Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 31

< May 30	June 1 >

May 31[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sp3tt[edit]

It really p*sses me off that such extreme vanity is not speedy deletable. But it's not. So here I am, and here you are, and it gets its five days of fame. Denni ☯ 00:08, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Delete. Unnotable vanity. Nobody cares about some random guy's computer. Nestea 00:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Waste of time and resources and of no interest to anyone, with the possible exception of the guy himself. -- Captain Disdain 00:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does this satisfy speedy criteria 1 under articles that says Very short articles with little or no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.") ? RJFJR 00:41, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- No, "a wellknown wannabe-hacker who live in Sweden" has enough context that we can tell it is vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wannabe. Gazpacho 00:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Denni....and, of course, it will get to live on forever in the likes of Google's cache. --Xcali 02:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-evident. Waste of servers. Andrew pmk 02:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 03:04 May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Life is full of injustice. Five days of undeserved fame is not high on my list. ----Isaac R 03:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity and should be speedy deletable. Columbia 04:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Do I really need to repeat what has already been said? I hope not. I will add another point to the list, however: Wikipedia is not a place to glorify the merely malevolent. Unless he's in the same rank as Billy the Kid and Ned Kelly, the article has no place. --JB Adder | Talk 05:15, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now, seriously, why don't we start a policy discussion to make these kind of topics a candidate for Speedy deletion? The avalanche of "delete" votes on vanity pages more than talks for itself. Sarg 07:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FYI, the beginning of such a discussion is happening right now at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load. Soundguy99 15:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ehem, ehem... Thanks and sorry for not reading things before suggesting :) Sarg 16:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 13:33, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nateji77 13:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is it about this vanity page that merits 14 delete votes when 2 would be plenty? Kappa 19:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Garbage, no content. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion under criteria General #1 and/or Articles #1. - Mike Rosoft 20:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:37, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Enterux[edit]

It's an ad. I'm not sure it's a notable company. (And it's probably a copyvio of the page at www.enterux.com/en/about) RJFJR 00:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted as a copyright violation --Duk 20:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is a copyvio. Listed it as one. For the record, delete. Hedley 00:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 03:05 May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Copyvio spam drini ☎ 05:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UkPaolo 16:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Blaster (weapon). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blaster Pistol[edit]

This is pretty much useless. There's already a more comprehensive treatment on the subject on the List of Star Wars weapons page. It'd make more sense to just delete the page and replace it with a redirect to that article. After all, listing every single weapon type in the Star Wars universe in its own entry doesn't make a lot of sense; lightsabers are the obvious exception, but in general, they really don't need individual attention. -- Captain Disdain 00:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and merge/delete. ··gracefool |☺ 01:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blaster (weapon) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per Andrew. I'm saddened that Captain Disdain thinks that George Lucas invented blasters! ----Isaac R 03:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, no, I don't. It's just that if you read the article -- what little there is -- it's kind of obvious that the entry is specifically about Star Wars blaster pistols, not blasters in the more generic sense. In any case, that's a fine redirect in my book. -- Captain Disdain 09:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, shouldn't have doubted your SF literacy. Still, when we talk about an article, I think it's important that we use as general a context as we can. So if somebody submits an article that assumes that SF == Star Wars, we're not bound by that assumption. ----Isaac R 19:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't worry about it -- like I said, it's a fine redirect in my book. I just didn't think about it beyond "this is a useless Star Wars article, should probably point to the more relevant Star Wars article". Obviously, redirecting it to Blaster (weapon) makes much more sense. -- Captain Disdain 21:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Andrew. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blaster (weapon). Megan1967 10:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blaster (weapon), while the article is mostly about SW Blaster pistol is too generic to simply direct to a SW article. -- Lochaber 13:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blaster (weapon), per Andrew Lenahan. Nothing new to merge anywhere. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:17, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Redirect per Starblind — RJH 19:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Kenzerco forum[edit]

This article is a vanity page. No one has any reason to visit this page unless they go to the kenzerco forums. in the "Wikipedia is not" article, it would qualify as using the 'pedia as a webhost. 69.113.103.138 00:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utilized as a FAQ for the forum, qualifies as using wiki as a webhost. Also gives appearance of being a vanity page. Naked Snake
Delete. Nothing in here that couldn't be put in a sticky post on that board. For what it's worth, I'm surprised there's not a page on Kenzer & Company in Wikipedia, since it has Knights of the Dinner Table and HackMaster already included. -- Grev -- Talk 03:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Kenzerco forum's history page belongs at Kenzerco forum's server. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Web guide. Note that the Kenzerco forums link directly to the "Wikipedia FAQ"-- so I guess they're using it as a webhost too. Ashibaka (tock) 05:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to KODT.

R adiant _* 13:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete UkPaolo 16:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenzerco. Almafeta 18:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity pages are not in line with what Wikipedia stands for. Richard Fannin

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Petaholmes.

02:56, 31 May 2005 Petaholmes deleted "Dan The Fire Man" (nonsense)

Sjakkalle 07:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dan The Fire Man[edit]

nonsense Bert Vermeulen 00:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete joke/nonsense. - Etacar11 00:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a joke or a vanity page or what, but I do know it's not an encylopedia article and isn't about anything that could be turned into one, so it'd be nice if it just went away. -- Captain Disdain 01:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This user is creating mutiple attack and vanity pages. --Xcali 01:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Diego Sebastian[edit]

Vanity page, plus it's fictional. --Missmarple 15:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fictional vanity. -- JamesTeterenko 01:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional vanity, and not even particularly funny fictional vanity. -- Captain Disdain 01:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy as joke. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity and nonsense. - Etacar11 02:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NeoJustin 03:06 May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity, not funny enough for BJAODN. --Idont Havaname 05:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete drini ☎ 05:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it could be a sarcastic attack page. Delete. Uncle G 07:17, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Delete I'll take 'incorrect information'! Sonic Mew 09:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense vanity. Megan1967 10:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nonsense. Mgm|^(talk) 14:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - absurd fiction. I support the suggestion earlier in today's VfD that this sort of thing should be a speedy candidate. AlexTiefling 16:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:39, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Kirk Baillie Foy[edit]

Vanity. Denni ☯ 01:14, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Speedy --Xcali 01:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. - Etacar11 02:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. --Idont Havaname 05:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete drini ☎ 05:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Megan1967 10:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lucie Famo[edit]

Vanity? 0 hits on Google. Has only painted 100 paintings.Delete. Philthecow 01:36, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

delete --Xcali 01:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 100 paintings is a particularly low number... still, should be deleted as unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I guess my point was that for an amateur seeking notability, it's a low number. Were she an amateur with 10,000 paintings, she'd be showing up on this list soon enough. But with 100, no such luck. Philthecow 13:37, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but 10,000 paintings? That's incredibly high, almost ludicrously so. Picasso is generally known as the most prolific famous painter, and he produced about 13,000 paintings over an 80-year career. Jan Vermeer, the best-known painter of his era, has 34 paintings attributed to him. So, 10,000 paintings is an extraordinary feat which maybe .001% of painters ever reach... I'd say it's similar to 50 movies for a director, 30 albums for a band, 100 books for a writer, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

*wry smile* Ten thousand perhaps a bit of an overstatement. I just meant that ludicrously prolific amateurs (see Howard Finster, with 46,000) are much more likely to be worthy of an article than average sorts. Philthecow 13:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. NeoJustin 03:07 May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Doesn't seem false, a hundred paintings is definately notable, and it's hard for her to create a vanity page about herself if she's dead. Almafeta 03:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Unverifiable. Since it's a new article, how about putting a clean-up or verify/cite sources tag on it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An artist with 100 paintings and 213 sketches might be notable if this person made a signigicant contribution to the world of art. But there are no third party references to verify this... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If she doesn't get any Google hits, she isn't notable enough. --Idont Havaname 05:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete drini ☎ 05:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If what's currently written in the article is true, then it might merit inclusion, but the lack of Google hits means the info isn't verifiable and that the artist wasn't notable. Brenton 06:18, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Google is interesting but it is not the be all and end all of deciding what is encyclopedic. My problem with this article is it is unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hell, I've painted nearly twice that many paintings (and they're in collections in four countries), but I don't consider myself notable enough for an article. Note too that this article has previously been speedy deleted. Content was the same, but indicated that the artist was still alive. Four days ago. Grutness...wha? 01:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
comment I don't know whether this article is verifiable or not. The fact that it has been rewritten following a speedy delete with basic facts changed does not speak well for it. I want to comment on the idea that Google is the arbiter of notability. Google, as a reflection of the content of the WWW has some very serious biases toward recent events, curious events, and internet-related events. An enormous number of notable things have happened with minimal notice on Google. It's a very useful and readily available tool, but not the end of the line. Dystopos 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Meetro[edit]

Non-notable... As per Wikipedia:Alexa test: Alexa ranking is 735,991 [1]. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 02:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:33, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Contentless advertisement. Almafeta 03:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete drini ☎ 05:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity -CunningLinguist 06:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, obvious vanity/advertising --capnez 21:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not yet established. ElBenevolente 02:51, 2 Jun 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 Userfy to User:Lwestlie. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Luke Westlie[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, poor quality. Andrew pmk 02:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete just like this user's first attempt at a vanity page was. --Xcali 02:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. - Etacar11 02:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Lwestlie. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete drini ☎ 05:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity -CunningLinguist 06:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Megan1967 10:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm userfying it. Mgm|^(talk) 14:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 03:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Dave Turner[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, poor quality. Andrew pmk 02:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity. - Etacar11 02:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete drini ☎ 05:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity -CunningLinguist 06:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. Megan1967 10:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - should be merged - SimonP 03:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Las Plagas[edit]

I cannot see how this is not pure fiction. It possibly belongs in the backstory of the relevant piece of work, but it definitely shouldn't stand alone as is. StoneColdCrazy 02:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like it needs its own article—merge into Resident Evil 4. JeremyA 04:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Resident Evil 4. That's the only game with the Plagas, and this hardly transcends the series. A Man In Black 05:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Resident Evil 4. Minor ~~location~~ enemy in the Resident Evil series. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, more like "disease/major villain" from the Resident Evil series, but it still doesn't merit its own article by a long shot. A Man In Black 05:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Merge into Resident Evil 4 :-/ -CunningLinguist 06:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Resident Evil 4. Megan1967 10:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Resident Evil 4. Thunderbrand 18:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 03:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Isotropy (née Isotropic)[edit]

This article appeared almost 4 years ago as a simple dicdef. Over the years, people have added material on Isotropic radiation, Isotropic manifolds, Isotropic antennas, and Isotropic bands. These should have been separate articles, and indeed Isotropic Antenna already was. I've created stubs for the others, and the original dicdef is now on Wiktionary. Since there's no ambiguity to disambiguate (no two articles with the same name), there's no point in converting the article into a dab page. Die! Die! Die! Die! ----Isaac R 03:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, I think it could make a prettty good dab for people looking up Isotropic. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But people don't look up "isotropic" -- they look up "Isotropic radiation", etc. OK, maybe somebody might type in just "isotropic", because they can't remember what isotropic thing they're looking for. In which case a dab page might make it harder for them to find what they're looking for. Suppose they want "Isotropic fornicators" and whoever wrote that article forgot to add it to the dab page. They're out of luck. But if there is no dab page, searching for "Isotropic" gets you all the articles with "Isotropic" in their title -- much more reliable. Let's save disambiguation pages for page names that are actually ambiguous. ----Isaac R 04:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Searching for "Isotropic" gets one the articles with "Isotropic" in their titles irrespective of this page's existence. Uncle G 07:09, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
This article looks a lot like a disambiguation page than an orientation page. But all the same, the segments are short, short enough that it is just about in the wrong place. I say split and Transwiki the parts to the Wiktionary. --JB Adder | Talk 05:22, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete (perhaps merge and make it a full article with anisotropic) drini ☎ 06:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there needs to be a page discussing this concept. Kappa 07:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Kappa. Klonimus 07:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Which concept? The concept of isotropic radiation? Of isotropic manifolds? Of isotropic antennas? Of isotropic bands? Or of isotropy? What concept is denoted by "isotropic"? Uncle G 07:33, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
  - There's a strong trend on Wikipedia to take a dicdef and turn it into a article based on the concept or concepts behind the word. Such articles are always vague, subjective, POV, soapboxy, or all of the above. But nobody seems to want to hear this, so I'm giving up on fighting the trend. ----Isaac R 15:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly good article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not great as it stands, but it is useful enough. Even though I think converting this to a disambig would be preferrable. Sjakkalle 09:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, concur with Kappa. Megan1967 10:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and turn into a disambiguation. Mgm|^(talk) 14:30, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep --- disambiguation. Vonkje 16:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — disambig. — RJH 19:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Isotropy is a very important concept by itself, do not turn it into a disambiguation. --Nabla 23:53, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Keep - Isotropy deserves its own article with a section named "See Also" or "What involves isotropy?" with links to the various isotropy-related articles. (isotropic radiation, isotropic manifold, isotropic antenna, isotropic bands) Jared81 07:05, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fate 288[edit]

No relevant hits on google, no allmusic entry—looks like band vanity. Delete. JeremyA 03:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as band vanity. (There are only 8 hits for the band name, btw.) --Idont Havaname 05:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete drini ☎ 06:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Band vanity. Sjakkalle 09:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete band vanity. --Etacar11 22:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yumiko Fujita[edit]

Nonnotable and vanity. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:52, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete I wish she had listed her contact info :( Ashibaka (tock) 05:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete drini ☎ 06:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 11:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fujita Yumiko (or vice-versa). Nateji77 13:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and encourage the author to Userfy. ESkog 20:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 22:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (and swap page names). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anisotropic[edit]

Like its sibling Isotropic, this article is a dicdef that's had various semi-related material added to it that should have gone in separate articles or Wiktionary entries. I've created a stub for Anisotropic liquid and the Wiktionary entry. The rest is some vague, hard-to-follow stuff on isotropy in computer graphics and cosmology. Hard to figure out how to break it out, and probably not worth saving anyway.

As with Isotropic, conversion to a dab page is not appropriate. Die you gravy sucking worm! ----Isaac R 04:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Someone please tell me, how many dictionary-type articles has the original author created? --JB Adder | Talk 05:29, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep scientific concept. If it's hard to follow, add cleanup-technical. CDs are an example of an anisotropic surface. Gazpacho 05:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Were you saying that the concept is that of an anisotropic surface? Or were you saying that the scientific concept is anisotropy? An adjective by itself is rarely the title for a concept. Hence our Wikipedia:naming conventions (adjectives). Uncle G 07:27, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

OK, Move the content to a conventional title and disambiguate. Gazpacho 20:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It belongs to dictionary. It might be recreated and merged with isotropic however. drini ☎ 06:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, scientific concept. Kappa 07:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC) (P.S. possibly move to anisotropy) Kappa 07:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Important scientific concept in microscopy of muscle tissue. Klonimus 07:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Swap anisotropic and anisotropy. Uncle G 08:04, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly good encyclopedia article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Anisotropy and keep. Valid and important scientific and mathematical concept. Sjakkalle 09:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid scientific concept. Megan1967 11:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic topic. Current article might not be ready for featured status (irony; insert smiley here) but is accurate and useful as far as it goes. Not even a Cleanup candidate IMHO. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. want to add this:

the term is used in the field of ecology, in particular aeolian (wind) modelling to describe a tendency of groups of plants to be positioned in alignment with the predominant wind direction. Anisotropic positioning of plants, especially shrubs such as Honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), is seen in arid/semi-arid environments.User: allelopath

Delete. Not more than a bunch of examples, where anisotropic material properties play a role. The examples however are not related to each other in any other way. This article is more confusing than helpful. mgrueter 20:28, 03 June 2005 (CEST)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Xezbeth as patent nonsense.

06:09, 31 May 2005 Xezbeth deleted "Zander D" (patent nonsense)

Sjakkalle 08:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zander D[edit]

Prank/fiction/unverifiable/whatever. Zero hits for "Zander D" candi. From article: "By 2012 it was completed. Zander, Candi and Crystal won the Nobel science prize, the Nobel peace prize and the Nobel PIMP prize."

