dozen serious English pro-girllove sites on the internet, and for obvious reasons they have few outside linkers to boost their google ratings. In addition, much of the girllove community's ineractions are invisible to google, consisting of emails, etc. To delete this article would be an act of bigotry or ignorance, and I hope I've removed any chance of the latter. 24.17.5.5018:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. Being (very) notable to a "small, tight[k]nit group" which is itself very notable gives him encyclopedic importance. Compare David Thorstad from NAMBLA. (I'll link Childlove here for general reference.)
I really don't think that's what it means to be notable. I'm not suggesting a person has to be known all over the world, but if he's only signifincant within a small movement like "childlove" then perhaps he warrants a mention on that page, but not his own article.--Heathcliff02:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this page has been visited by 1.05 out of a million users on the internet ([11]). I'm really not interested in an article on a guy whose page hits are literally one out of a million. →Iñgōlemo←talk 23:14, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
Abstain from processing. I was about to process this, but we have to look at consensus, not mere numbers. I count 20 delete votes plus nominator, eight keep votes, and four abstentions. Disgusting is not a criteria for deletion, far from it - however, being disgusting does not make you notable by default. Also, even if his website is notable - which has not been shown - that does not make the creator of the website notable. If the notability of the subject is only due to his pedophilia, and if his website is not similarly notable, then delete is the only option. However, he may be notable within the movement - and since we have articles on the movement, then the movement is sufficiently notable. I do not know, and the vote was not unanimous, though it was obviously tilted towards delete. So I abstain from picking an outcome to this debate. Too close to call between "err towards keep" and "consensus to delete". I suggest the debate be extended. --Golbez 18:06, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
If your concern is that editors are voting to delete out of disgust rather than for valid reasons, I think it is misplaced; IMHO, only two delete votes focus more on "disgusting" than "not notable" or "self-promotion" (that is, the original nominator's vote, and perhaps Doc Glasgow's). Also, I submit that, even though 24.17.5.50 suggests that the subject is notable, the subject is not verifiably so through the private emails, etc., that he cites. The Google Test, for what it's worth, points to "not notable," and I don't feel the lone newspaper interview is an indication of significant notability. The self-promotion aspect concerns me greatly, as well. I don't have a problem with an extended debate, but I think the correct course of action is pretty clear in this case. android↔talk 22:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how it can be said there is not a consensus with the vote being 20 to 8 in favor of deletion. Also it is unfair in my opinon, to discount a vote because the voter expressed disgust. Yes it's possible that their opinion was tainted by their disgust, but it's also possible that their disgust did not influence their vote. Some people expressed disgust and voted "keep". Do we assume that their disgust influenced their vote? Can we therefore automatically assume that those who voted "delete" where influenced by their own disgust?--Heathcliff02:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he seems fairly well-known in child-love circles, and the notability test should be used against "Eileen Jacobson goes to River High and has a crush on Jason Fox...", not actual people of moderate note — (Sherurcij forgot to sign.)
Uh, what? Why should the standards be lowered for this particular subject? AиDя01DTALK 05:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
This is not encyclopedic. Only a couple of mentions in Google - on a geneology page and a housing listing. Not listed as an ecovillage by either the Global Ecovillage Network or the Federation of Intentional Communities. Delete. Sunray 01:05, 2005 May 12 (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 13:15, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Do not redirect. →Iñgōlemo←talk 23:16, 2005 May 17 (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 Speedied.Golbez 03:11, May 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 Redirect. Golbez 03:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
RedirecttoInternet slang#T, where this information already exists. I don't think it's a neologism; it's probably been around as long as Perl has. android↔talk 03:10, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
If it's already listed on the slang page a redirect wouldn't hurt. Mgm|(talk) 07:59, May 12, 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 Speedied.Golbez 03:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, contents are (a) patent nonsense, (b) advertising weblink, both qualify for speedy delete, their combination does too. -- The Anome 15:11, May 12, 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. Golbez 03:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. →Iñgōlemo←talk 23:19, 2005 May 17 (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 Userfied.Golbez 03:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Userfy. The user who wrote this is totally free to create a proposal in the Wikipedia namespace or xir user space. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 07:18, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of userfying this, as it was clearly not an article. The page itself still has a redirect, which may need to be deleted. Mgm|(talk) 07:32, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
comment - I've seen mention of this page, by the creator of it, at one of the VP pages (proposals, I think) and the idea of userfication came up there, too. Grutness...wha?
I'm the creator of this quiz. I understand your objections. I published this quiz-experiment in Wikipedia, as there is no other wiki-project harboring quizzes up to now. My main objective of this publication was to try to start some creative exchange of ideas on adding quizzes to Wikipedia and creating a quiz template. By the way, could somebody explain to me what is meant by "userfication" and "userfy"? Fortinbras18:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. First, to see what's happened, click the above pagelink now (post-userfying) and then click the redirected link. The info in this article has been moved to a sub-page of your User page. (It would be a little clearer if you had something written on your User page.) This has been done as a polite way of saying, "Interesting idea, but not Wikipedia material." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not just a community, so quizzes aren't really appropriate here, but should a wiki-project about quizzes be created, this would be a good addition. Moving the info to part of your User area allows you to keep it and work on it until you find someplace more appropriate to put it. Hope this helps. Soundguy9919:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to mark it as such because I assume there's a reason nobody else has, but this is a self-admitted copyvioof[13]. Nickptar14:40, 13 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.
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. Golbez 03:15, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Band is not represented correctly, there is a Mindscape, a mainstream one, but this is not them, the real Mindscape that is sold and recognized worldwide is at www.mindscape.ws
Keep, band does exist in the mainstream www.mindscape.us, article seems quite neutral. Jamyskis 15:41, 12 May 2005 (CET)
User has ~40 edits.
Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_* 15:34, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete bandcruft. →Iñgōlemo←talk 23:20, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
Delete Got a lot of google hits for a few different bands named Mindscape. None of them appeared to be this particular band, only one major one www.mindscape.ws. The Bob Talbot23:25, 17 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.
