Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 21

< January 20	January 22 >

January 21

Jean Paul

This page is total nonsense. Should be deleted --Neigel von Teighen 21:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete or speedy as probable test page. I wonder if it's supposed to be about Sartre... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:47, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
This is 'speediable' and by the time you read this it'll be deleted. No further discussion necessary ike9898 23:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:37, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

More LQG

This is a duplicate. Phys 05:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Pjacobi 21:50, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
Delete. The editor should work with the other editors of Loop quantum gravity to improve the article, rather than forking it. —Ben Brockert (42) 01:14, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Merge (if applicable) and delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- We can't merge and delete, it violates the GFDL. The only person who could do that would be HFarmer, since he's the only author. —Ben Brockert (42) 03:30, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Sure we can. What the GFDL requires is attribution; linking HFarmer in the merge's edit summary should be more than sufficient. —Korath (Talk) 03:56, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: As this has already been merged with the main article (by me) it makes no sense for it to continue to exist. However I say this with the understanding that this pages content is an integral part of a comprehensive article on Loop Quantum gravity. As such this content should not be removed latter. Finally as for working with the "other editors of loop quantum gravity" by the very nature of this site that could be anyone on the internet. HFarmer 2:45 CST
Delete as a potential fork. Wyss 08:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Bart133 03:16, 26 Jan 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. Merged by hfool. Joyous 01:46, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Komaranger

Seems like an attempt at adding some color to a small town. I merged the info, and this name will never be searched for, I think, so it needs to be deleted. I thinks a bunch of firends from the .jp wiki came over and tried their hands at english editing: the group as I'm seeing it. hfool/Roast me 01:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Komae. Anyway, Komae doesn't seem to be really like a 'small town' to me - .JA Wikipedia has much more information than we do [1]. - Mailer Diablo 03:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge/redirect or keep. "Will never be searched for" is _not_ a listed reason for deleting a redirect, and a "potentially useful page history" is a reason for keeping one. See wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Why didn't you merge more of the information from that article? Kappa 07:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge I was about to vote keep but then noticed that the rangers had next to no Google results. They seem to be town mascots, so a mention on the town page sgould be reasonable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- The Japanese version of the name ( コマレンジャー ) gets 1,450 google hits. Kappa 00:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as probable neighbourhood vanity. Wyss 08:17, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Komae. Ja Wikipedia metions it briefly in w:ja:狛江市. Kusunose 17:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Bart133 03:15, 26 Jan 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 00:32, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Geekville

Personal blog, ~10000 visitors since 2002. Not sufficiently notable for wikipedia--nixie 03:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete platform for external link. —Korath (Talk) 03:30, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete for reasons above. -- Hoary 05:34, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:37, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for above reasons. —tregoweth 23:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete the blog ad. Wyss 08:16, 23 Jan 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 00:33, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Mound of the Hostages

Fictioncruft. -- Hoary 05:32, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. In fact Google results were on historical Tomb instead. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Curps 07:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advert, completely lacks context as well. Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I was pleasantly surprised when my link from Rúaidhri De Valera wasn't red. Then I clicked on it. adamsan 16:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad for a book. Wyss 08:16, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advert. Bart133 03:14, 26 Jan 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 00:31, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sonic-Cult

Seems to have been made to promote a web site, one that was somewhat popular for a very select group but is now defunct (for legal reasons related to a site administrator). Since the site is now defunct, it does not seem that it will ever be able to obtain encyclopedic relevance. Even if this were not the case, the page could be considered fancruft. Nightwatch 06:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Site says UNDER CONSTRUCTION. If the few lines in the article is all that can be said about it, Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
I am a pretty big Sonic the Hedgehog fan and have visited the site before. While the site has some interesting information for Sonic fans, it doesn't seem to be of general interest. Not Delete. Jtalledo 04:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, website ad. Wyss 08:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Though it was once probably the best site for Sonic research, due to the fact that the administrator has been arrested (which more can be found out about here, and the odds that it will ever come back up are nil, it probably should be not deleted. =/ - 157.130.160.46 01:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) (aka ScarredSun)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 CLEANUP. dbenbenn | talk 02:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 10 keep, 0 delete.

Instead of cleanup, I've sent it to WP:CP. dbenbenn | talk 02:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Winn Schwartau

This guy has a lot of google hits, so he may well be notable enough, but this article has problems. It seems like a copyvio. Googling passages of text sometimes yields many results, but I can't tell if it's all from one place or what. It also reads like autobiography and CV, with a bit of advertizing thrown in with the external links. -R. fiend 06:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clean up. Iasson 08:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Suggest anything you want. It will make no difference whatsoever. -R. fiend 16:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Not to this vote, anyway. MWOT. Andrewa 19:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup. Seems notable enough. Copyvios can be removed from the history if found. Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: No. Copyvios are not deleted from history except manually by developers responding to specific requests. Andrewa 19:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Send for Cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 09:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep seems roughly notable enough, needs a bit of NPOVing though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. GRider\^talk 19:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. If this is accurate, he's significant. But currently it calls him one of the country's leading experts and doesn't even say which country (I can I think guess, but perhaps this is unfair, most countries have citizens who think theirs is the only country in the world). Serious work needed! Only contribution by an anon, and remembering that deleted articles don't appear on contribution lists, caution advised. Andrewa 19:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Cleanup. Rick K 23:27, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, needs cleanup, removal of POV. Megan1967 00:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --JuntungWu 10:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Extreme cleanup and keep. —RaD Man (talk) 19:27, 26 Jan 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 00:28, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Moralphobia

Neologism, nonsense. Rhobite 08:21, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