Speedy. Too bad it's not funny enough for BJAODN. A Man In Black 05:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know if you've noticed, but BJAODN doesn't have particularly high standards ;) Oh, and speedy delete. — Phil Welch 05:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Patent nonsense, e.g., "He ran for presidency in 2010." Brenton 05:26, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, patent nonsense. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete drini ☎ 06:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Audrey Wimbiscus[edit]

No google hits. Article has just enough content to prevent it being speedied. —Xezbeth 06:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Utter trash. It could be deleted as a libel page, as it appears to exist simply to make fun of someone named Audrey. I'm sure that this is the talk of homeroom. :-( Geogre 18:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Audrey. Could be a name-history page. Or else transwiki it to Wiktionary. Cchan199206 20:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probably-POV nonsense. If Wiktionary doesn't have an entry for Audrey, create one out of the NPOV part of this article. (See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents.) --Idont Havaname 20:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "tawdry" does derive form the cheap junk sold at St. Audrey's Fair, but we don't keep articles on the derivations of names. Strip off the last name and transwiki to Wiktionary. Rick K 21:00, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense. GregorB 22:05, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mrplowd[edit]

Vanity article on a ten-yr-old forum member. Definitely not notable, and self-promotion. I have left a message on the anon's talk page telling them how to sign up. Harro5 06:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 17:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Evil Monkey. From the deletion log:

07:08, 31 May 2005 Evil Monkey deleted "Dave Greenfield" (vanity nonsense)

Sjakkalle 13:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Greenfield[edit]

Article does not establish notability. Google results lead to numerous people of the same name. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 07:08, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 14:00, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

MusicWiki[edit]

Wiki vanity. --W(t) 07:28, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

see also --W(t)
Comment: I don't suppose the Alexa ranking meets our notability criteria yet, does it? --Scimitar 20:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a question of notability. JamesBurns 09:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 17:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep if comments at Talk:MusicWiki by User:AlissonSellaro is true. Else Keep this page as links on other pages have nothing to do with MusicWiki page. But report this issue to Wikipedia's adm. BTW comments "Wikipedia to MusicWiki (and vice-versa) was properly discussed with Wikipedia's adm." -Bijee 16:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep valid growing project. Kafuffle 21:54, 11 Jun 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 undecisive vote, despite long time: KEPT mikka (t) 20:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peter Morello[edit]

Question on notability, Google returns 393 hits, [2] but these appear to consist mostly of other Peter Morello's. Peter Morello + Mafia returns 21 hits [3], Peter Morello + Clutch Hand returns 3 hits [4]. Delete. JamesBurns 07:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Something's up, here. I believe that there is a Peter Morello (although the spelling of the last name is up in the air) who is a noted author on Mafia relations. He's a journalist in Philadelphia, I believe, and contributed to Slate a year ago. At least I think that's the case. Delete for lack of verifiability. Geogre 18:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry I thought the article's notability was clear when I had originally written it. Morello was a leading member of the Morello crime family, arguably the first Mafiosi crime family in New York, and the last leader of the Morello's before it was absorbed into Joe "The Boss" Masseria's organization where he remained his top advisor until his death during the Castellammarese War. I apologize if I forgot to add my references and I can certainly add several websites. I believe, as he is often confused with Giuseppe Morello (as seen here [5]), which might explain the lack of information online. 152.163.100.197 11:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Few google hits, but what I've found looks convincing, notability wise. There does seem to be some confussion between Giuseppe and Peter, "...Giuseppe Morello (aka Peter Morello...", but that's a content issue, not a notability one. func (talk) 04:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Func. That's exactly why I didn't add Giuseppe's details in the Peter Morello article. While I seem to lean towards Thomas Hunt's theory, which makes sense as Nicolo changed his name to Nicholas Morello following the conterfeiting scandal, although until Allen May or another historian can respond to this subject it's still just a theory. 152.163.100.197 16:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment. It seems, at least in my opinion, that many organized crime related articles, from particularly well known mobsters such as Willie Morris Bioff to less documented organizations such as the Bratva, are often nominated for deletion. While this is obviously understandable, especially when no resourses are given, I wonder if an Organized Crime Project page might be helpful in verifing these articles ? 209.213.71.78 19:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We have a project page to you and others get started. :) func (talk) 00:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete for lack of verifiability. Megan1967 23:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Megan. I should mention that the article contains both references and external links. In my opinion I don't believe either notibility or verification is an issue here.

~~Merge~~ all morellos here in one Morello brothers article, since the is confusion and uncertainty. mikka (t) 00:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- weak keep; subject to solid references. mikka (t) 17:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Mikkalai. While there is certainly confusion between Giuseppe and Peter Morello (of which there are both conflicting sources over weither Peter is an alias for Giuseppe) to include all the Morello family (an article I'm planning to add later this month) would be quite large and might be better served by seperate articles considering the different careers of all the Morellos (Antonio's partnership with Lupo The Wolf's Black Hand operations, Nicholas's leadership of the family during the Mafia-Camorra War, as well as Vincenzo and Ciro Terranova's later role during the rise of the National Crime Syndicate to name a few) however merging Giuseppe and Peter into one article might make more sense. 152.163.100.197 04:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. These hood entries are getting as out of hand as the Street Fighter stubs. Low Google hits indicate a lack of notability. Leanne 10:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Leanne. With all due respect anyone who is the least bit knowable on organized crime history would at least admit Peter Morello was a notable figure in pre-Prohibition organized crime. Besides being a member and final leader of one of the earliest crime families in the United States, Morello was the top advisor for Joe Masseria. It was his murder that would lead Marranzano and the other American mafiosi to begin the Castellamarese War. Unless it is official policy, I don't believe a lack of Google hits should be qualifications for deletion or verifiability, as opposed to no google hits, however the external links provided should establish his notability and I suggest for anyone voting on the article to at least read the refernces provided to judge weither or not this article is indeed notable. Many of the articles I have contributed on this subject have been high level mafiosi on an otherwise less documented period of organized crime that unfortunatly have little website hits on popular search engines such as Google. I had thought that with these articles significant subjects like these might have more Google hits and that by writing, at least a small article, that someone on Wikipedia who is a bit more knowable on the subject might be able to contribute a bit more to the article. If this topic is inappropriate for Wikipedia then I apologize however I should mention that, while I agree articles such as Street Fighter, Pokemon, Star Wars, etc., article may not interest myself as much as another fan it doesn't make the articles less significant to those with an interest in the subject. I should also point out that the majority of organized crime articles, at least of which I have found, are reasonably well researched and certainly notable topics (certainly not any I would classify as "hoods") of which very few are stubs. While you are obviously entitled to your opinion I would appreciate any Wikipedian with a knowledge of organized crime to offer their opinion on the matter. 64.12.116.197 17:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please indicate more clearly the source of your informatiojn. In particular, whether Sifakis is in fact "Reference", rather than "Further reading". If your surce is a book, it has more credibility that a website. Unfortunately many websites tend to have very low credibility. Usually I treat them as a source of further, more solid references. mikka (t) 17:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding Mikka. I usally go by what I've seen in other articles regarding format. I'll correct them as soon as possible. 64.12.116.197 21:04, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Honestly I think it would be a shame to delete this article. It seems the main arguments for its deletion are notability (based on low google hits) and verification. These look like they've been provided and, while my own opinion is inconsequential, Peter Morello was an important mafiosi both before and during Prohibition and an important figure in the Castellammarese War. The article could use some expanding, possibly merging Giuseppe and Peter Morello, or the Morello crime family. 209.213.71.78 19:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hena Choudhry[edit]

Only 18 Google hits, [6] - non notable. JamesBurns 07:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tribute/fan/vanity page for a high school athlete. She has not yet achieved notability, either with her figure skating or DDR, enough to be encyclopedic. Geogre 18:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity pages, although occasionally in possession of a chameleon-like ability to disappear, can be spotted by references to the dreams of the subject (notable exception Louis Riel), their favorite treat, and what they like to do in their spare time. --Scimitar 20:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yep, vanity. --Etacar11 22:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity JCS 02:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 17:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terri Mueller[edit]

Nonsense. Anon author of this article appears to claim the fictional character Terri Mueller as real while the real author Norma Fox Mazer as fictional. Probably best deleted and rewritten from scratch, if others feel this character is notable enough for inclusion on its own. JamesBurns 08:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of any of these people or characters before, so I have no idea if they're notable, but the content of the article verges on speedy -> gibberish. Let's start over. Delete. Marblespire 20:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Carnildo 21:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should have been speedied under patent nonsense. Megan1967 03:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 17:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Infrogmation. - Mailer Diablo 14:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Homosexual Cakewalk[edit]

Prank. Was labelled as speedy.

Delete. Lupo 09:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 11:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. Funny, though. :-) BJAODN — Pladask 11:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Nateji77 13:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -dvs- 13:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. Funny. 172.151.167.19 22:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted; prank vandalism -- Infrogmation 05:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Infrogmation. - Mailer Diablo 14:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Elite Butt-O-Matic Syncopators from Planet Homo[edit]

Prank. Was labelled as speedy. Delete. Lupo 09:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 11:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amusing, but delete. :-) — Pladask 11:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Four neurons and a high school education = basic teen humor. Delete as a prank. Geogre 18:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted, obvious prank/vandalism. -- Infrogmation 05:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Silent Flute Man[edit]

Was tagged as a speedy. Delete. Lupo 09:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable. Megan1967 11:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --khaosworks 18:18, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete no google hits, unverified. --Etacar11 23:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Read the article and it's not that much of an interesting case. Nothing paranormal in what has been reported, nor anything Wikipedia-worthy. Decius 00:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) Note: after I pointed out that there was nothing paranormal in the article, the anonymous user who started the article added a paranormal touch by writing that a witness allegedly saw Silent Flute Man literally diving as if 'into thin air'. It's an attempted wiki-hoax most likely. Vote same as before. Decius 21:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Gonna have to vote Delete on this one. Nothing really that unusual about some drifter. Unless notability can be established, I'd say this one's headed back to the road. Mr Bound 02:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quale 05:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Uchuujin Agreed, this could be interesting if there were some folklore that evolved around it, like people hearing a flute on the shore during full moons with cropcircles nearby. twenty five to eleven, may 31st.
Delete - no folklore, no paranormal events, no notability, quite simply no. Dismas 07:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Megan1967 and Etacar11 have hit the nail on the head. This article cites no sources and is unverifiable. Piano Man (person), in contrast, refers to Wikinews, and thus for starters implicitly cites all of the many sources that Wikinews (which is far stricter than Wikipedia is when it comes to source citation) cites. There's no evidence that this article isn't simply a complete fabrication. And even were it not a complete fabrication, Uchuujin makes the point that the purported Silent Flute Man of 1968 hasn't gained the worldwide notoriety and inspired the sort of worldwide discussion that Piano Man (person) has. Delete. Uncle G 18:36, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
I did see something in a British newspaper about 'silent flute man' the other day, but even so, delete Proto 12:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 17:17, 6 Jun 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/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Turner (utensil)[edit]

Was tagged as a speedy. Delete. Lupo 09:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable kitchen utensil. Kappa 09:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could be expanded, though. -Hapsiainen 13:08, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Merge to kitchen utensil. Radiant_* 13:32, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- comment - Kitchen utensil seems to be redirecting to Category:Food preparation utensils, anyone know what this is about? -- Lochaber 13:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs expansion and could do with a picture. -- Lochaber 13:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lovely Utensil. I might at the photo at spatula is misslabeled, as it is really a turner. A spatula is a flat bladed thing used for mixing. Klonimus 20:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not mislabeled; "turner" is just one alternative name for this kind of spatula. "Spatula" is a very overloaded term for kitchen utensils; refers to many flat utentils including those used to lift, and scrape, spread. Interestingly--perhaps regional differences--I myself wouldn't know what a "turner" was if someone asked for one, but I *would* know what a "pancake turner" was. Go figure. Elf | Talk 19:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As much as I would like to say delete, we do have breadbox, so . . . keep. --Scimitar 13:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's at least as worthy as frosting spatula. Brenton 15:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. A useful definition, which has (allbeit limited) scope for expansion. Worthy of remaining as a stub, certainly no grounds to delete (and definitely not as a speedy as you mention, Lupo!). UkPaolo 16:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with spatula. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:05, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Here we go again: all nouns are notable. Might as well merge WP with Wiktionary now and get it over with. In fact, if "keep" prevails here, let's propose a change to WP:NOT to remove the "not a dictionary" line, since pretty soon WP will be a de-facto dictionary. Dicdefs are being voted "keep" pretty regularly. Delete or Merge with spatula —Wahoofive (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course real things are notable, but I strongly oppose re-merging with wiktionary, or we'd end up with "all words in all languages". Kappa 18:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? If your recent voting pattern prevails, WP will end up with "all words in all languages" without being merged with Wiktionary. I vote delete for the same reason as Brenton voted to keep: "It's at least as worthy as frosting spatula." No English cliches that I know of, nor standard line of questioning, uses "turner (utensil" as notably as "bigger than a breadbox". Barno 18:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think you've been watching my votes very carefully. Kappa 19:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with spatula. Elf | Talk 19:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Elf. I'm very much an inclusionist on kitchen utensils, but these items have no meaning outside of spatula, and this small amount of info would be more useful in that article. Meelar (talk) 19:32, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Merge with spatula. --Carnildo 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all common household objects. Capitalistroadster 23:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with spatula --Doc (?) 08:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge with spatula, since spatula is an inherently funny word. the wub (talk) 15:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep please this is much more than just an ordinary noun Yuckfoo 16:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep common household object. JamesBurns 09:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge. From the stub: The turner is a specialized form of a spatula. There's not much to write about the spatula, let alone having separate articles for these. No Account

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cyberprune[edit]

Not notable or encyclopedic -- Longhair | Talk 09:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Longhair | Talk 09:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, website vanity. Google results are mostly forums. --bainer (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad/vanity. --Etacar11 23:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Cyberjunkie 12:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 17:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted already. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Artur Hoax[edit]

Non notable hoaxes. Article is probably a hoax itself. Sjakkalle 11:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I don't think it qualifies to have an article. • Thorpe • 11:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy under the "communication" rule (they're trying to communicate with us, and did you note the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"?). Also factually incorrect: at least one admin who had to clean up after them didn't think this was humourous at all but considered it stupid, childish, and boring. Lupo 13:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claim that the vandalism described by this article was humorous is at best unverifiable. --Allen3 ^talk 13:37, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Article appears to have been speedy deleted.
- 18:42, 31 May 2005 Geogre deleted "Artur Hoax" (Message to admins; message received, now cut it out.)
Delete drini ☎ 17:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Benelux (composite page)[edit]

This page is adding the content of four pages together on one, a littlebit unnecassary imho Waerth 12:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an experimental page: a composite page like VfD, but in the main namespace. One function it has is that is allows searching the four pages together. Thus the usefulness is limited, and I do not mind if it is deleted.--Patrick 13:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest editting out all the copy and paste stuff, since it's repeated on the individual country pages. Then leave the article lead, which contains some useful information. I was going to do it myself, but then figured I'd wait and see what consensus was. Keep, but hack and slash. Delete. I didn't realize Belux was a seperate article. --Scimitar 13:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't any copy-and-pasting - the article is just the four articles Benelux, Belgium, Luxembourg and Netherlands transcluded on the page (edit the page and see). Starting this sort of things opens a can of worms - there are more potential composite pages are there are existings articles. There are no existing articles like this, and I don't see why we should start now, or what's special about Benelux. So, obvious delete. sjorford →•← 15:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Agree with sjorford, creating composite pages by transcluding articles together is a really bad idea. IANAD (I am not a developer) but I suspect this could easily cause server load issues. In any case, part of the whole point of wikimarkup and wikipedia is it's super easy to create and find links to related pages, so this sort of "uber-meta-organization" is pretty pointless. (Sorry, Patrick, I realize I sound kind of cranky; don't take it personally.) Soundguy99 16:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just to clarify... there is a seperate page detailing Benelux. This page is merely a composite page including all content from the other pages. It's unneccessary, since anyone looking up Benelux is presented with a page linking to the other articles. UkPaolo 16:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Benelux already covers the relevant parts; everything else is redundant. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:59, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Delete, no value not already provided by the Benelux article, and potential problems from transcluding multiple pages into conglomerations like this. Barno 18:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did you see the size of the interwiki list on that thing? Transcluding to provide article content is a bad idea in general, and this is a good demonstration of why. --Carnildo 21:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not only it's a composite page of several articles, it's a composite page of several articles which were never meant to be transcluded. It also pointlessly increases the load on the already overburdened servers for little or no benefit. --cesarb 00:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete: almost as nauseating to navigate as the new BBC weather map. --Phil | Talk 08:36, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Very, very bad idea. BlankVerse ∅ 11:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is a dreadful idea, this sort of thing is what links are for. Bryan 19:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This seems to suggest that composite pages like Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 9 should be deleted too, nobody mentions that the objections are related to the namespace.--Patrick 22:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see a number of votes that include the word "article", implying that they are referring to the "article" or "main" namespace. --Carnildo 23:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But it is unclear what the reason of that distinction is.--Patrick 23:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We do it on VfD because the ugly hack is necessary to manage the large number of VfD nominations (it keeps the VfD pages themselves from getting unmanageably huge and difficult to edit), and to make linking to individual VfD discussions easier. If you follow VfD, you'll notice that a significant number of editors—usually, but not always, newer writers—can't figure out how to add a page to VfD even with the detailed guide at the bottom of the page. It's not nice for us to throw new editors in at the deep end that way in the article space, too.

Concatenating whole articles—particularly multisection articles like these—produces a composite that...well, it just isn't pretty. Several navigation templates from the subarticles are duplicated, the interwiki link list is broken, and a number of other problems arise that just aren't kosher by the Manual of Style. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:36, 11 Jun 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 (already BJAODNed). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cheg[edit]

which came first: patent nonsense or the hoax? Nateji77 14:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete sometimes, when I'm very drunk, I find this kinda thing funny--Sophitus 15:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Could've been speedied, but now that it has made it to vfd, it should be preserved for all time. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:14, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Patent nonsense, belongs to BJAODN. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete but add to BJAODN. --Idont Havaname 20:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN. JamesBurns 09:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 17:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's funny but this isn't the place for it. DeleteCelestianpower 17:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Donnabomb-I know where this all began. the two people who created it are friends. They have thought long and hard over this. Leave it up. It is also well written and informative. Maybe losing a bit of grammatical correctness near the end

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gareth brown[edit]

vanity/promo. Nateji77 14:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will be happy with whatever Wikipedia moderators decide I have just taken a more detailed look at your deletion policy and have read what you mean by 'Not yet/non notable' and fully admit that it would be rather pointless for me to even attempt to disagree with it being notable or not. I understand given the nature of the article and it's subject [I] that it's hardly of the utmost important it be kept up, so I will be fine with whatever you decide to do with it given the article's admittable obscurity. Apologies. ---Gareth Brown 18:00 June 6th 2005
Indifferent, but wouldn't mind it staying Hello, I thought I'd better do the right thing by signing up so I could explain. This wasn't actually written by me, but by a rather zealous friend of mine, who's got a bit ahead of himself writing about a website that isn't even open yet. I quite like it, the website will be up soon and more people will find and view it but surely that will give this article more reason to stick around. It is quite genuine, however I didn't write it but accept responsibility for it if I must and would have no problem if Wikipedia sees it necessary that it comes down. ---Gareth Brown 08:26, June 6 2005
Keep I feel it should be kept. Where's the harm in letting everyone know who the guy is? With all due respect I feel the word 'Vanity' is unfairly placed since no-one knows whether it was Mr Brown himself who actually wrote the article and not a friend/colleague/etc. Please give this some consideration. --James O'Connell. Bristol, England - 02:00 GMT, 6th June 2005
Delete ditto--Sophitus 15:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity, and that is one silly email address. --Etacar11 23:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, and thanks for registering and explaining Gareth. – Quoth 07:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not yet notable, follows Geogre's law, as well. Rick K 07:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 17:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Palestinian refugee: The biggest bluff of the 20th century[edit]

Unencyclopedic POV crap --Robojames 17:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be very difficult, if not impossible to give that article a NPOV without starting the whole article over and renaming the article, so it'd be best to just delete it. MegaSlicer 17:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy POV content, not an encyclopedia article. Delete unless completely rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 18:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV and almost entirely wrong essay. An actual article exists at Palestinian refugee; even in the unlikely event that some scraps of this could be salvaged, they would belong there, not here. - Mustafaa 18:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — inherantly biased — RJH 19:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the whole "Palestinian refugee" issue is masterpeice of Public Relations that has been able to fool most of the people, most of the time. this article isn't the one to explain it. Klonimus 20:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as attack page. This really needs to be listed on WP:CSD. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says that pages intended to disrupt (and I'd say this on might be) can be speedied, so I'd suggest a speedy if possible. --Idont Havaname 20:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete This is more a note to the WP administration. IMHO, using a majority vote as a criterion for deletion is quite idiotic. Just imagine if real life would go by similar rules. For example, in 1948, the wish of the 60 million Arabs to "sweep the Jews to the sea" (in the Arab's own language), that is, to sweep the 600 thousands Jews that lived then in Israel would have been easily materialized.