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 00:06, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
This referrs to a weapon variant based on a movie prop. It is neither an official product of H&K nor mentioned on hkpro.com (a quite complete reference to HK products). To the best of my knowledge no such actual weapon exists
Concur, delete. Radiant_* 11:36, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Redirect does not seem necessary. →Iñgōlemo←talk 23:22, 2005 May 17 (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 00:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Article makes some rude, ignorant, and subjective observations about technophiles, with a strong suggestion that they suffer from a form of mental illness. Soapbox, original research, just plain dumb. ---Isaac R03:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not necessarily biased; your definition may be of someone who explores technology as a hobby, whereas this definition defines it as an obsession that interferes with daily life. Just because you don't agree with this definition doesn't mean it's wrong. Give it a lighter definition if you see fit. CP 0335, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
If it were just a definition, there wouldn't be an issue -- we'd just transwiki it over to Wiktionary:. But it's not a definition, it pretends to document a mental condition that isn't widely recognized. ---Isaac R03:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A good definition already exists in Wiktionary, and this is rather odd original research/soapboxing. android↔talk 04:25, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Congrats, You have been doing great service by your delete votes, as I find there lies your main contribution to wikipedia. I would love to see you expanding at least few words of this article so as to give inspiration to others to come forward. Thanks in advance.--MissingLinks06:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly POV as it is, and I can't imagine a legitimate definition being more than a wiktionary candidate of "one who loves technology." Postdlf07:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a dicdef plus some speculation. Delete, replace with redirect to Geek. Radiant_* 09:21, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Based on a limited sampling, user has made 40+ useful edits, including many rational votes to various articles on VfD. IMO, this isn't our typical low-edit VfD voter, and as such, his/her vote(s) should probably not be discounted. android↔talk 17:06, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect per Radiant. Anything that isn't dicdef in that article at this time looks like conjecture and essay to me. Willing to change vote if any real research or reference material is added to show that it is a real condition rather than an adjective. --Unfocused14:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Technophilia" is definitely not an officially recognized mental disorder. Individual mental health professionals might consider it as a valid diagnosis, but I've never heard of any doing that. The assertion that it is a disorder certainly shouldn't stand without reference to mental health literature.---Isaac R15:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I could even see keeping it if it's proposed as an officially recognized disorder in a verifiable way, or by someone prominent in the mental health field. --Unfocused16:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree -- all mental conditions that have any kind of professional or official recognition deserve Wikipedia space. But a non-professional's opinion that something is a mental condition does not. ---Isaac R16:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but re-write to make it informative. It needs work. Sunray 18:31, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Transwiki to wiktionary and merge what useful information there is with geek. This is obviously a legitimate word, but it is suitable only as a dictdef. The article describes the stereotypical nerd or geek, so what useful information is in it should be merged there. →Iñgōlemo←talk 23:25, 2005 May 17 (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. Golbez 03:16, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Not notable, unencyclopedic, and original research. A google search for "sugarphobia" returns 11 hits, none of which appear to offer any type of scientific or psychological definition, certainly nothing similar to the content of this article. The article should be deleted. - Jersyko 03:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The term has been used rhetorically by a couple of doctors to make a point. Pseudoscientific. Not an appropriate Wikipedia article, IMO. Sunray 05:37, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Note: This term seems to have some kind of link with the Atkins' diet, if someone can find out more maybe this article can be salvaged. If it really is bull then delete. Jamyskis 15:45, May 12, 2005 (CET)
Actually phobia names like arachnophobia, triskaidekaphobia, agoraphobia, are derived from Greek, not Latin. So even if there were such a thing as a morbid fear of sugar it would be saccharophobia. --Angr/comhrá05:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh!!! Yes, I stand corrected. It's all Greek to me. -- BD2412thimkact 05:38, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Redirect.Golbez 03:17, May 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 speedied. —Xezbeth 05:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Simply a redirect to a redlink. ral315 04:10, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The redlink was deleted as vanity. This could possibly get faster attention at WP:RFD. If there's not a speedy candidate criterion for redirects to deleted articles, there should be. android↔talk 04:20, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
See WP:CSD. Redirects can be immediately deleted if they have no useful history and: 1. They refer to non-existent pages. Radiant_* 13:16, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Somehow I missed that. Thanks. What's the current feeling on adding CSD tags to articles that are clear candidates, but already have the VfD notice on them? android↔talk 13:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
You can just list redirects on WP:RfD; if they are speedy candidates (redirects have a separate, different list of criteria for speedy) they will be deleted right away. (This one is going away right now.) Noel(talk)14:56, 12 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.
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 speedied. —Xezbeth 05:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to a redlink, no pages link to it. ral315 04:16, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Nothing else in its history: it was moved to Charles Carlini and must have been speedied from there (no inbound links, and a VfD page would offer an inbound). Speedy. Samaritan04:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can just list redirects on WP:RfD; if they are speedy candidates (redirects have a separate, different list of criteria for speedy) they will be deleted right away. (This one is going away right now.) Noel(talk)15:04, 12 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.
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 speedied. —Xezbeth 05:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
You can just list redirects on WP:RfD; if they are speedy candidates (redirects have a separate, different list of criteria for speedy) they will be deleted right away. (This one is going away right now.) Noel(talk)14:58, 12 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.
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 speedied. —Xezbeth 05:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Subject to Rules Zero and One, a robot shall not harm another robot, nor through failure to act allow another robot to come to harm. So Wikipedia:Bot requests won't work. Speedy delete per Ral315 and Samaritan. Barno14:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can just list redirects on WP:RfD; if they are speedy candidates (redirects have a separate, different list of criteria for speedy) they will be deleted right away. (This one is going away right now.) Noel(talk)15:03, 12 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.
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. Golbez 03:18, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
All the more reason that Wikipedia needs it. Check the reference. Patrick0101
Wikipedia is not here to popularize unknown expressions. RickK 06:50, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a reference for lore, arcane and other. This was used in a popular movie and I had to do some digging to find out what it meant. I didn’t just make it up. I was hoping to document it here so the next guy can find it. Patrick0101
Wikipedia is a reference for lore, arcane and other, no, it is not. This is not a place for neologisms and for attempts at public relations for new ideas, unknown people, undocumented phrases. RickK 18:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Radiant_* 11:36, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, where is the slobbering of love? Is this vandalism? no Is it incorrect? no Does it have references? yes Is this guy a newbie? yes (see don’t bite the newbie). Patrick0101
Comment. Nobody's trying to bite you, Patrick0101, (or at least not very hard); the issue is that the general consensus is that Wikipedia is not interested in slang that doesn't have much of a history. You said you had to do some "digging" to find out what it meant - where did you dig? What did you find? If you could add some of this info to the article and convince editors that this phrase has been used pretty extensively (somewhere besides one movie), the article might be kept. If you do expand the article, you should mention it here, and it helps if you add "Rewrite" to your comment. Soundguy9919:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable, and anyway I thought that definitions of what words/phrases mean was supposed to go on wiktionary? --Cynical13:10, 17 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.
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 00:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Reason for deletion was given as "pure vanity" and I'm inclined to agree. — Gwalla | Talk06:32, 12 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.
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. Golbez 03:19, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
UndeleteThis guy may be popular ... See the google search. He is definitly a Open source guru. Anti Copyright guy. The page will be made eventually, once enough data is gathered.
Undelete Mr. Dhananjay Rokde is a consulting Software Engineer for several of India's Government projects. We are his students from the university of Mumbai. We wish to put his page, up on wikipedia. Need time to update the article and put in photos.
Comment on the vote above: With due respect, the above vote justifies the deletion even more. Checking the diffs show this to be another duplicate vote by 61.8.141.202 (talk·contribs). Interesting to note that Mr. Rokde/61.8.141.202 (talk·contribs) also blanked the vfd notice from the disputed page. QED. --Ragib04:57, 16 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.
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 speedied. —Xezbeth 05:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 00:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused as to how you came up with that figure on hits. The site has near 700 unique hits all from google to one article on the site -- not from some other blog. — Dight | Talk17:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)actually posted by 199.111.179.240 (talk·contribs)[reply]
User above seems to have created an article titled "User:Dight" rather than created an account. Visit the page to see what I mean. --Chiacomo21:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Delete it if you want, I didn't realize it was such a big deal when I posted the page. My friends just put a lot of time into their site and I thought it would be cool to have a page for them. I figured any encyclopedia would welcome more factual information. If it takes up too much memory or something, I guess it's not that great. Anyways, you guys obviously spend a lot of time following this stuff, I didn't even expect anyone to see it. On the bright side, at least I got them 4 hits. unsigned comment by 24.218.215.248 (talk·contribs)
This page is now preserved 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, rewritten - SimonP 00:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete- This article is political, not informational. While the concept of a "false statement" in formal logic does deserve to be addressed in an encyclopedia, this article does nothing to enhance our understanding of logical falseness. Come to think of it, "false statement" is also a rather self-explanatory phrase. Emiao07:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the meaning of "false statement" is obvious even without an article, and the contents of this article are a political rant. — JIP | Talk08:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No matter how good the article, the subject is inherently unencyclopedic. The meaning of 'False statement' and the implications there-in are clear to any english speaker. Gmaxwell19:31, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm Plato apparently rejected the possibility of meaningful false statement, but it took him a while [17], maybe because he wasn't an English speaker (LOL). Kappa19:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hush, Plato made no such claim about falsehood within the realm of measurable reality. If the article were discussing falsehood in the context you brought up I would have voted that it be redirected to solipsism where that concept is disussed in depth. However the article isn't about that, it's a (somewhat expanded) dictionary definition. --Gmaxwell21:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No article should exist with this title, especially not this article. An article related to the example you cited would only share the name of the article we are talking about VFDing if it were named inappropriately... which is why this article isn't about that subject, and which is why your example isn't a reason to keep the article. Plato was discussing the solipist notion that 'only my mind exists', it's an interesting concept but it's only an interesting concept in the context of discussing solipist reasoning, since it's so throughly disconnected with the rest of the world.--Gmaxwell05:14, 15 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.
