Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 1

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mailer diablo (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 1 February 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

February 1

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:39, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Kus emek

Foreign language slang dictdef. RickK 00:05, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, but if someone wants to move this info to Wiktionary that would be okay. — Ливай | ☺ 01:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, slang dictionary definition, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 03:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm speedy deleting it. Apparantly was contributed by a known troll on the Hebrew wikipedia. Not only is wikipedia not a dictionary: this contribution is clearly inflammitory. --Woggly 06:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was IRRELEVANT. This would go on IFD, if the image even existed. dbenbenn | talk 14:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:5150-1.jpg

I have moved this image by request to the commons under the name Image:IBM PC 5150.jpg, making both Image:5150-1b.jpg and Image:5150-1.jpg obsolete.

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/5150-1b.jpg Boffy b 00:01, 2005 Feb 1 (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 IRRELEVANT. Images go on IFD, and this image doesn't exist. dbenbenn | talk 14:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image:5150-1b.jpg

I have moved this image by request to the commons under the name Image:IBM PC 5150.jpg, making both Image:5150-1b.jpg and Image:5150-1.jpg obsolete.

See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/5150-1.jpg Boffy b 00:01, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 14:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bancroft School of Massage Therapy

Advertising for a commercial business school. RickK 00:18, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • First massage therapy school licensed in Massachusetts, around for more than half a century, and gives credits towards undergraduate degrees in partnership with a regionally accredited public community college. 7200 Web hits for the name as a string. This nomination is too tense. :) Good history of the school, no advertising puffery, remains expandible. Keep. Samaritan 04:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Worcester, Massachusetts and delete - Skysmith 09:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons cited by Samaritan. This makes it notable in my book. —RaD Man (talk) 10:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability established. --Andylkl 11:36, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears notable. GRider\talk 22:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup, passes notability test. Megan1967 01:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons stated. There's no adspeak at all and the place certainly seems to be notable. - Lucky 6.9 22:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • keep as it is. Yuckfoo 22:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable -CunningLinguist 01:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (perhaps keep a very short mention, or "see also" item in massage therapy

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 14:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MetroWest Medical Center

