Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 3

April 3

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. – ABCD 22:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

D2l

Advertisement/vanity page with no evidence of notability. --Kelly Martin 03:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

• ...and no evidence of content, either. Looks like it's already been deleted. 23skidoo 19:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This vfd entry's header was mislinked to D2I, and so never properly resolved; thus I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this for being worthless corporate-speak (and for being an ad). Bubamara 04:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep While this isn't the most notable company, the fact that they have been around a number of years and have legitimate clients like the University of Guelph would seem to indicate to me that they are notable enough for an entry. I have rewritten the page to be more informative and less of an ad. --Fuzzball! 21:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If you can add some third-party verifiability that would be most useful - David Gerard 09:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Added these sources to the page: [1] and [2] --Fuzzball! 03:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten page. Kappa 21:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless further estabilished/verified. Radiant_* 12:59, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• still delete. now it reads like a press release instead of an ad, but I just don't think one company with 2 clients is particularly notable. yes to third party verification. Bubamara 08:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. Fawcett5 06:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Still no evidence of notability after rewrite. Indrian 14:28, Apr 8, 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. – ABCD 02:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Damb

• Drastically improve or Delete. I'm a real inclusionist, but wouldn't this be better in the wiktionary, unless one can really write an article about it? As it is, it's pretty lame. Zantastik 06:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. Slang term. Mgm|^(talk) 12:46, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, slang dictionary definition. Megan1967 03:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• transwiki to wiktionary. Bubamara 04:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a word. RickK 21:54, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• This is not worth transwikification. None of this content will be of use to Wiktionary. Wiktionary handles mis-spellings (that satisfy the inclusion criteria) like this: Wiktionary:damb. Delete. Uncle G 00:52, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
  • Comment: If a misspelling has a different meaning/usage, wiktionary should cover it. Kappa 04:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't see the relevance of that comment here. Uncle G 07:05, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nothing here worth the transwiki Fawcett5 06:22, 8 Apr 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. – ABCD 02:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Fignole -- president of Haiti

Poor title, not NPOV and may be copyvio. Alan Liefting 19:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic, possible copyvio. Megan1967 03:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all reasons already mentioned. Paradiso 06:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I have included info about Fignole in the Haiti article. Paradiso 06:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It's definitely copyvio, unless 1957 Time Magazine is public domain. An article on Daniel Fignole might not be a bad idea, but this isn't it. Clean up and redirect to Daniel Fignole; otherwise delete. DS 18:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to get copyvio out of the history, then recreate or redirect. RickK 21:55, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this copyvio, then create a new stub for Daniel Fignole. It isn't useful as a redirect with the dashes. Jonathunder 05:50, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Delete, then create Daniel Fignolé. —Seselwa 06:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio - David Gerard 09:39, 4 Apr 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. —Korath (Talk) 11:27, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Daniel McFarlan Moore

64.166.85.66 marked this vfd on Feb 21, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• keep. Moore is notable. See [3]. However, someone please expand it into a full article. Bubamara 04:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable person. I have expanded the document a little. --Fuzzball! 21:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I didn't realise anons could nominate - David Gerard 09:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see why they couldn't, as long as they have a good reason. Nevertheless, keep this article. Radiant_* 12:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep this please. Yuckfoo 01:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--Myles Long 15:55, 8 Apr 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 (19:13, 2005 Apr 6 Neutrality deleted "David Barker" (Per VfD)) - IceKarma 09:56, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

David Barker

Gaurav1146 marked this vfd on March 9, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. (Though I saw that an article by this title was was deleted some ten months ago, I don't know if it's the same content.) —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• He's a BSc student and is class president. Non-notable, delete. -- Hoary 02:04, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, non-notable. El_C 05:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Fuzzball! 17:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page. --Andy 13:00, 3 Apr 2005 (CDT)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. Obvious vanity, recreation of deleted article. Neutrality^talk 02:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the Cabal has too much power already. If they don't like it, they don't have to read it. 216.153.214.94 02:55, 7 Apr 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. —Korath (Talk) 11:30, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

David Helvarg

Mailer diablo marked this vfd on April 1, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• He seems notable: [4], [5], etc. Keep. -- Hoary 02:10, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Keep, just barely. -- Dcfleck 03:05, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Delete, under the bar of notability. Megan1967 03:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • How do you figure that? - David Gerard 09:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and allow for organic growth. NPR regulars are notable. Klonimus 04:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Maybe I set the bar at notability low, but I think he passes the test, uh. .. clears the bar.. . Bubamara 05:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have expanded this article to reflect his notability. --Theo (Talk) 11:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously - David Gerard 09:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Myles Long 16:04, 8 Apr 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 (14:58, 2005 Apr 3 RickK deleted "David Hodges" (content was: '{{cleanup}}{{vfd}}you can find out a brief history of david hodges and his current activities with christian band, 'Trading Yesterday' at *[http:/...')) - IceKarma 13:55, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