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. Golbez 03:20, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
The article seems to be unverifiable (using Ghinwa "Jad Khairallah"orGhinwa princess on Google, for instance). It's also just pure praise of the beauty of the supposed princess. The author originally blanked the article after creation. –Jonnabuz (talk)07:12, 12 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.
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. Golbez 03:21, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete - it's a friggin' jigsaw puzzle, which is one of the easiest and most often made kinds of shareware. And as such, extremely not notable. Replace with redirect to Brainbreaker as plausible mizpelling. Radiant_* 11:39, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no indication of encyclopedic notability, shareware of a common type as Radiant noted. Weakly oppose the suggested redirect, though. Barno14:15, 12 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.
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. Golbez 03:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't really appear to have achieved anything that exceptional, influential or significant. Showing promise but not achieving doesn't warrant an encyclopedia article. Average Earthman09:01, 12 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.
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. Golbez 03:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Amusing forum drama but nonetheless this is not the place to air out grievances. Site has a ~1,000,000 Alexa ranking if you need more support. Lotsofissues08:01, 12 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.
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 - move to Wikisource - SimonP 00:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Well, since I created it, I don't want it to go away. I wanted it to support my full article U.S. 761st TANK BATTALION (which I mistakenly made in ALL CAPS). So, if the only choices are move and delete, I VOTE: MOVE. WikiDon10:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved your tank battallion to a non-ALL CAPS version. Oh, and I vote Transwiki here. Radiant_* 11:37, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki as above then delete, source text, no encyclopedic content, title is not a likely search term to be worth a redirect. Barno14:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how many votes does it take to get to the center of a TransWiki? I say; "let's do it!" I haven't done it before so I defer to the masters.
I just wanted the article for:
Although the CMH site has always been very reliable; you never know when something might happen.
I wanted it hosted at Wiki, so readers wouldn't have to leave WikiLand.
I wanted to add the WikiLinki's for people who needed further tutelage.
Generally, none (per WP:BOLD), but once started, VfD discussions are kept for five days. Radiant_* 09:08, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 03:23, May 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 DELETE. Golbez 03:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Dear Colleauges, I am repulsed by your juvenile sense of mathametics. A PEEV is one of our century's greatest mathametical discoveries. Shame on you for dishonoring it.
-Professor Wachner-Solomon
University of Stockholm
I agree, politely, with Wachner-Solomon. Perhaps it is only common in European usage?
- Professor Shestakofsky, University of Salzberg
No, it is not. I did not encounter it even at the maths department of the University of Salzburg (note the spelling), nor did I have the pleasure of meeting a prof. Shestakofsky. -- Jitse Niesen (a European), 10:40, 16 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.
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 redirecttoUnalienable rights. Sjakkalle11:48, 18 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.
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. Golbez 03:25, May 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 Unanimous keep.Golbez 03:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Breadboxes suck. It's much better to keep it in a plastic bag in the refrigerator. Besides, they take up way too much room on the counter — couldn't somebody invent an under-cabinet version like they did with microwaves? And the ones they sell at Sears nowadays aren't nearly as good as they used to be. ;-) —Wahoofive (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--there's precedent for appliances (see Bread clip, e.g.). OTOH, this article could probably use some work--does this really show up all that often in 20 questions? Meelar(talk) 13:14, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Point taken. Meelar(talk) 13:48, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Extremely trivial, but since the phenomenon exists and I can't even think of a plausible place to merge it, I'm going to vote keep. Radiant_* 13:14, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Notable kitchen thingy. My bread may be made with preservatives, but any time it's not in the freezer, it's in the breadbox. KEEP. Mgm|(talk) 13:31, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
KEEP - my god, people! Have you no respect for that question of the ages - "Is it bigger than a breadbox?"?Keep keep keep --Mothperson23:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. I have a breadbox in my kitchen as we speak. (They're very useful for those of us with bread makers so we don't have to use preservatives or keep buying plastic bags.) Maybe I'll post a picture of it, together with something to indicate its size, so that people can better estimate what is and is not bigger than a breadbox. --Angr/comhrá05:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with Lotsofissues. Mama always said, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say it at all." She also said, "It's just as easy as sliced bread" and "Is it bigger than a breadbox?" but that is another story...
This page is now preserved 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 00:16, May 19, 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 00:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Rename per Kappa. Radiant_* 15:39, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Rename and keeponly if rewritten and expanded in the five day period, otherwise delete. RickK 23:31, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Turn to redirect This is jargon word for organized criminals in Russia(and firstly in Russia) and apparently in Ukraine, should redirect to apropriate page, or you could keep it as substub or move to wiktionary, thats just a word. It's just some articles link to it, like the Viktor Yanukovych article and Organised crime.Gnomz00705:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be mentioned the Bratva is the name for Eastern European and Slavic organized crime which extends far beyond the former Soviet Union (in regards to Russia and the Ukrane). While it could use expanding the Bratva is as much part of the Russian Mafia as the Cammora is of the Mafia and in my opinion certainly a notible topic. 209.213.71.7812:47, 17 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Redirect. Golbez 03:27, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as suggested. Mgm|(talk) 13:32, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Lame-o rant from someone who apparently can't stand their customer-service job (to which one might ask why they applied for it/haven't quit). Certainly not an encyclopedia article by any stretch of the imagination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep It I think its educational, it looks a lot like a rant because it is written in first person but as someone who works in a call center it is 100% true. The average person thinks that if they assert that they are in charge, we will do whatever they ask, if people read this and actually thought about it, this is what customer care really is. This is the psychology of it, its instructional. I think its great. Plus, lets face it, theres how-to instructions for microbiology, isnt this more useful?Mislah15:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it! Speaking as someone who works in the customer care industry, I can tell you for certain it is quite factual. Plus it is educational for the average consumer calling into a customer care department, screaming at some poor rep who is only there to make ends meat and had nothing to do with what happenned to the customer.
Keep but mark as not-NPOV. This is a classic example of why Customer Care reps get a bad rep -- they assume that they are always correct and that, because they have the power to screw up someone's life, they're entitled to use that power vindictively (in other words, whenever the customer won't bend over and take it up the bodily orifice). Keep and corral the author off into a Wiki-Zoo where s/he can have buns and other inappropriate food-articles thrown at him/er --Simon Cursitor07:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC) <?rant>[reply]
Redirect as above. It's the same thing. And add an additional redir at correctly capitalized Customer care. Radiant_* 09:11, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - moved to user space - SimonP 00:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
It's not that I object to editorial policies per se, but this particular page has no content and no meaning (please read it before voting, it's very short) so it doesn't belong in the Wikipedia namespace, certainly not with a title implying that it would be policy. Radiant_* 12:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
We don't need an editorial board to remind us about precedents. Everyone is equal so this board wouldn't be able to make binding decision anyway. I vote userfy. so the user who started it can work out the bumps and perfect their proposal before dropping it into the big bad world. Mgm|(talk) 13:36, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete It's been around since Oct 04 and still hasn't really become policy or otherwise gone anywhere, so probably safe to delete. If anyone wants to retry this policy proposal it's probably better to start from scratch than resuscitate this tiny article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, May 12, 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 15:25, May 19, 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 00:23, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Ho hum. Why would someone make it up? Why delete facts that prove a mystery that has plagued victims of the Port Arthur massacre for years?
There is a long and extensive history, as provided by Australian police sources that prove this article to be true. It is not a conspiracy theory, nor is it incorrect.
Article as written qualifies as nonsense, speculation, original research and/or non-verifiability. Delete. Radiant_* 13:11, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Sighs. That's my life story right there. If you delete it, then you're saying that my entire life is a lie. But perhaps you're right, that until Robert goes to jail for his crimes, I shouldn't state it as fact. This is the guy that destroyed my life, you know.