In a world where there can be homo"phobia" there can certainly be moralphobia. Motivation to delete this article is self referential: caused by moralphobia. Comment by User:Crushthem
- Unfortunately I have no idea what "moralphobia" is. Neither does the OED or Webster's. Rhobite 08:29, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - fortunately "homophobia" hasn't long been in the OED. We're witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia. Moralphobia is quite real as evidenced by the irrational desire to censor the new wiki article. Where is liberalisms oft touted tolerance now? Comment by User:Crushthem
    - I think the "oft touted tolerance" left the building at the precise moment you started ranting about "moral deviancy." And don't call me a liberal. Rhobite 08:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
      - And how much ranting is in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_deviant Is it the word "deviant" that has set you off? Why don't you move to delete the previously cited article? Comment by User:Crushthem
    - We're witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia. — No, we're witnessing an example of Newspeak. Delete. Uncle G 12:26, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. --Carnildo 08:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- right because that argument didn't apply to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homophobia What are you people 'afraid' of? Comment by User:Crushthem
  - "Neologism" means "new word". A word that only gets 8 Google hits and isn't in any dictionary doesn't need an article on Wikipedia. As for what I'm afraid of, I'm afraid of Wikipedia becoming a collection of trivia rather than an encyclopedia. --Carnildo 08:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - So then wikipedia articles need only be grossly redundant to google? Moralphobia applies to essentially the same minority compsed by those who claim to be homosexual. Comment by User:Crushthem 1:54a PST, 21 Jan 2005
Delete. Not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. JibJub 08:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Is this notable enough for you: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13476 Comment by User:Crushthem
  - What does that article have to do with "moralphobia"? --Carnildo 09:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Considering the only real "absolute truth" is death, this is a poorly constructed agenda trying to pass as insight. Such fun. In any case, neologism, non-notable, and probable eternal pov problems. Arcuras 09:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and refer User:Crushthem to Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Dbiv 10:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"We're witnessing an evolution of language here on wikipedia." Delete as poor attempt at neologism. — Asbestos | Talk 11:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as neologism. Even if it was a well-established word, it's still just a dictionary entry, and would get deleted either way. See Wikipedia is not... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:59, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this POV neologism with extreme prejudice - because I never claimed to be open-minded or tolerant. Kael 12:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is unmitigated twaddle. --Zarquon 12:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Well, I see the point of the neologism. But what I feel could define it would be something like not liking to be told something is good/should be done, even though it is commonly accepted as beeing good in a specific cultural context. The same for "bad". An example: It would be stupid from me to reject all teaching of the bible on the basis I am not christian. Indeed some moral teaching from this book are actually good, common sens ( as in other religions, philosophies...) but the catch... It's all too relative. Good/bad/moral are not absolute concepts. As absolut truth concept is not either. Even in a spcecified culture, variations can be mind-blowing, to the extent that it blows away the basis of this neologism. Shorthand: fundamentaly POV. So: delete. Gtabary 12:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The argument based on the claim that there could be a word like this is preposterous. Josh Cherry 13:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not the place for coining neologisms nor a platform to promote their use. -- Curps 21:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete the nonsensical neoligism. -- ckape (talk) 00:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, because we here at VfD suffer from POV-phobia. What criterion for deletion doesn't this article meet? Szyslak 03:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- comment: - original research? =P Arcuras 04:14, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - That's what I'd say, but there was no "research" involved. It's more of an "original rant." Szyslak 10:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) (it still falls under Wikipedia's definition of original research, but it's my opinion that the word "research" is too good for this crap. --Szyslak)
Delete, unless citations can be made showing actual usage of this "word" outside the mind of the article creator. --Dtobias 04:10, 23 Jan 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 00:27, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Be-mag

Minor internet forum; a Google search for "be-mag forum" gives 18 hits. --Carnildo 08:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. - Mailer Diablo 09:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I can't see how a forum having trolls makes it worth including in an encyclopedia. Not notable. Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as NN. The article sounds like vanity for "the infamous EZ GOEAZY" anyway. — Asbestos | Talk 11:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete message boards are inherently non-notable unless they achieve importance outside their interior community. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as web cruft. Wyss 08:13, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Obvious delete. GRider\^talk 17:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the reason is obvious. Bart133 03:21, 26 Jan 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 01:50, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ram Nath Kak

On 5 Jan, two members of this person's extended family were nominated for deletion. They were both deleted. (See VfD/Neeraj Kak and VfD/Lily Patir Kak. While unlinking those articles, I found this. Since these articles appear to have been entered as a batch by someone who may not have been familiar with our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies, I'm putting them here for consideration by the community. Wikipedia is not for genealogy. Rossami (talk) 08:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See also the rest of the extended family: VfD/Sarojini Kak, VfD/Avinash Kak, VfD/Subhash Kak and VfD/Jaishree Odin.

Delete as geneology, (family) vanity, and utter lack of notability. I do think it's possible these articles were created in good faith, but even so, they must be going. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and the rest of the extended family entries. Not notable, possible vanity, geneology. Megan1967 00:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, family vanity. Wyss 08:13, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge the information on him and his wife, the poet with the article on one of his children, perhaps Subhash Kak or Jaishree Odin (preferrably the latter, provided the article is kept, being perhaps most relevant as a biographical background to her field of work). / up+land 10:45, 23 Jan 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. Article defaults to "keep". Joyous 01:54, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jaishree Odin

Part of the extended family of Ram Nath Kak. Wikipedia is not for genealogy. See related nominations. Rossami (talk) 08:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Author of one book and editor of another. [2]. This biography from a scientific conference indicates that she has written several published articles as well. Notable enough for Wikipedia, I'd say. Alarm 20:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per previous Ram Nath Kak comments. Megan1967 00:46, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this one's encyclopedic. Wyss 08:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. She seems to be at least borderline notable, but I can't see how deletion of one family member or some general comments about genealogy can condemn every single member of a whole family to deletion. Each case has to be judged on its own merits, and there is plenty of precedence, both in Wikipedia and in traditional encyclopedias, to show that notable families or families with many notable members indeed are considered encyclopedic. / up+land 09:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, for reasons given by Alarm, and her two books have few but good reviews at Amazon.com ([3]), should maybe be merged with information from the article on Ram Nath Kak and Sarojini Kak.--Loa 21:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Every college prof in America has published something. They can't all get 'pedia pages. Bacchiad 07:57, 26 Jan 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. Article defaults to "keep". Joyous 01:56, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Avinash Kak