David Hodges

• Delete This would make a great article, but a link to a website does not an article make. We need at least a substub. Hell, I'll probably write one myself. Zantastik 06:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 03:27, 3 Apr 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 (03:59, 2005 Apr 3 Infrogmation deleted "Dean 2: Democrats on Earth" (Prank article)) - IceKarma 13:56, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Dean 2: Democrats on Earth

It was a joke guys geeze (unsigned by 198.200.181.188 at 16:30, Apr 2, 2005)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, stupid prank. Slac speak up! 06:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted, silly hoax article. -- Infrogmation 11:00, 3 Apr 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. (Block-compress error) Carbonite | Talk 15:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Decavirate

I googled decavirate, and all I got were personal pages about a group of friends this article is talking about. None of them seem notable enough for a wikipedia article, so I'm suggesting this article for deletion as a vanity page. Phil179 23:27, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

• DELETE - Useless vanity page, get rid of it. Aviationwiz 20:29, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity, neologism. Megan1967 03:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete orphan non-notable vanity. -- Infrogmation 11:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Fuzzball! 17:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:40, 4 Apr 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. – ABCD 22:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deer Isle

Not devoid of entertainment, but obviously this isn't the right place. Jogloran 12:04, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE - clearly not an encyclopedia entry. Crick22 12:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Not devoid of entertainment — agree. Nonetheless, Delete El_C 05:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic personal ramble. -- Infrogmation 11:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This garners one of my rarely-used BJAODN votes. Uncle G 00:59, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Delete or BJAODN, it is mildly amusing. BigFatDave 21:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ideosyncratic POV ramble which goes on far too long, but is quite amusing in spots. BJAODN. Jonathunder 03:52, 2005 Apr 8 (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 (04:22, 2005 Apr 3 Infrogmation deleted "Dejital" (silly nonsence)) - IceKarma 13:58, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Dejital

Seems to be entirely without merit. Possible escapee from a sandbox? Saga City 15:27, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as obvious nonsense. "1902, a secret plan initiated by the government codenamed "Operation ToastWomble" led to an indecisive stoppage in the soap industry". Yawn, not clever enough for BJAODN. -- Infrogmation 11:24, 3 Apr 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. Sjakkalle 12:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Detention

Inter marked this vfd on February 24, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Send it to Wikitonary. Zscout370 00:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Megan1967 03:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Please do not send this to Wiktionary. The "LME" at the top of the article, and its general format, indicate to me that this is a copy from a printed dictionary, although which exact one is unclear. Wiktionary is no more interested in copyright violations than Wikipedia is. Delete. Uncle G 16:01, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely happy about retaining the copyright violation in the article history, but since none of the text has been retained, and since it's not immediately clear which dictionary "LME" is and thus difficult to exactly pin-down the violation, I'm prepared to live with it. I'm happy with the rewrite. Keep. Uncle G 15:49, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
• Delete. However, it should be noted that an animation by the name of Detention (see [[6]]) ran for 13 episodes on the WB from 1999-2000 (and also appeared on YTV for a while, which is where I remember it from). William McDuff
  • So I guess this is now an disambigious page, since I am familiar with the cartoon (which is continued to be re-run on several stations). I remember this cartoon myself, though I will not consider myself a fan of ths show. Zscout370 02:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not particularly, though if a new page dealing with the TV Show Detention is made, a link to the Wiktionary would be expected, I think, though I'm still in favour of Delete and starting afresh. William McDuff
• Keep, Cleanup. Detention is a wonderful tradition, without which we never would have had that genius work of art, The Breakfast Club... not to mention the best parts of Some Kind of Wonderful. Admit it, when you saw the word, you immediately pictured the typical room, the kind of kids who occupied it, the clock slowly ticking on the wall... it's pop culture, baby. It's encyclopedic. -- 8^D ^gab 08:23, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
  • And like that, it was an article... note how many pages link to this one, by the way - that's a sure sign of a needed article. -- 8^D ^gab 08:46, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• keep like that. Kappa 00:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Lochaber 17:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article has a nice start; it just needs a bit of expanding and not so much focus on the pop culture aspect. --Sango123 19:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the pop culture aspect is what makes it notable... the fact that it conjures up an image, and is therefore used to conjure this image by implication. -- 8^D ^gab 04:18, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. – ABCD 22:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dion Cornett

• delete. Looks like a vanity page to me. But if you know more about this guy, and what he or his company are notable for, go ahead and add it. -- Aleph4 21:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: "Dion Cornett" gets 2,210 Google hits. The article seems to be a copy & paste of a couple different blurbs, including [7]. If kept it needs major POV rewrite. -- Infrogmation 11:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. --Fuzzball! 17:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio listed on Copyright problems. RickK 22:05, Apr 3, 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.

