Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

January 20

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 11:48, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Cortislim

This was tagged VfD on January 13 but not actually listed. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --RoySmith 03:06, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. 381 000 web hits, 336 Usenet dominated by real people discussing it noncommercially (soc.support.fat-acceptance, alt.support.anxiety-panic.moderated, misc.consumers, rec.crafts.textiles.needlework, a thread on alt.politics.bush titled "Bush like Cortislim Ad. Talks a lot but actually promises no results", some ribbing on alt.fan.phil-hendrie for Hendrie endorsing the product...) 14 Google news hits in the current cache, some using it as a generic recognizable name for a weight loss pill mass-marketed in the United States. Federal Trade Commission enforcement action only adds to notability: remember the Bowflex vfd? Anyway, controversial drugs are pretty notable! Samaritan 05:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Madame Sosostris 06:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and improve. Notable. --L33tminion | (talk) 07:32, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Samaritan. Grue 10:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep as Samaritan said. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. Sigh... Vacuum c 15:45, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, their ads are on every night locally during the syndication block. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Would have said merge ionto Anti-obesity drug but it's not an anti-obesity drug. There are sooo many over hiped drugs... Accept this one and accept the entire bunch later. So delete. Gtabary 18:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 02:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but it needs fleshing out.--Enigma 04:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Samaritan. --Idont Havaname 06:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. GRider\^talk 19:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sure I hate Cortislim and those dang ads. I was actually reading up on it earlier today. The page like many needs improvements (there's a lot of criticism of this product), history, etc. Besides that, was a reason given for the VfD? --Sketchee 08:17, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. One can't listen to Phil Hendrie without hearing a commercial for the stuff. In fact, he's come out during the program in defense of it. - Lucky 6.9 17:44, 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 11:50, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars Conclusion

Not encyclopedic and isn't linked to. Content is a bare minimum, I would think it would be more appropriate merged in to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, which it already is in a way. --sitharus 01:09, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There is already an article for Episode III. --NoPetrol 01:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Weird, rambling, non-encyclopedia. Binadot 01:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing worth merging with the EP.III article. 23skidoo 04:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Nothing worth merging either. K1Bond007 06:32, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if anyone can see anything worth merging with Episode 3 then that should be done, but I don't think any of it is salvagable. Rje 18:16, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
If it's the same as Episode III, redirect there even if nothing is merged. Kappa 19:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete So many reasons that I lost count. Lack of a neutral POV for one thing. --Woohookitty 21:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If only we could delete the movie as well. --Zarquon 04:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete as rambling, near-nonsensical fan worship with no salvageable content. 1970? Try '77, bubbie. One too many hits of the ol' Mos Eisley bong will do that to ya. - Lucky 6.9 17:48, 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 no consensus. Article defaults to "keep". Joyous 02:30, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Fast Food Video

Juvenille POV nonsense. Sc147 01:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 02:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looks like nonsense to me... Delete unless verified. If verified, move to appropriate title and clean up. --L33tminion | (talk) 07:29, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
- And don't bite. --L33tminion | (talk) 07:30, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
~~Move to BJAODN~~. Grue 10:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Now that it's not funny, just delete. Grue 12:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep I will say one thing for sure, it's NOT a hoax. Supporting information here: http://media.erdc.k12.mn.us/htbin/wwform/237?TEXT=R13123415-13126763-/CA/WWI770.HTM and also here http://www.yhssa.org/Library/Library.asp?action=View&Category=Video/CD&Subject=16&r=2 (scroll down to the 3rd entry). The article even got the year right. My guess is some kid saw this in school and decided to write an encyclopedia article on it. Needs a little cleanup, but it's certainly a real film, and more or less as the article describes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. I moved it to the actual title of the video Fast Foods and a bit of edit. Gtabary 18:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. Having an entry for every single film ever made is one thing, but every video, no matter how minor? How about those old film strips we used to watch in elementary school, where someone would have to turn to the next projected picture whenever the tape went "beep"? Is an article on "The Four Food Groups and You! Sponsored by Nutriplex Corp" next? -R. fiend 20:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to think so. Information on "little" films like this are important to film buffs, as many of the actors and filmmakers involved with them are also involved in other, more important projects. Herk Harvey, the director of the famous classic horror film Carnival of Souls, directed more than 400 industrial films in his career. Walt Disney, perhaps the greatest (and almost certainly most famous) filmmaker in history, produced hundreds of educational short films... in fact, his last production credit before his death is a short safety film with Jiminey Cricket about the dangers of electricity, entitled "I'm No Fool with Electricity". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - Great, but are all 400 of those industrial films encyclopedic? Are we going to have articles on them? Just because Disney made some film on "the correct procdures for using a mitre saw" doesn't mean it's anything more than a very small footnote to Walt Disney. Besides, this video, in particular, seems to have no one of any note connected with it. If IMDb can't be bothered with this one (and they are directed entirely to film buffs) then I don't see why we should be. -R. fiend 22:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - In a theoretical perfect Wikipedia, they would all have articles. To leave out the majority of the work of such an important filmmaker would be unencyclopedic in itself, and to try to cram them all onto the Disney page would make it huge. Plus, there's the fact that films are almost never the work of just one person, so to put films in personal bio articles is a discredit to the others who worked on them. As for our current subject, the links I posted above say that it was made by Learning Seed, a company which is still around, and its website states that they use actors whom the viewer "might recognize some from television or commercials". So there's a reasonable chance that one or more of those connected with it have gone on to other things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:15, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
    - I completely disagree. The fact that Disney produced 400 industrial training films is interesting and deserves mentioning in the article on him. If any of the individual films is notable, there should be an article on it. For example, perhaps it was a training film where some animation technique, or character, etc, was introduced for the first time. Apart from that, it would be a bad thing to add 400 articles to the Wikipedia for the films. If by some strange turn of events, some film scholoar is writing his Ph.D. dissertation on Disney's training films, he isn't going to be using the Wikipedia as his source, anyway, and who else, even a film buff, could possibly be interested in each individual film. --BM 19:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete. The only thing I could see is to lump it in with the movie Supersize Me on a criticisms of fast food page. Other than that, it doesn't pull enough weight to be out there alone. --Woohookitty 21:05, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Would be the best. Gtabary 12:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup A video apparently shown to (I presume) thousands of kids seems notable enough, especially if at least one of them could remember details 13 years later --Dtcdthingy 02:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 02:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep (or weak merge). This possibly falls under several of the "Problems that don't require deletion" in the Deletion policy. It's apparently verifiable, but needs improvement and others. However, if we're arguing that it's "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article", the policy says to merge. I agree with varying degrees with either of those decisions. --Sketchee 08:26, Jan 25, 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 11:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Dark Sector

Advertisement for vaporware. While not unheard-of, it's unusual for vaporware to be notable. --Kelly Martin 01:47, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Cdc 01:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and expand. This game is hardly vaporware and is no more undeserving than any other title coming within the next year or so that already has a Wikipedia entry. K1Bond007 06:37, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The game isn't on the market. If it's sold and is notable in some way, then create the article. (What, there are articles about other computer games that have never been marketed? They probably deserve to be zapped as well.) -- Hoary 08:55, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Comment - A game that hasn't been released is hardly grounds to delete an article. There are tons of unreleased movies, albums, and etc on Wikipedia. K1Bond007 02:08, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

- Comment: if you find any articles on unreleased movies, albums, etc., bring them up here in VfD. They don't belong on Wikipedia either. — Gwalla | Talk 20:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete I fail to see how this can be encyclopedia-worthy when it's not released yet. If it has had any noteworthy press coverage, please add it to the article. Otherwise, delete and come back when it actually exists. Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. MArketing campaing about a not yet available game. Gtabary 18:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, needs expansion. Megan1967 02:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vaporware isn't notable unless it achieves the infamy of Duke Nukem Forever or (some would say) Windows Longhorn. --TenOfAllTrades 04:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, don't bother to recreate when the game is released; WP is not a product catalog. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete; not notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Digital Extremes which has a fairly short article that would problably benefit from the merge anyway. --Sketchee 08:31, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Speculation on future releases is not encyclopedic. — Gwalla | Talk 20:13, 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 MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 17:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 4 merge, 2 delete.