Part of the extended family of Ram Nath Kak. Wikipedia is not for genealogy. See related nominations. Rossami (talk) 08:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per previous Ram Nath Kak comments. Megan1967 00:46, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, family vanity. Wyss 08:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. He is the author, co-author or editor of seven titles in the Library of Congress [4] catalogue. Two of these are actually second editions, but the fact that the books were republished in itself demonstrates some significance. (Two of these U.S.-published titles can be found in the Swedish Uppsala University library catalogue, as well.[5]) The Collection of Computer Science Bibliographies gives 20 hits on his name. As with Jaishree Odin, comments on genealogy are irrelevant for judging an individual case. / up+land 10:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. He seems to be notable enough. Alarm 18:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 19:28, 26 Jan 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. Joyous 01:58, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Subhash Kak

Part of the extended family of Ram Nath Kak. Wikipedia is not for genealogy. See related nominations. Of the family, Suhash is the most widely published but I still think he falls a bit short of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Rossami (talk) 08:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep Some of his books (The Astronomical Code of the Rgveda and others) are important books in the specific field. His works treat various topics from Science to Indology. I may agree with the deletion of the above Ram Nath Kak, but not with Subhash Kak. Subhash Kak IS important enough for an encyclopedia. --Loa 11:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as perhaps the closest to being notable of the Kaks... but not close enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Why doesn't he meet the criteria for inclusion of biographies? ** "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" This should be met by him (see Amazon etc). ** "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" This is also met by him, he was for example the inventor of the Kak neural network According to questbooks.com " His work has been showcased by the Discovery and History channels and discussed by the BBC and media around the world. He frequently lectures to the public and at universities." ** "The professor test -- If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included" This should also be met.** "expandability - will the article ever be more than a hideous stub? Could the perfect article be written on this subject?" This should be met, it is more than a stub. ** "# Google Test - does the subject get lots of hits on Google (http://www.google.com/)?" This should be met, Google shows 53'500 hits. ** "Informative - information needs to be interesting, informative, useful and non-obvious" The article is rather informative, of course could still be made better. I have read one of his books, and am planning to read at least another one. Furthermore, though it could still be ameliorated, I found the article itself useful. --Loa 15:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, wikipedia has a Subhash Kak article in 6 different languages, including Esperanto and Sanskrit.--Loa 23:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. He seems to pass the "average professor test". --Carnildo 19:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Irregardless of the rest of the family, this person is notable. --L33tminion | (talk) 19:55, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Extensive list of published works. Obviously passes the "average professor test" by a wide margin. Alarm 20:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep this one. 23skidoo 21:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep this indeed. GRider\^talk 22:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per previous Ram Nath Kak comments. Megan1967 00:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Holds an endowed chair. Rick K 00:51, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems notable enough in his field. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's helpful. Wyss 08:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep it, extremely. —RaD Man (talk) 05:44, 25 Jan 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 00:19, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sarojini Kak

Part of the extended family of Ram Nath Kak. Wikipedia is not for genealogy. See related nominations. Rossami (talk) 08:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete also not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per previous Ram Nath Kak comments. Megan1967 00:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as family vanity. Wyss 10:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 08:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rori

What is this page about? It's been deleted before, and is now back but just as inane as before. And apologies for the archive bit below; I have asked before about what to do with this when the same article is deleted twice, and have received no response. Agentsoo 20:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus below. Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
- The consensus below applied to a biographical article about someone styling herself "Rori". Uncle G 12:25:57, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
- And there is a template for creating a second vfd page, but I can't find it... Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  - That makes two of us. Agentsoo 21:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again --Carnildo 23:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment merge with loli if usage is reasonably common otherwise delete. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lolicon, which is what this page appears to be about, is a lot clearer and more explanatory than this page, and has all of the information already. So there is nothing to merge. As per Gwalla in the original discussion below, Redirect to lolicon (just like shota redirects to shotacon.). Uncle G 12:25:57, 2005-08-03 (UTC)

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

.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:18, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rori

Makes no claim of notability. Thue | talk 08:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Carnildo 08:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete --RoySmith 14:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete doesn't even use her real name? Jeez. Article doesn't even try to proclaim notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, blog ad. Wyss 10:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. non-notable blog ad, vanity. As "rori" is an alternate spelling of "loli", which is short for lolicon, a redirect there may be appropriate. — Gwalla | Talk 20:57, 25 Jan 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 00:18, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sesiri

Vanity and I'm not sure how this is notable. Just taking up space. --Woohookitty 09:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Josh Cherry 13:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete --RoySmith 14:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it's a vanity ad. Wyss 10:46, 22 Jan 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 00:18, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Goud Veia

I have no idea what this is. 2 google hits. Thue | talk 09:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's Gundam Seed fancruft. Delete. Dbiv 10:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete --RoySmith 14:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge with appropriate Gundam articles if significant enough. That judgement will have to come form someone other than me though, as I don't know my Gundam from my Robotech. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:17, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't know anything about Gundam Seed either, but I know a bit about Robotech; Googling on VF-4 Lightning Veritech Fighter (one of the mecha from that series, which seems roughly comparable in importance) produces around 750 (total) hits. This Goud Veia only gets 10, and only 4 are on a (single) Gundam Seed website. I am forced to wonder if it might be from a fanfic. User:Ben Standeven 04:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Oops; this article is about a character, not a mecha. In that case, I note that Rico, Konda, and Bron (minor characters from Robotech) get around 550 hits. I remain suspicious of this article. (User:Ben Standeven) 69.27.33.69 04:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Interesting research. Sounds like this shouldn't be merged, as it's either non-canonical or incredibly obscure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete fancruft.Martg76 23:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This has no importance whatsoever separate from Gundam Seed. Average Earthman 01:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fancruft. Bart133 03:19, 26 Jan 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. Joyous 02:01, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Saudade