I count 3 clear "delete" votes, 6 "keep" votes (1 probable troll discounted) and 3 explicit "keep as merge" votes. Based on the comments, the delete votes could be reasonable interpreted as also supporting "redirect" as a second choice. Therefore, I am going to call this one as no concensus on whether this article should be kept as is or kept as merge/redirect to download manager. Any editor may be bold and make that call. Rossami (talk) 06:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Download Accelerator

Delete - Appears to be simply an advertisment Refdoc 10:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - An advertisement that summarises annoyances and problems? Juko 11:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to NPOV issues. I think an article on download accelerators (in general) would be worthwhile, however. But as it stands this page simply seems to exist in order to knock a commercial product. I don't believe Wikipedia is supposed to be a software review site, though if I'm wrong, please ignore that part of the comment. 23skidoo 00:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/clean. Notable software (speedbit.com) which I'm sure does more harm/spam than good. El_C 01:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 03:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-04-3 T 03:51 Z
• Keep but add more info about the history of the software, how it works, and other types of download accelerators. --Fuzzball! 17:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to download manager. I really don't see much point in having half a dozen or so very similar mini-articles about particular commercial products, when a generic article on the concept can say anything encyclopedic there is to say on the topic. Alai 07:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 09:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with download manager as most such managers are very much alike (and many of them are also known as accelerators) Radiant_* 12:55, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Concur. Merge. Halidecyphon 21:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up/stubbify. bbx 16:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep Yuckfoo 01:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that this particular piece of software is even slightly significant. Rossami (talk) 03:46, 7 Apr 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. Rossami (talk) 07:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

DownloadStudio

Delete Appears to be a simply an advertisement Refdoc 00:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I believe description is no different to FlashGet or Download Accelerator as I tried to follow as author cm224 01:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  
  • I have moved some links to External sections, hope it was the only reservation cm224 02:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    
• Weak keep - not that important, but not harmful either. --mav
• Comment - I've noticed that FlashGet and Download Accelerator are now marked for deletion. Note there is download manager section dedicated to this subject, listing few more programs in this category. In the name of justice all of them should be deleted. However I would not do this. It may be a hard decision, since few of them already earned "legend" status. In addition "download manager" is a description of the processes and the programs implementing them. cm224 02:30, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  
• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 03:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think that software that has actively remained within the market for a reasonable amount of time and has a reasonably large user base is notable enough to deserve an entry. --Fuzzball! 22:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 09:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with download manager, per CM Radiant_* 12:55, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Its useful to have a quick blurb on these kinds of software. Usually the 'official' webpage hides the facts about their own software, esp. if it has spyware or is cripple ware. Wikipedia can be a source of information on software that is NPOV, very useful as I do not think there are many places, if any, on the internet that has this information. --ShaunMacPherson 01:41, 11 Apr 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 as renamed and rewritten. Rossami (talk) 07:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Society of Mathematicians, Physicists and Astronomers of Slovenia (moved from Drustvo mat., fiz. in astron. Slovenije (Slov. Soc. of Math., Phys., Astron.))