Okay, we don't mean to be harsh... please check with WP:BIO and WP:VAIN and see if your life story belongs in an encyclopedia (because my life story for sure does not). If it is, then arguably someone else should write it, per WP:NPOV. Remember, if you're famous, other people will write about you. Finally, decide whether you really need four different articles - merging may be appropriate. Radiant_* 13:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per JamesMLane and delete the rest as unverifiable. Mgm|(talk) 13:40, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
delete all (except the redirect as per JamesMLane), they either qualify as original research, unsupported speculation and have no sources whatsoever. clarkk13:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Joe Vialls for evidence that supports all of my claims. They are consistent with highly popular conspiracy theories and with available evidence. I shall endeavour to present these in a better way next time. My apologies. I am new to this.
Oh and feel free to delete these pages. Please do. I'd rather get some help with presenting them properly than be branded as a "troll" or some nonsense just because I'm trying to help with factual evidence.
By the way, your Martin Bryant and Port Arthur massacre articles are highly inconsistent with available evidence, especially with regards to such things as him pleading guilty - which he never did. Your own sources as quoted on the pages prove that you've got it wrong there. You also should include that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and before the trial was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, both diagnoses which were later changed. Asperger's Syndrome as you know, is one which would see someone be fit to stand trial, and hence it is very relevant that he was suddenly diagnosed with it, when in fact he never had it in the first place.
If this is supposed to be accurate, then you have to at least be prepared to accept such changes as those ones, even if you do dismiss what you call "conspiracy theories".
All the non-conspiracy-theory sites that I can find, including news sites and Australian Hansard, have him at first protesting his innocence, then pleading quilty. I've got to say that the conspiracy theory sites have a strong feeling of tinfoil hat about them. -- The Anome 14:43, May 14, 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. Golbez 03:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Apparent hoax; English-language search on Yahoo! reveals zero hits for Conolocus, and only three hits (none of them relevant) for Hittite+Krok. Delete unless someone can confirm content from a printed source. JamesMLane13:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
see: "The major historical texts of early Hittite history" by Trevor Bryce
I'm going to have to agree with James on the delete, although I won't deny that there seems to be information that bears in light for the OP. For example, there's [19], which lists an asteroid named after Krok, (Asteroid 3102Krok) a scheme usually used for minor deities. However, I just spent some time on Google and came up with nothing aside from that. Additionally, the Encyclopedia Mythica turns up nothing (no surprise there, since that's not the best kept database, IMHO). This is going to need a lot more evidence to be a keeper. --Mitsukai13:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has the whiff of a hoax, for reasons several of which will be spotted by some people. I will add one, that the Hittite archaeological remains are in modern Turkey, a slab found in Hebron seems fishy, a vague echo of the Hebrew Bible mentioning the patriarchs buying some land in Hebron from the Hittites, but I'm not aware of any archaeological evidence that the Hittites were in Hebron. PatGallacher 14:33, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Delete. A topic as specific as this needs citation, this article has none. EvilPhoenix
Delete. I did a quick scan of the indices to 3 books I own about the Hittites (Harry A. Hoffner, Hittite Myths; Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts; & Trevor Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites), & not one refers to such a deity. (At this point, it's not worth it to me to go downstairs & also check my copy of ANET.) BTW, I took a class on the Hittite language in college, & based on my memory of that class alone, I'd attest that "Krok" is not close to being a Hittite name, divine or otherwise. -- llywrch00:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here more than a year and I can still be amazed at this place. I listed this article for deletion because it seemed a little off and I couldn't verify it. That simple listing prompted this incredible amount of research and comment by people who've studied the Hittites, who have relevant texts ready to hand, and find suspicious points based on the nature of the word, the stated location of the find, etc. I had no clue as to any of this. It's too bad that some jerk's casual hoax article wasted so much of the time of sincere editors, but there's a silver lining: We see another example of Wikipower. JamesMLane08:58, 13 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.
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. Golbez 03:31, May 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 KEEP. Golbez 03:32, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Deleted, but replace with redirecttoRat, or maybe to Ultima where it's a common enemy. Radiant_* 14:07, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
?"of Sumatra" -- Holmes reference; ? common (Low power) foe in RPGs; ? "Rodent of Unusual Size" -- Princess Bride; ? terrier sized rats in Fleet River, London. The deleted text may have been offensive, but sure there is at least a potential disambuiguation here, for people looking the phrase up. --Simon Cursitor07:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely redone the article, focusing on the Holmes versions. Surprised we do not have an article yet on Sherlockiana. The original text, including the VfD notice, was apparently deleted, as it was decided (rightly IMO) to not be worth the fuss of voting over. If a new notice is needed in this case, someone should supply it. -- Smerdis of Tlön16:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Excellent job by all involved. -- BD2412thimkact 22:59, 2005 May 16 (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. I agree with Heathcliff. Golbez 03:34, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
RedirecttoVietnam war as potential misspeling. Radiant_* 17:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I'd support that. I don't think it's a big deal in this case, but yes, our policy has been to assume that any misspelling that can happen once can happen again. It was still a valid speedy IMO, but recreating it as a redir would be fine, if anyone thinks it's important. Andrewa03:08, 13 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.
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. Golbez 03:34, May 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 - no consensus - SimonP 15:26, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully this is a no-brainer not deserving the space and attention needed to present my complex evidence on the, arguably, bad faith I think the article was created in. I present several reasons why this page does not deserve its Wikipedia space:
(1) Accuracy dispute. I could not find a source that specifies the existence of the school (at least under the name "Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary"). The burden of proving the existence of such a school should be on the article's creator, not me, though. Online searches show no results under this name...which merits the suspicion, that even if such a school did exist under this name, it was so non-notable that it isn't cited in any documents by anyone these days.
(2) To begin with, there is no source that specifies Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary as the actual name of a school in Delaware, Ohio at that time! This violates the rationale for pages not to be "too secret" (i.e. "Secret societies are unverifiable and often non-notable". Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. Almost by definition, the world cannot verify things about secret societies). This is not a "secret society" per se, but the existence of the school should be verifiable through paper or online sources.
Several other article created by the same user are Monnett Weekend, Orra E. MonnetteMary Monnett BainMonnett Hall and Monnett Bain Davis. All of them debatably non-notable and written with the sole purpose to "defending it from those who should know better". The Monnett Weekend page was recently listed on VfD and removed. The article listed on here honor the exact same topic and should be removed as well.
(4) There is a separate page about the real name of the institution at the time: Ohio Wesleyan Female College which no longer exists but is nevertheless legit. I suggest that some of the information be moved to that page as it was the official name of the female college.
(5) This is a "POV fork". Debatably the most notable part of the article is about Mary Monnett Bain. That article already presents the arguably "notable" part on there.
(7) Finally, one can argue that Mary Monnett Bain is arguably worthy an article herself vilating notability ("non-notable" or "nn" are shorthands for "Something that (the voter thinks) is unimportant due to its obscurity or lack of differentiation from others of its type"). There was a separate VfD on that article but it is not the objec of this VfD.
If the article is related to something more common or well-known like the Ohio Wesleyan Female College, consider merging it with that.