A Brazilian word that doesn't belong here. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:47, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'm re-listing the page since it seems to not have been properly listed on VfD, or to have gone through VfD without obtaining a single vote. It was listed for VfD on December 4, 2004, and was listed for move to Wiktionary on October 14, 2004. --Carnildo 09:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete At best, a dicdef in the Portugese wiktionary (assuming such a thing exists) --RoySmith 14:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a notable word and concept and aspect of Brazilian culture that rises above the level of a dicdef. Like Schadenfreude, it has no exact English translation and therefore the word is simply borrowed into English when discussing it. I think you can find English-language references discussing "saudade" without too much trouble. -- Curps 21:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 00:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, concur with Curps. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep it. Wyss 10:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Saudade is a word of enormous cultural significance in Portugal (much more so than in Brazil) and belongs in Wikipedia the same way concepts like Schadenfreude, Sturm und Drang, etc. do. A recent linguistic survey ranked saudade #7 in the most difficult words to translate [6] and a simple Wiktionary definition will not be able to convey half its meaning and importance. --Goblin ›talk 16:42, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep for reasons stated above. Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 18:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This article has already outgrown Wiktionary. GRider\^talk 20:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, much like Schadenfreude, an important word for conceptualizing things otherwise unavailable in english. also especially relevant to a more full understanding of portuguese culture and worldview
Keep The point is not the translation of the word, but that unique cultural aspects of Portuguese history during its language formation created a word difficult to translate into languages born in other culture

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 23:51, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Kim man lui

May be close but appears to fail notability test - Google shows only 52 hits. Dbiv 10:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CV. Delete. JFW | T@lk 12:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete --RoySmith 14:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A PhD student with only papers published must fall below the notability threshold. Alarm 20:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 00:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, prose CV. Wyss 10:43, 22 Jan 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 23:50, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hiba dila

Neologism, dicdef. Thue | talk 10:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete --RoySmith 14:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, classic vanity neologism. Wyss 10:42, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dicdef. Bart133 03:20, 26 Jan 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 23:52, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

John low

vanity. It would be nice if someone could draft an acceptable speedy case that at least covers child vanities like this one.

Delete. Gazpacho 10:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity short bio of school kid is utterly non-noteable and not verifiable. Lupo 11:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It does not do much harm for the articles to be in the Wikipedia while the VfD is in progress. The VfD template at the top places everybody on notice that the article may be in the course of being deleted. --BM 13:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete --RoySmith 14:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete I agree kinderkruft should be speedy material. In regards to non-celebrity, non-public figures under the age of 13, it would seem that publishing their full name, location, school, etc. is not in WP's best interests, even if the information is ostensibly self-supplied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete was a new user test page or something. Sometimes you have to take a rather liberal view of the guidelines. This is an obvious delete and no one will miss it. I also agree with Andrew Lenahan's comment above. -R. fiend 16:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Concur. Kappa 01:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. -- Curps 21:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy it as a new user test. Wyss 10:41, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. Test page. Bart133 03:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy. test page, vanity, who knows. Either way, it provides a bit too much idntifying information about name, and geographical location if it is all accurate. At least there is no phone number and sddress, but considering that he has mentioned the name of dear ol' Dad, some psycho stalking net-freak could track this kid down. When will kids learn? The Net just can't be trusted to be safe. Perhaps wikipedia needs a policy dealing with the issue of minors and personally identifying information? i.e.: qualifies for expedient deletion? There are too many laws in too many countries to know wether Wikipedia could be held to any liability should something as I describe here come to pass... Picture the headlines: "Child Abducted after Posting Name and Address on Wikipedia." It's scary just to think about. I know in my school, and many others, the publication of your or another minors personally identifiable information will get you booted off the school network for a year. I'm the sysadmin... I've done it. Weaponofmassinstruction 04:12, 26 Jan 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 23:49, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

PoliPundit

Delete. Simply not notable enough for Wikipedia. This is a good blog, but it's just an average one in terms of notability.--YHoshua 14:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep 260,000 Google hits. Not my cup of tea, but seems notable enough for a small entry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- 260,000 Google hits is not uncommon for a blog. We've rejected scores of other blogs with much more Google hits than that. If Google hits are the measure, than we'll need to change the deletion of countless other blogs.--YHoshua 15:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - The blogosphere messes with google results. Wonkette is a notable political blog; this isn't. hfool/Roast me 02:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)(Ooops, forgot to vote. Delete. hfool/Roast me 03:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC))
Weak Delete, borderline notable given previous blog votes. Megan1967 00:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, a blog should perhaps approach the name recognition of a general news site to be encyclopedic. Wyss 10:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yank. Bye. --JuntungWu 10:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Bart133 03:23, 26 Jan 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 ambiguous. I count 5 clear deletes and 3 keeps (one too ambiguous to interpret). Reading through the two articles, I concur that this is a fork in an attempt to avoid the resolution of the controversy on the main Loop quantum gravity page. That said, I believe the history may be worth preserving as the participants continue to work toward the resolution of the dispute. I am going to turn it into a redirect without merge. Rossami (talk) 01:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Objections to the theory of loop quantum gravity

POV fork of Loop quantum gravity. As a partial re-merge was already done triggered by Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Problems_with_loop_quantum_gravity, the article is now obsolete. It serves only as a funny display of pastel-shaded boxes and as a bad precedent (see: Talk:Anarchism#Should_this_article_be_shortened?). --Pjacobi 15:09, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