Luckily, and unlike Wikipedia "policies", in real life, the Jews in Israel (now 4+ millions) can, at least if the rest of the world would not come to the Arab's rescue as it did so many times after they attacked Israel and the wheels of the war turned against them, to sweep the Arabs (now over 100 millions) to the sea.

- Comment made by 68.165.6.186 (talk · contributions)
Delete. POV. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By the way, Wikipedia does not use a "majority vote as a criterion for deletion" but rather requires a concensus (a pretty clear majority) for deletion - which this rant gets. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:47, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Delete - it is rather polite of Robojames to give this article the benefit of a vote. -Acjelen 22:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this crap. Revolución 22:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete loony right wing nonsense. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete This should have been speedily deleted.Yuber^(talk) 02:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Highly POV, therefore probably unsuiitable in its present form. But the argument the author raises, anent the true definition of a refugee, and of whether one can, in fact, be a "refugee" when within your own country, which has now been "occupied", is one which ought to be encyclopaedised. No vote, but request admins to consider the topic not the treatment.
- Emm.. Who are you? --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:21, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment made by 195.92.40.49 (talk · contribs)
Delete - subjective and inconsistent with the aims of Wikipedia. Cedars 07:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - POV title, POV rant. The actual arguments on both sides of the issue can be incorporated into other articles if they are properly sourced. I see no reason for an article with a title this inflammatory. Firebug 07:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV nonsense/rant/fork. I've had to remove this stuff from the Palestinian refugee article more than once. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Just to add my name, not that it is needed. --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:21, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete poor title, poor article. Anilocra - (hi!) 14:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV rant. JamesBurns 09:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Even the title is heavily biased. ~~~~ 16:41, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Extreme delete. Wow. Rick K 23:28, Jun 4, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Max lewy[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page. Google returns zero hits when you enter "Max Lewy" and either "dance" or "dancer". Delete--Sophitus 15:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn based on Sophitus' results. --Idont Havaname 20:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Deletedrini ☎ 17:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Schulte 05:36, 12 Jun 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NACki[edit]

Does not appear to be notable. Google searches for NACki "demo party" and "NACKi ORGANiZiNG" yield nothing. The article contains nonsensical sentences such as "The number of compos swindles." I suggest deletion.M412k 15:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vegaswikian 05:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. At best not notable. Sjakkalle 06:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 17:14, 6 Jun 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Distributed campaigning[edit]

Obscure neologism. 66 Google hits, some irrelevant. I've just finished a year-long research project on this subject, and this is only the second time I've encountered the term. RadicalSubversiv E 16:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to have the scope or impact to be encyclopedic. Give the concept some time to develop and someday the term might deserve an article (if it sticks, of course), but not yet. -- Jonel 17:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in full agreement with Jonel. When someone combines a couple of words and sticks them on a simple idea so he can sell custom software, his self-promotion of the phrase doesn't make it encyclopedic. If the next election cycles show there's more to the idea than "our flunkies spam people from home instead of spam-phoning them from the campaign office", and if the term takes hold on a widespread basis, then it'll be more appropriate to add the article. Barno 19:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete drini ☎ 17:14, 6 Jun 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 - original research sliced out, rest should be merged somewhere. - SimonP 14:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Pokémopolis[edit]

Almost entirely original research. Article is about a non-notable fictional city which has only ever appeared in a single filler episode of the Pokemon anime and has had no long-term plot significance. Sinistro 16:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. Merge what little is not the author's own theory with the appropriate pokecruft page. Note to author: unless you are a cartoon character, you are not a pokemon trainer. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:12, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Delete. Pokécruft. Original research. POV theory. Nestea 20:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, agreeing with BD2412. See the Neopets articles for how this Pokécruft should be sorted out properly. --Idont Havaname 20:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. --Carnildo 21:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --Morlark 21:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the original research, or turn it into an article about this website. Ketsuban (is better than you) 22:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the appropriate Pokemon page -CunningLinguist 00:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, part of Project Pokénav. Almafeta 15:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It's okay to say that "some have theorised...", but "I think..." is unacceptable. SujinYH 15:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 09:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete pov, original research, nonnotable fancruft. Grue 19:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokénav should find a way to create single pages covering multiple locations. Mozzerati 18:44, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Delete drini ☎ 17:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Uh guys, have you taken a look at the article lately? There is no mention of 'I' or 'me' on it!
- This does not change the fact that the article remains original research and its subject of dubious notability. The use of the personal pronoun was not the only reason for the article's nomination.Sinistro 12:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, that's fine by me. Delete it if you want; I can always make other articles.
Keep. I have been known as Mr. Suffix who made neologistic -polis articles, but this isn't one of them. Also, I am a big fan of Pokemon, and this article seems to be of interest. --SuperDude 05:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:08, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Lucy zhang[edit]

Non notable. Probably a vanity article. Angela . 17:02, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Verifiable assistant professor at Tulane (many of the 700 Google hits are about her), but no indication of further notability. Article was written by anon 129.81.145.107, user's only edit. Weak delete unless evidence of greater notability is shown. I've got a friend doing research in fluid microdynamics and developing theories and methods, and he might be an assistant professor, but I won't write his bio until he gets major attention for accomplishments. Barno 19:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete keep when she gets tenure. Klonimus 20:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Miss Zhang has provided countless advances in her field of study. It's sad to see how ignorant people are to delete articles without looking at her accomplishments. SoSoDef 20:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If those "countless advances" were mentioned in the article, there wouldn't be a reason to delete. However, as it stands, the article says nothing about why this person in encyclopedic. Angela . 07:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this smells like vanity, agree with Angela. Thue | talk 17:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
weak delete her biography shows what appear to be peer reviewed publications, but not many, and a relatively short research career (starting approx 2000). No publications in major general journals such as Nature and no specific major achievements are listed. Whilst this doesn't prove that she isn't worthy of an article, a much clearer explanation of her achievements in computational physics would be needed to persuade me. An article on IFEM and it's practical uses in the field would be a good start. A new but not commonly accepted algorithm would not be encyclopedic since its value would be unverifiable. Mozzerati 19:23, 2005 Jun 4 (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 article was deleted at 23:07, 11 Jun 2005 by Duk for being a {{copyvio}}. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Black and white creatures (computer game)[edit]

A duplicate of Black and White (computer game). All material on this page is already in existence in the other article. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deleted after listing period on WP:CP--Duk 23:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unnecessarily duplicated content, no need to redirect this title. Barno 19:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary duplication. Nestea 20:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplication. JamesBurns 09:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - redirected - SimonP 14:08, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Holy shit[edit]

Orphaned one-sentence article about a gaming neologism. Eliot 17:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to shit as common variant phrase (though the neologism is not notable) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:22, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to shit. Not the gaming neologism, though. That's trivial. Nestea 20:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this rate wikipedia will be gamepedia, or starwarspedia soon. Not a significant topic. Redirect to shit. No need to mention UT. R Lee E 20:17, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as if there needed to be a question about it. Donovan Ravenhull 23:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Unreal Tournament 2003/2004 page. G VOLTT 19:48, June 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:09, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Fairfield high School now moved to Fairfield High School, Sydney[edit]

Possibly notable school, however no information given. It's probably best to start this one from scratch. I note that Fairfield High School redirects to Fairfield Warde High School, which is a school in the US, while this article appears to be about one in Australia. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for keeping notable schools, but that article is ridiculous. Delete unless cleaned up (and if someone does clean it up, please contact me so I can change my vote). Mike H 17:44, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this article improves wikipedia's coverage of education in Fairfield, New South Wales. Needs to be disambig'dKappa 18:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since there's already a category for high schools in Sydney and it is a HS in Sydney...agree w/need to disamb.67.101.113.10
Delete unless proven notable. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 19:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools — RJH 19:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proven notable. One or two notable alumni doesn't really cut it, and we don't need to know what each block of the school is used for. --Idont Havaname 20:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see Wikipedia:Schools. — DS1953 20:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bad article at the wrong title. --Carnildo 21:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but make a disambig, per Kappa. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:23, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Comment: To those of you who keep pointing to Wikipedia:Schools, I'd like to remind you that it is neither policy nor guideline. Therefore, although it sets no notability bar for schools, I think it is fair that the article need to live up to standard encyclopedia quality (ie not an advertisement). No vote. --Scimitar 21:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Part of Wikipedia:Schools advises to keep VfD replies short and to the point; I'm assuming that this is what these people are doing, saying that, per the argument listed there, this article should be kept. Their votes should not be counted any differently. --BaronLarf 22:13, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and disambig, per arguments on Wikipedia:Schools --BaronLarf 22:13, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Keep for reasons detailed on Wikipedia:Schools. Un focused 22:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cleanup and rename. Enough here to be worthy of retention. Capitalistroadster 23:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly good article, except for the weird bit in the middle about A BLOCK and whatnot. Ditch that and it'll be just fine. It should be renamed, of course. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Extreme keep and disambiguate. Easily resolvable without resorting to VfD. —RaD Man (talk) 00:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep but move to Fairfield High School (Australia), delete the resulting redirect at Fairfield high School, change Fairfield High School into a dab, and remove the List of the blocks which is of no encyclopedic interest. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Move as above. Add cleanup-school and if nothing happens in a month, Merge into a city article. Vegaswikian 05:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - next to no useful information. Cedars 07:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Fairfield, New South Wales and delete - Skysmith 07:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge usable data (e.g. type, size, notable alumni) into Fairfield, New South Wales or as new South Western Sydney school region article. Average Earthman 13:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep as per wikipedia:schools. Yuckfoo 16:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Is not encylopedia and will never be encylopedic. Neutrality^talk 04:20, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools, move as suggested by DoubleBlue. James F. (talk) 09:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quale 04:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per Neutrality. No Account
Delete. Not notable. —Lowellian (talk) 13:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep What a pain. Oliver Chettle 18:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. What a pain, indeed; going thru this for school after school after school, 98% of them, like this one, not notable. Bill 02:19, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment. And utterly fruitlessly, too. In the past six weeks some seventy schools listed for deletion have had their dicussions closed. Not one of them has been deleted. The other twenty or so that haven't yet had their discussions closed also seem to be headed for a non-delete result. What a waste of time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment The schoolwatch folks have become well organized making votes for deletion on schools pointless. Failing the organization of an anti-schoolwatch type group, this is policy by brute force. --Durin 13:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I must admit I'm a little puzzled by this line of argument. People who want school articles kept are entitled to one vote and only one vote. Furthermore, no school deletion discussions are initiated by people who want to keep schools. The rate of submission of school articles for deletion has rapidly accelerated in the past couple of months. In April, only 20 schools were listed for deletion, in May, 75. So far in June we've has 27. If one starts a discussion on deletion of a school on Wikipedia and a lot of regular Wikipedia editors show up saying they want that school article kept, presumably this means a lot of Wikipedians want that school article kept. This is precisely the purpose of VfD--for people to discuss whether they want articles deleted or not.
- On the school watch page itself, it's vote-neutral. All school-related VfDs are listed there, and anyone can pop it in their watchlist. It doesn't favor pro-school people over anti-school people. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Please observe this sentence from the school watch page: "This is a campaign to ensure that articles on schools are allowed to develop on Wikipedia". That's not NPOV. It's a campaign. The fact that there is no concensus on the debate regarding inclusion of secondary schools juxtaposed with the statistics regarding the number of such schools that have been VfD'd but passed (all of them, recently) is in the least, interesting. --Durin 17:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Please observe my rebuttal above. On your claim that there is no consensus on schools, observe: in the past 94 school deletion discussions that have reached a conclusion, only two articles have been deleted. Of the 28 pending (unfinished) school deletion discussions, only one article (about a school political organization started by a student), is headed for deletion. Wikipedia has spoken. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I pointed out the fact that the schoolwatch group/list is a campaign to retain school articles. There isn't any debating that. It's very clear from the sentence I quoted. If you wish to debate this further, then the next course of action would likely be to study the votes that have been cast for all of the 94 schools you note above, and see if there is consistency among the pro-keep or pro-delete populations. If there is consistency in one group vs. lack of consistency in the other, then it would appear there is a focused group intent on pro-keep or pro-delete. I suspect there is a focused group of pro-keep people, and not one for pro-delete. If that's the case, then it is not Wikipedia speaking. Instead, it is a focused minute sub-group of Wikipedia that is speaking. That becomes policy by brute force, not policy by concensus. For what it's worth, I'm generally in favor of articles on schools. Schools are verifiable entities, and if we are to include a requirement of basis in notability, they are considerably more notable than obscure cartoon characters that have individual articles. I'm just not in favor of policy by brute force. That undermines Wikipedia. --Durin 13:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - You're losing me here--what is the problem with the existence on Wikipedia of a group of people who consistently vote to keep school articles?
  - On the subject of focus, you may note if you have a look that 2/3 of all VfD listings for school articles in May were made by one editor and 2/3 or all VfD listings for school articles in June were made by another single editor. This is clear evidence of a focussed campaign to delete schools. And you know what? I couldn't care less. If Wikipedia wanted to delete schools this would be the way to go about it, a couple of dedicated editors rooting out school articles and proposing them to a receptive VfD which would duly delete them.
  - But these things can backfire. When some editors engage in focussed activity (such as the two-man deletion campaign that has accounted for the huge rise in VfD listings--from 20 in April to 75 in May and 27 so far in June), where there is not popular assent, it is inevitable that there will be an equally focussed backlash. People who care about the articles being systematically listed for deletion will tend to spot the pattern, watch for repetitions and engage in their own repetitive behavior. There is nothing wrong with this, and if the people engaged in the campaign for deletion don't like seeing this happen then all they have to do is stop listing school articles for deletion in this extremely focussed manner. We'll all go back to doing whatever it was we were doing before the deletion campaign and in time the success rate for school deletion listings may rise from its current value (between 0% and 3% depending on the sample timescale you use) to something like its former value (perhaps around 30%).
  - We cannot separate the opinion of Wikipedia from the social dynamics of its operation. When I say that Wikipedia has spoken, I literally mean that this is how Wikipedia resolves problems like this. A brute-force push in a direction that Wikipedia doesn't want to go, such as the deletion campaign, will tend to result in an equal and opposite reaction. This is Wikipedia. Learn to accept it and love it.
  - You describe the practise of consistently voting keep for schools as "policy by brute force". I cannot accept this characterization. Those voting to keep schools are simply expressing their opinion. They are not forcing others to vote keep or not to vote delete, they are simply expressing graphically the strength of feeling against the deletion of school articles. That they also have the best arguments may also help. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - I did not describe consistently voting to keep schools as "policy by brute force". I described an organized group of such people, working without there being an opposing such group, as "policy by brute force". On the rest of your points, I agree and disagree to varying degrees. On the original point, you made a statement that the schoolwatch group was neutral; it isn't. I think I've demonstated that effectively. That was my original point. I think it best we leave this debate in its current state; this is not the place for it. Thank you. --Durin 14:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Well this brings us back to the question of what is an organized group. I stumbled across Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch because I already subscribed to the Wikipedia:Watch service, whose purpose is precisely to provide unobtrusive alerts in users' watchlists for events of interest. So I subscribed to that subpage, and sometimes I update it by adding or subtracting links to schools that someone else has listed for deletion, and that is the sole extent of my involvement with anything that can be called schoolwatch. Does the act of subscribing to, and updating, an article in project space constitute "organized activity?" Clearly the act of doing so does not require one to vote in a certain way, or even to vote at all, which is my point about schoolwatch. No matter what it says on the page, it is vote-neutral.
    - I've repeatedly stated this, and you've continually attempted to represent schoolwatch as some kind of focussed campaign, an organized group attempting to subvert Wikipedia. It isn't, and you've demonstrated nothing. Anybody can add Schoolwatch to their watchlist. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - I think it best we leave this debate in its current state; this is not the place for it. Thank you. --Durin 16:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 16:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Jelena Dokic being an ex-pupil makes it notable alone :-) Dan100 19:56, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I am an EX-Pupil and i have updated information. My name is Esteban Lopez and I might be adding myself to the list of Alumni. I have attended Fairfield High School and left in Disputes. --augrunt 14:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Raul Eugenio Tadeo[edit]

Vanity page by a student; probably not a candidate for speedy deletion, but not much use nonetheless. Shimgray 17:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Says he's a "professional drawer and ... nothing else". Non-notable. --Idont Havaname 20:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete and nothing else. --Gmaxwell 07:54, 12 Jun 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 article was deleted by Duk 21:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) as as a copyright violation. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CCSOSAR[edit]

despite the cause, it's self-promotion and not very notable. 67.101.113.10 17:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as a copyright violation.--Duk 21:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete (and copyvio) drini ☎ 20:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyvio, and Google gives ~400 hits for CCSOSAR. --Idont Havaname 20:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:51, 2 Jun 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ramon Akanni[edit]

This article is a slander. The alleged crime does not appear to be legitimately reported anywhere else.