SA-X

This is a retelling of a minor part of a game narrative. Non-notable trivia. Cdc 01:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, delete. Josh Cherry 02:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the page on the game if it exists and if it's relevant to the storyline. Otherwise, delete. Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Metroid Fusion, although it is already, briefly, mentioned there. Rje 18:21, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge Kappa 11:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the metroid fusion article. This will be interesting and notable to those who are looking for it.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 11:54, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Reverse time theory

This page is original research and was given ample chance to be cleaned up. Unfortunately, since it is original research, it should be deleted since there is no chance for someone to add anything to this article. 128.138.96.220 01:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, original research. -- Curps 02:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Josh Cherry 02:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete original research / vision quest. Gazpacho 02:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not original research, original philosophy / speculation. Interesting though. An article on this would be great once it has been discussed by multiple sources. --L33tminion | (talk) 07:27, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gtabary 18:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Pjacobi 18:06, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 01:37, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Zombo.com

We are boring nazis. Indrian 02:20, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Zombo.com is a rather well known internet phenomenon. It may not be getting a lot of traffic at the moment, but it is still rather well known on the net. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 02:24, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I agree, it's pretty well-known. Rhobite 02:56, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
That Alexa rank, for a website consisting of one unchanging page, sounds pretty darn good, doesn't it? 39200 web and 956 Usenet hits for zombocom OR "zombo.com". I take not-a-web-directory seriously, but this is a pretty solid Internet meme; Keep. Samaritan 05:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Grue 10:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep very well-known, and it's been around forever (by web standards, anyway). Might not have a huge Alexa rank because it's essentially a one-joke site and doesn't likely get a lot of return traffic. Still an important and long-running internet meme. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep zombo.com. Keep zombo.com! You can have an encyclopedia article if you are zombo.com. Keep! Zombo.com. Zombo.com is encyclopedic. Ah yes, zombo.com should be in a good encyclopedia. Zeep zombo.com. iMeowbot~Mw 14:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Damn it all, I wanted to make this joke. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, borderline notable. Megan1967 02:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 04:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Still referenced from time to time, even if it isn't extremely popular anymore. – Beginning 23:28, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep it. Seems like the general consensus, and it is a longstanding internet meme. Count Zero 06:40, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
K. --JuntungWu 11:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. You can do anything at Zombo.com, so there's bound to be something encyclopedic about it. Bryan 22:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I learned something new today. Never heard of zombocom before. Made me flash back to the closing part of the Eastern Airlines "If You Had Wings" ride at Walt Disney World. As funny as badgerbadgerbadger. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- although I can't possibly guess what else you could put in the article to make it beyond a mere blurb, almost a stub, it's still significant part of popular internet culture. --66.120.158.19 06:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Very marginal keep. GRider\^talk 17:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep; relatively well known. Bloodshedder 00:10, 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 02:34, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

USB Mass Storage Rationale

Delete Not encyclopaedic. It reads like an archived mailing list discussion and the content is some really obscure aspects of the mass storage commands that aren't notable enough to merge anywhere. From what I discern from the talk page the author was trying to write a help page for implementers of the spec, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Dtcdthingy 02:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete --RoySmith 19:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a manual of arcane technical details. jni 17:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, some interesting facts, could probably be reduced down to a single paragraph and Merged. -- taviso 15:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, needs cleanup and major rewrite. Megan1967 22:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Cdc 05:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to USB mass storage device class. — Gwalla | Talk 20:14, 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 redirect. This has been done.

Greatest hockey players

Inherently POV. Delete.-gadfium 03:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Gazpacho 03:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agree, redirect. Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect sounds good to me. Rje 18:24, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, un-encyclopaedic, POV. Megan1967 02:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What kind of hockey? Hockey is the name used for several sports. It is only in North America where it is used specifically for Ice Hockey. (comment by User:146.176.2.17)
good point. Suggestions? Gazpacho
- The article is still about ice hockey (it mentions only ice hockey players, specifically NHL players)... therefore, it says Redirect me all over it. --Idont Havaname 06:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, un-encyclopedic, POV. - No reason at all to Redirect - doubtful someone will search for it and it's already an orphan. K1Bond007 18:51, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This has no potential to become encyclopedic. In a sense it is also a vanity page since the only other occurence of this idea on the Web is on the author's own pages. --AlainV 01:45, 6 Jan 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 01:34, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Maniasoft

A non-notable company. Their website doesn't seem to have been updated for well over a year, although I didn't look at every page on it.

Delete-gadfium 03:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete --RoySmith 19:34, 20 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 01:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Life On Display

Appears to be an album. Needs major cleanup, may be simpler to delete and start again.-gadfium 03:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Includes a copyright notice. Delete, redo if someone wants to. Kappa 06:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not good, but better than nothing, marginal keep & cleanup. Everyking 09:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Puddle of Mudd has a legit page here, several albums on Amazon, and airtime on MTV. Sounds like enough for notability. I don't have a problem with album pages for notable bands. This page is a mess at the moment, but is likely to be improved (see Come Clean). - Jpo 12:55, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- This is not better than nothing. Someone will create a real article eventually. DCEdwards1966 17:09, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - a track listing is an improvement on nothing. Cleanup though - David Gerard 17:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Cleanup. Track listings aren't copyrighted, delete copyright claim. Rick K 22:21, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, album not notable enough. Megan1967 02:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Duh, keep. —RaD Man (talk) 04:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep top 20 US album by notable band with three charting singles from it. Hope to cleanup but if I haven't gotten around to it, Cleanup. Capitalistroadster 05:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Have now cleaned up the article adding info, chart placings and critical response so change my vote to a simple 'Keep

Capitalistroadster 08:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. --JuntungWu 11:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The article makes a good case for it's notability. Cleanup. --Sketchee 08:38, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not a copyvio. GRider\^talk 17:46, 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. Article already deleted. Joyous 01:23, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Rexine

A vanity page. - RedWordSmith 04:00, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Speedied at least twice. Delete, or speedy again as possible libel. Kappa 05:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't look libelous to me... but could be speedied as a recreated deleted article. Delete. --L33tminion | (talk) 07:24, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Speedily deleted: no content (no vanity, just rant about a "rexine"). Mikkalai 08:06, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe speedily too.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 02:38, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Push pull factors for immigrants

This duplicates material found in the Immigration and History of the United States articles, and it is poorly written. There is no reason for a separate article under this title. -Willmcw 01:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Properly listed by —Ben Brockert (42) at 04:41, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC).

Keep and trim Immigration, moving stuff to the article in question. PickUpAxis 04:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge to immigration and redirect. That article still has room for growth. --L33tminion | (talk) 07:22, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, duplicate article. Nothing here really worth merging and no redirect (who would type in "Push pull factors for immigrants" in the search box?). Megan1967 02:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, essay, nothing worth salvaging. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Poorly written with no relevant content to add anywhere else. Alarm 23:04, 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 01:23, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Simple canonical quantization

I know this article is wrong. Phys 19:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Original research, to say it politely. Complete with author's signature and bad spelling. Delete. --Pjacobi 20:15, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Keep: Not original research.
@ Pjacobi:
Let me congradulate you on having actually read the article to notice spelling errors.

Firstly spelling can be corrected. When I wrote it I was having trouble getting the Latex to process correctely. Second, you are supposed to sign your contributions otherwise there would be no accountability in the process here on Wikipedia. Third the sources for this emergent theory are given at the bottom of the page, unlike all the pov and Npov in the more popular articles on Quantum gravity. Furthermore a link to an empty page on a simmilar theory has been added as an unfilled link to the "Quantum Gravity" page. That would be the Shakarov approach to the problem a.k.a "Discrete Lorentzian Quantum gravity" Or Lorentian lattice theory. Just because you have not heard of something does not make it new.

@Phys:
Present a counter argeument. A easy to confront portion would be the section on Schwarzchild radius. If the article present false information, If this is just made up gobledy gook a simple matrix calculation should show falsehood if it exist.

If you want more education on the matter please read the sources. Dig deeper.