Keep. Isn't it sort of standard whenever one section of an article gets too long to move it to its own article? This one is controversial, and could end up getting very long, right? As long as the article is allowed to be edited by both detractors and supporters of LQG (no more forks, please), NPOV should be attainable? The article still needs work, of course. And what was wrong with the splitting done at Anarchism? I read the talk section you linked, it seemed reasonable to me. -Lethe | Talk 15:25, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Article splits should be done per sub-topic, not per POV. --Pjacobi 16:32, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
  - Oh, well, yes, of course, I agree with that. I'm not sure whether you linked Anarchism as a precedent that should be followed, but it looked OK to me. What happened there was that anarchist objections to capitalism was retitled (moved) to Anarchism and Capitalism, a more NPOV title. Couldn't that happen here? Move the article to "LQG and String Theory" or something, slap a Cleanup on it, and try to move it to a more NPOV position? It seems to me that the article has usefulness and potential (although I'm not sure exactly how much of it is now redundant with LQG. Maybe I should go check that out.)-Lethe | Talk 17:50, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to wherever is now appropriate. "OBJECTION ... REPLY ... OBJECTION ... REPLY ..." is a poor structure for an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 18:31, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
Weak Keep, remove POV, article needs rewrite. Megan1967 00:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this invitation to ramble off on a fork. Wyss 10:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's possible that there's potential for a valid Wikipedia article discussing the weak points in LQG theory, but this isn't that article. It reads like a political position paper, not a scientific treatise. To be valuable as a scientific reference, it needs to cite scientific publications backing up the argument (either in the peer-reviewed literature, or at least reputable textbooks). The fact that it's basically cut-and-pasted from a usenet posting is just another strike against it. --RoySmith 14:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just a reminder but the version of the article in loop quantum gravity is a different version from the one in objections. Despite what Lumidek claims, the version in LQG is not the "optimized" version. Tweet Tweet 22:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I agree with Pjacobi about the inappropriateness of POV-based "branches". Bryan 22:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's been a rash of these POV-breakout articles lately, and my perception is that they are trying to avoid the group process that maintains NPOV. Don't really know what to do about it, but deletion will do until we can think of something better. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:04, 23 Jan 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 ambiguous. Despite 4 delete votes to 2 keep votes, I am strongly influenced by the PhD dissertation that Gzornenplatz found at [7]. It verifies that a person of similar name was in fact an Oberaufseherin. However, almost none of the other facts asserted in the current article are verifiable. Since the name (and therefore the title of the article) are also incorrect, the clean-up would require a complete rewrite of the article. I am going to exercise my discretion to delete this incarnation of the article and remove the references found by "what links here". I am, however, going to keep the article's Talk page so that future editor/authors can use the findings there to craft the right article. Rossami (talk) 01:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Klein Plaubel

I smell a hoax... (see Talk:Klein Plaubel) or worse, deliberate defamation: see this Google search for +"Anne Klein" +ravensbrück: someone named Anne Klein seems to be a researcher who has published on the KZ Ravensbrück. Delete, and clean up related articles (check what links here). Lupo 15:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete I wonder if this is somebody's attempt at libel. There is, of course, also a famous designer named Anne Klein. In any case, it should be deleted as unverified unless evidence arises to the contrary. Better to err on the side of caution than be part of someone's disinformation scheme. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
The commandants of Sachsenhausen (detention camp) were, in order, Karl Otto Koch, Hermann Baranowsky, Hans Loritz and Anton Keindl (see this site), not anyone of this name. This article has a distinctly fishy smell and unless someone comes up with a reputable source, delete it. Dbiv 17:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) No, looks like she is real according to this site. She is also mentioned at Aufseherin. Think it must be a keep. Dbiv 17:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The link you mentioned, http://aufseherin.exsudo.com/ says (at the bottom) that some material comes from the wikipedia Aufseherin article. So one does not necessarily prove the other, as they are of the same (dubious) source. Also http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=3682 makes no mention of her. I remain highly skeptical of this article's accuracy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Person is real. Gzornenplatz 17:23, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Comment: There are a couple of things that concern me here. I think we need better verification than has been provided so far. The article says she was never tried for war crimes, I think as phrased that's an unacceptable slur implying that she might have been guilty of them without needing to justify the claim, or providing any chance to defend it. Several of the articles in Category:Personnel of Nazi concentration camps have similar problems. See also Talk:Klein Plaubel. No vote as yet. Andrewa 21:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain, until verification. Megan1967 00:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article provides no means of verification, several details sound fabricated, no evidence this person ever existed. Wyss 10:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
weak Delete; I also smell something fishy here; the name 'Klein-Plaubel' would be the nowaday policy of (re-)naming a woman after her marriage if she wished to keep her name. For 'normal' people marrying in or around 1910/1920/1930 in Germany (depending on which birth date would be correct), this double-naming would have been virtually impossible to achieve. It could be a try to discredit the researcher mentioned above and on the talk page Lectonar 14:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This person is real. "Anna Friederike Mathilde Klein born Plaubel". Right the errors and change the title "Klein Plaubel" by "Anna Klein".

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 23:48, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Patrick Toutain (person)

Appears to be vanity, or at least not notable. --InShaneee 17:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Dbiv 17:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Anon 17:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete though I do admire the fact that it has the (person) indicator after the title, lest we confuse him with Patrick Toutain (kitchen spigot) or Patrick Toutain (novelty condom). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:58, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, probably by innocent newbie. Welcome left. Andrewa 20:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Text by User: Brookie moved from the article: Delete: This merely a vanity piece of no interest to anyone except the family. If you link to his website he brags about being on Wikipedia! www.toutys.com User: Brookie. Andrewa 20:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity Autobiography. This from [8] (the web site given as an external link):
- Patrick Toutain dans l'encyclopédie !!??
  ... Non, je ne suis pas encore dans le Larousse ou Universalis, mais dans Wikipedia, l'encyclopédie collaborative et participative en ligne :
  - Biographie (modeste à ce point) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Toutain_%28person%29
  - Anniversaire : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_5
  Transmis par: toutainp actif Vendredi, 21 Janvier 2005 @ 18:37
Compare the timestamp of that posting with the timestamp of the original Patrick Toutain (person) article (and remember that France is UTC+01:00 right now). Uncle G 21:19, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm very tempted to link the page to my old proposal archived at user:andrewa/probably not famous people. No change of vote. Andrewa 02:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. -- Curps 21:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Wyss 10:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vv (very vanity) Lectonar 14:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, I was trying to see if this stuff worked and it seems so ! "Dommage" by the way as we say in french ;-)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Article already deleted. Joyous 23:48, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