Delete drini ☎ 21:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — mark ✎ 01:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is now left is a stub, and un-notable. As is, probably wants speedy but earlier comments indicate that there was more --Simon Cursitor 07:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Doyouspeakchinese 20:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Patently non-encyclopedic. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 21:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:51, 2 Jun 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

White Racialists World Union[edit]

Group vanity/advertisement. Zero Google hits for group name. No relevant hits for foundder's name. Not notable. Xcali 18:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with pleasure - I can't verify this via google - if it has escaped google's notice than it is pretty low on the radar. --Doc (?) 19:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn vanity. Should probably be speedied, if our deletion policies have changed to allow that. --Idont Havaname 20:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and vanity -CunningLinguist 00:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. User blanked it. Nestea 18:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete with prejudice. Ha.--MJR 23:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice. ~~~~ 16:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, what they said. -- StopTheFiling 09:47, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Delete - unverifiable Epolk 06:42, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are clubs at my university larger than this "world-wide" organization. Gamaliel 16:07, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Naeem Akhtar Bhatti[edit]

Pakistani political aide of questionable notability. Article is an orphan. EvilPhoenix 18:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Pakistani senators are notable; I don't think their personal assistants are. Delete. - Mustafaa 18:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Bamfer Productions[edit]

Fairly obvious self-promotion (it was created by Bamfer23), non-notable film company. It has an entry in IMDB ... for a three-minute film [7]. Brenton 18:40, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No auto-biographies. Niteowlneils 15:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete self promotion. JamesBurns 09:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:12, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Bill Robb[edit]

I can't find any information on google with the terms Bill Robb and Barriefield Rock Gardens. Appears to be non-notable vanity page. Delete --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. "Barriefield Rock Gardens" - 1 hit; "Kingston History Murals" - 0 hits. --Idont Havaname 20:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)d[reply]
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

TRUCE[edit]

Promotional, does not establish notability. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 19:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An organization called "Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children's Entertainment"; name gets 570 google hits. I'm inclined to agree with Mike Rosoft--unless some evidence of notability or impact is provided, this should go. Most of the web hits didn't suggest any notability either (e.g., the org. left a review decrying a particular series of books on Amazon, which was hit #3 or 4. Meelar (talk) 19:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. A lot of it is just straight copyvio lifted from [8]. --Idont Havaname 20:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

St ham's day[edit]

A vanity holiday created by students at a particular grammar school and only celebrated there. See WP:VAIN. Meelar (talk) 19:19, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have personally heard reports of this holiday being celebrated at other secondary schools in the area, and it is a genuine 'cult'. (unsigned comment made by "80.43.94.161", the article's author)

Speedy delete Hoax/fiction. Zero Google hits. --Xcali 19:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire, like you would anything heretical. ;) --Scimitar 20:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. THE WORD OF ST HAM WILL BE SPREAD! Speedy delete.

Delete - incitement to violence arguably illegal. Not funny enough to be excused as satire. Hell with it, it's just lame. AlexTiefling 20:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it up, ferchrissakes. At least until I get the webpage working...

Sorry. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Meelar (talk) 20:20, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. --Idont Havaname 20:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, what webpage?

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Martg76 22:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete it! Jamie Graham is threatening a lawsuit! I'm begging you!

Speedy delete as utter dreck and waste. 216.158.31.195 14:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. JamesBurns 09:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:14, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Backup Systems and Recovery and Information Technology Audit - Operations[edit]

Not an encyclopedia article, possibly copied from somewhere. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 19:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed --Xcali 19:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google doesn't seem to indicate that it's copyvio, but it reads almost like a preface to a job listing. At any rate, certainly delete this; it is not encyclopedic. --Idont Havaname 20:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Information Technology Audit - Regulation. This is part of a larger project by a group of (graduate?) students. I'm not sure about the feasiblity of such a project, but rather than delete this, some of which might be valuable information on an encyclopedic topic, it should be cleaned up and probably all merged into a main article. Since it's a class project, the authors should all be dedicated contributors to the articles. Let's see what they can do with it and then judge the final product. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
- To the authors of these pages: have you registered usernames? You can do so here. I would also suggest reading Help:Starting a new page and Wikipedia:Manual of style, for starters. Please feel free to leave questions on my talk page or send me email – I will respond as quickly as I can. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 21:25, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that; I'll try to talk to them about the formatting of their page when next I see them. Sorry for the inconvenience ~ M
Keep We are the group in charge of this article, and we have cleaned it up a bit, hopefully to wikipedia's standards. Thanks -Group6 25:35, 5 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is coming along nicely. - DS1953 00:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep Yo, I'm just a user, but I sought out this page today, looking for general ideas on data backup philosophies and schedules. The article wasn't exactly what I wanted, so it could be improved, but better than nothing.

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

Comment. Thanks a lot guys. My other hard drive isn't booting, and I wish I knew of some good recovery programs.--67.190.25.121 07:54, 14 January 2007 (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 - SimonP 14:16, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Mawbea, North Sodor[edit]

Total fiction. Original author tried to blank it [9]. -- RHaworth 19:20, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Delete. The various railway references remind me that the Isle of Sodor is the setting for the Revd Wilbert Awdry's Thomas the Tank Engine children's stories. I think 'Sodor' actually relates to the southern part of the Scottish Western Isles, as a former part of the diocese of Sodor and Man. AlexTiefling 20:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I live in Mawbea! =0 ~Ray Wight, Mawbea NS, 1 Jun 2005
Delete. Hoax. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kimberly L. Browne for more of the same. Postdlf 07:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fiction/hoax. --bainer (talk) 08:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Enfant_terrible[edit]

Dict def Wikibofh 19:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Carnildo 21:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, is that what it means? Term used fairly frequently in Metal Gear Solid but is never defined. Possible redir, but article itself, being an embarrassment to all who know of it, should be deleted. Marblespire 08:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Expand — An expression that probably deserves some sort of article on cultural ramifications, history, and perhaps some good examples. There are also 2-3 bio pages that link here. — RJH 16:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I too think this could be expanded. Quite common phrase. Grue 19:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand The Steve 06:36, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Death Blossom[edit]

"An unusual and obscure sexual manuever" that is unreferenced and probably a hoax. Although user has an account, it is the user's first and only WP edit, made on April 30 with no subsequent activity. No inbound or outbound links. Quale 20:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Xcali 20:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-CunningLinguist 00:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Almost BJAODN-worthy. --Fazdeconta 07:55, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. JamesBurns 09:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy deleted at request of author. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Henrik Petersen[edit]

I am a Dane, and I have never heard of him. Delete as not notable. Thue | talk 20:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious advertising --Fred-Chess 21:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Dane, but I know how to use Google. There is a Henrik Petersen Jr. who has published economics papers, a Jørn Henrik Petersen who is a University Prof (I can't read the rest of it, as I don't speak Danish). I'm still looking, but this guy might be notable. The "I have never heard of him" criteria is not conclusive; until today I could have sworn I had never heard of W. Mark Felt. --Scimitar 21:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, good point. My vote is (and was meant as) delete unless somebody can point out that he is notable. Thue | talk 21:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. This link [10] I think shows him to be a fairly non-notable digital designer. I will now vote delete. Some of the other Henrik Petersen's seem notable, but evidently not this one n particular. --Scimitar 22:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Biography/CV does not suggest particular influence or importance in his field. Average Earthman 13:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I wrote the article as (what I thought would be) a "safe topic" for my first post. Please go ahead and delete it - I actually tried to delete it myself right after creating it but being a new poster I didn't have the permissions to do so. I figured I would wait till I got the required permissions - but please go ahead and delete the article now. EchoEcho 17:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete (or userfy, if EchoEcho wants it). Uppland 21:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speedied. Author added a delete notice with the reason "test page". I obliged. — Gwalla | Talk 03:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:18, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sean Lubin[edit]

Vanity for a high school student. Page was given the "cleanup-importance" tag on May 4. His friend Devlin Gandy is currently on his way to having his article deleted. Quale 20:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy nonsense. 578 (Yes?) 20:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity. --Etacar11 23:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 09:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete (patent nonsense). - Mailer Diablo 22:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teh l0rd of teh Ringz0rs[edit]

I'm not sure. Source text? Copyright violation? unencyclopedic? Anyway, it shouldn't be here. DJ Clayworth 20:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy surely? --Doc (?) 20:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy --Xcali 20:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy... not even really an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:59, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. --Carnildo 21:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deleted as patent nonsense. - Mailer Diablo 22:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Total Anarchy[edit]

This is a stub for a dog-activity club. I don't believe that every club in the world needs an encyclopedia page. Elf | Talk 18:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unless there's something notable about this particular club, then Delete. MegaSlicer 21:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn Xcali 22:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 09:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by destination[edit]

Nonsense? Unencyclopedic? Verifiable? This page looks pretty seedy. It could well be notable, but I think it fails in a lot of respects. Dosn't seem to have encyclopedic potential. Ryan Prior 21:35, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I have not even finished beyond two cities and it gets a vote for deletion? It is not meant to stand on its own. Its part of Singapore Changi Airport so that the later can be trimmed and will not be overflowing with statistical info.--Huaiwei 21:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very relevant to coverage of the airport but better on a sub-page. Kappa 22:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, encyclopedic information. - Mailer Diablo 22:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my comments above. Also, I do have intentions to include annual traffic figures for each city subsequently based on data I managed to grap from other sources, and do chk out the corresponding Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by airline, which is much further down the editing effort but far from complete.--Huaiwei 22:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic. Xcali 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't this sort of raw data table best left to Wikisource et al.? If it's coming from some external source, it might be best left as an external link so that Wikipedians aren't perpetually trying to maintain this sort of constantly-changing data. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I am not too sure if this is considered raw data if I had to sieve through and extract relevant information and do a bit of my own number crunching before producing the table? I mean...where do we draw the line? How much "originality" is needed before it qualifies? If we may refer to aviation related pages, how about World's busiest airports by passenger traffic (which incidentally, I moved from World's busiest airport? How about Singapore Airlines destinations, which was similarly listed on VFD after I extracted it from the Singapore Airlines page, but thankfully was kept after much discussion over the issue of "unencyclopedic" and "wikisource" data? Today, that page has since spawned enough cousins to populate Category:Airline destinations. Is wikipedia fairing worse with these articles around?--Huaiwei 01:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My response: Wikipedia isn't the place to post your data. It isn't encyclopedic stuff. Wikipedia is not a web server, and what you're doing is reformatting data and posting it for people to look at - that's best left to you on your own server. If it isn't encyclopedic information, it simply dosn't belong here! I don't mean to deride the idea of an index of airlines by traffic, etc - I think it would be a good resource for the Net. I get the impression from articles such as Wikipedia is not, etc, that this just isn't the forum for what you're doing. Ryan Prior 01:39, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

You fail to see the point. I may have churned some numbers, but this is not my data. You appear to think I am treating wikipedia as some kind of data server. If that is the case, may I know how different this is with every other page in wikipedia? Why do people assume pages with text is more encylopedic then pages with a table or a list, when the former is similarly often reformmatted/rewrittern text available elsewhere?
I am personally a geographical graduate with speciality in international transport systems. When it comes to aviation analysis (and including something as mundane as trying to understand why airlines and governments are having bitter disputes over city pairs as we can see in newspapers), one often need to find out which airlines are flying the route in question, the frequency of routes (which translates to capacity), and also the actual numbers of passengers carried. This information is not always easily available in one location, nor is it readily available to all for free. And do these "raw sources of data" present these stuff in a manner which allows one to quickly get an overview of traffic flows from one airport?
You have not responded to my questions above. How do you explain all pages in wikipedia which are mere lists? Or tables in which the data was simply copied wholesale from just one source? Are you going to get them all removed, considering they appear to require even less number churning than is required for this page?
Last but not least, I am quite disturbed by the kind of language you use in dismissing work you do not appreciate. Calling it "nonsense", "unverifiable", and even "seedy" was quite an insult, unless of coz it is your intention to do so.--Huaiwei 08:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete not enclyopedic. There already is a format for listing destinations that should be just fine for this airport. The data in the table would be hard to maintain since airlines frequently change schedules and do not announce reductions in service. In any case, the article title is wrong since it is a list of the number of flights and not pasenger traffic. Vegaswikian 05:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Firstly, I did mention I will be adding passenger traffic figures later. And passenger traffic, btw, do also include routes and traffic frequencies, so in what way is it "wrong"? Secondly, the data is not hard to maintain, because airlines dont change schedules as frequently as you think. Most airlines make big changes at most twice a year, and new routes and suspensions do make it to the news. In addition, the information posted can be easily updated at anytime. Third, I was the same person who expanded the list of airlines in Singapore Changi Airport to include destinations served. When I considered the possibility to expand it further to also include annual traffic figures broken down by city-pair, etc, as well as the fexibility of seeing data by airline or by city, it clearly becomes impossible to keep expanding that list in the airport page. Hence the creation of new subpages to present these in full. I suppose if I merge the entire data back into Singapore Changi Airport, then the content suddenly becomes "encyclopedic"?--Huaiwei 08:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vegaswikian is of course correct on all points. Quale 06:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Singapore Changi Airport (which may also include all of it) and delete - Skysmith 07:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I created this page so that the size of that list in Singapore Changi Airport could be reduced or even completely removed. This is part of wikipedia's preference in moving extensive lists of data to seperate pages in order to keep the main page salient and free from too much clutter. Moving these information back is contrary to what has been done since. Why should data moved from main articles to reduce clutter suddenly be deemed unencyclopedic, only to become less so when moved back to its main page?--Huaiwei 08:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response: Information that is not encyclopedic does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia, whether as a helper article or as part of a larger article. The information was unencyclopedic when it was part of its origional article, and it still is. Ryan Prior 17:41, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This is getting pure ridiculous. Would you mind stating your stand on what is encyclopedic, and what is not, before we go further?--Huaiwei 19:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: Write an article detailing the methods you use to obtain and process this information. Such a reference would be very useful to anyone with an interest in this sort of research. Ryan Prior 17:41, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This is odd and contradictory. This article in question is not an attempt to demonstrate "methodology" of any sort. It is a presentation of data in such a way that it combines data from multiple sources and re-configured to be compariable, cohesive, and usable for wider analysis for its mother article, namely for Singapore Changi Airport. An encyclopedia does not create new methodologies and explain them, something you are asking to be done. I do apologise if I sound rude, but I do have a feeling you appear to have a shaky understanding of what an encylopedia is, or your familiarity of the article in question?--Huaiwei 19:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep, very relevant. It may be difficult for those who have not been to this region to understand the relevance of the article. Singapore Changi Airport is a major air hub that serves at least two very important trans-oceanic routes: the "Singapore-India" route and the "Singapore-Australia" route which is part of the kangaroo route (This route is so important that it was given a special name). The many travelers who fly these routes would agree that the article is relevant and notable. Similarly, those who fly between Singapore and different cities in China, would find the information useful. Often, this is not about planning a specific trip, but rather, this route-focused information is always something good to know and be updated about, as air travel has become so much a part of our lives. It's very much similar to freeways in Southern California, (see Category:Southern California freeways). -- Vsion 11:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The proponents of deletion here do not think that the topic is irrelevant. It is notable and important, but it is not encyclopedic data (however high-level it is). What would be encyclopedic would be a page on the method used to extract the sort of data presented here from the raw data provided elsewhere. Wikipedia is not an archive; I would not go to a page about a highway and, every day, post the number of cars that travelled. On the page about SlashDot, I would not put up the number of words in every slashdot-referenced article day-to-day and run statistical analysis on those numbers. Those could be valuable activities, and there is notability abound because of the importance of those figures. However, the information is not encyclopedic and, unless sources and methodology are cited, the figures themselves are not verifiable (and/or can be considered origional research.) Ryan Prior 12:59, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I strongly refute several assumptions and generalisations in the above statements:

Presenting facts for the purpose of an encyclopedia is quite different from explaining the methodologies used to obtain them. Do you have articles in wikipedia directly explaining how a page like Earth is written? An encyclopedia presents facts, be it in textual form or otherwise. It does not create them, nor does it spell out how an article is created other then the listing of sources used, etc.

You entirely missed the point there. Read what I write before you strongly refute me. The creator of this article has interpreted it and processed data in order to write his page. I do not suggest a page about the method for creating the page; and you are right when you say that Wikipedia does not, and should not, have a page explaining how Earth was written. However, we do have a page explaining how proteins are made, and how a quicksort works. Spare me for a moment, if you would, your pointless ranting about how air travel is not like biochemistry or data sorting. A page about how something is done can be and often is encyclopedic. Thus, a page explaining how to take traffic figures and, by analyzing them, find yearly air traffic motiffs would be encyclopedic. Q.E.D. Ryan Prior 20:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia IS an archieve, and indeed, it is even being celebrated as being a medium which is able to track and record facts as they pass us by in a way more dynamic then any physical medium could. If wikipedia could present trends over temporal scales, would this be considered an "archive", and hence worth removal?
Using daily traffic data on a motorway to compare with this page appears to suggest your unfamiliarity and overall ignorance when it comes to transportational studies. Anyone with enough years in academia would have pointed out, that the "significance" or "worthiness" of data is not fixed on the temporal scale. You cannot assume daily traffic on a highway is as useful as one for passenger volumes on an airline. Temporal scales are often tweaked according to noted patterns in movement numbers. Aviation traffic, for example, tend to have seasonal swings which span a calender year. Motorway movements, on the otherhand, tend to have traffic patterns repeating itself on a weekly basis. Obviously, the scale chosen similarly depends on the research objectives as well. But it is quite obvious that no one can simply start plucking random examples to deride the value of another. Proof to us that annual passenger figures are as useless as daily traffic figures on a motorway, and then we shall talk.