--HFarmer 00:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, you are very much not supposed to sign your contributions in the article space. I vote delete, as original reasearch. Also, I had to list this article on VfD, please follow the VfD instructions next time, Phys.—Ben Brockert (42) 05:09, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
How is this not original research? The first source say "On this website I postulate my very own theory of canonically quantized space-time and gravitation. I postulated this theory originally in complete ignorance of any approach other than string theory" and the page is written by Hontas F. Farmer III, who is presumably HFarmer . Kappa 06:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Personal paper by the author. Badly written at best; includes personal comments, a conceited signature, etc... Phils 06:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well written and interesting. But this is original research, and therefore is not part of Wikipedia. Still, I look forward to this author's future contributions, and hope that this does not ruin his Wikipedia experience. Also, I look forward to the inclusion of this article once this theory has been more fully examined by the scientific community and discussed by a variety of sources. For now, I fear that my vote must be delete. --L33tminion | (talk) 07:20, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
del. Mikkalai 08:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Original research Lectonar 08:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. Very much suggest the author investigate Wikinfo, which welcomes signed articles, subjects them to peer review, and generally advocates a sympathetic point of view as opposed to NPOV. Andrewa 12:49, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article itself categorizes simple canonical quantization as a "proto-theory." Wikipedia is a secondary reference for established theories that have gained a measure of acceptance, not a vehicle for the dissemination of information on up-and-coming theories. We do have articles on disputed or questionable phenomena or theories, when it can be shown that the theory has so many adherents that the belief system is a notable fact in itself, regardless of truth; but no evidence has been shown that "simple canonical quantization" falls in this category. None of the references appear to be about simple canonical quantization as such, but appear to be references for facts that the writer uses as a basis for the theory. Very significantly, "simple canonical quantization" gets no hits at all in Google groups, and it is hard to believe it would never have been mentioned at all in any of the physics newsgroups if it had any significant currency. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. Josh Cherry 17:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete --RoySmith 19:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Original research. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The Wikipedia policy is clear on this issue. Hontas Farmer, I wish you good luck in your endeavour to be reviewed by a wider scientific audience. Axl 12:12, 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.

you will find Robert Rickman smith born in Abertridwr is the father of Robert Rickman smith who this is about... why do I know coz he is my 'father' child molester is an understatement for 'reverend rickman-smith' so all you sticking up for him wanna wind ur necks in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.100 (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 23:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tally: I count 9 delete, 1 keep, and 5 weak keeps. I'm counting weak keeps as half a keep. So that's 9 delete to 3 & 1/2 keep. I'll go delete Bobby Rickman-Smith now. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: 6 keeps to 9 deletes is hardly a concensus to delete. I will be taking this to VfU. GRider\^talk 20:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Although my final vote was to delete, I agree with GRider. Count me to keep in the future. Samaritan 22:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bobby Rickman-Smith

Not notable. Cdc 05:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A "Robert Rickman-Smith", whose biography is completely consistent with this "Bobby Rickman-Smith", pled guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 12 year old (he was 21) in 1999 Daventry Today: "Jesus Man's Sex Secret." "Recognised as a Preacher/Teacher," indeed. If he wants to (presumably) use Wikipedia to promote himself to the public as "Rev. Bobby," I'm sorely tempted to keep, including this information, to bring his background to light. But I'm not sure. Samaritan 07:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, still with mixed feelings. But keep. Samaritan 08:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, but try to get this (vfd) page spidered. Samaritan 18:10, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Without that info, I'd say he's not notable for inclusion. Including it is likely to start conflict. I'm not sure what to do. I'll abstain for now. Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even with the information from the news story, and assuming it's the same person, it's not even borderline IMO. Unfortunately, there are many such cases every year. The article currently gives no justification at all for its being there. Andrewa 09:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Alert Dyfed-Powys Police, then delete. Dbiv 10:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. I have expanded this to include details of his child molestation convictions. GRider\^talk 18:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell he's just another child molester. Unfortunately, the world is full of child molesters and few are really notable. Unless he's done something to establish national or international notoriety I don't see how this guy warrants inclusion. Delete. -R. fiend 22:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. --fvw * 22:59, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
Weak Keep, borderline notable. Megan1967 02:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, probably a disaffected relative or such like .User: Brookie
- Comment: User:Brookie is a brand new account. This was his/her fourth edit. GRider\^talk 21:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Who's the disaffected relative? The original article suggested nothing negative about this child molester. Samaritan 05:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Marginally notable, would be interesting to read about transformation from child rapist to preacher (can't be common). As I said, though, weak keep. – Beginning 23:26, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Vice-versa, actually, and back again. (Sadly, more common?) Samaritan 05:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. --JuntungWu 11:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Yuckfoo 20:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Listing convicted felons, whose only possible claim of notability is an unfortunately not uncommon crime, in an international online encyclopedia seems like a rather unpleasant idea to me. Alarm 23:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A SURE CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY - APPOLOGIES ARE IN ORDER!!!

The above line of text was left by 62.253.64.17. (Article was created by 62.253.64.13 and shortly thereafter edited by 62.253.64.14, so we're obviously dealing with a related range and probably the same person. Samaritan 05:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

KEEP. Reverend Bobby Rickman-Smith was born in 1961 so could not be 21 years old in 1999 but 38 years old! This is NOT the same person and people should check before posting such derogatory comments. There could be a case for slander as Rev. Bobby is still alive and well!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Bobby_Rickman-Smith"

The above block and then line of text was left by User:Gwenonwy, whose only edits have been to this vfd. Samaritan 05:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Information in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. Under the circumstances, I'm suspicious of this claim. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. I see the recent edits to the article have deleted the information of Bobby Rickman-Smith's being from the town of Llandudno, pop 20000, like the sex offender of the essentially identical name. At least it's retained the information that he now lives in Brecon, pop 6000, also where Robert Rickman-Smith went per the news article. Will wonders never cease. So a sex offender with the same name keeps following him around from small town to small town. Ookay. Samaritan 05:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Article does not establish encyclopedic notability. Gamaliel 19:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
REV BOBBY RICKMAN-SMITH WAS BORN IN MARCH 1961 IN ABERTRIDWR WALES

ROBERT RICKMAN-SMITH WAS BORN IN ALDERSHOT HAMPSHIRE IN SEPTEMBER 1979. HE NOW CALLS HIMSELF ROBERT SMITH AND RESIDES IN CARDIFF. HE IS CONNECTED WITH THE VINYARD CHURCH IN CARDIFF. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME PERSONS. unsigned comment from [User:Gwenonwy]]

Extreme weak keep. —RaD Man (talk) 19:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
keep deleted, no evidence for notability as shown by the fact that we can't get any info on him, in such instances we do not want to libel. Dunc|☺ 20:47, 1 Feb 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, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Balli vision

Patent nonsense, neologism. Rhobite 05:38, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, I have heard this phrase before, its part of the language now. Alot of words start out as Neologisms. --Benna 05:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Yes new words do tend to start out as neologisms, but this one gets 0 google hits at the moment. Kappa 06:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Or move to potpedia Mikkalai 07:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Jpo 12:48, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Dicdef, neologism. No prospect of becoming an article IMO. Andrewa 15:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dude...man - that's like - I mean, totally, no really totally - like - I know what this dude is sayin'... I mean, woah, man... really - woah...Delete. -R. fiend 19:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, er, uhm.... wow.. eh, like, ahm, you know, er, one of those neogollums thingies or whatever, zzzzzzz. Wyss 08:39, 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 00:38, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Deficit hawk

Dicdef, and I can't think of how it could be made encyclopedic. Maybe move to wiktionary if it's a common enough term, though I've never heard it. Madame Sosostris 06:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have; transwiki to wiktionary. Samaritan 07:06, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki. Megan1967 02:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Politicians often center their campaigns around budget "crises". This just needs to be expanded. CPS 23:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, the term is used, needs expansion. Wyss 08:36, 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 01:26, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Lowell JROTC

Notability? Something it the basement of a high school. Mikkalai 07:49, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If Lowell JROTC were something dreamt up for and used in a series of computer games, it would be notable (or so I'm gradually coming to understand). But as it merely exists in the real world, it's not notable. Delete. -- Hoary 09:13, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
- Ouch. But well said. :\ Samaritan 15:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Jpo 12:47, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

unencyclopedic. Delete. Randomguy 02:01, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I'd like to say Merge with JROTC, but there isn't any information that isn't Lowell specific.--Enigma 05:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this pimply soldier cruft. Wyss 08:36, 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 01:27, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Bertha Dudde

A (spiritual) autobiographical sketch, not encyclopedic. -- Hoary 08:50, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, POV, original research. - Jpo 12:45, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic, POV original research. Megan1967 02:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research. Wyss 08:34, 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. The unsigned votes were discounted. Joyous 01:10, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sean Morgan