50 things to do in an elevator

Not encyclopedic. --InShaneee 17:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

speedy delete it's also probably cut&pasted from internet --Melaen 17:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's no "probably" about it. ☺ Uncle G 18:02, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
Wow, that's pretty useless. Delete. KingTT 18:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as test by this IP. No useful content, one of many joke emails that have discovered eternal life in cyberspace. Andrewa 19:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Why are we even wasting time voting on this? --RoySmith 23:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not sure. Delete. GRider\^talk 00:41, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, unencyclopaedic, possible copyright violation. Megan1967 01:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep , this is useful, you are all fools. I do however think the title should be changed so that additions can be made, as I know of many more things that can be done in an elevator.
- Above contribution is by chronic vandal User:69.162.158.161. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. He's right, there are actually a lot of things you can do in an elevator that aren't listed here. LeeJacksonKing 01:19, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This is User:LeeJacksonKing's only edit. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hard to say if it's a copyvio, since its widely spread over the net. But who cares. It's not encyclopedic, at the very least. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Was this on BJAODN before? - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as excessively boring. -- Hoary 07:08, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
What kind of list is this? They didn't even mention the best thing to do in an elevator. Delete. Everyking 09:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, wish it was a speedy but there's nothing to hook onto ...zzzzz Wyss 10:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unexpandable: any attempt to add new content would render the title incorrect. --MarkSweep 10:30, 22 Jan 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 23:47, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Igry

Neologism. The article claims it is such, and even says who invented it (perhaps the article's creator?). Lots of google hits, but those that aren't pages for neologisms seem to be foreign language sites, where "igry" is, I guess, a real word. This neologism seems like it might be more likely to catch on than most, but until it does we're not here to promote it. I don't know what Wiktionary does about neologisms, but it belongs more with them than with us. -R. fiend 17:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete as self-admitted neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into gry without Redirect. If use of the word were to become widespread, igry would still be a dictionary entry, not an encyclopaedia entry. Moreover, as per Wikipedia naming conventions, any encyclopedia article on the subject would have to be iger, not igry. Uncle G 18:20, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to gry. Merge without redirect gives needless GFDL problems, and is not generally a valid vote for this reason, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Commenting on a listing for deletion. But in any case I found this interesting, if a bit obscure. Content should be kept, which means we must keep the history somehow, and the redir seems a useful one to me anyway. Andrewa 20:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Simply mentioning the original article in the merging edit summary will solve those problems. GFDL only requires the person to be credited. Mgm|^(talk) 23:55, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

The practice up until now has been to copy (by cut and paste) the edit history of the original article into the talk page of the target. Personally I'm a bit dubious that even this is sufficient. How does the mere mention of a deleted article credit the author(s)? Andrewa 08:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, no merge, no redirect, no wiktionary. Article appears to have been created to promote this neologism. Kappa 00:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, watching someone attempt to use Wikipedia to promote neologisms makes me feel igry. Google hits seem to mostly be from January 2004, a year ago. It didn't catch on. -- Curps 01:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity neologism. Wyss 10:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. Not in significant real use. When it is in the dictionary, I will accept that the word actually has been introduced into the language, and at that point it will merit an article. That -gry riddle was stupid to begin with, and enjoyed an irritating burst of popularity a few years ago, but I think it has died down now. Yep, only three hits for "gry" in rec.puzzles in the year 2004, compared with 303 in 1996. So there's no real need for this neologism any more, and it is very unlikely to get any traction. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A neologism and a dicdef. Bart133 03:24, 26 Jan 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 23:47, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Dimitri Bettarello Xavier

Article does not establish notability, also no Google hits that make me think we need an article about this man.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 23:46, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Halden tennis

Stub in ~~Swedish~~ Norwegian about a tennis club. According to their homepage they have two outdoor courts, two indoor courts, and a clubhouse. I don't think that that is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. -- Sietse 19:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Both the article and website are in Swedish, apparently, but no evidence of notability. Test by IP with no other contributions, welcome left. Andrewa 19:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Actually, it is in Norwegian - Halden is a town in Norway. Seems to be a minor club. Alarm 20:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Oops! You're sure? I'll update my welcome! Hmmm... which dialect of written Norwegian (there are two), do you know? No change of vote. Andrewa 20:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, totally sure. It's Norwegian Bokmål, the most common one. Alarm 22:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, almost vanity. Wyss 10:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Bart133 03:27, 26 Jan 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. dbenbenn | talk 00:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 4 delete, 13 keep.

Alberta Williams King

Solely distinguished for being someone's mother, it seems. That someone is "Martain Luther King, Jr." (sic). Even Martin Luther King's mother wouldn't merit her own article on that ground alone, though. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Martin Luther King, Sr.. Better a redlink than this. Uncle G 19:18, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