I don't like your argument here. I did not choose highway traffic because it's just like air traffic. I chose it because it is similarly unencyclopedic. The only potentially encyclopedic facts are the conclusions which rise from those facts. I know you'll say this is an interpretation. I say no - this is a listing. An interpretation would say, "In 2004 when X corporation moved to Singapore, traffic increased in January because of the movement of businessmen." A listing says, "November 2003, X passangers. December, Y passangers. January, Z passangers." In my humble opinion, the interpretation has encyclopedic potential while the listing does not. Ryan Prior 20:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Your comparison with SlashDot is equally disturbing. This list aims to show the traffic flow into and out of the airport on an annual basis, with the number of flights updated on an ad-hoc basis. Is this the same as your comparison with SlashDot? This page does NOT aim to list every single nitty-gritty data out there. For example, we could start listing flight numbers. We could list flight times. We could list types of aircraft used, and the capacity and number of seats for each. And in fact, these ARE important information as well in much aviation analysis. But no. It is kept to reasonable editing limits to include only the destinations, frequency of flights, and the pasengers carried annually to meet its primary objective. Your SlashDot analogy in seemingly trying to present me as an inclusionist is obviously a shot in the dark.

Once again, please grasp my point. If I were to log the number of words on every referenced SlashDot article, the listing would be quite simple (like, say the frequencey of flights to and from a Singapore airport). Useful analysis of these might yield the fact that SlashDot-referenced articles are getting shorter, which might suggest either that online reporting's style is changing or that SlashDot's editors are getting lazier and click past drawn-out articles. Neither of those are true to my knowledge; I speak hypothetically here. The numbers do not have encyclopedic potential, while the conclusions drawn from them might. Ryan Prior 20:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Last but not least, I again notice your shaky foundations when it comes to "defining" what is encyclopedic. You know claim any information presented here which does not have a source is naturally "unverifyable", and inevitably "unencyclopedic". I suppose I must have dreamt up the number of flights and passengers carried yesterday night, or I got my dog to walk on my keyboard to get the numbers?

I would like to have a link to your source, just in case I want to check the work. If these are origional numbers, then this qualifies as source material. If they aren't, they must come from somewhere... right? Ryan Prior 20:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly love to hear your views on these. And meanwhile, may I know what kind of research methodology courses have you done in your lifetime, and how familiar are you with the international transport industry?--Huaiwei 19:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I work in research. Yes, I know what research methodology is. Internation travel is in my family, and statisticl analysis of data to find trends and draw conclusions is not a foreign concept to me. Ryan Prior 20:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Notice: I officially obstain from this discussion. I beleive that anyone who reads what I have written understands my position on this article without further explanation. Furthermore, I believe that commenting further would only serve to provoke those who oppose my opinions. Ryan Prior 20:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Huaiwei states this is a helper article. Fine with that then. SchmuckyTheCat 14:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep this please it is a helper article Yuckfoo 16:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopaedic. JamesBurns 10:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and would be nice to extend such project to other airports too. — Insta ntnood 05:07, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Interesting and useful info. No objection to having it seperate from Singapore Changi Airport The Steve 06:38, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a statistics database. —Lowellian (talk) 13:03, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia:No original research. —Lowellian (talk) 13:04, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Er...in what way is this "original research"?--Huaiwei 14:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It comes under this section: However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and secondary sources is strongly encouraged - still looks good to me. The Steve 23:22, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Cassidy Martin[edit]

Most wonderful vanity in the entire United States of America I have come across. ;) - Mailer Diablo 22:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy if at all possible (invite the author to open an account and post this info to a user page); otherwise delete for inconsistent grammar... "she has quickly aspired the ladders?" -- BD2412 ^talk 22:12, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Speedy vanity. Xcali 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete kiddie vanity. I think she meant "ascended"... ;) --Etacar11 23:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another vanity article. Could this person be related to Brennan Reilly? [11] [12]. Or am I just seeing things... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Userify --Simon Cursitor 07:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Userfy. JamesBurns 10:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep this article is pretty funneh
- Vote by User:165.24.55.178

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Underage Sugar Addicts[edit]

Listed for speedy, I've changed it to a vfd. Non-notable improv group, Only 20 Google hits, many of those to message forums. Rick K 22:26, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete ~~~~ 16:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Eurocrat[edit]

transwikied dicdef--Doc (?) 22:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — Phil Welch 00:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete dicdef. JamesBurns 10:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 14:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

United Citizens Alliance[edit]

SUMMARY OF VOTES BELOW[edit]

Because some very long pieces of text have been put into the discussion below, here is a summary of votes for ease of reference. Please update if adding further votes, and correct any errors.

NEW denotes a user with no edit history prior to 31 May (the date of this VfD listing).

Delete[edit]

Xcali (contribs)
Etacar11 (contribs)
Vircum (contribs)
CunningLinguist (contribs)
DenisMoskowitz (contribs)
postdlf (contribs)
fazdeconta (contribs)
Scimitar (contribs)
No Account (contribs)
Gamaliel (contribs)
FCYTravis (contribs)
SirGeneral (contribs)
RickK (contribs)
Carmeld1 (contribs)
-Ril- (contribs)
80.229.160.150 (contribs)
130.246.132.26 (contribs)
Columbia (contribs)
FrancisTyers (contribs)
Simoncursitor (contribs) (vote not explicit but comment implies delete)

Keep[edit]

DISCUSSION[edit]

Seems like this "alliance" consists of one guy in Wisconsin. 12 Google hits. Not notable. Xcali 22:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity (since it's just the one guy). --Etacar11 23:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personal manifesto (though rather elaborate at that) michael 00:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
keep The UCA has been mentioned in the international Esperanto magazine Kontakto and is not just "one guy," it currently consists of over 200 citizens worldwide and represents the interests of many more through diplomatic agreements and relations. Nataliatoombs 02:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- User created the page. This vote is User's 4th edit. 66.60.159.190 20:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable -CunningLinguist 00:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Not Notable? The UCA is small, but certainly deserves at least this much recognition. (I work at the UCA capitol so I do know what I'm talking about.) Trishkincade
- User's first edit.[13]
Keep The UCA is ensuring that they work steadily to build a system that will work well in the long term. (I work in the Allied Service division)
- Above vote by 69.173.156.17 (talk · contribs). 66.60.159.190 20:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete Apparently no one who works there is willing to sign their votes. Looks like vanity to me. DenisMoskowitz 01:44, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

comment - I signed mine now, I didn't realize we were supposed to. I just got home from work and was told by my best friend that people were voting to say my job doesn't exist... Trishkincade

Delete. Postdlf 01:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

comment signed mine now too Nataliatoombs 02:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comment tkinc6971@oha.gov.uca.cc is now emailing us to try and convince us to change our votes. --Etacar11 02:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment you comment suggests you didn't actually read the email, a pity... Trishkincade

Comment And I'm still not convinced this group (ok, more than one person, I'll give) is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. But that's just my opinion. --Etacar11 02:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)- update: I removed the links that Etacar11 posted from my email to her as they take up space and by themselves don't prove anything one way or another. If anyone wants then they can email me. Trishkincade

- Note that this edit was made from 24.180.170.251 (talk · contribs). Also, as indicated, the editor deleted a large portion of Etacar11's comments. very bad form. 66.60.159.190 20:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep The UCA is in its infancy, but is growing and is worth being recognized. (Lt. J. Losinski - Office of Hegemon Security)
- Above vote by 24.197.245.133 (talk · contribs). 66.60.159.190 20:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, vanity Columbia 02:41, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

comment Now I wanted to leave it alone, but I couldn't resist this one. Colubmia, you are saying that an interational organization working to improve worldwide civil rights, fight slavery, and many other things that affect peoples lives all over the world isn't "notable" but where Josh Turner went to College is? The priorities being displayed here are quite interesting. Trishkincade

- Josh Turner is a well-known country music artist with 45,100 Google hits. United Citizens Alliance is a virtally unheard-of organization with 11 Google hits. I'll let our fellow Wikipedians be the judge. :-) Columbia 18:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

No dis, but I'd only vote to keep if this were independently verified --Simon Cursitor 07:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable and impossible to verify independently. --Fazdeconta 08:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect, delete, for the following reasons:
- UCA seems to have no independent verification (news reports, formal agreements with any national govt, etc.)
- The terms 'polemarch' and 'hegemon' make this article slightly reminiscient of the Ender series by Orson Scott Card.
- The UN was founded by national leaders, and there is no evidence that Dirk Wolf has the influence/experience/stature to ever make the UCA a recognized international entity that people are widely familiar with.

Should the first issue be dealt with, I will consider changing my vote. --Scimitar 15:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

comment As was mentioned above, the UCA was featured in the international Esperanto magazine Kontakto, and I'm going to see about putting up links to any other mentions of it in the media once I get off work. Trishkincade

Well, I sort of meant something like CNN, BBC, CBC, or the like. I would advise you to move the content to your user page, as it is unlikely to survive VfD without those links. --Scimitar 21:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

delete because it is vanity Yuckfoo 16:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep The UCA is a new but fairly established group. Considering that there is plenty of content here that is about relatively trivial matters, I would think that something as important as the UCA, which has offices in a number of countries, should be included. Mevelynkondrot 17:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It should be noted that as of now, this is Mevelynkondrot's only edit. Columbia 18:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not notable, vanity. No Account
Keep From what I understand the UCA should soon have a corporate headquarters building and this in itself qualifies it to have an article in Wikipedia. --Chuck SMITH 18:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Chuck Smith has declared a strong pro-Esperanto POV. UCA (such as it is) endorses Esperanto, and one of their very few Google hits is from Chuck's blog profile. This is not a criticism but it's fair to point out the possible link with the above vote.
Keep Actually Chuck, they have one in Wisconsin, and another in Finland, they're just in the process of setting up in a much larger building now. I've seen these guys in action, they're worth an entry if anything is.GregorU 21:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User's second edit.

Delete due to non-notability and sockpuppet activity. Gamaliel 21:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - sock puppets and non-notable non-micronation. --FCYTravis 21:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Note - If you mean what I think you do by "sock puppet activity" it should be noted that Natalia lives with me and shares my computer, and mevelynkondrot made her post from my computer as well. (Also Gregor is a friend of mine and after he made his post I logged in here at his place to update mine) Hope that clears up that issue. Trishkincade

I think the correct term is "meat-puppet", check the bottom of WP:SOCK --Etacar11 22:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Note - blush Having read the definition of "meat-puppet" yes I have to say, embarrasedly, that that term does fit. I was under the impression that voting was open to all, and would logically include the opinions of people educated regarding the issue at hand. (Especially since most of you seem to honestly think the UCA is some kind of hoax...)Trishkincade
Delete - I think without good independent verification the article doesn't stand. I also think it's lacking past information... there's a lot about how things will work and things that will be done, but very little, if any, about how things have worked and things that have been done. If the article can provide that information, independently verified, then it's a viable article. SirGeneral 22:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- comment - the Organization is only about three years old, but if you look at the section written about "sucesses" there is mention of what has been accomplished so far.Trishkincade
Delete. Non-notable agency with a single-page website with no links from it, and few independent Google hits. Rick K 22:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete With all due respect, the elaborate nature of the article convinces me only that this is a probable elaborate hoax or at best an organization that exists largely in the mind of one or several people. carmeld1 23:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep Even if UCA is not a particularly large organization at the moment, it is clear it will expand. There is much work to do, but if anyone has really taken a careful look at our current and/or previous websites he must have noticed that we are developing and moving further all the time, little by little. It would be but waste of time to remove UCA from Wikipedia, since it will anyway sooner or later get more than those few Google hits and anything else ridiculous that seems to make some people suspicious. We are growing and developing all the time. If you take a serious look at what UCA is all about and what it has accomplished so far, you will see this is far from hoax of any kind.

- Checkpoint Sigma Commander Lieutenant Lauri Koivisto -

- Yet another voice of support from someone personally connected to UCA. In my opinion, all the keep votes here are biased and self-serving. --Etacar11 18:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- And that "keep" vote is the user's only edit (contributions) -- another meat-puppet. 80.229.160.150

Delete ~~~~ 16:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's certainly a lot of verbiage out there that still fails to establish that the UCA is anything other than a group of self-promoters. Can you point us to any articles in any mainstream press that was not written by members of the organization? Rick K 22:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, at least none that I've been able to find. The Kontakto article was the result of one of our first press releases. The organization isn't that old. But the fact that there isn't more about it in general is actually proof that we aren't a bunch of self promoters, we've spent the past few years actually doing things, rather than talking about it. Trishkincade 01:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- What is it that you've actually done? Rick K 04:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

- The following for starters - See Successes of the UCA at the bottom

Why this entry should stay[edit]

It has been suggested to me that I should write a short essay outlining why I feel that despite the number of negative votes here, the UCA entry should remain on Wikipedia.

Let me first explain that I am new here, as is my roommate Natalia, so if we’ve breeched Wikipedia etiquette I apologize.

I think I should begin by addressing some the primary concerns being expressed here:

1.The UCA has very little web presence on Google and other search engines
2.The UCA has not been featured in very many media sources
3.The UCA has only a couple hundred Citizens, only about half of which are employed directly by the various UCA agencies, and is therefore not big enough to be notable.

So, lets begin.

1. The UCA has very little web presence on Google and other Search Engines - This is very true, when you type in United Citizens Alliance almost nothing comes up about us. The reason for this is two-fold: a. The UCA has not been featured by a great deal in the media (which I’ll address in a moment), and b. Almost every website controlled by the UCA is under construction or offline at the moment.

I suppose that Natalia couldn’t have picked a worse time, with respect to our web presence, to post an article about us here. Until January the UCA had an extensive set of websites for several of our agencies; however, we recently were able to finally arrange permission to use .gov and .mil subdomains I our websites. (I’m not going to get into the long and miserable headache that was, but after several months of negotiations, deal making, and proving that we were who we say we are, we were finally granted the ability to use -.gov.uca.cc and .mil.uca.cc.) We’re in the process of applying for the domain uca.int so that we can use .gov.uca.int and .mil.uca.int subdomains, but that is probably year or two off, because of ICANNA’s strict regulations.

The point here is that the decision was made by Allied Web Services that since we are changing over to new servers and new URLs anyway, we might as well take a few months to completely reconstruct our entire web presence and switch over to systems that are easier to update and more cost effective. The result of this decision is that all of our websites spent about a month in complete non-existence, and only a few are back up in any capacity at all. The websites we have back up have not been up long enough to be found by Googles “webcrawlers” and although we have submitted the sites to about 18 search engines, they have yet to show up. Anyone who has dealt with web site building I’m sure knows how tricky it is dealing with search engines.

I expect that as more of out websites come back online, and Googles webcrawlers find the sites, or accept our submission of them, we’ll begin to have a great deal more “hits” on the search engine.

The real point here is that, of course, not having a large presence on google does not by itself mean much of anything, except that our websites are down and not many people are talking about us right now.

2.The UCA has not been featured in very many media sources – I would remind people that the UCA is officially about 3 years old; and during that time we’ve put our focus on doing rather than talking about it. I don’t know how many people here have worked in the world of public relations, but stories don’t just end up on the news. (At least not the stories that organizations would want about them. LOL)

Every major organization, and most minor ones have a Communications Director and a public relations staff. The PR people are there to issue press releases to media sources and oversee the organizations “image.”

The for the first 2 years of the UCA’s existence Hegemon Wolf had no interest in hiring a communications staff or issuing press releases of any kind. The organization, like many others, began with a charter and a group of dedicated people. At the time he didn’t feel we were organized enough look good in the eyes of the media, and elected to wait until we had more actual accomplishments “on our belt” before making a big issue of it to the press.

Last year, after a review of our progress since the initial charter was created, Hegemon Wolf authorized the OHA to begin interviewing people for positions on the Communications staff, and although we have not made any permanent appointments to the Communications department, we have people serving in interim capacity working to assemble a press corps and have begun issuing releases to select media outlets.

Several months later Kontakto magazine, an international magazine published in Esperanto, became the first media source to publish an article about us to a wide audience.

My real point here is that being well established does not necessarily mean that you will be well know to the media, and our communications department is far behind the rest of the UCA organizationally speaking. And of course the reason that the communications department is behind is because we’ve been a bit busy out in the world actually making a difference and helping people, not just issuing press releases about every insignificant thing that we say or do, as many organizations a lot more well known than us spend time doing.

I’ve added to the UCA entry’s “successes” section to better reflect the kinds of things we’ve accomplished so far. However I am pasting it here as well –

The UCA does not have a long list of accomplishments comparable to that of the United Nations as of yet, however in the short period of time since its creation it has gone from being a small handful of people in the west, to a successful international organization with Citizens in countries all over the world. Also, through diplomatic agreements and relations with unrepresented peoples, the UCA government now represents and works directly to the interests of almost 800,000 people worldwide.

The UCA Allied Service has also actively participated in humanitarian aid programs, disaster relief, and assisting law enforcement agencies in combating slavery.

Currently the Allied Services, in direct coordination with the Freedom Alliance Foundation, are raising money and training personnel to send to South East Asia to implement some of the UCA's long term disaster relief and aid programs, which include the building of a large "creche" to serve as a home for many of the displaced and orphaned children currently living under deplorable conditions in underfunded orphanages and refugee camps.

3. The UCA has only a couple hundred Citizens, only about half of which are employed directly by the various UCA agencies, and is therefore not big enough to be notable. – Now there is the real question, isn’t it.

Is the UCA big enough to be “notable?” No, if you have to be a large and well-known organization to be notable, then the UCA doesn’t fit the bill.

But I think that there is a more important concept to consider here. Should an encyclopedia be a just collection of material about things that everyone already knows a lot about; or should an encyclopedia also include material about subjects that are important on their own merits, and by that virtue are things that people SHOULD know about?

I think that a good case can be made that showcasing information about little-known subjects that are of informative and of value in their own respect.

Now that leads to the question does the UCA entry qualify as being of informative value in its own respect? I can’t objectively answer that. (I believe I can, but I know that as a UCA employee and proud citizen, I can’t be considered truly objective.)

So I have to let you all weigh the issue and decide for yourselves. If you still question the existence of the UCA, despite my explanations of your concerns above, there is not much I can do for you, except ask you which is really a more logical conclusion –

1. A small group of people, for unknown reasons, are perpetrating a hoax to get people to believe in an international organization that doesn’t exist. When they aren’t making any money off the scam, and in fact are spending large quantities of money on office spaces, buildings, equipment, training personnel, buying web domains, and publishing websites, printing IDs and other citizen documentation, etc… (What on earth would be the payoff of such a hoax? It’s not even for publicity because until a year ago we weren’t actively seeking publicity, and even now we aren’t seeking a great deal of it.)