Either vanity or non-notable, take your pick. Rick K 09:30, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Both? Delete Lectonar 11:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Both, and also BJAODN candicate IMO. Very dry, but a promising writer. Andrewa 14:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "An obscure fiction author". Indeed. - Jpo 12:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
- That could be either an author of fiction that is obscure, or a fiction author that is obscure. It seems to be both. The book mentioned is real (ISBN 1411606868). Delete. Uncle G 14:38, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
Do Not Delete - Information on all writers and books is useful. Just below in the VfD section a user mentioned that they study writers and all information, no matter how "non-notable" it may seem to you, is useful. The book is indeed real, and was easily found on amazon and barnes and noble. Non-notable? (CaptainAggro according to history Uncle G 20:11, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC))
- You are referring to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Claudia Keenan where Cruachan153, the original author of the article, cast a vote in favour of its retention on the grounds that xe found the news in xyr own article helpful for xyr study. I'd be wary of using that as a basis for argument. Uncle G 20:11, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
- CaptainAggro's only edits are to this page. RickK 21:02, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - I don't really see the need to be wary, nor was I entirely worried about making some huge argument. I was just saying, it's a good point. And this is a piece of literature whether it's a childrens book or some picture book. I don't see why everyone is so eager to discount it.CaptainAggro
    - The article under discussion is about the author not about the book. Uncle G 11:55, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
Do not delete - Have done extensive research on this author and he is a brilliant up and coming writer. First hand research has shown that the man is indeed a popular sex symbol in the northwest US. Sean Morgan is now thought to have sired at least 50 children in 20 states. Furthermore, he has written under pen names many erotic short stories and occassional informational pamplets an the stimulation of a woman's g-spot. We would be doing the world a disservice by deleting this entry.
- The above vote is by yet another user whose only edit is that vote. Delete. --fvw * 20:47, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
Do Not Delete. Just as Cruachan153 was weeping about, you can't just delete a page because your sources don't show it. There is plenty of information about this author, he is my favorite. I plan to father his children.
- Comment: We can and do, but we wait a little. Meantime the disputed notice is a good idea (below), I'll do it. Then we can continue this discussion on the talk page. Andrewa 21:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete. There is no question about the truth on this page. This writer is a professional wizard whose mysticism dominates those who have little faith in sketchy details. It is not worth deleting just because you can't prove it wrong or right. Maybe stamp a 'QUESTIONABLE' sticker on the top and leave it there. The viewers can decide on it's reliability. Sean Morgan for president!
- BOTH of the above votes are by User:68.147.138.231. RickK 21:02, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, and one with a history of now-deleted vandalism, which doesn't show up on their contribution list of course. Andrewa 21:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - That was of my buddy Kirk, I was testing. I didn't know there was a sandbox. I've changed since then, I went to AA, bought a new house, stopped masturbating, and got my GED.
      - That comment by IP 68.147.138.231. Please sign your posts. Andrewa 10:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 03:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I love how you fellows would rather delete than edit the page down to meet your standards of reliability. You'd rather remove the page and forfeit civilian knowledge of the author than provide a decent description. All that needs to be put up is, "Little is known about this author. He has written a book entitled Snapshot (provide link to amazon or whatever) and operates his official website--www.seanmorgan.net." Any glance at that website will reveal the author's influences, biographical events, ambitions, and whatever else. Good game guys, continue to vote delete, you sticky gargling stormtroopers --68.147.138.231 21:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) [How's this? Like it really eff-wording matters]

You lose. Another unsigned post by <drum roll> IP 68.147.138.231. </drum roll><cymbal method=crash> Andrewa 02:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for signing the post. Andrewa 21:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The tone has got to go. --Onlyemarie 00:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- then fix it. Wink. --DPX 00:42, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - well, maybe i will. --Onlyemarie 01:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Try this. My vote remains at Delete however. Uncle G 12:44, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
Delete as not notable. -- Hoary 04:32, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
Delete, vanity ad. Wyss 08:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Too great for Wikipedia, to informative for Wikipedia. (Click the external link, it's notable) by 68.147.138.231 02:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete for non-notable vanity, and slap sockpuppets with a wet halibut. — Gwalla | Talk 20:28, 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 list as copyvio. Joyous 02:44, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Newcontemporaries - list of participatory artists, curators, writers

Um, what? Rick K 10:35, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

It's a copyvio. Delete. Might be room for an article at newcontemporaries if this art award is deemed notable. Dbiv 11:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, copyright violation. Megan1967 02:33, 21 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 01:12, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Claudia Keenan

Cannot verify, looks like patent nonsense. Delete unless somebody can verify it. Lupo 11:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, Unless verified. Inter 12:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete, I study authors and news on any, no matter how banal is useful.
Above vote by Cruachan153, the article creator. Lupo 12:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No significant Google hits on Meath, onion, or exercise with author name. No evidence of claimed books on Amazon. - Jpo 12:40, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Agree, delete unless verified, which looks unlikely IMO. Andrewa 14:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete, Hi, I done this article. (sorry for not putting my name up above, I just copied and pasted). I was planning on submitting 5 new Irish authors but the way you are going on is ridiculous, I dont think I'll bother. Of course they are not on google or amazon, they are only on sale in Ireland and even here they are hard to find. Why do you care any way? its a bit sad really isnt it?
- Is it sad that we want users to be able to trust the information they find here? Kappa 17:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Please sign your posts, user:Cruachan153, and as a courtesy to the admin who must decide on the action to be taken, we don't vote twice. See Talk:Claudia Keenan for ways to save this article if you wish to. No change of vote. Andrewa 21:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No references in the British Library catalogue to anyone of this name. I think it's a hoax. Delete. Dbiv 17:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "Not on Google or Amazon" by page creator's own admission. -- Curps 21:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 02:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence this person exists (probably a hoax). Wyss 08:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable, possible hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:56, 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 listed as copyvio at WP:CP. Joyous 01:14, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Spock Must Die!

Gushy plot synopsis and fanboy review of a Star Trek novel. Not encyclopedic, even if cleaned up. --Calton 11:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, POV, original research. Inter 12:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. - Jpo 12:35, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it's another Copyvio. I thought that I had already caught all of these. (There were four others posted by 65.95.141.101, all of which were copyright violations, comprising simply the teaser text from the book itself — The Price of the Phoenix, Spock, Messiah!, The New Voyages, and Yesterday's Son. Xe appears to be going down the list of redlinks in List of Star Trek novels, in order.) The plot synopsis is "gushy" because it's from the cover of the book itself. The "fanboy review" was actually a review posted on the book's Amazon page in 2002. Uncle G 13:32, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
Comment: You're just ahead of me! My suggestion is to let this be deleted as a copyvio, which is a more elaborate process than VfD and allows the current history to be deleted even if a new article is started in the meantime. This novel and its author are both quite significant, see James Blish. No formal vote. Andrewa 14:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This has every right to be an article alongside all the other individual articles devoted to series novels (i.e. the James Bond series, Modesty Blaise, Sherlock Holmes etc.), so on that basis I vote keep but the text needs to be rewritten so that it isn't a copyvio anymore. 23skidoo 16:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would vote Keep if and when it is rewritten to avoid copyright problems. Megan1967 02:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sent to Cleanup, otherwise delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, do not clean up. Fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and clean up book printed in 1972 and popular enough to be reprinted in 1985. The solution to copyvio is to remove the violations, not delete the article. The Steve 09:01, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Clean up and keep in this case. This book has some notability (James Blish book, reprinted, historic interest as an early example of an original Star Trek novelization), but Pocket Books cranks out dozens of Star Trek books every year, and few of them deserve articles of their own. --Calton 23:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Useful, interesting, notable etc.--Centauri 05:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable major book release. Samaritan 18:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup. Come on, seriously, how could anybody vote to delete an article with a title like that? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. GRider\^talk 17:47, 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 01:14, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Minerva IT Services

Ad for non-notable company -- Ferkelparade π 12:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. - Jpo 12:34, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Probable dotcomcruft, Indian organisation founded 2004. The article currently contains no useful material however notable the organisation may (or may not) be, not even a web page link. Orphan now that I've reverted the author's only other contribution, which was to link to it, but this may not last as the author has once removed the VfD notice from the article. Andrewa 13:57, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Supposed company does not show up in first 2 Google pages as general search, and an exact phrase search returns no results! An IT services company without a web page!? Come on. This supposed company is either brand new, very small, or totally imaginary, and in any case does not warrant an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, publicity blurb. Wyss 08:29, 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 01:16, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

The jimis

Band vanity -- Ferkelparade π 12:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. Delete -- Hoary 12:20, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
Delete. No recordings, not notable. - Jpo 12:34, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Mailer Diablo 02:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article offers no evidence of original, encyclopedic activity or even any recordings... Wyss 08:28, 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 01:05, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Chaddite

Non-notable, slang dicdef only relevant in a part of one City. NB also redirect at Chaddites. Dbiv 14:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, local slang dicdef. Wyss 08:27, 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 REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 18:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I choose to make it a disambig between Luis Miguel Brito and Miguel of Portugal.