I'd say keep though this needs a lot of cleanup and expansion. Like MLKJr (and possibly MLKJr's brother), she was assasinated. That alone should be worthy of a brief article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, very notable subject. A deletable substub at present but I don't think it will stay that way. Andrewa 19:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for same reasons mentioned at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Martin Luther King, Sr. only perhaps more so. Behind every notable person there is at least one or more "unsung" persons who influenced them enormously... a parent or relative, a teacher, a mentor. But the point is, these folks are unsung and not notable in their own right. We don't have an article on Albert Einstein's high school physics teacher, or whatnot. Having said that, people are bending the rules for reasons of sentiment, and there's nothing horribly wrong with that I suppose, as long as somebody gets busy and makes this article much more presentable. I presume the Keep voters from MLK Sr. will step up to the plate once again? -- Curps 21:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I think you might be right that some folks might vote keep here because of sentiment, but surely it is worth noting that she was assasinated. Also, as I stated in my defence of the MLKSr article, MLKJr is the subject of a HUGE number of school reports by children, and thus things relating to him should be considered more carefully than, say, an article about an article about Richard Dawson's mother or something similarly obscure. In other words, MLKJr is the subject of a lot of research, Wikipedia is a research tool. Therefore, the more the merrier. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:29, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. GRider\^talk 22:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, being the mother of someone notable does not IMO make that person notable on those grounds alone. If we start allowing entries like this we could open the floodgate to allowing MLK's other relatives to be included even if they havent done anything notable. I don't believe this is a good thing in the long term for Wikipedia. Megan1967 01:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, information is easily verifiable. - SimonP 03:31, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'll side with Megan here. --Idont Havaname 05:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge and redirect. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:02, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Most notable people don't deserve separate articles on close family members unless they are notable in their own right, but exceptionally famous people do. Everyking 09:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep, sadly, her assasination taken in context with her son's is encyclopedic. Wyss 10:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --JuntungWu 10:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. She had an imortant influence on Martin Luther King Jr. a highly notable figure and someone who is likely to be the subject of school projects. She was the choir director of a well-regarded choir that performed at the premiere of Gone with the Wind in 1939. Her assassination is also notable. I have fleshed out the article adding this information.
- Oops. forgot to sign onCapitalistroadster 03:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, new article seems fine. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Bad article, but notable. Bart133 03:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yet another keeper. —RaD Man (talk) 19:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. She played a large role in MLK's ministry and is therefore worthy of an article. Zerbey 23:45, 27 Jan 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. dbenbenn | talk 17:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 6 keep, 5 delete.

List of Top 40 singles in 2005 (UK)

Not encyclopedic (leave it to theofficialcharts website) and not up to date. Can't see it being updated any time soon either as it's going to be a pain to do so. Important info covered by 2005 in music (UK).

Delete (by submitter) violet/riga (t) 20:06, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- ...or rename to Top 40 singles of the first week of 2005 (UK). violet/riga (t) 12:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep official charts don't have wikilinks. Kappa 00:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This information is unavailable until January of next year. RickK 01:10, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
- You've misinterpreted the title.Philip 04:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Not at all. UNLESS somebody is planning on keeping this updated throughout the entire year, which is unlikely, this can only be calculated once the year is over. Rick K 20:55, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Someone has put considerable effort into this and I don't want to slap them in the face. I've put it into the British music category. Philip 04:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, someone has but only for the first week - will they be doing it for the other 51? violet/riga (t) 11:41, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, duplicates. Wyss 10:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Strong one. --JuntungWu 10:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep for now, delete later (say, at the end of February) if not updated. —Korath (Talk) 08:39, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete un-maintainable lists. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. With effort, this is clearly maintainable. Just like any other list. GRider\^talk 20:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. Removed chart runs. Now up to date and easier to update with new entries every week. Plasmic Squonka! 00:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For those of you that are choosing keep could you please say when you think it would be too outdated? It's over three weeks old now and is getting harder to get uptodate every week. violet/riga (t) 21:34, 24 Jan 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 ambiguous. Votes to keep and delete were evenly split. The article itself is a very short description of name and its origins. By past convention, such articles are generally moved to Wiktionary unless there is a specific reason to retain them - usually as a disambiguation page for multiple notable persons by that name. Since this page is an orphan, that argument does not appear to apply.

Since the transwiki process does not destroy history, it does not require full VfD concensus to move an article into the transwiki queue. I am going to exercise my rights as an ordinary editor to mark this article for transwiki to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 02:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conlon

An Irish surname. Probably not notable. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 20:36, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Send for Cleanup. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, genealogy. Wyss 10:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, I think it's OK. It's not genealogy as such. I'm going to delete that last sentence, "I don't know the history of the name but have always felt it to be an uncommon name, so if anyone knows more about it then please add to this entry." which a) goes without saying, and b) is unencyclopedic in style—encyclopedia articles are not chat rooms and we're not supposed to "break the fourth wall" and wink at the reader. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. Bacchiad 08:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's a legitimate short-article topic. dbenbenn | talk 23:50, 27 Jan 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 23:41, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Connectainment

Neologism. Probably invented by a marketing committee somewhere. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 20:47, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't sound like the sort of word anyone would ever actually use. And even if they did, it would still just be a dicdef. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:39, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, dictionary definition, neologism. Megan1967 01:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete for now until it goes into more common use (if it ever does). We do have infotainment and edutainment, which are both also stupid neologisms but apparently are in common enough use to be worth keeping... --Idont Havaname 05:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity neologism. Wyss 10:16, 22 Jan 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. dbenbenn | talk 23:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fresh Hare

A Bugs Bunny short. Not notable enough for a separate article. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 21:12, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep If I had my way, every film ever made and released would get an article. Of course, I know that not everyone agrees with me on this. Still, this is more notable than the average film anyway. It stars Mel Blanc, it was directed by Friz Freleng, and is well-known as an example of censorship (a "blackface" ending is often cut out). Needs expanding though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:35, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. A few minutes research with Google shows this is a true classic, and verifies Starblind's comment about the racism tie-in (which, while regretable, does add to the historic interest). There is no doubt that, as it stands, it's a disaster of an article, but the subject is important, so it's got potential. I put a stub template on it, and I'm tempted to do the research and re-write it myself. --RoySmith 23:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would've gone for a merge, but Bugs Bunny is already too long as it stands, so keep and expand. Mgm|^(talk) 00:02, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep & expand. ~ mlk ^✉^♬ 01:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~
Keep. Valid article about a cartoon. Rick K 01:07, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's Bugs Bunny :) Wyss 10:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep (adopts Elmer Fudd voice) I'm going to keep the wabbit.Capitalistroadster 03:22, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep I expanded it, so it's no longer a stub. It's notable for being one of four shorts with the more rotund Elmer Fudd design, it's one of Friz Freleng's better early Bugs shorts, and, as someone mentioned, the issue with the blackface ending. I remember watching it as a kid and thinking "okay...that's not right." But, for some reason, I found it even less right when Turner sliced the ending off of this, and also Tortoise Wins By a Hare. --b. Touch 10:13, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep the wabbit! —tregoweth 19:13, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\^talk 20:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep brilliant new short article about an important animated short. Don't kill da wabbit!! This is one of my favorite Bugs Bunny shorts of all time and it still steams my fleckmans when I see the ending sliced off of it. - Lucky 6.9 01:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Duh, keep. —RaD Man (talk) 19:46, 26 Jan 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. This has been done. Joyous 23:34, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Godesses