2. The UCA is a legitimate organization that is doing exactly what it says its doing, and you’ve just not heard of it before now.

For that matter, what makes an organization “real?” Is an organization that has numerous offices, employees, etc real? Does an organization that actively implements humanitarian aid programs, some of which in joint ventures with national government agencies, really exist “only in the minds of one or several people.”

I suppose you will have to decide that, since it is now my understanding that only people considered “established Wikipedians” will have their votes considered here, which precludes me from urging people who know more about the UCA, that while they may not be active contributers to Wikipedia use it on a regular basis, to come and vote here to keep the entry from being deleted. Trishkincade

The best way you can convince people is evidence. The only evidence we have that this organization even exists is your webpages and this article written by people from that organization. Show us something from an independent source. No news articles? Fine, show us reports or press releases from all those organizations you are working with. Show us anything that wasn't produced by the UCA itself. Simply asserting that this organization exists is not enough. Gamaliel 16:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about this - The Freedom Alliance Foundation EIN is 20-2899971, in the eyes of the United States IRS the Freedom Alliance Foundation, through which most employees of the UCA are paid in the United States, is a legitimate employer organization with its 501c3 non-profit status application pending. As is explained in the article, The Freedom Alliance Foundation is the non-profit organization that the UCA works through.Trishkincade

The last "news" entry on that site was posted six months ago. --FCYTravis 17:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The website is under construction and looking for a new webmaster, as is noted on the site.Trishkincade

I certainly think you have some compelling arguments, but I have to agree with Gamaliel above... we need evidence. And I believe at the moment this is severly lacking. Consider from Wikipedia's guidelines on article verification under Obscure Topics (which I believe this, if legitimate, would fall under): If an article covers a subject which has never been written about in published sources, or which has only been written about in sources of doubtful credibility, it is difficult to verify the information. To do so would require original research, and it has been agreed that Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles. You'll notice it states that articles can, and are, excluded because they can not be verified. Providing an EIN from the FAF is nice, but there's precious little information about the FAF itself and that being the case I would hardly consider it a reasonable resource to use for the verification of this article's content. Not to mention the difficulties in using it to verify the existance of the UCA. I hardly believe if I go to the FAF and demand payroll information related to the UCA I'm going to receive it. I notice your reference to Kontakto (which seems legitimate as far as I can tell, anyone else know anything about it?)... but once again I see it is lacking some vital information. If this magazine published an article about you, then surely you can provide us with the article's title, page numbers, the month or volume, the author of the article, etc. Provided with this information, your argument becomes significantly better. Now those of us screaming unverifiable will have something solid we can search for and conceivably find. Please let us know when that information is available. Until some verifiable, solid information is available I don't think the article meets the requirements necessary to keep it. SirGeneral 23:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The title of the article was "The UCA, Chainging the face of tomorrow..." I'll post the issue and page number info as soon as I can get it. Zhenya Zvyeryeva, the magazine's editor, could probably be contacted to confirm the existence of the article as well. (My copy hasn't arrived yet, but I emailed someone who has one.) As for the Freedom Alliance Foundation's payroll information, no they won't give out personal information about specific employees, however they are authorized to confirm that they are run by the OHA and that they work in tandem with the UCA Allied Service. (You can email them at info@freedom-alliance-foundation.org) Trishkincade

Note - It appears they changed the name of the article. Trishkincade 15:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I contacted the editor of the magazine and hope to receive a reply soon. --Chuck SMITH 13:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just talked with a friend at HQ at the World Esperanto Youth Organization and he told me that the ISSN for Kontakto is 0023-3692 and the article (Title: Alternativa UN? Jes! [Alternative UN? Yes!]) can be found on page 12. General details about Kontakto can be found on page 19. Also, Kontakto is financially supported by the Council of Europe. Especially for Wikipedia, these pages have been scanned and can be accessed from http://co.uea.org/~tejo/chuck/ --Chuck SMITH 15:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't read Esperanto, so I don't know what the article says. But to me, it still doesn't pass the bar of notability. And since Trish and Chuck's names are both on that page, the whole thing seems like self-promotion and vanity. I stick to my delete vote. --Etacar11 15:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Yes, I found out about UCA since I'm a representative of the Universal Esperanto Association at the UN. My name at the bottom shows that I translated the article into Esperanto. --Chuck SMITH 17:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - It actually seems to say that Chuck Smith acted as agent, and that the translation from the English was by somebody called Joel Amis. Anyway, regardless of Chuck Smith's exact personal involvement, this article is a manifesto written by Trish Kincade. And it is published by the Esperanto movement (who also provided the translation); they are clearly an interested party because of Trish Kincade's promise that the main language will be Esperanto (stated in the last sentence of the red introductory bit). To pass the test of noteworthiness, there should be some mention of them which is written and published by disinterested third parties. Delete. 80.229.160.150

I'd say vote for delete, I like the idea, but it obviously isn't ready for such a long article. If the article was a stub mentioning the intensions, then maybe I'd vote to keep. PS. The first external link points to a rather nasty flash based website, makes me :'( - FrancisTyers 10:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of significatly shortening the article. Perhaps that is an adequate compromise to keep at least some vestige of the article here, rather than deleting it completely? Trishkincade

But at this stage it's still a vanity article, regardless of its length. Delete now. If later UCA ever gets to the stage where enough other third parties are reporting on it in other media that it warrants an article here (and by third parties, I mean people without an obvious vested interest), then it can be listed on WP:VFU. If meanwhile you want to preserve the content, then you can do so under your user-page. 130.246.132.26

Keep. If it was just one guy in Wisconsin, maybe that would make it a vanity article. But it would only be a vanity article until it expands. This organization seems to have several members, and it got mentioned in print (albeit in a publication that perhaps isn't very popular among English-speaking Wikipedians.) What's the harm? --cprompt 22:55, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

But its mention in print was a manifesto by Trish Kincade herself. All that happened was that because they said they'd use Esperanto, Kontakto translated and published this manifesto for her. It isn't exactly as if an independent journalist wrote an article on them. I used to be in the Esperanto movement myself, so I know from experience how the Esperanto media will make a big deal of any expression of support for the language, no matter from how inconsequential a source, and this one seems to be no exception. The only people voting Keep here seem to be either the few people directly associated with the organisation (Trishkincade et al) or Esperantists (Chuck Smith, Cprompt). 80.229.160.150

You give two reasons why you don't think the article is vanity: (a) they seem to have several members, and (b) they were mentioned in print. Your point (b) has been dealt with by the above reply. Regarding (a), I think you are applying an unreasonably low threshold. If I were to create an article about a certain playground game I invented and played with a bunch of friends back at school, it would rightfully get deleted as vanity, but probably that game was known to more people than this organisation is. No, they would need to expand further before it were to stop being a vanity article, and who knows whether that will happen?. I still think delete. 130.246.132.26

Manifesto is usually defined as a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature. In context it is usually used to denote something that referrs to what an organization or group plans to do, rather than what they have done or are currently in the process of doing. There is an important difference there. The article in Kontakto was submitted to them at thier request and consisted of a press release outlining the history of the organization, what it has accomplished so far, and what projects it is currently involved in.

- If I wrongly used the word manifesto, my intended point was nonetheless that it was something that you wrote yourself. That point still stands. Whatever you say about the achievements, you haven't shown evidence of anyone showing any interest in the UCA other than those with a clear vested interest (i.e. the members, and those looking for promotion of Esperanto). 80.229.160.150

I'd like to refer you again to the following:

Successes of the UCA[edit]

...in the short period of time since its creation it has gone from being a small handful of people in the west, to a successful international organization with Citizens in countries all over the world. '(We also have offices and/or Diplomatic representatives in 7 countries so far {USA, Belize, Australia, Japan, UK, Finland, Canada) Also, through diplomatic agreements and relations with unrepresented peoples (ie peoples and nations not directly represented by the United Nations), the UCA government now represents and works directly to the interests of almost 800,000 people worldwide.

Are you affiliated with the UNPO? - FrancisTyers 18:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, not at this time, however we do have diplomatic relations with Hawai'i (as well as mutual DeJure recognition, working towards mutural DeFacto recognition) and are in the in the middle of establishing diplimatic relations with 9 other nations who are members of the UNPO. Trishkincade

Do you have any press releases of conferences/meetings/events/communications you've had with these countries. Or a press release for when you established relations with Hawaii? - FrancisTyers 14:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, as I have mentioned before we had not made a habit of issuing press releases until we were asked to do so for Kontakto magazine. The Hegemony is not planning on issuing a press release regarding our diplomatic relations until the formal treaty for the UNOP Commission is signed, and the OHA Communications department is fully staffed, including a new press secretary. (Speaking of which, the OHA is accepting Press Secretary applications, if anyone is interested LOL)Trishkincade

The UCA Allied Service has also actively participated in humanitarian aid programs, disaster relief, and assisting law enforcement agencies in combating slavery. (exp: In 2003 the Allied Service participated in a joint endeavour with a county sheriffs department in Wisconsin to conduct a raid on a building where people were being held in captivity for labor (ie slavery). The refugees where handled by the OHA and FAF, who found them housing and employment.)

Was this covered in local news? Where was this building etc. - FrancisTyers 18:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No this was not covered in the local news. The women who were rescued did not want any publicity to further disrupt thier lives, and so a press release was never issued. (At the time we weren't really that prepared to deal with the kind of publicity that would have been generated by a press release on the incident anyway.) Trishkincade

Currently the Allied Services, in direct coordination with the Freedom Alliance Foundation, are raising money and training personnel to send to South East Asia to implement some of the UCA's long term disaster relief and aid programs, which include the building of a large "creche" to serve as a home for many of the displaced and orphaned children currently living under deplorable conditions in underfunded orphanages and refugee camps.

Considering the above, I can only assume that you either missed that section of the Wikipedia article, or believe that it was made up. If you believe it is a lie, then nothing I say to the contrary is really going to fix that. Except what on earth would be our motivation for making that up? Trishkincade

If it isn't a lie, surely there would be sources on the internet? The thing that might convince people is sources. How about pictures of your offices maybe? Write some press releases, get some media coverage. Hell, even something on slashdot or kuro5hin (lol) would be something. - FrancisTyers 18:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll take my digital camera and take pictures of the buildings we have in Stevens Point; and post a link to them later tonight.

Cool :) - FrancisTyers 14:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I took these during my lunch break, before the storm hit. :) This is the FAF Office Exterior, its a cute little building with several offices in it. One of which is the administration office for the Freedom Alliance Foundation. The inside looks like this. The following pics are of the UCA Interim Capitol building. Here is the Main Door where we go in and check in with security, you can see the hallway and security desk here. My office is actually downstairs, however this is as far as they let cameras in the building. We also have a few other buildings on the premisis, this] is one of them. It has a few Allied Service offices in it. We're still in the process of moving all of our area offices into the building, so the interim capitol isn't fully staffed. Once it is, between ITRD Commission projects using most of the building for research and development, and the UCA political offices, the building will be staffed with over 300 people. Trishkincade

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments 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. Mackensen (talk) 16:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strawmato[edit]

The link says it's about to hit the store shelves. Not yet notable. Four google hits, and one of those is to worth1000, which is always a suspicious hit. Delete until it becomes a popular food item. Rick K 22:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. New product that has no notable references to verify that this is currently noteworthy now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with rotten tomatoes --Doc (?) 00:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep - If you were to delete this it would be like deleteing an article on time travel as there is no proof that that works wither, also the link is on the bbc which are a reliable source for information.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alex Smart[edit]

Delete non-notable Revolución 22:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 23:37, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AeroVeedramon Zero[edit]

Digimon card game cruft. Nothing but the stats from one card (and a quick Google shows even that to be incomplete.) MikeJ9919 22:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not an encyclopedia article. JamesBurns 10:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Greth Dunn, III[edit]

Vanity. - Mailer Diablo 22:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another vanity article. Could this person be related to Brennan Reilly? [14] [15]. Or am I just seeing things... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more vanity. --Etacar11 23:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Katie Rose[edit]

Non-notable, vanity. - Mailer Diablo 22:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity. And there's also an author with the same name. And a porn star. --Etacar11 23:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is now. I added some links to the porn star (and a pic) but I'm still dubious about her notability ("katie rose" + porn gets 66,300 Google hits, but thousands of those are redirects to a single "Free Porn Fiesta" site). Yes, I just called them redirects. Wikipediholism has set in. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:23, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)
The article as it stands is just about a porn star. By the way, I moved the title from "Katie rose" to "Katie Rose"...there's also a singer, Katy Rose, who had a brief hit in early 2004, to which this title could potentially redirect. Everyking 05:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure if it's really a good idea to take down the original content while the VfD is still going... and also not sure that the porn star is notable (see above comment). No change in vote. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:51, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chris Quackenbush[edit]

Seems to be a hoax. Fawcett5 22:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity/nonsense. --Etacar11 23:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and quit smoking that stuff! --Doc (?) 00:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, yet another hoax that's not fooling anyone. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete makes no sense.
- Unsigned vote by User:43.244.33.89
- Delete vanity, ridiculous. but funny. |royblumy

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adam Stemple[edit]

Delete Vanity, not notable Revolución 23:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor author, local musician, neither quite making it up to the level of overall importance, influence of achievement I'd consider necessary. If anyone can show good sales for any of his books (e.g appearance on any of the NY Times Best-Seller lists) then I'll reconsider. Average Earthman 13:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep--published author, incl. writing a collection of stories with the clearly notable Jane Yolen and published in a (admittedly minor) "Best of the Year" edition. Meelar (talk) 13:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Keep with expansion. Co-wrote 9 songs with Steven Brust on Songs from the Gypsy, a Boiled in Lead enhanced CD. Boiled in Lead albums are available nationwide; my opinion that "local musician" understates the case. Singer of Souls Tor Books 2005 ISBN 0765311704 is his first novel (although he has written two others with Jane Yolen). --WCFrancis 16:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The CD above had the distinction of having the full text of Brust's novel The Gypsy, on which the songs were based.

Further info from Boiled in Lead web site: "The group and the individual musicians have won over 18 Minnesota Music Awards, and toured throughout the US and in Europe. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines.) the band Boiled in Lead has been around over 20 years. Perhaps what is needed is an entry for Boiled in Lead with redirect from Adam Stemple entry, he thought out loud. The previous group Stemple was in was Cats Laughing, which also included notable fantasy/sf authors Steven Brust and Emma Bull. His current group is the Tim Malloys. All 3 groups have common musical roots of celtic and rock styles. -- WCFrancis 20:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity. JamesBurns 10:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alfred Chilton Pearson[edit]

Delete not notable. Revolución 23:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify (as long as it isn't copyvio). A published professor of Classics at Cambridge (Regius Professor was definitely a prestigious post) and a fellow of the British Academy suggests he was notable in his field, even if he's been dead for 80 years. Average Earthman 13:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Average Earthman, but this reeks of copyvio. A later edition of Brittanica or some other encyc.? Meelar (talk) 13:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and wikifi A curate's egg 12:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kieron Harvey[edit]

Reality show contestant. Non-notable.--Nabla 23:35, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Delete - ah the smell of vanity in the morning... except it's not morning. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:54, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
Delete Well it's a.m. here - but this doesn't smell better. His 15 min of fame is currently running its course - soon gone. Mind you if he were really currently in 2006 that would be notable! --Doc (?) 00:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I am the creator of this article, I don't know what you mean because Science from Big Brother might be famous in future, like most other people from Big Brother or something but if you want to delete it it's fine by me. I just made the article because I was bored really. WhatPotato? 18:31, 1 Jun 2005

Delete non notable. JamesBurns 10:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete - none of the housemates should have articles yet. They're not guaranteed to be famous, and the article won't be worthwhile. If any of them make a lasting impact on society (doubtable) the article is worthwhile. Cuahl 03:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Also delete the Roberto article too. Cuahl 03:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted, I counted 11 to 5 legitimate votes in favour of deletion. - SimonP 14:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Harmonics Theory[edit]

A previous version of this article and 6 related articles were nominated for deletion on 18 May 2005. (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harmonics Theory). After much reflection, I concluded that the community concensus was to delete the current versions. During the discussion period, two sandbox versions were created. In the previous vote 4 people explicitly endorsed the first sandbox version, however, many of the objections raised about the original article could be said to apply equally to the sandbox version. Concensus on whether Wikipedia should have any article on this topic remained unclear. This is a procedural nomination specifically on the sandbox version(s). I abstain. Rossami (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully review all of the following previous discussions before joining this decision. Our goal is not to rehash the previous debate but to make a new decision about this new article.
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Harmonics Theory

Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Harmonics Theory

Talk:Harmonics Theory/Overflow01

Talk:Harmonics Theory/Overflow02

Talk:Harmonics Theory/Overflow03

Talk:Harmonics Theory/Overflow04

Talk:Harmonics Theory

Talk:Harmonics Theory/Sandbox

Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2

I recall the sandbox version being vastly superior to the article presented. The theory, no matter how left-field, is worthy of an article due to how well-known it is in certain fields. For those reasons, I think that it should be kept, though I acknowledge it may still need considerable work. Grutness...wha? 01:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No original research. If it's well-known in "certain fields", why can't I find any references to it besides those written by Mr. Tomes himself? Where's the peer-review? Where are the verifiable sources on the subject not connected with Mr. Tomes (which includes negative reviews of the theory that are instigated by Mr. Tomes)? Actually, let me correct myself: there is a "harmonics theory" concerned with the effect of nonlinearities in electrical power systems - see here and here. This has nothing to do with Mr. Tomes' ~~crackpottery~~ theory or this article. Soundguy99 03:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable crackpottery of the kind that appears to be particularly seductive to those not well versed in the physical sciences. The sandbox article is better, but as always, we delete because of problems with the subject, not the article. This subject can't be rehabilitated into an encyclopedia article. Quale 05:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- How so? There is no requirement that the model described by the article be correct for it to remain in Wikipedia. N ray is perhaps the archetypical example of a model that is incorrect but noteworthy enough to show up in most science texts. The idea behind Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia is that someone wondering about a given topic (be it limestone or pop-tarts or harmonics theory) can get a concise description of what it is. In this case, any NPOV article will be along the lines of "harmonics theory is a model that claims X, and that is not accepted by mainstream science". The only question is whether harmonics theory is notable enough for people to look for it in the first place.--Christopher Thomas 20:21, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - As you say, N ray is notable enough to show up in most science texts. What science texts is Harmonics Theory notable enough to show up in? You are seriously proposing that Wikipedia be the first encyclopedia and in fact the first respected reference of any kind to write up this crankery? That's the very definition of original research. If the physics community has no interest in exploring or debunking Harmonics Theory, it is the height of arrogance for WP to decide that it has notability that the experts themselves do not grant. I assume you're familiar with Enrico Fermi's famous put down, "It's not even wrong". I think that applies well to Harmonics Theory. (Oops, I see that linas beat me to it. It was Fermi, not Erdos.) For crank theories like this, being included in a serious wikipedia article is like winning the lottery. Some crank science is notable enough that it should be included in WP because of notoriety or widespread public discussion (for example, Time Cube and Intelligent Design), but WP should not provide a soapbox for non-notable crankery to try to gain legitimacy. I have no ill will toward you, and I realize that you had to work hard to try to create an encyclopedic article out of the idiocy that was the original text. Unfortunately I just don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. Quale 05:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Abstain again. Mostly, this boils down to difficulty demonstrating either that HT is or isn't notable.
- Arguments for deletion:
  1. Notability status is controversial (per previous VfD discussion). Certainly it isn't referenced much outside the discussions of cycles enthusiasts.
  2. As the /Sandbox version wasn't acceptable to at least one person with strong feelings on the issue, it seems likely that contested edits by both sides will occur in the future, making the viability of the article questionable.
- Arguments against deletion:
  1. The /Sandbox version I created is, to the best of my ability to create, something encyclopedic and NPOV, that doesn't itself contain original research.
  2. If harmonics theory is deemed notable, or at least is hard to demonstrate to be non-notable, then the article has merit.
- I'm puzzled at statements that the /Sandbox version is original research, as it provides a second-hand reporting of the views held by Mr. Tomes and the followers he controversially cites, as opposed to containing the vast amount of original discussion of the model that the original version had.