Atlantima marked this vfd on March 28, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just listing it here; do not consider this a vote. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to slovenian wikipedia. Klonimus 04:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no content. - Mustafaa 05:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) Keep, valid content. - Mustafaa 00:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not English. RickK 22:09, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• The name was an absolute disaster. I've taken the liberty of fixing it somewhat (and moving this discussion page in parallel, of course). There were a lot more disasters waiting to happen at European Mathematical Society and List of Mathematical Societies. I've fixed some of them, too. This article is in English (and as such Wikipedija will not want it). It's just ... very short indeed. This is only a hair short of being a speedy deletion candidate. The mathematical society is real. Vote pending. Uncle G 01:28, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Keep if it's a real organisation - David Gerard 09:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As far as I know the society is real and we definitely want to have a wikipedia article on every mathematical society. I have found no information in english to beef up the page but perhaps some slovene speaking wikipedian can help. MathMartin 11:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't want articles with such disastrous names as the original here, though. ☺ Uncle G 01:52, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
• Circular definition (<foo> <bar> association is the association of <foo> in <bar>). Delete as it has no content. Radiant_* 12:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC) Now that it's expanded, keep. Radiant_* 08:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Proper name of this society in Slovene is "Društvo matematikov, fizikov in astronomov Slovenije" and not in upper cases + comma after 'matematikov' (mathematicians). Please, decide wherether the article should stay first, and then I shall give it a proper name. --XJamRastafire 13:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added some additional information. If the article will stay it should be moved to proper original name or perhaps to translated English one. --XJamRastafire 13:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep expanded version and move to properly capitalized name or to an English name. / Uppland 14:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep removed doble redirect.The busman 18:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now under translated English title, with the Slovene title in the article, and also as a redirect. -- The Anome 19:03, Apr 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 merge and redirect to DVD. – ABCD 22:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dual layer recording

This is a press release, not an article. --Pengo 11:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently never listed on vfd, so I'm putting it on today's page. —Korath (Talk) 00:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with DVD. Dual layer refers to the DVD-9 format, a type of DVD. --Fuzzball! 00:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Agreed with Fuzzball. In the meantime, I edited it to be more encyclopedic. 63.173.114.141 00:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with DVD. Megan1967 03:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - David Gerard 09:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with DVD. Adds very little new content above that on DVD anyway. Voicey 05:16, 9 Apr 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. – ABCD 23:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clocktowering

Clocktowering is not a real term. Google returns 1 hit.

Unsigned nomination by Kevin Rector (talk · contributions)

• Keep. This could become a common term in the future. And due to the description in the article, it proves a point. --TheSamurai 02:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, neologism. Megan1967 03:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. BTW, am I the only one who thought this had something to do with Back to the Future before clicking on it? 63.173.114.141 04:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not for something that could become common in the future. Encyclopedias provide existing knowledge. Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn neologism. A redirect to clock tower would be acceptable. -- Infrogmation 11:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, presumably a morbid joke referring to Charles Whitman but not a real word nor a Wiktionary candidate. Dbiv 12:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, no evidence presented showing significant real use. It could become a common term in the future, and when it does we will want an article on it; meanwhile, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball nor a vehicle for promoting new phraseology. BTW Google now returns 2 hits--one to this VfD discussion! Dpbsmith (talk) 21:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think I've heard this word used somewhere before.. --[[User::-)|ShortyBud]] 22:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: remark by User:69.205.24.137, who has about a dozen edits, all related to a single article currently on VfD.
  • Well, how about giving us a verifiable reference? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Even then, an article about the word would belong in Wiktionary. Uncle G 01:36, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• No such word. Ironically, this deletion discussion is the 1st Google Web hit (out of 2). Delete Uncle G 01:36, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Radiant_* 12:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism Dsmdgold 23:09, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Tell the author of this article to put this in Wiktionary. --TheSamurai 23:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • ... where it will be deleted even more promptly than it is being deleted from here, for not being a word. Uncle G 18:38, 2005 Apr 8 (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. – ABCD 22:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hasbro Darth Vader Voice Changer

Non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 00:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably should have pointed this out before but please also note that nothing links here except a single "See also" link on the Darth Vader page. AlistairMcMillan 01:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm amazing with the way this vote is going. Everyone is aware that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of Darth Vader toys/games/models/collectibles/etc available, right. Why is this one notable enough to even be mentioned? AlistairMcMillan 22:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Possibly merge select portions to the Darth Vader article, otherwise Delete. El_C 05:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the moment - what's the notability criteria for toys, anyhow? -- Kizor 12:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Factual properly formated non-stub on a nationally marketed toy; as notable as some Pokemon. This Darth Vader is mostly harmless. -- Infrogmation 11:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep nationally marketed toys. Kappa 20:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've seen this advertised on the tube and that last sentence in the article puts this item way above the notability bar. - Lucky 6.9 02:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I hate Star Wars minutae in all forms, but this fleshes out trends in toy manufacturing, which is of decent anthropolical interest. Sniffandgrowl
  • "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."-Yoda
• Keep - David Gerard 09:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 12:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • You are aware that this toy does actually exist? I'm not sure how WP:FICT applies. AlistairMcMillan 01:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I admit it's stretch. "Relatively unknown merchandise related to a fictional world"? Nevertheless, I feel it should be merged. Radiant_* 08:42, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Darth Vader. —tregoweth 04:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. It should be discussed in context. (My first choice would be to merge with Darth Vader but I could also see the arguments to merge with Hasbro.) Rossami (talk) 03:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As toys go, this one sounds at least moderately notable. Bryan 19:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough, as toys go. dowingba 04:15, 15 April 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 (22:42, 2005 Apr 2 Mailer diablo deleted "Macquarie Fields Earthquake" (redcreated after delete)) - IceKarma 14:10, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Macquarie Fields Earthquake