Keep to confirm details. Monnett Hall, Monnett Weekend and Mary Monnett Bain all check out in external sources. The entry on Leroy A. Belt on the official history page of Ohio Northern University, here, says he "served as financial agent for Monnett Hall, an independent women's academy, which merged with Ohio Wesleyan in 1877." So you're alleging this article that centrally claims the quickly provable fact that Monnett Hall, an independent women's institution, merged into Ohio Wesleyan University is "bad faith?" The only things that would need further research are whether Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary was a name or the formal name of Monett Hall. There's no comprehensive information about historical schools on the web, but this obviously could be referenced with printed sources in libraries and maybe even an historical plaque onsite. Patnaik, what is your "complex evidence" of bad faith? Btw, the article is by the apparently credible User:Stude62. Samaritan15:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fascinating article, fascinating topic. That's assuming the current article is accurate, but that hasn't been questioned above. So I'm very puzzled as to why it's listed for deletion. Please, someone explain. Andrewa15:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you. Having skimmed the RfC, and noting that there is nothing on the article's talk page about any accuracy dispute (perhaps I should have said that before), I reluctantly conclude that this VfD nomination was made in bad faith. I nearly said that before too, the term no-brainer is a portent. No change of vote. Andrewa16:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dear me, what a mess has now been made of the discussion above. Is it coincidence that the argument Patnaik has obscured by his carelessness is against him? It's not good form either way. No change of vote. Andrewa18:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to put comments back in their original order. Jni05, please stop changing the orders of other people's comments; thank you. Samaritan19:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts, and they have addressed some of my concerns. But there's still the problem that Patnaik has simply changed his introduction, rather than answering the comments that were based on it. Andrewa02:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, can anyone point to a source that this is the actual name? How is it possible not to find a single source? The real name is Ohio Wesleyan Female College. There is a separate page about that one that is legit. Patnaik16:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, do you think your "this VfD nomination was made in bad faith" violates your informal MWOT principle of "minimise waste of time and not get distracted into debates that have no bearing on the goal"? Patnaik21:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it entirely possible and believable Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary either co-existed with Ohio Wesleyan Female College or was an original or alternate name name of OWFC? (For anyone else wondering about the Wesleyan/Methodist distinction, Ohio Wesleyan University, per its article Patnaik was the last to edit, was founded by Methodists in 1841; the Wesleyan Methodist church formally split from the Methodists in 1843.) Comparing a rural 19th century women's college to a "secret society" because Google provides no hits overstates and assumes bad faith. It's certainly verifiable one way or the other with hard copy sources, and we should assume good faith on the part of the creator. The article doesn't mention any man, so it doesn't seem "glorify" Stude62's great+grandfather as the nominator charges. In Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Monnett Weekend, it was not deleted for the reasons Patnaik alleges. And an article about a college is not a "POV fork" of an article about a patron of the college. Samaritan17:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this is worth an article, it should be folded into the Ohio Wesleyan Female College. According to the Google test which says that "Unencyclopedic or spurious topics. Some topics introduced to Wikipedia articles don't belong here. Some of these can be detected by running a Google search on a relevant phrase and counting the number of search results. This technique works reasonably well for weeding out hoaxes, fictions, and personal theories and hypotheses. It can also be used to ascertain whether a topic is of sufficiently broad interest to merit inclusion in the wiki, though this application is highly subject to bias" there are zero search results outside of Wikipedia. Owu0718:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Google test would work well for a seminary or college in Ohio today. It would not work well for a seminary or college in Ohio in the 19th century that changed its name and/or folded into another institution. Samaritan19:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! One would think that if it were that important it would have been cited at least once somewhere on the web. RobOWU20:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This long-winded nomination doesn't cite a single issue that deserves a VfD. All the problems cited can be solved by rearranging material, removing redundant paragraphs, calmly debating factual isssues, and resorting to the merge process. If there are personal issues, try to settle them privately, or request arbitration, instead of expecting the rest of the Wikipedia community to take sides. ---Isaac R19:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google test shows that it is not notable at all. As an Ohio Wesleyan student, I've never heard that name before! RobOWU20:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may be some issues with the article that need resolution, citation, and verification, but I don't think it's worth deleting at this point. EvilPhoenix
Comment as mentioned above the "Google Test" is unreliable for historical institutions. IsaacR's advice is sound. Not a VfD candidate at this stage. Send to Votes for Editing (Oh wait, that's Wikipedia itself) Dystopos21:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be established that there was an institution with this name. "Isn't it entirely possible and believable" isn't good enough; it has to be proved. --Angr/comhrá05:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to vote against deletion, on the grounds that the article appears a reasonable starting-point for an accoutn of a "learning institution", and on the grounds that the original VfD argument does not cohere with what I find on the page as at today --Simon Cursitor07:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN. I'm afraid VfD has changed since originally conceived. WikiVolution and all. Radiant_* 09:13, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sounds like it just needs editing. Also note that votes to "delete and move the content" are inconsistent with the GFDL. RSpeer 18:32, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Personal motives of the nominator aside, Delete as unverifiable and not notable, unless more resources can be provided. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson19:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC) Hmm, on further study of VfD arguments, I Abstain.[reply]
Comment: The article starts with a factually incorrect comment: "The Ohio Women's Methodist Seminary, Delaware, Ohio, is now part of the Ohio Wesleyan University (Wesleyan)." I couldn't find "is now part" on the Wesleyan page anywhere. Jrol05:27, 14 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.
Thanks, and thank you for your Votes to Keep the Article[edit]
I've dropped back in for a moment and would like to thank all for voted to keep the article, as well as those who voted against it as an impartial act. I have kept out of this debate because I had become very disilluioned about Wikipedia and group of user. This vote has redeemed that faith.
I would like to thank those who have called others on their bad faith action against me and this article.
This matter could have been settled from the very beginning had certain Wikipedian's allowed primary, factual information held in the OWU archives to stand. They did not. I also suspect that a number of users whose only activity exists to manipulate the information regarding OWU have chimed in on this VFD; their trails can be viewed through their account history.
I also call to question any Wikipedian claiming to have attended OWU who has not heard of Mary Monnett Bain, Monnett Hall or the Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary. To think that they could have spent meaningful time on the OWU campus and have no historical background on the University seems very strange. To any uninvolved party who is a legitimate Wikipedian, not a shill or sock puppet, - this information may be verified through the Archives of Ohio United Methodism which are held at OWU.
Wikipedia should be about correct information, not something that is simply a validation of Google, or other web sites. Wikipedians who think that Google, Yahoo and other high level web sites are the only acceptible sources for information will undermine not only the sharing and growth of information, but will also doom Wikipedia to nothing greater than a parrot for web based knowledge. Stude62 16:21, 2 Jun 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 KEEP. Golbez 03:36, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. One of the five current schools of University of Art and Design Helsinki (founded 1871 and definitely notable assuming the current article is accurate). Merge will only mean we need to split it off again later, its own history and current activities for example should be here, not in the main article. Andrewa15:26, 12 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus, very little discussion). Mindspillage(spill yours?)17:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a vanity page. Even if it had the info to be a useful article, I'm not sure how encyclopedic the topic is. --Alabamaboy14:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Substub by newbie, listed here mere minutes after its creation. A warning was left on his user page, not his talk page - a common mistake, I do it myself, it's easy to hit the wrong button - but even so, IMO a little more dialogue with the creator would be good before listing their possibly good faith efforts for deletion, especially if you're not sure whether it's encyclopedic or not. No vote as yet. Andrewa15:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the useful info. As said, I'm new and wasn't sure how everything works. Thanks for putting the useful note on his talk page. --Alabamaboy15:43, 12 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.
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 15:28, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and rewrite. It's actually not a specific product, but a brand. It's not a commercial just because it's about a company, and this company (a 150 year old Australian health care company [20]) seems noteworthy. Eixo23:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't know whether the yeast extract is notable but it is not connected with Cenovis who make vitamins and other pharmaceutical products. The yeast extract appears to a Swiss product. The Cenovis company certainly is notable and perhaps the bulk of the article should be about the Australian group with a brief reference to the Swiss reference. Capitalistroadster00:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't confuse this with Synovus, an MNC medical corp. The article, as written, only says that this is a yeast product. Is a particular yeast extract encyclopedic? IMO, it isn't, if it hasn't changed the product or the world. Geogre14:22, 17 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.
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 15:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's an important concept, but I see no potential for this article to expand beyond a dicdef. Any important links can be changed to point to Wiktionary. ---Isaac R19:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good reason to violate the "not a dictionary" principle. I hope you're not suggesting that we should never use Wiktionary: links! ---Isaac R17:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that. If you know how to expand the article, you should do so. Even a single non-dicdef setence might be enough to convince me. ---Isaac R16:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with "Modems and fax machines use different tones when originating or answering a connection, which may be a source of problem for the user".?