No evidence that this is a notable hospital. Cdc 01:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 02:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepPhilip 03:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article needs expansion. Megan1967 05:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Megan's trolling of the VfD pages has been tiresome. Delete this article. We cannot have an article on every building in the world!!!!! RickK 05:50, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that we can't have an article on every building (and I have argued that in the past), nonetheless it is a large teaching hospital. Since the majority of votes following mine appear in principal to agree with my keep vote, it can hardly be called trolling. Have a nice day Rick. Megan1967 01:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Framingham, Massachusetts and delete - Skysmith 09:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be silly, since it's two hospitals, one of which isn't in that city. iMeowbot~Mw 14:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oh no, that'd just be the end of the world if we carried interesting information on every building in the world, now wouldn't it!!!!! The end is nigh!!!!! Seriously. Relax. —RaD Man (talk) 10:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable teaching hospital. iMeowbot~Mw 14:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 15:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, good large-sized hospitial. Besides, the point of wikipedia is to grow the site, not take out things that are good Bob123 18:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Stop senseless deletionism. GRider\talk 22:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Stop the senseless inclusionism. Indrian 05:54, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you don't think creating a vast reference resource is worthwhile, don't stress yourself out by visiting Wikipedia Philip 02:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • If you don't think creating an excellent, well-written, and reputable encyclopedia is worthwhile, don't stress yourself out by visiting Wikipedia. Indrian 06:06, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
        • How do you get stressed by including things?
          • A fair question, but I would also have to ask how one gets stressed deleting things. I certainly do not. Indrian 03:49, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
            • And therein lies the problem.--Centauri 07:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • I think the real problem here is a failure to remember what, exactly, an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia is a general reference work that highlights and synthesizes important people, places, things, and ideas. It is derived almost exclusively from secondary sources and provides an overview of the critical objects either in all fields of study, as in Britannica or Wikipedia, or in a specific area, such as the Encyclopedia of Military History. Inherent in an encyclopedia's mission to highlight and syntesize is the necessity of making distinctions between what is important and what is not, i.e. notability, which will always be a subjective decision, but one that every encyclopedia editor is called upon to make (in this case, the editors would be the entire wikipedia community). Now, there are many that say that wikipedia is not paper when they justify keeping trivial information, but this should not make wikipedia a junkyard. It is true that wikipedia can include far more information than a typical encyclopedia can, but I see this more as allowing us to go from the level of notable to the whole of human history, which is what Britannica focuses on, to the level of notable in every little sub-field of human exploration. Thus, we can have notable schools, hospitals, sports figures, congressmen, MPs, churches, authors, etc. that would be left out of Britannica for space reasons. If every hospital were to be included, however, then the entire point of an encyclopedia would be lost, for it would no longer be highlighting. An encyclopedia article needs to place its subject in proper context, and that is impossible when there is little distinction made between the subject and similar institutions. There is a reason that the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not page states that this is not a general database or a yellow pages: an encyclopedia highlights and synthesizes. If wikipedia were meant to include everything, there would not be a wiktionary or a wikisource, or a wikibooks, or any other wikiproject save this one. If wikipedia becomes a source for trivial information that is hard to keep up to date, verifiable, and accurate, or continues to have longer articles on the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate then on Kaiser Wilhelm I, the scholarly community will never take it seriously and no one will use it as a reference for research. Thus, wikipedia would be a monumental failure. This is a thought that should cause stress for everybody on the project. Indrian 18:00, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
You are indeed correct. The real problem here is a failure to remember what, exactly, an encyclopedia is. Encyclopedias were conceived and intended as organized compendia of ALL knowledge - not just "select" knowledge or so-called "notable" knowledge (whatever that is supposed to mean). Nothing has changed in the past several thousand years, other than the technological capacity to make real the actual intention of the early encyclopedists. Those who promote the notion that "some knowledge is more important than other knowledge" would do well to remember that "importance" is a largely subjective matter (as the above Star Wars vs Kaiser Wilhelm II example shows), and that it is right and proper that an evolving project such as Wikipedia reflect the concerns, interests and obsessions of those who create it and the times in which they live, rather than presenting itself as the informational equivalent of a constipated Victorian maiden aunt. --Centauri 22:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable teaching hospital, IMO. Segekihei 01:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hospitals are inherently notable and encyclopedic.--Centauri 07:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It resulted from the merger of the Framingham Union Hospital and a smaller hospital in Natick, which is the next town. It is run by a for-profit hospital corporation. In fact, there are news reports that it is up for sale, apparently because it isn't profitable enough. I'm not sure that it is a teaching hospital. On the direct route through the western Boston suburbs to Worcester, it probably is in fact the biggest hospital. People in my family have been there a few times, and, you know, it's just a typical suburban medium-to-large-sized hospital. But there are dozens of hospitals in the Boston area, of similar size or larger, several of which are world-famous. This is far from being one of the famous ones. It isn't a Mass General or Lahey Clinic.--BM 17:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:38, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Religious forums

I'm not sure that this subject is really meaningful. Religious forums are for religion, gardening forums are for gardening, sports forums are for sports. Do we need an article to tell us this? --LeeHunter 01:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • A glorified dicdef.
    • Is that all?
  • No. It also asks questions and answers them.
    • So what should we do?
  • Delete it. -R. fiend 03:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic, dictionary definition. Megan1967 05:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopedic. Original research/obvious. This article was created by User:t3gah, who also created List of religious forums, also up for deletion.
  • Speedy delete, falls under the new rule that articles that don't tell anything more than what can be reasonably known from the title can be deleted. 131.211.210.157 12:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Was me. Mgm|(talk) 12:57, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I agree with those who say delete, but what about the other people who want to know what a religious forum is? Scott Gall 00:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • You agree with those voting delete, but you're voting keep? Um, okay. Anyway, those who can't figure out that a religious forum is a forum dealing with religion probably can't expect to get much use out of an encyclopedia. -R. fiend 06:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not obvious how this can become a useful article. Currently a dicdef, but then most of the content has been removed. I'm a bit uneasy about this, it seems to me that this is not improving the article at all, IMO the result is even more deletable than the original was. So I'll base my vote on what I think was the best version, but it's still a delete. Andrewa 23:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Come on. If this is kept, can I create motorcycle forums or perhaps forums with a spam section? humblefool® 23:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as un-encyclopedic and unlikely to become so.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:18, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Although should be Religious forum—this should be a redirect, if at all. DialUp 06:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that, if kept, this should redir to singular. —msh210 01:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dicdef. Edeans 05:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikityke 18:18, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete —msh210 01:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Postdlf 22:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Waffle Woman