User:211.30.102.24 is repeatedly blanking page. (Page only consisted of VfD). -- Dcfleck 00:15, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Original content was nonsensical; there is a meta page called "Friends of gays shouldn't be allowed to make pages," which I think is sound advice. Speedied. Mike H 00:16, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • So who should be allowed to make pages, hmm? --Calton | Talk 01:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I wasn't being serious. Did you even READ that meta page? Mike H 07:16, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

It's back... recreated by User: 211.30.102.24. -- Dcfleck 00:53, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Delete, nonsense. Megan1967 03:34, 3 Apr 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. —Korath (Talk) 11:38, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Shaq Fu

Entire page consists of a badly-written 'review' of a video game. -- Dcfleck 00:20, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Keep It is not a reason to delete it because the article sounds like a review. There are many video game Wikipedia articles and this should be included. It is somewhat a notable video game in the 1990s. I agree it is a bad article and needs to be rewritten. Anonymous Cow 01:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, gamescruft. Megan1967 03:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:: I don't think it is gamecruft. I'm not the person who started this article but one of my hobbies is video games. I have heard the game Shaq Fu. In fact, it has mentioned as one of the worst video games of all time by several mainstream video game press such as Gamespot [8]. Seanbaby (Google PageRank: 7 Featured in Slashdot) mentioned the game on his popular The 20 Worst Video Games of All Time (Google PageRank: 5). It has been featured as a news headline joke at Yale's student newspaper in 1995 and ESPN. I think the definition of a gamecruft is a Mario Bros. item that only plays a minor part in a game. *cough* Freezie *cough*
• Keep and clean up, Google returns over 27,000 hits for "shaq fu". 63.173.114.141 04:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notoriously bad video game. Klonimus 04:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bad video games. Kappa 05:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Xezbeth 06:14, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Information is accurate. (unsigned comment left by User:Censor. This was his/her first edit.--Meelar (talk) 23:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC))
• Keep. Meelar (talk) 23:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable game. I remember reading an Amiga Power review of it, which also called it the worst game of its kind. — JIP | Talk 07:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs refs though - David Gerard 09:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep fu. Radiant_* 12:58, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite to take out the POV. Other video games, many less notable, have Wikis of their own, so it definitely needs one. Also, we will probably have to Disambig it, because of the (equally bad IMHO) movie of the same name. --Kitch 12:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Note that this HAS been mocked in many publications as being a lousy game (in reference to the article being POV). --InShaneee 16:04, 8 Apr 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. – ABCD 15:57, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The forks

Promotional material for obscure band. -- Dcfleck 00:26, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 03:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanity JoJan 18:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverified - David Gerard 09:43, 4 Apr 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. – ABCD 15:58, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sblog

Neologism? I can't find any uses of the 'word' in the sense mentioned by the article. -- Dcfleck 00:36, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Delete I just marked Sblogging up as a speedy delete, for the reasons above. Anilocra 00:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "Sblog" gets a hefty 74,000 Google hits, but I failed to find any using the term in this way in a quick look at the top hits. "Sblogging" gets 121 Google hits, the top ones specifically definining it differently than the supposed usage here. Unless this supposed definition can be verified as widespread, Delete both Sblog and Sblogging. If it can be verified, move to Wiktionary, as one article with one a redirect to the other, and other defintions noted. -- Infrogmation 12:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Radiant_* 13:12, Apr 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. – ABCD 15:59, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kutomo

Not clear from article what 'Kutomo' is. A movie title? A neologism?... -- Dcfleck 00:48, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity project. Megan1967 03:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. El_C 05:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. P Ingerson 11:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• "Kutomo" is, of course, a Finnish word meaning "weaving place". — JIP | Talk 07:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So it's basically a foreign dicdef, is that right? Radiant_* 13:00, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't think quite so. While it's true that "kutomo" means "weaving place" in Finnish, I don't think that's where the name of this movie comes from. Most probably Japanese, Indonesian or something instead. — JIP | Talk 06:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. Rossami (talk) 07:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Valmorification