I think the primary purpose of encylopedias has something to do with finding what you're looking for. With that in mind, it makes sense to talk about modems and faxes under modems and faxes, not under an obscure bit of telecom jargon. --- Isaac R19:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that VfD is not about cleanup (and about the need for a template). But how does that apply here? We've got four or five votes for saving the article by cleaning it up -- but no suggestions for a cleanup strategy. The real problem is not that the article's a mess. It's that the article is a dicdef with no stub potential. We also need a template that says, "if you're so sure this article can be grown or cleaned up, go ahead and do it." ---Isaac R19:09, 15 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.
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. Golbez 03:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and continue to clean up/expand. Modern anti-aircraft weapons are sophisticated and expensive to develop, hence practically all are notable. Kappa15:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with 66.94.94.154. Plus it was widely deployed. Plus they spent a lot of money on it. It's even been mentioned by Tom Clancey... I'd like to see a more tractable title, though. ---Isaac R19:02, 12 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.
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. Golbez 18:15, May 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 DELETE. Golbez 18:15, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete. It isn't even done by him. There are two of us that are doing this to record this promising young man's future so that someday people will be able to get a detailed look at his early life. currently, history does not have enough detail on the early lives of its most important people. We hope that this will not be the case with Mr. Lavanway.
Delete. If it were vanity we could at least userfy. Bio-stub of non-notable child surnamed LaVanway, mistitled and miscapitalized article. No reason to believe that he will someday be one of history's "most important people". If he does become one, we can write a meaningful and accurate article from scratch more readily than leaving this one online for a decade. Barno17:08, 13 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.
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. Golbez 18:14, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Two car garage band vanity. Twice as big as your regular garage band, and just as inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Geogre14:46, 17 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.
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 15:32, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
This very short article is almost meaningless even for a scientist. It has already been BottranswikiedtoWiktionary; at the very least it needs a complete rewrite, but I will go for a (weak) delete. Physchim6215:22, 12 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.
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 15:32, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Obviously written by somebody who hasn't read "Not a dictionary", but still a good stub. All major classes of pharms deserve articles. And no, Kappa, I'm not stalking you. ---Isaac R18:50, 12 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.
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 Speedied.Golbez 17:18, May 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 - should be merged - SimonP 16:51, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
I think this can never be more than a dictionary defenition, and wiktionary already has an entry for it. Elpaw16:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete It's still up to you guys, but I added a bit about the usage of the term and the etymology. I can also add a link to Wiktionary, which I think I'll do right now. Thanks.
Delete unless someone comes up with a sensible redirect. This is an encyclopedic topic, but the current article is not a useful start. Kappa18:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still a dictdef. RickK 23:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Even if you think it's still a dictdef, it has potential for expansion to cover notable cases of debunking, methods used, and people who do it. Kappa00:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would certaily be at Debunking, wouldn't it? And surely there would be a more descriptive title? RickK 04:13, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was RedirecttoEmo. This has already been done. Deathphoenix19:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly insulting and accurate article on emo culture. Put up as speedy by Thue, but not a speedy candidate. Delete from me, but it deserves a fair trial by a jury of vfders. Meelar(talk) 17:30, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Dudes, this article is totally on key. I definately know like 15 people like the emo kid pictured. Good article
I think he may have somethings right, my best friend is TOTALLY like that! We always cut him up for listening to Yellowcard.
This seems like a total witch hunt. This a biased audience. There is nothing fair or balanced about several of these comments. Damn emo kids getting all emotional. Get a life.
No Speedy Delete. Quit being a Vag Führer and DoucheNazis! This article is totally sweet. Emo kids need serious cheering up. God damn hippies.
Speedy delete. I marked it as a speedy as it was IMO too far over the top to be taken seriously (CSD rule #0: common sense :) ). Thue | talk17:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost certainly an attack page against the subject of Image:Emokid1.jpg, uploaded by article creator User:Gplefka solely for this article as "example of an emo kid". This is in no way whatsoever the start to an article on emo kids, to which I'd vote either keep or m/r to emo. But I have no objection to deleting or speedying this. Samaritan17:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of my considerable rewriting to remove POV and make it more encyclopaedic. id still vote delete on the unhelpful and irrelevant image, but i dont know how to do that. I predict that the author of the article will revert my changes though, he seems rather protective of his hilarious joke. Jdcooper23:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I guess I didn't speedy it earlier? Oh, well. Attack and tribute pages are right out. The former are libel. The latter are nonsense. Anyone who wants to know about the dubious "genre" of "emo" can search for it there. Anyone who wants to know if there are kids who listen to that stuff won't need an encyclopedia. (Inmy day, we listened to Joy Division's "Closer" and stared at the walls. We didn't need no cute name for it.) Geogre14:50, 17 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.
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 - if he can't be bothered to give an extlink, then nothing doing. Golbez 17:17, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Above is user's only vote. --Golbez 17:17, May 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 delete. --Delirium 15:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage(spill yours?)18:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: with 350 googles, this sounds vaguely neologistic. Radiant_* 17:49, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Quite possibly. It's easy to combine the prefixes "clair-" or "tele-", or the suffix "-kinesis", with a Latin- or Greek-sounding root to get a new paranormal ability. --Carnildo06:31, 14 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.
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. Golbez 17:15, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A classic stub. As it stands, its a lame dicdef, but there's a lot of encyclopedic material on the subject. ---Isaac R18:42, 12 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.
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. Golbez 17:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'm unimpressed by its presence in Kappa's bathroom, but the article does manage to say some non-dicdef things about a very common item. Should be labeled a stub, though. ---Isaac R18:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is wider than a dictionary definition. -Hapsiainen 19:14, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep This article should be labeled as a stub and extended further. -- User:24.69.255.205
This page is now preserved 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. Golbez 17:13, May 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 DELETE. Golbez 17:12, May 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 delete. Mindspillage(spill yours?)19:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is user's responsibility to maintain his user page. This vote is a warning to him. If they cannot cut and paste, it is not our job to wipe their nose. Mikkalai20:42, 12 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.
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. Rossami(talk)23:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A simple List of pubs in Hampshire (without individual articles for each one) might just about be encyclopaedic, but I don't think an article listing country pubs is. Joe D(t)18:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hampshire being Hampshire, most will be country pubs; moving to Pubs in Hampshire might alleiviate your concerns, however. Certainly, individual articles is probably going too far (though if the pubs are, for instance, in the "good pub guide", ...). James F.(talk)21:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "List of pubs in Hampshire" is Yellow Pages. "Country pubs" is ... okay, maybe not encyclopedic by most rules of most encyclopedias, but certainly by wikisma. --Mothperson23:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list which has no members. Even if it had members, it would be nothing but advertising space. We don't have Pizza parlors in New York, why should be have this article? RickK 23:51, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete- there aren't actually any entries on this list. It just says 'there are many pubs in Hampshire' --Cynical13:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more appropriate for Wikitravel Andrewferrier 11:38, 2005 May 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 DELETE. Golbez 17:11, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Another high school student. WP only takes entries on people with some degree of encyclopedic notability. Meelar(talk) 18:08, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
delete - Why was this even changed from my speedy callout to a vfd? This is a case for speedy deletion if ever there was one. --John Kenneth Fisher 18:15, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
That would be #1, very short article with little or no context. Borderline case, though, so let's just pull it through VfD proper. DeleteasWP:VAIN. Radiant_* 19:10, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
This guy seems to want to be on this site. There was a different entry on him yesterday, which poses the question, why are people searching for him? He is an artist, so why not leave him there? Utaking
Delete. "great-great-nephew-esque thingy."????? Just bizarre. If this person is notable, the article should begin with a discussion of his contribution to area art, as alleged within the article, with citation. EvilPhoenix
This comment was actually added by user:Utaking1) who is a very new user with a questionable edit history so far and 2) who has already commented above.
Zero, apparently. Radiant_* 17:49, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean zero? I'm important! Adam 17:59, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no encyclopedic value. Julianne 02:55, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.