Appeared in one episode of Ren and Stimpy. -- Curps 02:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Ren and Stimpy, except that that page only lists recurring characters. LizardWizard 02:05, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I take it that's a delete then? The only place this would belong is if someone created an article about the episode itself. Some shows have plot synopses for episodes, eg List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes, but somehow I don't anyone is going to do so for Ren and Stimpy. -- Curps 02:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I hope they don't. They really shouldn't be doing it for Buffy even, but I can't get involved in that again. Anwyay delete this, as a one-time character. -R. fiend 02:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Very minor cartoon character JimmyShelter 12:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge in larger list. Not enough to write about in seperate article. Mgm|(talk) 12:57, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Of no real importance to anyone! 81.136.216.155 13:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm a huge fan of the early R&S episodes, but I truly cannot see this doing much more than taking up space by itself. If it isn't mentioned in either the main article or under Powdered Toast Man, move anything salvageable there. - Lucky 6.9 19:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, 1 episode appearance, minor fictious character. Megan1967 01:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge, but it's too minor to get its own page.

I just happened to find this amidst the shockingly massive amount of work to which this page attests, and my only input in light of how little work i do here, is KEEP because, curps, someone does have the right to hope someone does want to do the plot synopsis, and i happen to be one. I hope the massive amount of work you all do does not tend to push you to delete the work of others when it is actually work. An encyclopedia is everything, in the sense that I think that's what the word means, and I have to keep reading to see how uniform you are in your assessments, but I must point out that to someone who has experienced cartoons for 36 years, even the most minor Ren and Stimpy character is more major than ... well in the interest of encyclopedism, the output a search with a popular file sharing program produced just now (happened to be searching for ren and stimpy, coincidentally, I think), were 3 banned cartoons, all characters owned by AOL. If the other important areas of editorial work here can possibly relate HERE, i think it is in relative freedom for non-evil people to have a forum here for their interests.

  • Delete or merge Wikityke 18:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:37, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

John H. Tobin

  • Delete Non-notable "actor" substub. Has been an extra (or "uncredited performer", if you prefer) in a number of movies, but that's it. -R. fiend 00:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a non-existant page is more likely to draw attention than a substub, but I doubt, much can be said about Tobin anyway. Mgm|(talk) 11:23, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - a complete non-entity of a nothing! Brookie 16:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 10:50, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Edeans 04:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 14:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sugar addiction

This is barely a stub, and seems to be more baseless speculation than anything encylopedic. LavosBacons 02:12, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Crackpot. Delete. humblefool® 02:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. You didn't try a Google search did you? There is so much stuff out there on sugar addiction. I have added some references, and will be expanding the article. Granted, it appears to be a popular rather than a scientific term, but it is no less notable for that. GeorgeStepanek\talk 02:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. POV problems, a questionable theory, but those are not reasons to delete. - RedWordSmith 02:42, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable theory/phenomenon. Kappa 04:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but NPOV by explaining the popular vs. scientific distinction and attributing the unsupported claims. Gazpacho 06:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Whether or not it's a real phenomenon, it's at least a popular idea. Szyslak 07:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup.Capitalistroadster 07:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Google says: 21,500 hits. —RaD Man (talk) 10:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or improve substantially. A decent reference to a scientific paper for a start. One of the links is direct to a for profit (self hypnosis) site. GDL 1 Feb 2005
  • Keep; cleanup and improve as necessary. Samaritan 14:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. VfD is not a cleanup tool. GRider\talk 22:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable - passes Google test, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in present form, as revised by GeorgeStepanek\talk. It's an OK article on an OK topic. It could certainly use expansion, and I suspect it's still at little out-of-neutral, but it's OK. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:12, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup, still needs a little work. ral315 22:06, Feb 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 KEEP or MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 14:43, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Slope soaring

Doesn't belong here. Bart133 (t) 02:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Sure does!
  • Merge with Gliding, but not before serious cleanup has occured. --NoPetrol 03:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Needs cleanup, but valid subject. Keep DJ Clayworth 03:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete if you so desire , but you are removing the basic description of slope soaring written for newcomers to our hobby , it remains as part of my web page so do as you feel the author SteveW

  • Keep after Cleanup or merge with Gliding -- Chris 73 Talk 03:55, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Gliding as per above. Mgm|(talk) 11:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after cleanup. Separate subject from standard thermal assisted gliding in the RC sailplanes hobby. Fprintf 13:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A reasonable explanation of slope soaring from the RC perspective...it belongs where it is.