We don't need a whole page for a single gag in Team America: World Police. AlistairMcMillan 00:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Dicdef-quality entry, for something that doesn't need one. Alai 05:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect with Team America: World Police. Kappa 07:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. P Ingerson 11:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. RickK 22:12, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's shit --Perfection 22:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 09:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect with Team America: World Police. Yes, on its own it is nonsense, it wasn't put up for recreation or maliciously though, I think Kappas idea to merge it with the Team America: World Police article is a good idea. Auburn 21:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Team America: World Police. -- Lochaber 17:27, 7 Apr 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. – ABCD 16:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Geeber Goosing

Neologism, cliquecruft. FreplySpang (talk) 01:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Dcfleck 01:27, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Hoary 01:49, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity neologism. Megan1967 03:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Holy water. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aspersorium

Delete: should be on wikidictionary or whatever its called--Rentastrawberry 22:11, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Holy Water. Megan1967 03:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - David Gerard 09:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - SteveW 18:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The fixtures of Catholic churches have a long enough history and variation in use to be able to generate encyclopedic articles. See for example Chalice, Sacrarium, Censer, and Monstrance. If redirected it should go to Holy water, the other page is for an album. Dsmdgold 03:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Dsmdgold is right but some things are better kept in context. Radiant_* 12:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• I cleaned it up as best as I know how, but I also agree it should merge with holy water. Jonathunder 04:18, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. The article tries to define three or four different terms and still comes out a stub. I'm sure mention of all of them is merited in whatever overarching article covers them all (like holy water), but there isn't even enough content for merging to have meaning: at present this is pure dictionary fodder. -- Perey 08:40, 15 Apr 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. – ABCD 16:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Drew B. White

The teenage creator of obscure web comics. Non-notable. -- Hoary 01:56, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Delete - I was also going to nominate for vfd before Hoary beat me to it. This person is a far cry from Gary Larson or Jim Davis (cartoonist) in notoriety. I assure everyone I am voting on the relevance to an encyclopedia and not the personal work of the person in question. I personally have never seen his cartoons. In my opinion, a small cult like internet following is not a qualification for an entry into Wikipedia. My dad spent years creating breathtaking paintings and has a rather large local following. I for one do not feel he comes close to qualifying for a wikipedia entry and neither does the person in question. Until one of his cartoons sparks a national controversy, my vote is to delete. oo64eva (AJ) 02:15, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Lol." - David Gerard 09:44, 4 Apr 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 (blk-cmp error). – ABCD 16:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Wuchang and Hankow

I'd put this up for speedy if I didn't think that someone could write at least a sentence about it that meant anything. As it is though, no information, nada. Grutness|^hello? 02:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under A1, "Very short articles with little or no context". There's nothing there but the title and a stub template. As it stands, this is an abuse of Wikipedia:Requested articles. —Korath (Talk) 02:30, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Highly, highly lacking for WP:RA, and in general. El_C 05:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Those are real battles but they are two different ones. Request splitted article --JuntungWu 10:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No useful content "This is formally called the Battle of Wuchang and Hankou." Can't be speedy'd due to block compression glitch. -- Infrogmation 12:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• pending delete header added. RickK 22:14, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and split into two articles, as per Juntung. — Instantnood 07:00, Apr 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 merge and redirect to Royal Marines. – ABCD 16:02, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two Stand Off Companies

Material is basically nonsense on its own. Content should be merged to Royal Marines and page deleted. -- Dcfleck 02:44, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Merge it and make it a redirect. -- Infrogmation 12:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Done. -- Dcfleck 15:27, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

---

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

---

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Royal Marines. – ABCD 16:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One Logistic Company

Material is basically nonsense on its own. Content should be merged to Royal Marines and page deleted. -- Dcfleck 02:47, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Merge it and make it a redirect. -- Infrogmation 12:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Done. -- Dcfleck 14:56, 2005 Apr 3 (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. —Korath (Talk) 11:45, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Men of Honor

Movie entries are ok, but this one is, how shall I say, crap. -- Dcfleck 02:55, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. These articles need cleanup, not deletion. Xezbeth 05:49, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Any Hollywood film is noteworthy and encyclopedic (even if it stars Cuba Gooding Jr.). Paradiso 05:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • *Ouch!* There's nothing (inherently) wrong with Cuba Gooding, Jr. He's just as capable of making goood films (this one, Boyz N the Hood, as bad ones (Snow Dogs, Boat Trip)--FuriousFreddy 16:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've seen worse. If it looks like shit, then do research and edit it. Mike H 09:41, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable Hollywood movies. Crappy articles can be cleaned up by editing them. Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it has been rewritten and expanded into a decent article since it was listed. -- Infrogmation 12:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• As it has been completely re-written, I will now say Keep as well. -- Dcfleck 13:58, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Keep. VfD is not cleanup. --FuriousFreddy 16:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bogus (non-policy) nomination - David Gerard 09:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The end of mankind is nearby. -- Darwinek 08:01, 6 Apr 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 articles 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 both. Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jessamyn Charity West and Jessamyn West