Miguel

Non-encyclodedic, not a disambiguation page either (only one object). Rmhermen 14:55, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

redirect to Michael. Dunc|☺ 20:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Michael. Megan1967 02:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it can be made into a disambig, for those who go by only the first name, much like we have with John and others. The only Miguel that fits that I'm aware of is Miguel of Portugal, but there may well be others. -R. fiend 04:46, 21 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 01:04, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Liar

Just a definition of the word, don't think it could ever become a full article. Considered transwiki, but there's already a definition up for 'liar' on wiktionary. --InShaneee 15:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A redirect to lie, which contains a well-done exposition of the ramifications of lying, might be most profitable. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect per Smerdis of Tlön. Samaritan 15:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
redirect. Makes sense to me --Sketchee 09:07, Jan 25, 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 01:01, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Matt Sambito

Vanity, doesn't appear notable. Google gets less than a dozen relavent hits. --InShaneee 15:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this scrap of publicity. Wyss 08:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. GRider\^talk 18:26, 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 01:00, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nick bartlett's song

Uncorroborated and improbable. More likely an insult page aimed at someone named "Nick Bartlett". Uncle G 16:42, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Delete. Joke by two anons, possibly the same person at two IP addresses, and probably at the expense of someone by this name as suggested above. Andrewa 23:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, un-encyclopaedic, hoax. Megan1967 02:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. My relative, an uncle who now lives in retirement inHunstanton, Norfolk, grew up in the rural part of Suffolk in a small village called Horham, and has fond memories of this traditional song being sung at village fetes. He regularly visits back to his roots, and is pleased to still hear this song. Further 12:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
From the deletion log (Uncle G 14:46, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)) :
- 13:18, 2005 Jan 21 Danny deleted Nick bartlett's song (drivel)
- 13:17, 2005 Jan 21 The Anome deleted Nick bartlett's song (not even a VfD candidate -- nonsense about a schooboy chant)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. dbenbenn | talk 00:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 12 delete, 4 merge, 10 keep.

Consensus science

srlasky I did not vote to keep it, however I did write the note that you don't disprove hypotheses in response to an error I made in the statement below. I feel strongly that consensus science should be deleted. Science is done by showing a preponderence of evidence for a given hypothesis, not by scientist voting on a question. srlasky 12:38, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

note, you don't disprove a hypothesis. Negative evidence is not finally acceptable. Sorry about that.

keep - -- Definitely keep it. It is spot on!

srlasky 18:18, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

- Comment. The above vote was inserted on Jan 25 by an anonymous user at 24.157.13.198. (diff). Can't say if it was Srlasky or not, but it doesn't look good given his delete vote which follows. --TenOfAllTrades 23:22, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
delete = srlasky 18:15, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC) As a scientist, I have never even heard of consensus science. You do not do science by asking what people think as a whole, you do it by setting up experiments that prove or disprove a hypothesis. Then other people repeat those experiments and show that you're methods and results were valid or not. This is not a consensus, it is experimental proof, and until a hypothesis is tested in this way, it is not thought to be valid, no matter how many people "believe" it to be true (unless you are talking about "creation science" with is an oxymoron.

"You do not do science by asking what people think as a whole, you do it by setting up experiments that prove or disprove a hypothesis." That's the entire point. Please read the article carefully and then reconsider your vote. — Cortonin | Talk 03:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)) This page is a POV disaster area and little more than an attempt to provoke an edit war. It ignores the existence of scientific consensus which is not great but not nearly so bad.

delete - William M. Connolley 18:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
delete -Vsmith 19:22, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) OK, further pertinent comments. This page was created by user JonGwynne and immediately utilized by him in a deceptive way by disguising a link to it as Scientific consensus in the Global warming article and switching a link to scientific consensus to it in the Michael Crichton page. He was quite aware of the scientific consensus page despite his comment below. Therefore it appears to have been created for questionable purposes. -Vsmith 01:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
keep - --JonGwynne 19:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) (His point about scientific consensus is well-taken and I will address this in edits to the page)
Author's Rebuttal I believe this subject is appropriate for inclusion in the wikipedia for the following reasons:
- The concept of "consensus science" is well-establised; a Google search turned up "about 5,800" results for the phrase.
- The term is in mainstrem usage and has a specific meaning.
- The term and concept are referred to in other articles on wikipedia.
- While the term may cause a certain amount of controverty, there are arguably more controversial topics under discussion here. For example, the term partial birth abortion.

In addition, I'll point out that WMC has failed to list the criteria he feels the article has violated according to wikipedia policies for vfd and ask they either he do so or else retract his request for deletion.

Finally, I request that WMC either quantify the following allegations or retract them.

"This page is a POV disaster area" - what does that mean exactly? It may be a controversial topic (in his opinion) but the concept of "consensus science" does exist and therefore warrants a page on wikipedia. If WMC finds the contents objectionable or troubling, he is certain free to either modify the page in an appropriate manner or, as an alternative, not visit the page.
"little more than an attempt to provoke an edit war" - I'd like WMC to explain exactly how he is able to divine my intent in creating this page. Is this purely his personal opinion or does he have some factual basis for this claim? If this is his personal opinion, I would dispute its relevance with regard to his request that this page be deleted.

Delete It's a thinly disguised critique of scientific consensus being proof of anything. There's an article to be written about that critique, but this isn't it. -- Dtcdthingy 20:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep "Consensus science" is a term in theories of the philosophy of science which question and analyze the magnitude of the role consensus should play in science. Development in the philosophy of science helps keep the progress of science productive. This term is different from "scientific consensus", which simply refers to majority opinion among scientists, while "consensus science" instead refers to the usage of consensus to form assessments of truth (thus placing it at a different level of usage). The term is widely enough used that it's certainly worth addressing in a Wikipedia article. We don't delete articles here just because we think they are controversial topics. — Cortonin | Talk 21:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is not a good article, but the subject is worth an article. DJ Clayworth 21:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to scientific consensus. --fvw * 22:56, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
Keep, but only if the article is cleaned up for POV. --Zarquon 01:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 02:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. --L33tminion | (talk) 04:33, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Merge if possible to scientific consensus. The two ideas are closely enough related; the content of consensus science describes potential pitfalls of scientific consensus. A separate article isn't necessary, and in this case seems to be edging towards being a POV fork. --TenOfAllTrades 04:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
~~Redirect and if possible merge.~~ Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete scientific consensus covers the topic clearly and concisely whereas this one muddies the field. ping 07:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep: seems like a reasonable article subject, with very little overlap with scientific consensus.Ben Standeven 16:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you opposed the content more than the concept of such an article, please reexamine the article after my recent edits and reconsider your votes if appropriate. Thank you. — Cortonin | Talk 09:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. IANAS. GRider\^talk 19:15, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I'm still unclear on what the term actually is supposed to mean. Is consensus science just one form of fallacious appeal to authority, or is it an example of the bandwagon fallacy? Is it what happens when someone misrepresents facts where an actual scientific consensus exists? Is it all (or none) of the above? And is it still not best addressed within scientific consensus, as a pitfall to the unwary? --TenOfAllTrades 19:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The idea is that you can dismiss a new theory as "consensus science" by claiming it hasn't actually been "proved", but instead scientists have been somehow manipulated to give the appearance of consensus. Of course, I'm not aware of any real forms of non-consensus science, so it's kind of a useless concept. Still delete, and add a discussion of this to scientific consensus --20:06, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that is the idea at all. The term "consensus science" refers to a tendency to substitute consensus for science. It has nothing to do with scientific consensus and is, in some ways, the polar opposite. Depending on the context, "consensus science" can be more or less similar to appeal to authority, appeal to the majority or a variation of the bandwagon fallacy... but that isn't really an adequate description of it.--JonGwynne 20:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A quote from the article reads, "Most scientific theories which are supported by a scientific consensus are supported because there is conclusive evidence supporting those theories. Such theories would not be consensus science, because a supporting argument can be easily formulated using the existing conclusive evidence." So a field which supports its tenets primarilly by evidence is not consensus science. The term "consensus science" does not refer to "fields which have a consensus", it refers to fields which "primarilly use" consensus as supporting evidence. — Cortonin | Talk 03:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How else can evidence be conclusive other than by consensus? The one non-trivial example of non-consensus science (re:salt) differs only from those of "consensus science" by not having been disproved yet. The article is bullshit. --Dtcdthingy 03:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Repeat vote for Delete Having read the revised version I now know why I didn't agree with the article. Scientific Facts are not established by voting which appears to be the implication of "Consencus Science". "Scientific Concensus" is a different concept because it boils down to the acceptance that scientific facts are not and never can be totally established. Sorry Cortonin,I can't agree with you, nice try though. ping 06:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem is (and the point of there existing a term like "consensus science") is that sometimes consensus itself is TREATED like a scientific fact. The article does not, nor does it intend to, imply that scientific facts are actually obtained from consensus. — Cortonin | Talk 07:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete I've looked through Mr Crichton's speech and done some major editing to make it NPOV and encyclopaedic. There seem to be several slightly different defs in use so I chose the most general one. I deleted a couple of the examples because they were crap. Cortonin, please stick to the NPOV tone when making further edits. This especially means not stating the beliefs of cs-ers as fact. --Dtcdthingy 18:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep now The new version is good and certainly addresses the issues I raised. ping 06:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete, misleading neologism. Wyss 08:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete/merge anything useful into scientific consensus and/or scientific method. Rd232 16:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Had another look. Still don't see a justification for an article under this "concept". The useful material currently there can be moved elsewhere. Rd232 00:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Merge anything useful into scientific consensus. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Scientific consensus. Saforrest 07:35, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Maybe a dictionary should mention 'consensus science', explain its current meanings, and offer some links. Cleon Teunissen 12:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The term "consensus science" refers to a tendency to substitute consensus for science. It has nothing to do with scientific consensus and is, in some ways, the polar opposite. Depending on the context, "consensus science" can be more or less similar to appeal to authority, appeal to the majority or a variation of the bandwagon fallacy... but that isn't really an adequate description of it.--JonGwynne 20:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I gather that you take 'consensus science' to be the same kind of expression as 'cargo cult science'. I gather that you take 'consensus science' as referring to a scientific community slipping towards pseudo-science, retaining the characteristic of appreciating consensus, but losing its standards of quality.