  • Cleanup, possibly Merge with Gliding. The information seems useful, but the writing style could use some serious help. I like the sentence, Never fly behind you. As a pilot and flight instructor, I'm always urging my students to stay ahead of the airplane; maybe this is just the ozzie way of saying the same thing? It not even clear if the article is talking about full-sized gliders that carry one or more people, or scale models; it wasn't until I looked at the referenced site that I realized it was the latter. As for whether to keep or merge, I could go either way. It certainly doesn't deserve to just be deleted. --RoySmith 00:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC).
  • Keep, needs definite cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge , in a reduced form, with Gliding. - requires extensive cleanup. Wikityke 19:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 14:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stedelen

Non-notable dead witch. Orphaned page. humblefool® 02:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There's nothing notable about this witch or his trial compared to any of the other medieval witch trials. --Angr 07:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, needs expansion. Megan1967 01:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Article doesn't establish notability. Willing to reconsider if expanded. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article doesn't even claim notability, let alone establish it. —Korath (Talk) 12:53, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Such trials in general are notable, but nothing here to show that this was an outstanding example. Edeans 04:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Stedelen is indeed a man, not a woman. I have modified the article accordingly. Megan1967 03:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Why should we not have this figure here?Zantastik 03:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Grue 09:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Witch trial unless much more information comes to be included in the present article. Wikityke 19:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 14:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bacilos

Short, very little context, no indication of notability. -- Curps 02:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertisment, instruction manual (all it does is instruct peole how to find more information). -- User:NoPetrol
  • Keep. Clicking in "What links here", we see they won a Grammy Award in 2003. bacilos + latin gets 10,000 Google hits. I've expanded the article with the information I could found. JoaoRicardo 03:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Good digging JoaoRicardo. Is the original author still around or anyone else who wants a crack at adding some usefull additional edits?Weaponofmassinstruction 05:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability, looks like a band advertisement/vanity. Megan1967 05:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Even if they hadn't won a Grammy, three albums is notable enough. We have articles on bands that are less notable. RickK 05:47, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article clearly establishes notability and has been cleaned up. Expand it next. Samaritan 05:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As well as the Grammy, their debut album was nominated for a Latin Grammy and they have had an album and singles make the Billboard Latin charts. Clearly notable within genre. Capitalistroadster 07:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Have added info to the article. This band has had number one singles in Chile and Argentina, won Latin Grammies and their 2004 album Sin Verguenza has again been nominated for Best Latin Album in the Grammy awards of 2005. 1. I have added info to the article. No change from Keep.Capitalistroadster 09:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bad VfD, there is plenty here which establishes notability. GRider\talk 22:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I certainly agree that this is a keeper, but calling this a bad VfD is unwarranted. The article's entire contents at the time of nomination were "Bacilos is a latin group. If you want information about it, go to www.bacilos.com", which is hovering just on this side of a speedy as "consists solely of an external link", and well on the other side of a speedy as "very short article with little or no context". —Korath (Talk) 13:01, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even at its original state, I wouldn't have listed it at VfD, but asked for cleanup (like what happened to the article about Daddy Yankee in its first day). --Fibonacci 00:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has been cleaned up nicely. Da 'Sco Mon 01:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WikiProject:Music's [[guidelines for inclusion. Tuf-Kat 16:19, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:36, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Perfect Kirby

  • Delete This is an article that will never become encyclopedic because it is about a non-notable web page. Wikipedia is not a web directory. If it is, then I am going to have to create an article about my personal web page, and I'm sure no one wants to read that. --NoPetrol 02:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. JimmyShelter 11:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, what makes this website different from the all the others? Mgm|(talk) 11:26, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity nonsense Brookie 16:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't understand the point of this page. Da 'Sco Mon 01:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. No consensus to delete or merge. Postdlf 23:07, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bad command or file name