Vanity page. -- Dcfleck 02:59, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Delete said vanity page. Changing vote to reflect info from Dpbsmith below. Keep, expand, dab. Fire Star 03:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep My preference is to turn into an article on the reasonably famous American author Jessamyn West, 1907–84, author of the 1945 novel The Friendly Persuasion. However, this librarian has a blog 'n' stuff and is famous enough that she outranks the, uh, real Jessamyn West in Google. So it could become a combined page or a dab for the two Jessamyn Wests. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) See below for clarified vote
• Keep as dab page, if anyone is willing to rewrite the original article. Megan1967 06:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good work; make this a disambiguation and split the two J.W.'s into their own article. -- Infrogmation 12:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This updates a previous comment.

I have split the article. Apparently the librarian-blogger's full name is Jessamyn Charity West and differs from the Quaker novelist's, so I'm decided to avoid the dab page and just have split out Jessamyn Charity West and cross-reference the articles to each other. This way, at least some users—the ones that want the novelist—will get what they want without having to follow a link.

The naming convention says "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Jessamyn Charity West is not the librarian-blogger's most common name, but her most common name does conflict with the author's name, and the author was there first.

I'm now inclined to think the librarian-blogger is notable enough for an article. (But working on a page will do that to you). Actually I just found out that she's one of three dozen bloggers who were issued press credentials for the 2004 DNC, which clinches it for me anyway.

Since the article nominated for VfD was about the blogger, I've put a duplicate VfD notice referring to this discussion on Jessamyn Charity West.

In continuing discussion please be sure to indicate a clear opinion on librarian/blogger/activist Jessamyn [Charity] West, 1968-, because the question is really about her. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm quite impressed with User:Dpbsmith's work on this page. While there are still some things to do, as noted above, it is now definitely a Keeper. -- Dcfleck 14:05, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Keep (split into two articles under two names, as per Dpbsmith's suggestion). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Jessamyn Charity West. Non-notable blogger. RickK 22:17, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the author, Delete the blogger Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:31, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep both - David Gerard 09:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the author, delete the blogger. Radiant_* 13:06, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep both. Blogger borderline, but her mention in the New York Times, in Library Journal as a "mover and shaker," the DNC's issuance of press credentials to her at the 2004 convention, her Google listing above the novelist (good example of Google systemic bias but still), and her status as an opponent of the USA Patriot Act (800 Google hits on "patriot act" "Jessamyn West") put her just on the "keep" side of the border, IMHO. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:25, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Though my vote is still to keep both, candor compels me to add a new data point. I called my local public library, and asked a librarian if she'd heard of "a librarian named Jessamyn West, not the author." She hadn't, and she referred me to the library director, who hadn't either. I explained that she was a librarian with a blog, and noted for opposing library-related provisions of the USA Patriot Act, and it still didn't ring any bells with her. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep both. Both are influential enough to warrant mention. As noted above Jessamyn Charity West is more than just a blogger&#151;or just a librarian, for that matter. It is also inaccurate to refer to only one of these two people as an author as Jessamyn Charity West has also been published in print.
  • Comment Above unsigned vote is by User:RickScully. Don't quite know what to make of his edit history. This is his third series of edits; some from Nov 2004 in the Sandbox, one small edit in Dec 2004, and then the above comment. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Nothing to make of it. I apprear to have accidentally stumbled into something I shouldn't have, and if that is the case, please delete. My "history" is that I have only occasionally poked around here, and maybe should have played in the sandbox a little more (hence the multi-edits to this page) before commenting. But these recent comments seem to be more focused on me than the agenda item, so please forgive my intrusion. I came to this wikipedia page because I was looking for information on Jessamyn Charity West, and I was only somewhat familiar with Mary Jessamyn West (bad English major, I know), so I voted accordingingly (room for both, I still think). I am very familiar with the online presence of JC West and the work she does in online communities and with freedom of speech issues, and library work, etc. User:RickScully
      • No, no, no, it's fine... Thanks for your comment. I'm very sorry to have seemed unwelcoming. Everyone is welcome in VfD except "sockpuppets." Please see longer explanation on Rick Scully's Talk page. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah. Thanks. IMHO "coeditor" isn't quite the same as "author," though, and I don't think "author" is currently her primary identification."Revolting Librarians Redux" has an Amazon sales rank of 392,835 which, by my personal criteria takes it out of the class of vanity press and obscure academic publications but doesn't make it notable in itself. She also edited a book called "Digital Versus Non-Digital Reference: Ask a Librarian Online and Offline." Added both to article. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the Quaker novelist. The blogger, however, does not appear to meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies and should, in my mind, be deleted. Rossami (talk) 03:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I believe I'm inclined to keep both articles. Joyous 02:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I too am inclined to keep both articles. 00:10, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • This unsigned vote is from anon 67.20.248.4. This IP address is the address which created the original article, a substub referring to the activist librarian. These two edits are the only two from 67.20.248.4. I interpret this as a vote from the original contributor, who has one edit prior to the VfD discussion. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:18, 21 Apr 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. – ABCD 16:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brendan Bayliss