It can be. To my way of thinking, it is simply a term used to describe a situation when traditional scientific research techniques has given way to consensus. How or what that happened is beside the point.--JonGwynne 18:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I retract my earlier remarks. I still vote delete though. I have views and opinions on these subjects (I wrote the synopsis-section of the current article on the Structure of Scientific revolutions by Thomas Kuhn). But to me, this subject feels like a fine subject for a column in a magazine dedicated to opinions. Cleon Teunissen 20:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete the stupid thing 1. It's a neologism. 2. It doesn't seem to mean anything specific. 3. It only exists in certain people's heads. 4. The editors of the article are using it as a platform for propaganda, systematically removing NPOV and criticisms others have edited in. While I thought it was plausible to have an article about the concept, I've since decided it's not-notable and not-definable. Us supplying a definition of something apparently in flux would constitute primary research. --Dtcdthingy 19:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Calling for the deletion of an article because your edits were modified is not within the Wikipedia deletion policy. In fact, it's well outside of the Wikipedia deletion policy. How about instead we try to work together to make the article into something which contains good quality and good NPOV through the gradual Wikipedia editing process, just like every other article. — Cortonin | Talk 20:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. No, it isn't a neologisn. It is a widely-used term - as I established in my rebuttal to the delete claim. 2. It means something specific. As I also estblished in the "author's rebuttal". If you have questions, ask them and I, for one, will be happy to answer. Just because you don't understand the term doesn't mean it is meaningless. 3. It not only exists in certain people's heads, it is also in mainstream use. 4. Provide examples of NPOV that have been removed. Until and unless you do, your complaints carry no weight. They're like WMC's baseless complaints; a waste of bandwidth. While we're on the subject of proper wikipedia conduct, is "stupid" really a word that contriubutes to progressive communication?--JonGwynne 22:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I no longer think it has any meaning outside science by consensus. Common sense combinations of words don't get wikipedia articles. I'm also starting to think that different people coincidentally putting those words together aren't using it in reference to a common concept. --Dtcdthingy 23:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's fair and you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But with all respect, I'll ask to you consider the possibility that your opinion isn't necessarily the core of the issue here. The fact remains that the term "consensus science" exists and it is in general use to describe a specific thing. As a result, it surely warrants an article here. I'm perfectly willing to admit that my original article wasn't the best thing I ever wrote and with the much appreciated help of others, the article is now much better than it originally was. I think that's probably how this whole wikipedia deal is supposed to work. Wouldn't you agree? Leaving aside our opinions of "consensus science" as well as what may or may not be thus labelled, can we agree that there should be an article discussing it? It isn't just two random words after all.--JonGwynne 23:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it weren't for the fact that the term "consensus science" is sometimes used against topics like global warming, which a lot of people are rather religiously emotional about, then this VfD never would have arisen in the first place. It would be nice if people could see the existence of the term without considering it through the lense of how it affects their favorite topics. — Cortonin | Talk 07:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete. See Kolmogorov's zero-one law for examples of statements which cannot be proven by consensus. In these zero-one law statements, one side or the other has to be wrong, and one side cannot claim victory by majority vote, or consensus, because the statements are imponderables, but not undecidables. Thus, the consensus science article's premise is ill-founded. Just like an early King of England, who commanded the sea to retreat, to show that even a King's power has limits. In other words, labelling something as science does not automatically produce truth. Ancheta Wis 11:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Scientific consensus. Useful content from this page can easily be added to the scientific consensus article, where it fits quite nicely. As other users have noted above, the present article basically deals with the pitfalls of taking the consensus of scientists as scientific fact without explicit appeal to empirical evidence. Although the term seems to be gaining some currency ('only' about two fifths of google hits also mention Crichton), it would still fit better within the aforementioned article on scientific consensus. Crichton's new book and crusade bring to mind a number of colourful colloquialisms, but the pitfalls of so-called 'consensus science' are real, well-documented... and belong in the article, scientific consensus. Ben Cairns 12:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC).
Additional: surely it is a neologism (Crichton 2003) for bad science / junk science / pathological science. Rd232 16:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect to Scientific consensus. Merging would be pointless at this point: this article is just a copy of Scientific consensus with added POV content that more properly belongs on the Global warming controversy page so as to avoid spreading the POV. --Axon 18:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Don't redirect, don't merge, don't pass go. Delete. BlankVerse 12:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep The underlaying argument is valid. There tends to be a lot of appeal to authority, appeal to consequences and appeal to popularity in use by organizations wishing to utilized scientific research to suit their own agenda. Neologism or not, it appears to be entering the popular lexicon and deleting the article will not stop people from using the term. However, a propertly written article will help people avoid miss using the term. A discussion of how logical fallacies are used to control public opinion would improve it greatly. Furthermore, there needs to be a disclaimer at the start of the article that explains the difference between 'Scientific Consensus' and the topic. --Denise Norris 16:28, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion policy

I'd just like to remind everyone of the contents of the Wikipedia deletion policy, which if you'll note the chart "Problems that don't require deletion", you'll find most of the reasons given as reasons in support of deletion here. — Cortonin | Talk 13:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've had a brief look through the votes for deletion, and I can't find a single one that provides a valid (i.e. not on the "Problems that don't require deletion" list) reason for deleting it. Maybe it is time to put an end to this ridiculous VfD and move on. Aren't they only supposed to hang around for five days or so? This one is coming up on double that. The article looks like a keeper, I think. --JonGwynne 17:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Looks like delete to me. But it does seem to be hanging around; I'll put a note on t:VFD and see if that wakes anyone up :-)

Deletion doesn't require a simple majority, it requires a two-thirds consensus. This is part of Wikipedia policy in order to protect controversial topics as part of the body of human knowledge. — Cortonin | Talk 01:14, 1 Feb 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 01:00, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Irene stewart

She sounds like a wonderful lady, but is being a member of the Seattle School Board actually notable in and of itself? (I checked Google. A handful of hits confirming that she is, in fact, actually on the Seattle School Board.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete Pavel Vozenilek 19:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Members of school boards are certainly not encyclopedic. Besides, even if we did (shudder) have all the members of every school board in the country (or world), who would update them as needed? No one. -R. fiend 23:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:13, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, sounds like a stealth political ad. Wyss 08:24, 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. Rossami (talk) 00:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edmond Wollmann