I count 6 clear "delete" votes and 3 clear "keep" votes. I further note that the article is a stub which has not been expanded either during the discussion period or since (somewhat supporting the arguments that it may not be possible to expand into a real article) and that the article is an orphan. Rossami(talk)23:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One of about 100,000 short-lived non-notable companies/brand names producing cheapo knock-offs of popular guitars. Article states "no info available", confirmed by various online searches, unverifiable. DeleteSoundguy9918:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep musical-instrument companies. And it does seem to be verifiable. Probably takes its name from the rare Medallion line of Gibson guitars in the early 70s (such as the Madallion Flying V), which had actual medallions screwed into them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. FWIW, the creator of the article was User:Ecb29, who says his name is "Elliott" on his talk page, and the above link is to an open DIY guitar gear review site, and the reviewer of the guitar listed there is also "Elliott." Plus, compare the description from Harmony Central with the article. I believe at this point we have verified the existence of one (1) actual Medallion guitar. I certainly don't mean to imply that User:Ecb29 is gaming the system or being irresponsible or anything- he seems like a swell & useful editor on a lot of topics. I'm just saying that I can't find any info about this apparently defunct company, so I doubt that an encyclopedic article can be written. I don't think the Gibson Medallion guitars were known enough for a seperate article, either; info on those can remain a section of the Gibson article. Soundguy9921:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's at least one more. Who knows, maybe they only made a few of them. In any case, considering that every guitar is a collectible guitar, I'd say that even relatively obscure brands should at least get an article. It even has a picture! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:57, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's certainly verifiable, although probably rare. The only other place I can find the brand *online* is [22], but since the company probably went out of business before the advent of the web, you won't find anything in Google except the HC page which I wrote some years ago. My father remembers this brand of guitars in the 70s. Elliott C. Bäck22:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable guitar company. Let's not have articles on every company that has ever existed just because they're verifiable. RickK 23:53, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that would be rather tricky (but ads needn't be about the money, it could also be about name recog). Ok, make it NN or VAIN then. Radiant_* 17:50, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Not a significant guitar company. Information would be better in Independent guitar companiesorElectric guitar makers or some place similar. However, as a stand-alone entity, this is no more than a shard on an unsought and insignificant manufacturer. Shoot, Hondo was a bigger clone co. We are not the Yellow Pages, nor the Yellow Pages of the Past. Geogre15:00, 17 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.
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. Golbez 17:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
This band seems to be not significant enough to deserve an article in an encyclopedia. A Goole search showed only a couple of gigs ("Connie Corleone" +"band", "Connnie Corleone" +"banda"). I believe they haven't recorded anything, because such would have shown up, too. -Hapsiainen 18:49, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I'd agree with a redirect-only, but there is also the matter of the miniscule in the last name. (Geogre's Rule: If the last name is in lower case, odds are the article is going to be poor.) Geogre15:02, 17 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous.
The arguments are about equally split between "delete" (with the dominant argument being that it's already in Wiktionary) and "keep" - that it is expandable. Noting that the article was not expanded during the discussion period nor since and that the current version remains a mere dictionary definition (something explicitly listed on What Wikipedia is not), I am going to exercise my discretion to override the strict vote count and delete this version. This decision should not be considered precedent if the article is recreated as a substantial and encyclopedic article on the topic. Rossami(talk)23:17, 26 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Redirect. Golbez 17:09, May 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 keep. —Xezbeth 04:57, May 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 delete.Joyous 01:25, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hoax, bordering on speedy. ("THE BEST is a loose affiliation of anarchist activist pop stars. Their purported objected is the overthrow of a Government which they feel has grown too martial in its policies.") Rl19:06, 12 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.
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 (already transwikied). Mindspillage(spill yours?)17:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Kappa's votes are idiosyncratic. RickK 04:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
The origins and consequences of idiosyncratic votes actions, like idiosyncratic word uses, are part of the sum of human knowledge. Kappa08:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RickK, WP:NPA (borderline but I thought it bears mentioning) Radiant_* 09:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure "idiosyncratic" is a technical term of linguistics. Linguists use the word, but I woudln't say they use it with any specialized meaning distinct from its everyday meaning. --Angr/comhrá06:06, 14 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.
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 13:16, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. "Boisterous play?" In America it would have been called a terrorist attack, and the child would have been tried as an adult. --Angr/comhrá06:12, 13 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.Joyous 01:23, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Vanity. I'm not terribly fond of the "put up your vanity resume and have editors write an article for you" school of writing. This guy may be somewhat notable, so if someone wants to turn this into a proper article, be my guest. FWIW, userfy is not an option because the user page already has the same content. Rl19:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. User page would be sufficient for this information. Also, use of large picture is innapropriate waste of Wikipedia resources.EvilPhoenix
Userfy if at all possible. Otherwise,delete. -- BDAbramsonthimk 03:56, 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Merge with bung. Deathphoenix19:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Recipe for instant hilarity Try reading this entire VfD out loud. The more people who happen to be in the room, the better. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:17, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Merge and redirectSTGtoPrison gang. Deathphoenix19:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Well documented phenomena, connected to but distinct from street gangs. -- BDAbramsonthimk 19:56, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Keep and expand. These gangs' influence on the average civilian is thankfully small but it is still of sociological import. –DeweyQ20:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia already has some information about prison gangs (longer than this article) under the title STG (Security Threat Group). I recommend that the information from STGbemerged into Prison gang given that "prison gang" is a more well-known term (although "STG" is used as well). --Metropolitan90 22:21, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's very bad dicdef-made-stub, but prison gangs are a huge topic, so there's much potential for growth. ---Isaac R22:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article and Merge and RedirectSTG into it per Metropolitan90's suggestion. Law enforcement neologies deserve no more respect than any other. --Unfocused03:33, 13 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.Joyous 01:22, May 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 Redirect. Golbez 17:06, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I believe this article should be deleted, because the first few sentences (and therefore the first half) contain the same information as the J.K. Rowling article. As Mr. Arante's claim to fame is being the ex-husband of J. K. Rowling, he is unlikely to gain further noteworthiness. I propose that information about Mr. Arantes may be contained within the Rowling article, and that this article is unneeded.EvilPhoenix 19:37, May 12, 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 from main namespace (moved to User:JuanMuslim/temp). Mindspillage(spill yours?)17:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a vanity page created by Juan Galvan himself, who is editing as JuanMuslim. This article doesn't have the potential to become encyclopedic because of the lack of independent, credible published sources. I've corresponded by e-mail with Juan to try to find out whether there are sources out there, or whether he's published something himself in a regular newspaper or similar, but he has referred me only to short commentary pieces on websites. SlimVirgin(talk) 19:38, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
UserfyorKeep--Juan Galvan 17 May 2005. Since the first day I posted the entry about myself, I have been replying to SlimVirgin's emails. All of which I have promply replied to. I do believe that I have provided sufficient references etc. I sincerely believe that I am undergoing more scrutiny than a Christian with my credentials because I am a Muslim. I have also added a criticisms section to my Juan Galvan entry, and I welcome anyone to edit the entry as they feel is necessary. This is what I wrote to SlimVirgin regarding changes to my entry: "As for the entry to Juan Galvan, I think it is fine as well. I'll take a at it again. You're free to edit that entry as well."
In her most recent posting on my user page, she requested I send her a link to the article in which I was quoted by the NY Times. She submitted my page for possible deletion within three hours after her request without providing me sufficient time to reply to her request.
http://hispanicmuslims.com/articles/newminority.html
From : Juan Muslim <juanmuslim@hotmail.com>
Sent : Monday, May 9, 2005 12:30 AM
Hola,
Yes, I perfectly understand. I still should be listed regardless. How many of the Muslims listed do most Americans know about really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslims
That's all I'm asking for. For example, I know Yusuf Estes who is listed and he knows me but how many non-Muslims know of us? He hasn't written a book nor intends to do so. He is not a 'public figure' nor a journalist. There are several Muslims on that list who haven't written a book, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_Estes
On 5/8/05, Juan Muslim <juanmuslim@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes, here are three examples...