--Christopher Thomas 06:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changing vote to delete, as it's become clear that Mr. Tomes won't accept anything but his own version of the article, with its POV and factual problems. --Christopher Thomas 19:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep After reviewing the previous discussions, I am persuaded by Omegatron's memory hole argument. The current version, if anything, debunks the theory. A known, foolish concept is still deserving of entry, if only to be debunked. Xoloz 07:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change to Delete in solidarity with others, because of Mr. Tomes' disruptiveness. Xoloz 02:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete I can only echo Quale's sentiments.... --Zaphod Beeblebrox 15:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete I see multiple problems: 1) There does not seem to be a community of scholars pursuing this topic. That makes it "original research". 2) its dressed in pseudo-scientific clothing, while asking to be taken seriously. This means its intellectually dishonest and intentionally misleading. 3) It makes wild-eyed unfounded assertions. If the first sentence of the article said something like "Harmonics theory is a wacky but popular bit of pseudoscientific culture jamming...", then there might be grounds for accepting as an article. But it doesn't appear to be popular, and it sure ain't culture jamming. linas 22:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I could understand these objections if made to the original harmonics theory article, but I frankly fail to see how you derive these statements from the current version (formerly Harmonics Theory/Sandbox). To address your specific statements:
  1. The original version of harmonics theory was indeed original research. The version at Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2 still is, as it contains a lengthy presentation that duplicates much of the information in Mr. Tomes's web documents. I fail to see how the current harmonics theory page is original research - it presents a concise summary of the claims and mechanism without going into any form of derivations or detail. To call it a republishing of Mr. Tomes' work is an exaggeration of extreme proportions.
  2. The current harmonics theory article (formerly Harmonics Theory/Sandbox) makes no claim that harmonics theory be taken seriously. To the contrary, where the summarized claims of harmonics theory are listed, the discrepancy between these claims and the view held by the vast majority of scientists is clearly noted. Any sane person reading this article will correctly perceive that the tenets of harmonics theory are not accepted by most scientists. What is misleading about this?
  3. I fail to see any "wild-eyed unfounded assertations" in the present version of harmonics theory. As far as I can tell, you're still looking at the old version (written by Mr. Tomes).
- --Christopher Thomas 23:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - To rebut:
  - 1. The article itself states that it is original research: Harmonics theory has been embraced, to a small extent, by individuals and groups interested in non-mainstream, "alternative" science, but not enough for others to work on or extend it. If no one else is bothering to pursue the thing, then it is original research.linas 00:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Let me try to explain this concept to you as simply as I can: An article containing Klingon opera would be original work. An article noting that Klingon opera has been composed would not be. Am I making this distinction sufficiently clear? If an encyclopedia article about HT is to exist at all, it must present enough information about HT to indicate what HT is, so that readers can decide whether to bother following links to external information. I believe that the current version of harmonics theory has pared back HT-related material to the minimum possible while satisfying that constraint. Check /Sandbox2 to see the kind of article that _used_ to be there. --Christopher Thomas 00:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't buy the analogy. As far as I'm concerned, an article could include the entire score for a Bethoven quartet. Its the notability in this case, not the originality that matters. linas 04:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - 2. The article maintains a serious tone througout, and thus is expressly intended to be taken seriously. The only disclaimer, and a weak one at that, comes in the penultimate sentance: It has been almost entirely ignored by the scientific community. And that's not much of a disclaimer. There's lots of serious, legit, high-quality science that gets ignored by the scientific community. Harmonics theory, by contrast, is pure bunkum, and the article should have unambigously said so.linas 00:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you produce evidence that it is bunkum? Answer... because there is none. Ray Tomes 02:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - - The article on N rays maintains a serious tone thoughout, and thus is expressly intended to be taken seriously. It nowhere states that N rays are accepted to exist, in fact stating the opposite. Likewise, the current harmonics theory article repeatedly states that HT's claims are not compatible with mainstream science's. What more do you want, that wouldn't break NPOV/personal attack policies? --Christopher Thomas 00:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've told you previously, the N-ray affair is in no way comparable to HT. Its a "look at the wookie"/"don't think of an elephant"/"red herring" type argument. Its possible that the article on N-rays is poorly structured; I did not study it carefully. N-rays deserve an article because its an infamous episode in the history of physics research that most young physics students learn about. The HT article is misleading by presenting the subject matter as if it were science, when it is not. Furthermore, to present HT as if it were a blunder of the scale or magnitude as N-rays is also misleading. linas 04:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - 3. There are multiple wild-eyed assertions: "Prediction of a particle with a mass of approximately 34.8 MeV". Particle physics is a lot more subtle than that. Ditto for "quantization of the redshift" or "explanation of the Hubble constant". It is insane to make these kinds of pseudo-scientific predictions while at the same time attempting to destroy the edifice of modern physics practice.linas 00:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "wild-eyed assertions" is a slur. If you look at Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2 you will find the following text:

quote .. Prediction of a particle with a mass of about 34.76 MeV in 1994 at FSC conference repeated later in sci.physics [16]. In 1995 KARMEN reported an experiment that "suggests the decay of a new particle x, produced in π to μ + x with mass of x=33.9 MeV" [17]. .. end quote.

If you were to follow the lnks [1] and [2] and read them and the quote then you would have to come to the conclusion that a prediction was made. Not a claim of a prediction. Ray Tomes 02:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - - Because you appear to keep missing the appropriate text, I'll highlight it here:
      1. The resulting spectral power distribution is not consistent with the power distribution derived from applying conventional materials science to the scenarios in question
      2. Prediction of a particle with a mass of approximately 34.8 MeV. This is claimed by Tomes to have been observed after his prediction at the KARMEN neutrino experiment. The relevant paper [1] (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9503295) does not announce a discovery. ... No subsequent announcement of particle discovery occurred.

Your text is so garbled that no-one could possibly realise that the facts are: (1) I had nothing to do with KARMEN. (2) I made a prediction in 1994 of a particle at about 34.76 Mev still visible with google (3) KARMEN subsequently did observe something at 33.9 Mev that verified my prediction (4) they didn't know about me (5) They did state "suggests the decay of a new particle x, produced in π to μ + x with mass of x=33.9 MeV". Ray Tomes 00:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - - 1. Astronomers dispute Arp's claim that these redshift quantization levels exist. --Christopher Thomas 00:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And you miss my point. The whole HT topic is a Potemkin village. It is not a "theory", and it makes no "predictions". Taking random statements and calling them a "theory" doesn't make them an actual theory. Making other random statements and calling them "predictions" doesn't make them predictions. The falsehood in this article is that of pretending that there exists a theory when in fact one does not. linas 04:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read the above PROOF that a prediction was made of a particle (unless you think I have google in my control). Ray Tomes 02:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- - - Check the article history. The original version that I'd produced had "claimed prediction of" everywhere, as well as a "this is considered a pseudoscience" statement. It's been editied by others. Feel free to rephrase the statements appropriately. This is, after all, the purpose of having a freely-editable encyclopedia.
    - How you can interpret "HT says X, most scientists say Y instead" as an endorsement of HT is a mystery to me.
    - -Christopher Thomas 00:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - And a quick remark about N-rays: the N-ray incident is infamous, and is taught in college classrooms, and is the subject of numerous books. That historic event is in no way comparable to "harmonics theory". linas 00:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - That is a Notability concern, and one that I wholly agree with, as stated (repeatedly) in my comments on this page. My objection is that you appear to be proposing deletion for reasons other than HT's non-notability. Delete if you like, but delete for the right reason. --Christopher Thomas 00:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This whole matter has gotten tedious. I don't want to continue this debate any further. Please don't continue drawing me into it. The article has many serious, fundamental flaws, all centering around the honesty and truthfulness of the presentation. Notability is only a tiny little part of the problem; a far greater problem is that it is fundamentally inaccurate and incorrect. linas 04:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how these statements are consistent with the current version of the article. What factual errors are in the article? It states, correctly, that Mr. Tomes has claimed X, Y, and Z, making it clear that these claims are not accepted as fact by mainstream science. Mr. Tomes has indeed made these claims, repeatedly. The article does not present them as fact, and your continued claims that it does cast serious doubt on either your integrity or your statement that you'd actually read and understood the article text. Understand that these statements _are_ an attack, by _you_, on _my_ integrity as an editor, and so you are expected to be able to justify them.--Christopher Thomas 21:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually Mr Tomes has proven that some of the stated "claims" are not claims but facts. Ray Tomes 02:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a saying in the physics community for stuff like this: its not even wrong. I'd like to see a WP article on this phrase (I think it might be due to Paul Erdos) linas 04:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You do not not the meaning of not even wrong. If predictions are made they can be right or wrong. Not even wrong referes to waffling, which this theory is not. It makes very clear predictions, some of which remain to be tested and some which have. Unfortunately ignorant people think that "I have not heard of this before" is the same as "this must be wrong". That does not follow. Ray Tomes 02:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete drini ☎ 22:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've tweaked harmonics theory to have something closer to its original strength of phrasing re. the claims of harmonics theory not being accepted as valid mainstream science. I'd thought that this was still sufficiently clear in the version that survived the previous rounds of editing, but apparently it was ambiguous to at least one voter. The problem is now resolved. --Christopher Thomas 01:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- At Quayle's suggestion, I've added a resonance tutorial link to illustrate what the mainstream view of the behavior of resonant systems is. I've also clarified which links reflect mainstream views and which reflect HT proponent views. --Christopher Thomas 00:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Dcfleck: I'm afraid I agree enough with linas's viewpoint to feel that with all of the "claimed"s stripped out, the article gives the misleading impression that the predictions listed were derived by means consistent with the scientific method. What's actually happened is that Mr. Tomes has claimed that HT predicts them while not showing any form of derivation from the physical properties of the systems involved, either in response to my requests or those of his Usenet critics. Thus, saying "HT predicts X" is considerably less accurate than "HT claims to predict X". Similarly, it does seem to meet the definition listed under pseudoscience (claimed by its proponents to follow the scientific method, claimed by most other people to not, very limited following), so I'm puzzled as to why this was removed if the article is to be NPOV. --Christopher Thomas 04:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Well, I was making a (possibly misguided) attempt at compromise, by removing the words that Tomes appeared to object to most strenuously; I realize that that was pushing a borderline article even closer to the edge. But as Tomes has now steamrolled all of our edits, I guess it's a moot point. --Dcfleck 00:12, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

I am confused as to who moved the sandbox article to replace the original. I have listed a number of serious errors in the sandbox article in the Talk:Harmonics theory#Sandbox2 discussion. Is it acceptable to make these corrections now? Is it OK to replace sandbox with sandbox2? Ray Tomes 11:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Is it OK to replace sandbox with sandbox2?"
Well, you can always try to improve an article that is on VfD. However, I would expect that sandbox2 will meet with even stronger disapproval than the current article. --Dcfleck 12:33, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

The present version is full of garbage. Saying "it is claimed" everywhere does not make something NPOV. It makes it wrong when the evidence is incontovertable, such as in the case where Christopher states that I claimed to predict a particle of mass 34.8 Mev. I *did* predict a particle of mass 34.76 Mev before the discovery of a particle. The evidence still exists in google and the link is in the page Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2. There are many other similar errors in the main article now. I would rather have that page deleted as it is rubbish for anyone who wants to seriously investigate Harmonics Theory as many do. Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2 should be made the main page and people should discuss the necessary changes to make that acceptable. My vote is to change to Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2 and make the necessary changes to satisfy people of NPOV. See also Talk:Harmonics Theory for many more criticisms of the present article. Ray Tomes 02:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the changes you wish to make (Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2) will land this article right back into vanity/original research territory, which is what got the original article deleted. The current article (again, in my opinion) is the most favorable treatment you can expect on Wikipedia, and voting is still heavily against it.

I don't think that you, Ray Tomes, can step back and look at this in an impersonal and Wikipedia-neutral fashion. --Dcfleck 14:53, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

You are partly right. But I am quite willing for others to modify the sandbox2 version to make it acceptable to others. However that modification should not represent the views of only Christopher. So far that it the case. Ray Tomes 23:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a fair or accurate statement. Christopher Thomas has done the great majority of the work attempting to salvage something from the original article, but that doesn't mean it's "Christopher vs. the world". If I were to take Sandbox2 and modify it to make it acceptable to me, it would end up looking like the current Harmonics Theory article. I'm sorry you think it's "garbage"; I think it is far superior to Harmonics Theory/Sandbox2 in both style and content. It is more clearly written, and does a better job of placing HT in relation to current mainstream science. --Dcfleck 03:08, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

I am not saying thatnit is Christopher versus the world. But no-one else has really made any effort to change the style (which has been objected to) without also (as he has done) drmatically changing the meaning in a way that makes all the statements wrong. I have repeatedly listed these errors (when I loaded sandbox2 for example) and not a soul has disputed a single one of them. If the objetion to the present (sandbox2) article is style then why is this so? Ray Tomes 00:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete and then refer the matter to the arbitration committee. ~~~~ 16:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can someone tell me about the arbitration committeee please? This might be a better option, because at present I feel that 3/4 of those voting are just people passing through and are quite ignorant. I would favour a committee they stays put long enough to read a reply. Ray Tomes 23:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

passing through and quite ignorant - sounds like a personal attack on a whole group of people here ; I've over 1200 edits on Wikipedia so far on a number of subjects, so you'd better check out your facts before making statements like this one in future. -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 12:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

KEEP - the current Sandbox2 Version

All those who have voted for deletion, please read the recent entry made on the talk pages, regarding the mathematical basis for the Harmonics Theory, a list of resouces in the mathematical field that are related to the mathematical basis of the theory, and finally an independently derived assessment of the behaviour of the series of numbers known as "number of ordered factorisations", in which by means of computational analysis, the basis of Ray Tomes "Harmonic Mainline Numbers" are identified, and their amazing properties briefly outlined. External references to these independent pages supporting the Harmonics Theory (as per Sandbox2) are provided on the Harmonics Talk page. PRF Brown 16:05 5 Jun 2005 (Falls Creek, Australia)

Not to bite the newbie, but 6 of the above user's 8 contributions are to Harmonics Theory Talk and the VfD's. Soundguy99 01:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He is in fact the person who put the original Harmonics Theory page in wikipedia (but I don't think he had a user name then - just IP address). He has made substantial efforts to understand and test the theory and thoroughly checked and confirmed the mathematics and displayed the results on his web pages. Therefore he is well qualified to make representations. Ray Tomes 21:58, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

KEEP current Sandbox2 version. I'm a bit confused between the various versions, but think that the topic deserves to be in wikipedia. It is interesting stuff, has been discussed on the internet quite widely, as has as much right as any other topics to be covered in an encyclopaedia. Caroline Thompson 11:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Please keep Sandbox2; thanks, Tjs11

(Tjs11's only edit on Wikipedia.) 134.244.168.222 18:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Tomes article has generated a lot of quite disproportionate controversy & having looked at his web pages, he does seem to have something, a something that might be treading on a few established toes. It seems that any genuine new model of things (in any discipline - and this work crosses disciplines) generates this kind of heat; this alone is good enough reason to keep: Use the Sandbox2 version. (Dave Williams)

(Dave Williams's only edit on Wikipedia.) 134.244.168.222 18:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harmonics Theory was modified substantially by replacing with Sandbox2 and making sme changes to that. Ray Tomes 07:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

KEEP latest version (edited from Sandbox2). I have been reading a bit of physics recently dating back to 1920s (the 'Born Einstein Letters' are very interesting). Significantly there is quite a lot of references to de Broglie and Schrodinger, and the wave nature of matter (Schrodinger was very unhappy with Born's probability wave interpretation, believing that matter was a wave structure of space). My point in mentioning this is that 80 years on, Physics still faces many problems, and the wave aspects of matter have largely been ignored (Milo Wolff and Carver Mead are two notable exceptions). So it seems to me that it is important that these wave aspects of matter interactions are explored and their knowledge presented in Wikipedia. And one very central aspect of wave interactions is Harmonics Theory. I find the latest version of the page to be well written, in a sensible matter of fact style that suits an encyclopedia entry, so I think it is important that the page is kept. (I also think that Dave Williams comments (above) are pretty astute.) Haselhurst 00:09, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