This is a well-written article on a non-notable topic. Wollmann is a persistent but otherwise non-famous net.kook who haunts alt.astrology, much in the same vein as Arthur T. Murray (comp.ai.*) and James Harris (sci.math). Articles on the latter two were recently deleted as being non-notable, so for the same reasons I think Wollmann's article should be canned. Psychonaut 19:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

delete I wrote about 90% of the article as it currently is. To see why, just look at the version that was originally uploaded. At the time it seemed wiser to edit for NPOV than VfD and risk drawing a few more Usenet trolls onto VfD. But as the nomination is out of my hands now I happily support the proposal to delete. Wollmann just isn't that notable. --WikiWikiWiki 20:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You are to be applauded for that. Do you care to turn your talents to pickup (seduction)? ☺ Uncle G 23:11, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
Strong Delete I basically agree with Psychonaut's assesment of this one. I give the author congratulations for managing to wring out an NPOV article on this topic. But posters in message-board and usenet flame wars are not necessarily encyclopedic unless also famous for something else. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Marginal keep. Google turns up over 4300 hits on this individual and he appears to be notable. "net.kook" in itself is an unnecessary and POV remark. GRider\^talk 20:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The article as it stands doesn't use that appellation anywhere, however. Uncle G 23:11, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
- That "net.kook" is "POV" is completely irrelevant to this discussion: (1) I am not proposing that the article should be deleted because he's a kook, but rather because he's a non-notable kook. (2) Call him what you will, Wollmann is widely regarded as a kook, and that seems to be his only claim to fame. Psychonaut 10:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a delete to me. -R. fiend 23:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are lots of people around who argue on Usenet. To really stand out from the crowd, a person has to be exceptional. This one isn't. Starting one's own religion and declaring onesself to be god by advertising it in the newspapers is exceptional. Changing one's name to match one's theory of the universe is exceptional. Creating a newsgroup (in the "alt." hierarchy) and having perennial arguments simply doesn't cut the mustard. Uncle G 23:11, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to Usenet minutiae. —Korath (Talk) 23:16, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:11, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
The first-rate article is wasted on such a trivial subject. Delete. -- Hoary 05:38, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
Keep. Well-written article. Not anymore or less notable than Sollog, which was voted a keeper in vfd. Gamaliel 06:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'd agree that "Sollog" isn't notable (I voted to delete that), but this guy seems even less notable. "Sollog" took out ads in newspapers as well as spamming his way into minor notoriety and ridicule. For Wollmann, it's spamming alone. Or is he also notable in some way I have overlooked? -- Hoary 06:25, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
~~Keep~~, as the individual's notoriety extends beyond usenet. Flawiki 16:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep, as the deletion criterion are not met. As the term is customarily used in a VfD, an article deleted for lack of notability is shorthand for saying the article is not capable of becoming encyclopedic. Mere votes on perceived notability of a usenet persona and the present state of the article are insufficient. The test is whether or not the subject article meets the standard set forth in the deletion policy. The deletion policy requires that the voters test the potential of the article to become encyclopedic, not the potential of the article to be prematurely strangled in the cradle.

Sufficient predecent is recorded on WP for at least one far less notable person to overcome a VfD. For ex., the article on Elizabeth Hawkins-Whitshed is recorded as a WP precedent as fulfilling the "encyclopedic" requirement even though the only notable achievements of the individual are apparently that she had 7 wp-independent google hits, wrote a book, climbed a mountain in a skirt, and died.

Finally, an appeal. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. What may seem trivial to some merely because usenet a kook may be involved, even if kept, will not displace article of greater importance. The voting here is not a zero-sum game. Flawiki 02:05, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(the comments below were in in reply to my initial comments stamped Flawiki 16:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC))

- Beyond usenet to where? -- Hoary 00:53, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
  - Real life. eg., to Washington State, where allegedly the person was asked not to return to correspondence school. To the guy's undergrad junior college, where the sysadmin was allegedly threatened by the subject. Allegedly because who knows how reputable what we read on the net is, be it on the web where it earns prima-facie credibility, or usenet, which appears to lack the same (perfunctory) credibility as a web article. Is the different treatment a function of transience? Flawiki 01:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Regardless of whether these are true, I don't think it's notable to be kicked out of college or to tangle with a sysadmin. —Korath (Talk) 02:02, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
      - I respect your opinion. In my experience, getting kicked out of one correspondance school having previously threatened an admin at another school -- in person -- are extraordinary. Flawiki 02:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Within our usual standards of notability (Archimedes Plutonium, Time Cube, Empire of Atlantium, The Best Page in the Universe, etc.). Gzornenplatz 02:06, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I voted to delete Sollog, too, and this spammer is even less encyclopedic than that one. Wyss 08:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable from what I can see. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
KEEP. Wollmann IS notable. You WikiMasters have blanded and homogenized and cut out all the insane crap he's pulled for the sake of being NPOV. Is that like making sure to print what lousy neighbors Ted Bundy had, for the sake of "balance"? We are talking about a man who has *admitted* to killing a child. No other Usenet kook has boasted of this as some sort of accomplishment. He has won more Usenet Kook Awards than any other net.kook. Of course it isn't notable if you don't mention it. For sheer longevity ("10 years now!"), accounts lost, censorious activities, net abuse, and legendariness, Wollmann is indeed a notable net figure.Wollfan | (Talk) 02:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: 126.169.83 ("Wollfan"), you've made no contribution to that article either with from that IP number or with the name "Wollfan". Now's your chance: rewrite the article to make this person sound notable. Meanwhile, he just sounds like an abnormal pain in the ass. Has he been convicted for homicide? That would be notable -- if he were already notable for something else. Or does he just pretend he's killed a kid? That's unusual, but I believe it's not rare. And I can make no sense of your comments that "Of course it isn't notable if you don't mention it". Mark Beyer, Charles Burns and Nicolas Bentley don't get their own articles on Wikipedia (or didn't the last time I looked), and this in no way makes them non-notable. (They're very notable; it's just that nobody had got around to writing articles for them.) -- Hoary 07:43, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Comment. WHAT??? The article on James Harris was deleted??? How did I miss that? This is absolutely inappropriate. Looks like an another candidate for User:Grue/Undeletion. Was it at James Harris (troll) or what? Any information would be appreciated. Grue 16:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It was James Harris (sci.math). Here is a mirror of the article. Gzornenplatz 03:52, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable "net kook". Megan1967 23:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete Net kook that does not deserve a page.CiaraBeth 21:52, 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 00:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 5 delete, 9 keep.

List of political parties in Saint Helena

This article claims there are no political parties, so why exactly do we have a list of things that do not exist? Indrian 20:18, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