A non-expandable article. JoaoRicardo 02:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, maybe if Microsoft used it in marketing it would be notable, but they didn't. Gazpacho 06:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete From what I can see, no potential to become more than a stub, ever. ÅrУnT†∈ 09:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into MS-DOS or Comparison of operating systems and redirect. One error message isn't encyclopedic, but a comparison of different OSes errors for the same problem may be. Thryduulf 20:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. GRider\talk 22:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable into MS-DOS, and add redirect. Megan1967 01:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, vote changed as per above - There is probably enough material on the internet, judging by Google, to allow it to expand into a proper article. Megan1967 00:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The message that has showed up on computer monitors several trillion times. 69.243.41.28 04:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Definately notable, can be made encyclopaedic Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
  • Keep: For a decade or so, this phrase was famous. I think it's worth keeping the article just because 20 years from now someone might run across the phrase and want to look up what the heck it's about. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect, while the phrase itself is notable, I don't see it ever becoming more than a short stub. Put into another article, it can be more encyclopedic, and it won't seem so out-of-place. -Frazzydee|✍ 04:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into MS-DOS. — Monedula 11:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but see my comment in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Slogan:The foreskin is not a birth defect. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 23:00, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the same reasons as Jmabel gave. We have pages for programming errors also, such as Segmentation fault. Quite frankly, I'm surprised there are only 21k Google hits on this. I saw it all the time in the MS-DOS days. --Idont Havaname 23:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Under that principle, it should redirect to an article with a name like User error. "Segmentation fault" is a term for a type of program failure, "bad command or file name" is an OS-specific user error message. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 23:24, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect into MS-DOS. Boffy b 16:43, 2005 Feb 5 (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. Postdlf 23:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Collingwood School

Vanity -- Chris 73 Talk 04:14, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Barely. —RaD Man (talk) 10:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to a normal (sorry, not extreme) keep since this article has been revised. There is still room for improvement but this article is definitely not vanity as originally suggested by User:Chris 73. —RaD Man (talk) 07:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All schools are inherently notable. --Andylkl 11:57, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless actual notability established. And Andylkl, adding an infobox 3x the size of the actual article doesn't make it any better. --Calton 12:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • At least it's better than nothing. --Andylkl 12:08, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
      • It wasn't really better than nothing. Most of the fields are empty, and some of what is filled in entirely duplicates the article text. The only information that it in fact adds, taking half a screen to do so, is the name of the head-teacher and the enrollment, neither of which make the school notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Uncle G 02:15, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
      • A good rule of thumb (which I just made up) is that if you can't fill in the space to the left of an infobox, you don't really need the infobox. --Calton 06:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have a feeling the British school is probably notable because it's an independent school and therefore prestigious, (Note: It's a primary school, so no Dunc|☺ 13:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)) whereas the Canadian school seems to be fairly boring and minimal info is available. This page should probably be a dab page between the two but the info on the Canadian school is pitiful and doesn't appear to deserve its own article. Dunc|☺ 13:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) delete. Dunc|☺ 13:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not notable, delete. Lacrimosus 22:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Notable. Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 22:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 00:00, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Schools are not inherently notable, and this article as it stands fails to establish the notability of either school. Delete. Uncle G 02:15, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 05:56, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: article doesn't establish notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 17:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 17:32, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Yuckfoo 18:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, despite desperate attempts to disguise this with uninformative infoboxes. Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Primary schools are more common than bowling alleys, and we don't have articles about bowling alleys. --BM 00:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yet.--Centauri 11:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Seems like you haven't figured out the difference between an encyclopedia and the Yellow Pages. --Calton 00:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Or perhaps you haven't figured out the difference between the Yellow Pages and Wikipedia? Now, which is it? —RaD Man (talk) 07:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree, all schools are inherently notable. Wikipedia is not paper. 69.243.41.28 03:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Notable. Keep. --Centauri 03:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Are we running out of hard drive space? If not, why should we discourage Wikipedia from having articles about high schools?Zantastik 07:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. {{SCHOOLNAME}} is a school in {{subst:CITYNAME}}. —Korath (Talk) 13:42, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip 20:28, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schoolcrufta delenda est. Edeans 05:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wiki is no paper, schools are encyclopedic. --ShaunMacPherson 18:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I knew what I was going to see before I even clicked on the blue link. Yup, another malformed and undeveloped school "article" that some good users tried to expand upon given absolutely no other information. No wonder so many wind up here! All this says is that these schools exist. Nothing more. Delete for lack of content unless someone's willing to take up the task of expanding this. - Lucky 6.9 01:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 04:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough -CunningLinguist 01:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Noisy | Talk 09:26, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it now. Samaritan 23:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Schoolcruft. Gamaliel 22:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:36, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