DELETE, delete, delete. I give up. It seems clear to me now that Tomes and his sock puppets will allow no version of this page to exist that does not grant a false appearance of scientific legitimacy to his pet theory. Do not use Wikipedia as a vehicle to push your crank theories. Get the wider world to pay attention, somehow, and then come back. --Dcfleck 00:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

User:Dcfleck makes a number of unfounded accusations. Put up or shut up or better still do as you say and give up! You claim that they are my sock puppets. Well the three latest support votes are from people I know and who know my work. One posted the original Harmonics Theory article and has contributed to checking the accuracy maths of the theory which makes him far better qualified than you to make judgements; the other two have actually looked at it and are regular wikipedia supporters. I request that you remove your offensive claim of sock puppets - it amounts to a claim of fraud by me, is a personal attack, and I shall make a complaint if you do not do so. Ray Tomes 11:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

O.K., if Tjs11 and Dave Williams aren't Sockpuppets, they're definitely Meatpuppets, as you yourself admit, Mr. Tomes. I'd also like to point out that your rants on this page and your wholesale edits of the Harmonics Theory page have caused two editors (Christopher Thomas and Dcfleck) who were making serious, good-fatih efforts to edit the page so that it was acceptable have now given up and are voting to delete this article. Ranting and raving are not viewed kindly here. Soundguy99 15:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who Tjs11 and Dave Williams are. I do not admit what you say. Only one person who was not previously on wikipedia came as a result of my actions to the first delete vote (and not to this one yet). He was someone who knows a lot about Harmonics Theory, having been at a conference where I spoke and exchanging email etc with me over a long period. I think that having the odd one person who knows something about the subject rather than just a passing glance ought to be regarded as a big plus and not be called by rude names. Ray Tomes 12:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When you argue in generalities you fail to say anything - why don't you give evidence of "a false appearance of scientific legitimacy"? I have not seen a single scientific statement by you - just name calling. Scienxce is not about name calling and snap judgements about what is right and wrong. If you think that in 5 minutes of examination of something you know more than others who spend years or months on it then you are deluded. And quite a lot of the woder world already pay attention. Evidence of this has been repeatedly given (and "accidentally" deleted by people with views like yours). Ray Tomes 11:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Original Research, possible pseudo-science. No eveidence this has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just an observation for the administrators. When the Harmonics Theory page was replaced by the original sandbox page it got 8/8 votes for deletion. After being replaced by the original sandbox2 page somewhat modified, it has had 5/7 votes for keep. This supports my contention that it is a better page. Several people have criticised the style of this later page. It would be very helpful if they actually quoted the parts that offend them and said why. Then the page could be ammended to be more acceptable. I repeat that saying NPOV! NPOV! does not actually assist in making the changes needed. Ray Tomes 04:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's an alternate view of history: During the original VfD, the sandbox page received 4 positive votes, as noted at the top of this very page. During the second, current VfD, sandbox received 2 supporting and 6 negative votes, and those negative votes were based on the twin objections of original research and non-notability; the negative votes felt the article was still below the bar of acceptability. After your wholesale replacement of the page, sandbox2 got 5 positive votes, 3 from suspiciously new and single-minded contributors (i.e., meatpuppets), 3 new negative votes, and one previous positive vote changed to a negative vote. Please note that the strong objections of the editors voting "no" on sandbox were not dealt with in any way in sandbox2; in fact, the features they objected to became even more pronounced. --Dcfleck 12:35, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

This is a closing statement by me aimed at those that will sit in judgement. Most of the objections to the article are not really about presentation. They are an objection to its mere presence. The most oftenly made statements are along the lines that: it is not published in peer-reviewed journals; it is "original research" meaning not published elsewhere; that it is crackpot or rubbish; that claims are made that are not supported. I suggest that the correct reason for the deletion votes is I didn't learn about that at school. That is unfortunate, but it is not too late to learn now :-)

The claim of unsupported assertions is difficult to deal with because when supporting material was added it (not surprisingly) increased the size of the article. When it got too big it was split, and this too was criticised and a reduction requested. How can these criticisms possibly both be met?

Peer reviewed journals. There exist no peer-reviewed journals relating to cycles. The FSC did have one which ceased publication before Harmonics Theory was ever published. Something that I am fairly sure is not understood by anyone here that has voted for deletion is that there is a very substantial body of interdisciplinary cycles research from Edward R Dewey, Alexander Chizhevsky, Raymond Wheeler, Piccardi, Simon Shnoll and others that show that there are a lot of things happening in the universe that are not explicable by any existing theories before HT. For those that want to investigate this, I strongly recommend reading the excellent paper by Edward R Dewey available at [18]. Dewey was a very careful researcher and took frequent advice from statisticians, physicists and others (as you will see in the article). AFAIK, there does not exist in the world today a living English speaking person that would be capable of being an adequate referee for a physics journal for this material. Therefore it ought to be accepted that it is impossible to meet this request and the question of original research examined instead.

This is ludicrous. There are many general scientific journals as well as physics journals that would be appropriate for this paper. I believe this has never been in a peer-reviewed journal because it would never pass the peer-review process. I'm sure the Time Cube has also not been published in a journal because there are no journals on Cubic Time. - What rubbish. It is my option that if a scientific subject can't be or isn't peer-reviewed, it is not appropriate for inclusion in a encyclopedia. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What you say only applies to incremental research, not research that is considered highly original. Nobel Laureat Brian Josephson recently spoke out about the very serious problems for even well known authors getting new ideas published. This is a recognised problem. Do a google search. Ray Tomes 22:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Original research is defined as quote: "It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate)". This does not apply to the Harmonics Theory. It has been published elsewhere. It has been published by the Foundation for the Study of Cycles (in its time the foremost organisation concerned with cycles) in its conference proceedings. It has been published in the proceedings of a number of other conferences, including ones supported by Apeiron Journal and a Sierra Nevada University in California. I have spoken on the Harmonics Theory in conferences: FSC, Irvine, California; FSC, Princeton; Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushchino, Russia (this was a special seminar on Harmonics Theory only); Cycles conference, Stavropol, Russia; Moscow University, Moscow; Sierra Nevada University, California; FSMN Auckland, New Zealand; and others. Without exception I have received high praise from these audiences ranging from "this is the best presentation of cycles that we have ever heard", "you should be given a nobel prize" and from a group of physicists, astronomers and bio-physicists "we are convinced there is something in your theory". Many of these conference proceedings have been published. In Stavropol I was an invited keynote speaker to a conference with perhaps 500 participants. Such invitations are not issued to crackpots.

Claims are supported. After Christopher Thomas criticised my claims re prediction of a new particle, I found that my post to google is still able to be seen from 1994, before the discovery of a particle was reported in 1995. I also showed that despite his claim that it is not a particle, the words particle are used by the original paper and later ones. In fact a search on google for "particle 33.9 Mev" finds more than a thousand references. The Harmonics Theory has considerably more succesful explanations and verified predictions than GR had until some 40 years after GR was first put forward. There are also a number of new tests with clear predictions of Harmonics Theory that have been put forward. Much of this has not been put in the article because of requests for restricting space.
- The various people, including me, who question your predictions mainly object to the fact that they seem to be pulled out of thin air, as opposed to being derived by the usual manner of applying the model of a new concept to a physical model of the phenomenon being studied. I've tried to explain this to you several times, but you appear to not be willing to accept that this is needed for a scientific prediction. Regarding the KARMEN paper, despite multiple attempts at explanation, you don't seem to understand what the paper is actually saying. It doesn't claim that the particle interpretation it proposes is correct - merely that it might be correct, or might not be, while suggesting follow-up research to settle the question. I have several published, refereed papers under my belt - believe me when I tell you that I know how the process works. Finally, please consider the possibility that when a large number of people are concerned with the methods you've used to draw your conclusions, that their concern might actually be well-founded. If you apply a properly rigorous approach to your research, you might find that your work is more accepted. Among other things, this involves fully deriving predictions in the way that I've described to you, and when announcing (and publishing) results, starting out with the assumption that they're not the result of your model, and methodically examining and ruling out other explanations until only your model remains. Claiming that there are no alternate interpretations merely suggests that you haven't considered any, which is frowned upon. --Christopher Thomas 07:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When I added extra pages to give the derivation of the mathematics and the redshift in greater detail this was criticised. The explanation of the redshift prediction is clearly contained in the two parts (1) Mathematical derivation of harmonics (which has been fully researched and checked by PRF Brown) and is presented in its entirety in the first diagram of the current page (the rest is just arithmetic but was deleted in the first round) and (2) The redshift recognition that the fundamental wave corresponds to a frequency halving (z=1). If you are looking for a whole lot of complicated differential equations, there aren't any. Redshifts are predicted for (1+z)^H=2 where H is a strong harmonic. That is it. I attached a graph that shows the exact spectrum but that was on a page that has been deleted. Isn't it ironic that the only person here that has actually checked the maths of this has had his vote disallowed for being new. He came on wikipedia to place the harmonics theory article and was not allowed to vote for it to be kept. This means that wikipedia policies are not working. I intend to look at this aspect of wikipedia policy after the dust settles. Ray Tomes 22:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will try to spell this out for you as clearly as I can: You claim that harmonics interact with each other in the way that you specify. However, you fail to demonstrate that they do act in this way. To make that demonstration does require the "complicated differential equations" that you seem to object so strongly to, as without showing that your idea of how harmonics interact springs forth from the dynamics of the system you're applying it to, you end up lacking a rather critical part of the foundation for your subsequent claims. When writing your math page, you put a lot of effort into answering a question that wasn't asked, while continuing to not address the one that was. --Christopher Thomas 23:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christopher, I never claimed that "harmonics interact with each other", that is your claim. I told you that it is wrong and that you had not understood. Waves generate harmonics because of non-linearity. These harmonically related waves then do the same. There are two aspects to the theory that should be understood:

Firstly, the idea that that waves generate harmonics in the manner described is taken as an axiom. This is just as Einstein did with the speed of light in all reference frames. He looked at what happens if this assumption is made. In both HT and SR the consequences of the axiom are a wealth of explanations of previous problems and verified predictions of new phenomena. This is what sets HT apart from things like the big bang which invariable fails in its predictions and needs tinkering and epicycles. There are no complicated differential equations in this part, just combinatorials. In both SR and HT the axiom is able to be understood in terms of existing theory once some mental blocks are removed. In the case of SR the mental blocks are still there in the general community as you are probably well aware.
Secondly, it is desirable to see how HT fits with existing physics. That is a difficult job and not claimed by me to be fully accomplished. I have listed the areas that need more attention, but that material has been deleted. In the case of GR and QM the fitting together is still not accomplished to everyone's satisfaction, so this should be no surprise. Complicated differential equations are likely to be required to achieve such a union of domains. I have made and can make more suggestions in this regard but it is well beyond the scope of a simple article. It simply needs noting with something like "The question of how HT might mesh with GR is an open question". But it is in general accord with GR but not the big bang. Ray Tomes 00:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Claims of Crackpottery, Pseudoscience etc. - Ignorant people state such things when they have no logical arguments. One such ignorant person made a "list of crackpots" in about 1994 with my name on it. One person complained that he was not on that list. He said that he too was an original thinker and deserved a mention. He was added. The list includes genuine crackpots and good researchers. This list has been perpetuated over many years. I challenged a particle physicist who had a copy on his site. He spent three months investigating the particle prediction mentioned above and his conclusion was that my prediction was justified by Harmonics Theory. He agree that I was practicing science, was not a crackpot, and saw that it was just a different branch of science than what he was familiar with. There have been several other similar cases with physicists and astronomers.

You may well be on to something. Every new theory started as an idea. But this is not the place for unproven theories come back when you have peer-reviwed status. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a proven theory; all theories are unproven. However Harmonics Theory is as well established by its successful predictions which cannot be made by any other theory (Thomas point above) as GR is. It has been accepted as highly useful by a number of qualified people. An encyclopedia should contain exactly this sort of thing so that people that hear about it or are searching for related concepts can find out more. If an encyclopedia does not include articles on lesser known areas of knowledge then it is quite useless. Ray Tomes 22:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People who quickly form opinions after a glance or two at articles that are in fields that they know nothing about and then vote for deletion are not performing a service for wikipedia. If wikipedia is to only have the LCM of what people know then it does not serve its intended function. People want to look up an encyclopaedia to find out answers to questions that they do not know the answers to. That means using experts wisely. It means presenting material that not everyone agrees with, but labelling it as such. I refer to the astrology article. This is almost unreadable because the anti-astrology astronomers and physicists (who actually have never done any study of astrology) put so many disclaimers on everything. It is enough to mention once at the start that astronomers and physicists believe astrology to be bunk and that they have also never studied it. That is the truth. Then leave it to the astrologers - it is their subject and they may be deluded, but they have a mass delusion that they can agree about and that is what people go to that article for. Ray Tomes 06:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the astrology article. If you do, then you should edit it. But I strongly disagree that we should allow people to report their beliefs as fact. This is an encyclopedia - we must maintain a scientific viewpoint. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 14:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a scientific document. It is about all branches of human knowledge and astrology as it is practiced is such a branch. The fact that it is bunk is not relevant to its right to be in an encyclopedia. You do want your beliefs reported as fact - give the same right to others with a single disclaimer at the front. If you disagree with this, then would you accept the same sort of thing being done to the big bang article as the astrology one? I can promise you that it has an equally large number of unsupportable statements. Ray Tomes 22:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The big bang has been peer-reviwed and has stood the test of time. Astrology has not; neither has Harmonics Theory. Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite sources. It's unfortuniate that the scientists involved can't find a place to get the research peer-reviwed. But it's really not our problem. It is Wikipedia policy that facts must be verifiable or presented in as high unverifiable (like Astrology). You clearly will not accept this kind of wording for Harmonics Theory. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wont accept the words "Tomes claimed to predict a new particle" because I proved that I did predict it before its discovery. It is verifiable by anyone who clicks the link to google. Ray Tomes 09:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not _when_ you made your claim. The problem is that your claim was never a scientifically derived prediction, for reasons which I've tried to explain to you repeatedly. You will find that you actually _do_ need to show the steps that I've mentioned if you want a prediction to be taken seriously. Otherwise it looks like you pulled arbitrary numbers out of the air until you got a match by chance (which folds back to the "cherry picking" problem mentioned on the talk pages). If you want HT to be taken seriously, I've already told you what you'll have to do. --Christopher Thomas 16:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christopher,you have changed your story and claim repeatedly on just this one issue. And you never acknowledge your errors. When you say "you actually _do_ need to show the steps that I've mentioned" you are a pretender. Your claim was entirely different. How can I add material that shows how I derived the prediction when I am fighting a rearguard action of having it all deleted as fast as I add it? I am happy to add material showing exactly how I derived the prediction, although much of it is already in the original prediction sci.physics article in 1994. But you are not really looking for what you say. You are really slinging mud. Ray Tomes 00:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The big bang predicted a CMBR of 50 K. Before that Eddington predicted 3 K based purely on the temperature of intergalactic space resulting from scattered starlight. Now the big bang is claiming an accurate prediction! It is bunk. The explanation has been known nearly 70 years and needed no big bang theory that is out by over an order of magnitude. What you find in articles on the big bang is revisionist history not the facts. It fails every test and a new epicycle is added. Inflation, dark matter, acceleration, etc etc big bang bung Ray Tomes 09:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put this somewhere before, but cannot find it, so am adding something similar again. My request to anyone that would pass judgement on Harmonics Theory is that they read this article first. [19] The Case for Cycles by Edward Dewey (0.9 MB pdf file). This 36 page document is a review of Dewey's findings over 25 years. He followed the format suggested by nobel physicist Richard Feynman. This is really the CYCLES BIBLE and is a must read for all serious students of cycles. From Cycles magazine 1967. If people vote on deletion or carry out deletion without reading this, then they certainly do it from a place of ignorance. The fact is that most people are not aware of interdisciplinary cycles research and the tremendous results it has achieved. Dewey is foremost of those achieving these results. Ray Tomes 00:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I vote to KEEP. While I don't know how well founded this theory is, its author has a LOT of hits in Google.com, and this would lead me to believe that it is not a vanity page. As a former scientist myself, I think that the fact that others seem to cite this author and vice verca leads me to believe that it is not "original" research or trivial, non-notable material per se. I vote to keep. My own research on a lot of matters (political ,scientific, legal, etc.) is posted on my own websites, to satisfy the liberals and conservatives alike. (I advocated the recount of a democratic candidate once as well as a pro-life issue.) --GordonWattsDotCom 07:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Delete - this reminds me of the endless battles over Reciprocal System of Theory which proved that pages that are only of interest to a small band of dedicated adherents can never be NPOV. - SimonP 14:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alan Grodzinsky[edit]

CV, and not too impressive at that. Denni ☯ 23:46, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

Delete. — Phil Welch 00:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. K1Bond007 05:38, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a CV base. Sjakkalle 06:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, once I've rewritten it. I think MIT professors have better things to do than post a fractional CV here, and since a quick Google suggest AJ Grodzinsky is the recipient of an NIH Merit Award, he's obviously doing some good research. But the article as it was written was terrible. Average Earthman 13:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oh yes, and he's a Sc.D, not a PhD, so Grodzinsky clearly didn't write the original. Possibly an undergrad who attends some of his lectures did. I've improved the article. Average Earthman 13:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Alan Grodzinsky is a respected researcher in OsteoArthritis.
- Comment by 18.125.6.52 (talk · contributions)
Keep, seems notable. Martg76 21:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The version by Average Earthman is a vast improvement over the meaningless original, and the subject certainly seems notable enough. -- Captain Disdain 00:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Notable. JamesBurns 10:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep and kudos to Average Earthman. --Scimitar 21:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep
- Comment by 24.193.71.230 (talk · contributions)

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