This article is part of a series List of political parties by country, which includes every sovereign state and their dependencies. Therefore Saint Helena has its own article, thoughj it has at the moment no parties. Gangulf 20:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. That's fine that it there is a page of political parties by country, but this does not mean that every country listed needs a link. When they get parties, make a page. Otherwise, it's deceiving to send someone to a page and then tell them "gotcha!". Not Wikipedia-like. Delete it. --Woohookitty 21:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why not create an article List of countries with no politcal parties, redirect every List of political parties in xxx of countries with no political parties to that page, and enter that country as a list entry?. 132.205.45.110 22:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. I support anon's suggestion. -R. fiend 22:50, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A good article, informative, encyclopedic, well presented, and part of an easily-navigated, well-designed series of such articles. Yes, it could become a redir to a list of countries with no political parties, discuss these details on Talk:Political parties in Saint Helena rather than here. Andrewa 23:20, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is really dumb. De-link Saint Helena from List of political parties, asterisk it as having no such thing, and you're done. Postdlf 23:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As a dependency St Helena obviously does posess political parties - those of the UK. Whether they are "active" or not in the territory itself is beside the point.--Centauri 00:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Also, even if it doesn't... another article that is still there can serve as evidence for keeping this one: List of political parties in Palau, since Palau is an independent country without political parties. --Idont Havaname 06:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, maybe when they become more notable and have something substantial perhaps, but as it stands nope. If there are no political parties as such, it should be de-linked. Megan1967 02:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, agree with Centauri, and List of countries with no political parties should be established asap as well, just like how there already are other lists on Wikipedia of, say, sparsely populated towns (I think in particular of List of places with fewer than ten people). Just because most countries have political parties and this one doesn't, does not make it irrelevant; in fact, I would argue that the opposite is true. --Idont Havaname 04:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- So let me get this straight, we should have lists on subjects stating that the thing in question does not exist in a particular place? If you were making list of active volcanoes by country (i.e. List of active volcanoes in the United States, List of active volcanoes in Indonesia), would you make lists for countries that do not have active volcanoes that just say there are none in that country? What about baseball players? Would you make a page called List of Major League Baseball players from Rwanda? How about List of towns with Roman ruins in Mexico? Just because several countries, or even most countries, have things worth of listing, do we automatically make lists for every country vis-à-vis that thing? I am most eager to see this explained. Indrian 04:56, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, for one thing, you have it precisely backwards: the reason for List of countries with no political parties is not its commonplaceness (like all the silly examples you cited), but its rarity. A better example would be, say, NHL Players Who are African-American or NBA Players Under 6 feet Tall. This point strikes me as so obvious I have to wonder how you could possibly have missed it. --Calton 06:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Actually, countries without parties are fairly common. --Sesel 02:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - I am not objecting to the list you mention, but rather the list that is up for deletion on Saint Helena (which is as silly as my examples). The fact that this is what I was complaining about strikes me as so obvious I have to wonder how you could possibly have missed it. Indrian 06:27, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
      - It has already been pointed out that St Helena does have political parties.--Centauri 07:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Postdlf's solution. Rossami (talk) 06:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agreed w/ Postdlf. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, or redirect to Politics of Saint Helena, but I see no harm in leaving this here if it's part of a complete series. sjorford 11:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep It really isn't nice to try to sabotage the outer fringes of what appears to be a big worthwhile project. Philip 04:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- That sounds dangerously close to a personal attack Mr. Perhaps you should read a few wikirules and improve your mind-reading abilities before you try to discern the motives of others. I think you will find that you would come off a bit more polite and a bit less dense. Indrian 21:17, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  - Concur with Indrian. Knock off the personal attacks and innuendos Philip. If you dont like people who vote differently to you then tough. Megan1967 01:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Concur with Philip. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:46, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Concur with Gangulf ,Centauri and that Idont Havaname]] guy. --JuntungWu 10:57, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I've expanded the entries for Saint Helena and Palau and created a list of countries without parties. --Sesel 02:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The expansion is good and I now believe it can be kept. I was never objecting to lists of this type, just to the silliness of a list that has no entries. Indrian 03:31, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. Agree with Philip. Shame. GRider\^talk 17:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Another borderline personal attack based on the unfounded motives of those who voted to delete. Shame. Indrian 20:12, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, sorry but this is just stupid. What will be created next, List of Sultans in England, List of Sultans in France, List of Disneyworlds in Andorra. -83.129.10.254 00:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) (aka User:guety)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 00:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DNA Lounge

This entry is of dubious encyclopedic value, as the night clubs primary claim to fame is that a former Netscape developer bought it. Only two actual pages link to it as well. This page should be deleted, or significantly improved. -- Kaszeta 20:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is a mostly factual article about an interesting venue at which the subjects of numerous other valid wikipedia articles have performed. Sure, it has room for improvement, but what could possibly be gained by removing this article? If you just want to clog up VfD, go pick on the list of fictional monkeys or something. ~leif ☺ _HELO 03:14, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Leif. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:39, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Extreme keep. This is a famous nightclub. —RaD Man (talk) 04:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. One of the few truly famous clubs out there. – Beginning 23:20, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep. notable and interesting, article worthy imho. -- taviso 00:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. VfD is not a cleanup tool. GRider\^talk 20:25, 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 00:59, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

List of Other Charmed Magical Information

I see no point in keeping this page. Obviously, someone meant to do something with it and then decided not to. It's just taking up space. --Woohookitty 20:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A list with no explanation and no purpose. Delete. Fire Star 02:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:08, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no context, potentially misleading. Wyss 08:19, 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.

Evangelical Outpost

This blog is no more notable than other blogs that have also been deleted. The blog garners a number of links but the traffic is still way too low to warrant linkage from Wikipedia, at least right now.--YHoshua 20:53, 20 Jan 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 02:48, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Pickup (seduction)

Unencyclopedic. Vacuum c 15:43, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vacuum c 15:43, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV, unencyclopedic. If warranted, a section could be added to Seduction, but nothing worth merging here. -- Curps 21:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Move without Redirect to seduction strategies (whose redlink is dangling from seduction) and Cleanup (heavily!) to include both sexes and to be neutral. Revert {{disambig}} of pickup to point directly to seduction as it once did. Uncle G 22:40, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
- Pickup should not point to seduction. I believe that pickup truck is a more popular page. Vacuum c 23:29, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - I wasn't saying that pickup should be Redirected to seduction. You've mis-read the shorthand. I was saying that the {{disambig}} text in pickup, which used to point directly to seduction but which now points to pickup (seduction), should be changed back to what it used to be. Roll the history of pickup back to the first December 19 2004 change. You'll see what I mean. Uncle G 10:30, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
Delete. Cannot be made NPOV. Present article has no citations, references, sources, or other indications of accuracy. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, un-encyclopaedic, POV original research. Megan1967 02:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Attempt at a joke I guess. No useful content, nor any prospect of any being added. Andrewa 02:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agree with Uncle G. Move to seduction strategies, cleanup, and create disambig here. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:32, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
If completely rewritten, keep. Otherwise, redirect to seduction. -Sean Curtin 06:27, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
While an article on Seduction strategies would be interesting, there is nothing worth keeping in this article. The continuing redlink is more likely to result in a quality article than this. Delete. Rossami (talk) 06:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I read the article yesterday. I tried the techniques exactly as suggested last night, and they didn't work at all. I got shot down. In flames. Even though people tell me I look like Brad Pitt. And she was a real hot chick, too. So I question the article's accuracy. No vote yet, will try again tonight and this time I'd better score. Macho man 13:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit. Highly questionable vote. Vacuum c 15:32, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: My guess is it's the article's author. If he does follow his own advice, he's unlikely to reproduce. That may not be a bad thing. (;-> No change of vote. Andrewa 20:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic and inappropriate in tone. I agree though that the term "pickup" should be referenced somewhere in relation to seduction. --Onlyemarie 00:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Move without redirect to seduction techniques or seduction methods or seduction strategies or Fast Seduction (Ross Jeffries' stuff (or was it called speed seduction?)) or to Alt.seduction.fast (article about the newsgroup). This info has been floating in Internet for ages, not really original research but somewhat notable actually. For extra looney points, write an article about Ray Gordon and his pickup "methods". jni 17:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Rather poor quality original research. There is plenty of good material on pickups but it is not in this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV, unencyclopedic. Some authors just can't get over the novelty of Wikipedia's ability to temporarily elevate any informative self-publication into apparent peer-reviewed fact. Don't indulge them. We're the peers; let's review this thing into oblivion. - mjb 07:47, 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 00:56, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Alvin Joseph Michael Reed

An article on an Eagle Scout. Sole claim to notability is that he was listed twice in the Who's Who Among American High School Students. silsor 22:37, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. Dbiv 22:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. —Korath (Talk) 23:11, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I was going to list this as a copyvio, but it'd already been done - and the article's creator admitted to writing the link cited in the article, too. —Korath (Talk) 01:06, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete I'm 100% sure we VfDed him before, although it might have been under a slightly different name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:51, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Is this the one? silsor 00:54, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Hmm, that's odd, it's two different guys but very similar article styles. Different IP addresses for the editors, but VERY close. Something fishy's going on there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Not really fishy, they were both contributed by User:Sistertina. silsor 17:14, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 02:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 03:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete for non-notability. Tuf-Kat 03:17, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- I was in the Who's Who Among American High School Students. DCEdwards1966 04:04, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
- So... did you pay Marquis to get a copy of the book? I'm dying to know. Macho man 18:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete for non-notability. Maybe in the future, but not now. And I wouldn't call it vanity, since it appears to be part of an obsessive campaign by Sistertina to promote the notability of him and a similiar fellow named Finis White. See Eagle Scout and its Talk page for more. I wouldn't blame either of them, because I suspect that neither knows about it. --Calton 01:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. Based on the fact that User:Sistertina said both are members of her troop, and her and this scout share a last name, its almost certainly a matter of a mother trying to get her son and his friend listed. --Sillydragon 03:01, 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.