On 5/8/05, Juan Muslim <juanmuslim@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hola,
I've read all the articles/links you sent me. Well, I'm interested in
getting the article "neutralized" if that makes any sense at all. So I
invite others to edit as needed. It's for comparative religion. The
articles
online right now about Mary at wikipedia are primarily from a Christian
theological and/or historical perspective.
Here are various articles I've written, yup, I'm well-known. I don't
mind if you or others edit the article on "Juan Galvan" Here are some
articles/evidence you requested...
On 5/8/05, Juan Muslim <juanmuslim@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hola,
Thank you for your help. I've added three website links at the
bottom of the article along with a statement saying『Written from an Islamic
perspective.』
Most of everything on en.wikipedia.org is written from a Christian
or American point of view even though not intentionally. You can help
edit the article on Virgin Mary in Islam as needed. I include several
references to Quran as needed to give a larger view of the Muslim perspective. I think my
article is fine the way it is.
As for the entry to Juan Galvan, I think it is fine as well. I'll
take a at it again. You're free to edit that entry as well. Juan
Galvan is the most well-known and respected Latino Muslim in the U.S.
http://latinodawah.org/works/jjgalvan.html
Delete. User does not want to Userfy, and does not seem to be encyclopedic. Irshad Manji and Louis Farakhan are on a different level of notability than Juan Galvan. —Markaci 2005-05-21 T 16:47 Z
Comment -- Juan Galvan | (talk) 23 May 2005. Most Muslims would argue whether these two people are Muslims. Believing or saying crazy things doesn't give a person credentials. So most Muslims would argue that they should not be listed. Most well-known, accomplished Muslims are simply not listed, because they aren't very vocal or crazy. Radical groups such as the Nation of Islam and Taliban are listed but mainstream Muslim organizations, such as ISNA or ICNA, are not. I plan to help in that regard. And as for those who included in theList_of_Muslims, you simply cannot judge by your own standards because most Muslims who are listed are unrecognized by non-Muslims. I want the entry on Juan Galvan userfied. Posted by User:JuanMuslim
Juan, I changed your vote above to a comment, as you've already voted. If you'd like the page to be moved to your user page, I can do that for you; or if you'd like a new user subpage for it, I can do that too. If you want a new subpage, you'll have to say what name you'd like for it. It could be User:JuanMuslim/Juan Galvan; or User:JuanMuslim/bio, or something like that. SlimVirgin(talk) 12:46, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Comment -- Juan Galvan | (talk) --206.104.239.113:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC) Thank you for your assistance. I'm still learning the ropes. There are many good, helpful people on this wonderful Wikipedia service. I will continue to make a case for the entry on Juan Galvan.[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.
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 14:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hoax. famous german proverb by an 18th century philosopher, "kcuf snaibsel hctaw," which is translated as the passion of God. 'nuff said. Rl20:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and StubifyorCleanup based on the content of the current article. There's clearly an encyclopedia article to be had there. For example, here is a reference from googling this phrase: Spiritual Marriage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock by Elliot, D., published by Princeton University Press--Unfocused20:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense: try reading the name of that supposed 18th-century philosopher backward... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:57, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
strong keep (as now cleaned up) this idea has a long history in early Christian and gnostic groups and - and even before that. (I don't know that limiting the discussion to Catholicism is particularly appropriate)--Doc Glasgow 21:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC) On reflection, although this merits an article - this isn't at all a good start - total rewrite or delete--Doc Glasgow21:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It isn't point of view, it's a church doctrine. I know because I was raised Catholic, in a Catholic school, with years of Catholic religion classes. It was taught extensively. I don't intend to further expand this article because that's a part of my own life I've decided to leave behind, and I have no interest in researching and documenting this further. Given that this was subject of a vandalistic start, I see why it was nominated, but I think I've done the basic research to show that the topic itself clearly belongs. Valid Wikipedia topics should not be stained by the juvenile behavior of early editors. --Unfocused23:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems this is something. Isn't the term also used when a nun, by taking her vows, becomes the bride of Christ? Eixo23:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, this is true. The church itself and every nun are considered to be "Brides of Christ" in spiritual marriage. Funny how there aren't any husbands... ;) --Unfocused23:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ah, the magic of Wikipedia. -- BDAbramsonthimk 03:52, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Keep if it can be established that a "spiritual marriage" means something more than a marriage that is spiritual (i.e. one that includes being religious). (Googling the phrase mostly gets me results like "Is yours a spiritual marriage?" using the phrase in a way that's no more than the sum of its parts.)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage(spill yours?)17:06, 25 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.
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 14:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
This is a cleanup/deletion request. The page content has been previously split into Astronomy on Mars and Timekeeping on Mars. I've fixed the page links that pointed here to instead point to these two pages. So only user, discussion and redirect pages now point here. (At least as far as I could tell checking the "What links here" page.)
Delete. I was the one that originally split the article into two separate articles. I agree that Yestersol should be merge/redirected with Timekeeping on Mars. Now that all the redirection work has been done (thanks RJH), it is safe to delete. -- B.d.mills (Talk)
This page is now preserved 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 14:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Rename per Kappa. Radiant_* 09:20, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.Joyous 01:21, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it may or may not be vanity (I think it is), but in any case it is very badly written and not worth cleaning up. --Jamyskis22:31, 12 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.Joyous 01:21, May 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 delete.Joyous 01:20, May 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 delete.Joyous 01:19, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I was all ready to come in with my pages and pages of convincing arguments about why this article should be kept, but a guy with such a cool name voted delete, so I will too. Oh, and I suppose I should also say something like non-notable and unencyclopedic. --Deathphoenix03:06, 13 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.
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 14:36, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
This articles, as many containing list of Jews, are simply awful. How can anybody feel free to publish publicly the religion appartenance of anyone? Thankfully, Nazi time is over, and that kind of pages should be deleted as soon as possible.
Keep. This is one of a series, with the parent at List of Jews by country. Somehow I don't think they're kept to single people out for persecution, nor is it based on "religion", but ethnicity/cultural identity. Postdlf22:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think divulging the fact that Alfred Dreyfus was Jewish constitutes a breach of privacy. Rather I think the fact is important for anyone trying to gain a better understanding of history. Eixo23:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has existed almost a year now. I see no reason why this article should be removed.EvilPhoenix
Keep. We have thousands of lists that are equally liable to offend (and are also equally informative and encyclopedic). -- BDAbramsonthimk 23:54, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Keep - thankfully, Nazi time is over, being Jewish should be nothing to be ashamed of, and a collaborative encyclopedia should be free to identify prominent individuals publicly holding to a religion. Samaritan00:05, 13 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete.Joyous 01:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Article starts "Eucalculus is a term devised by Charles Douglas Wehner for an extended form of the infinitesimal calculus." and is signed with CDW. Neither MathSciNet nor Zentralblatt MATH (big databases with information on maths articles) has an article mentioning eucalculus. All webpages containing "eucalculus" known to Google are connected to Mr Wehner. Nonnotable and original research, so delete. Jitse Niesen22:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research - Omegatron 01:03, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The author seems to think this is an idea newly introduced in the 1970s. The idea of derivatives of non-integer orders is much older than that. See fractional calculus. It is probably not known by the name eucalculus other than by the person who wrote this article. Michael Hardy02:03, 13 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage(spill yours?)17:04, 25 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.
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 and rename. Golbez 17:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Band is non-notable, probably vanity, google search for "come inside" +"twin tone" brings up 7 results, only one of them appears to refer to the band in question. Jdcooper23:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and renameasCome Inside. Notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. The band signed to Stupido Records, which has e.g. the following nationally notable artists: Giant Robot, Eläkeläiset, The Duplo!. So the record label is clearly notable. And the band released two albums, which were reviewed in major national music magazines. (Soundi) -Hapsiainen 23:18, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