Vanity page. -- Dcfleck 03:14, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC) g one. Not me, tho.Soundguy99 17:29, 8 Apr 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. – ABCD 16:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chris Lemónes

The same anon who created this article added a statement to the Limón article stating that "Famous actor Chris Lemónes is also from Limón." This article should be deleted as probably vanity/autobiography, apparently not notable at all, and not meeting any of the inclusion criteria in Wikipedia:Biography, unless good verifiable evidence is provided prior to end of VfD discussion that Chris Lemónes is indeed a famous actor. Google Chris Lemónes and Chris Lemones yield, as I write this, no hits at all. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 03:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Hoary 03:47, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable, likely vanity or hoax. -- Infrogmation 12:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable - David Gerard 09:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Dsmdgold 10:02, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

---

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Turn on

Turn on is a term that refers to some situations.... A dicdef, and a sloppy one to boot. Delete. -- Hoary 03:40, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• That article certainly was a turn on! I mean, sexually, of course! Delete. El_C 05:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Create a disambiguation page if there is an article about the infamous 1960s TV series Turn On that was cancelled after one episode. If there is such an article, I can't find it, however. If no such article exists yet, delete. 23skidoo 17:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Either disambig as per 23skidoo, or else redirect to sexual arousal. Meelar (talk) 20:04, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Turn-On. RickK 22:20, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Turn-On exists? Redirect or delete or something, anything - David Gerard 09:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• There's no need for a disambiguation of the meanings that can already be found at Wiktionary:turn on. Redirect to Turn-On. Uncle G 10:57, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Turn it into a disambig between sexual arousal and Turn-On. I suspect most people searching for or linking to this will be looking for the former. —Korath (Talk) 11:55, Apr 9, 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. – ABCD 16:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Wallace

Vanity. Zzyzx11 03:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity and/or insult. | Keithlaw 04:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity Dsmdgold 15:33, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Ha, ha, ha. Delete - David Gerard 09:46, 4 Apr 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. – ABCD 16:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Max Encinas

Vanity, non-notable. DO'Иeil 03:50, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• I have marked for speedy. User spreading nonsense. See Muldova. 24.245.12.39 04:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • 24.245.12.39, as I read it, it is vanity but not necessary patent nonsense. That seems to be your point of view. Thus, I reverted the speedy tag. Zzyzx11 04:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • See my note on your talk page. I won't argue. 24.245.12.39 04:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Zzyzx11 04:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 04:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Highly non-notable. Alai 07:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:46, 4 Apr 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. – ABCD 16:06, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Biggo

Dicdef and/or neologism. -- Dcfleck 03:50, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, neologism. Possible personal attack on someone nicknamed Biggo. Megan1967 04:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. Alai 06:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable; if not a neologism, then the folks at Wiktionary may want it. —msh210 16:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt it. The page would have to be rewritten from the ground up. There's no sense in transwikifying this page if all of its content is going to be discarded. Anyway, this isn't a word. It's a common Internet pseudonym. And I agree with Megan1967 about it being an attack page. Delete. Uncle G 01:52, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 09:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism --Kitch 12:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, probable personal attack. Dsmdgold 15:01, Apr 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 merge and redirect to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thinking - Feeling

1. Delete - What does this have to offer? gren 03:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge any useful information to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. (Thinking - Feeling is one dimension of the Myers-Briggs personality analysis.) FreplySpang (talk) 05:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above — makes sense, although the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator page covers it fairly well already. — RJH 18:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - David Gerard 09:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)