Original research. Also, this strikes of what's known in some pagan circles as "fluffyness"; roughly defined as the belief in a pagan concept because is sounds cool or meshes with your political beliefs, rather than because you think it's spiritually right. In other words, it's inherently POV. -- Scott e^iπ + 1 = 0 21:39, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Goddess. Don't merge. That's a good article, this one isn't encyclopedic enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:50, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Goddess, nothing here worth merging. Megan1967 01:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:40, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect I suppose. The content's a personal essay for sure. Wyss 10:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Goddess, subject addressed at Goddess worship. Gazpacho 13:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Redirect to Goddess, I guess (which isn't a whole lot better). Bacchiad 07:54, 26 Jan 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.

urghhhh how can I renominate something for deletion? --Tothebarricades July 9, 2005 09:07 (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. Joyous 23:33, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

List of theme songs without lyrics

Not encyclopedic. Plop 22:15, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Keep Abstain This one is right on the borderline. So much so that I don't feel comfortable voting either way. I will point out, though, that WP is home to loads of various lists, and this one isn't harming anybody. It's also not a POV problem like so many lists we've voted to delete (conservative & liberal cities, for example). I'm going to add some stuff to this, we'll see how it goes. I do think that List of instrumental televison theme songs would be a better title though. Update changing vote to keep as I have added enough shows to make this list thrice as long as when it was VfD'ed. Now comfortable voting to keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. One of many lists of songs. Rick K 23:28, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, un-encyclopaedic. The number of these trivial song lists have become endemic. Megan1967 01:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 10:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly harmless, and fits in nicely with other song lists. There are things which need to be deleted from Wikipedia, and this isn't one of them. sjorford 20:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Lists may not be "encyclopedic", but long-established precedent suggests that lists are Wikipedic. Bryan 22:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Encyclopedic. The number of comprehensive song lists shows their importance to people using Wikipedia, and hence confirms their notability and usefulness.--Centauri 05:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. --chaizzilla 05:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) My subjective input: I "get" this list. If you're into arrangements (into new ideas for pieces to arrange, etc), this list makes plenty of sense.
Keep. Cool idea. bbx 01:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Cool idea. JuntungWu 02:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep cool ideas. GRider\^talk 20:10, 24 Jan 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 23:33, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

HITXpressions!

No Google hits, suggesting that it's either real and nonnotable, or just fictional. —tregoweth 23:03, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. They " introduced a number of artists" apparently - most of which are far older than this station.. Delete Sc147 23:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible advertisement. Megan1967 01:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this ad platform. Wyss 10:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Xezbeth 17:11, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Obvious delete. GRider\^talk 17:53, 25 Jan 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. Joyous 03:11, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Parapodia

This is a real topic, but IMHO it is too specific a topic (the organs of a specific group of annelids) to be worthy of an article. I do not foresee it growing enough to legitimate itself. →Iñgōlemo← ^(talk 23:02, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

Keep ~ mlk ^✉^♬ 00:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~
Keep even if it doesn't deserve an article, it should be given more than seven minutes to grow into something worth merging. Kappa 00:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep this valid bio-stub. Allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\^talk 00:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I just made that mistake on Chaetae (which had been CSDed within one minute, not VfDed within seven). It's {{biosci-stub}} ☺ Uncle G 01:10, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
Keep and Move to parapodium. My Key Facts Dictionary of Biology is a paper encyclopaedia and has such has had to squeeze everything into a mere 282 pages. If its editors considered parapodium worth expending an entire article of its own on, then Wikipedia editors almost certainly should. Are you seriously trying to suggest that a fictional planet that is mentioned in passing as the birthplace of a fictional character in a science fiction book is worthy of its own article here whilst parapodia are not? Uncle G 01:10, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
Keep, in need of expansion. Megan1967 01:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Valid topic. If it hasn't grown in six months, we can merge-and-delete it then. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep We should keep all scientific topics by default, as long as they are proved (or widely accepted) to be true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:08, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Muhammad Fuad Syazwan Ramli

Vanity. Has also created himself a reference on births on that day. Smoddy | ειπετε 23:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete Pavel Vozenilek 00:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Offers no evidence that this is encyclopedic. Andrewa 04:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. Wyss 10:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete more vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:08, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Renault Espace MK1

Unneeded page overlaps with Renault Espace with no new information and improper capitalization. --SFoskett 19:10, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- ~~I suggest a redirect to Renault Espace. —tregoweth 23:04, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)~~ Given the comments below, I change my vote to delete. —tregoweth 16:11, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No content to merge, and the proposed redirect will be useless. Andrewa 04:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this forky dupe. Wyss 10:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete—'MK1' is not the proper designation for this model, so a redirect would not be a good solution. Information exists already at Renault Espace page. Further, user appears to be known automotive page vandal formerly at 213.122.196.51 (and other 213.122.x.x addresses), with similar writing style. Stombs 10:39, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as yet another hoax from our Eurocentric auto vandal. Agree that a redirect is useless since there's no such model. Dude, if you know so much about cars, why not try writing and expanding real articles, hmm? - Lucky 6.9 17:39, 25 Jan 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.