BeefSnack

Not an encyclopedia article and little potential to become one. Jschwa1 12:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. not expandable. No useful info to merge to beef. Mgm|(talk) 13:00, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Move along. Nothing to see here. Edeans 05:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. bad dictdef. RJFJR 18:46, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wonder who would ever type BeefSnack into the search box. hydnjo talk 23:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT (done by original author during VfD, no opposition). jni 09:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inearthed

It has been obsoleted through all of the work I have done inChildren of Bodom. There is no need for this article and relatively no way of expanding it much. --Sn0wflake 12:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • so Be Bold and redirect it. humblefool® 01:22, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, duplicate/redundant article of Children of Bodom. Megan1967 05:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't know why I didn't think of redirecting. Let's keep it at this and tie; I'm already redirecting, effective now. It actually makes a lot of sense. --Sn0wflake 22:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#Bobby Rickman-Smith (See: VfD:Bobby Rickman-Smith)

The article Bobby Rickman-Smith has come up for undeletion. The VfD listing was at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bobby Rickman-Smith. The votes for undeletion can be found at WP:VFU#Bobby Rickman-Smith, please comment on the deletion and undeletion there. —Ben Brockert (42) 03:26, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Undelete this article. —RaD Man (talk) 10:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. jni 09:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Elder High School

I'm actually from Ohio, and I've never heard of this place. I'm sure it's a great school, but the article fails to distinguish this school from any other Roman Catholic high school. -Aranel ("Sarah") 03:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it? GRider\talk 22:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, it's that school. I think I can be forgiven for not recognizing it based on the previous description, though. I still believe that schools need to prove notability in the article (not just hypothetically) if they are to be kept, but this one now accomplishes this (it really didn't when I nominated it). -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:17, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Philip 03:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. Unfortunatly, the article is mostly well-writen, except for the signature on the bottom. humblefool® 04:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep "Elder High School is the first Catholic Archdiocesan high school in Cincinnati" and "In November 2004 Elder High School acheived a first of it's kind, the broadcast of a varsity football game live on the Internet to more than 10,000 viewers across three continents," seems to distinguish it from other high schools. Any other High Schools out there beat that date? Weaponofmassinstruction 05:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article establishes notability for mine.Capitalistroadster 08:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. These are precisely the type of school articles we should encourage. Seems highly distinguishable to me! —RaD Man (talk) 10:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All schools are inherently notable. --Andylkl 10:20, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being able to fill a 9000 seat stadium is a claim for at least local note, the internet broadcast is also interesting if true. As for all schools being of note, if an elementary school can fill a 9000 seat stadium then I'll accept it's notable... Average Earthman 12:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. So here is your formula for high school notability, boys: establish that it has a big football stadium and a popular football team. The article says 20,000 kids have graduated from the place in 80 years. That is about 250 per year. But it has a 9000-seat football stadium. It seems they have their priorities a bit twisted. How would you like to have graduated from "The Pit", a notable high school football stadium? A locally notable football stadium doesn't make the school out back notable. --BM 13:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with you, their priorities seem a bit twisted to me as well. But we list professional sports teams that get less than 9000 fans, and people don't have to go and watch sports (to me, the average school is where the set curriculum is taught, which is why I'm only occasionally convinced that a school article stands on its own rather than as part of the local school board or geographical article). So, yes, this establishment is of more note to me as a sporting venue than a school. Average Earthman 10:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. High schools are not inherently notable, but this one does establish some minor notability. Isomorphic 22:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This didn't cover the important topics. Elder High School appears to have been at the heart of one of the biggest sex-abuse by priests scandals ever, but this wasn't even mentioned. People who say delete should check if the place is notable (Google, for example) and people who say "keep" should check it covers the important facts. This should be encyclopaedic, not vanity; keep now. Mozzerati 22:39, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Mozzerati. Furthermore, VfD is not a cleanup tool. GRider\talk 22:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep major notability has been established. Kappa 00:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Vote change) OK, you convinced me. This place is even more messed up than I thought. Notably messed up. --BM 00:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This article attempts to establish notability, and it may be notable enough. An article like this can certainly be given a chance for organic growth. The important distinction is that this is actually an article. It never ceases to amaze me how certain individuals on wikipedia continually vote to keep "articles" that are one or two sentences and give no good information on a school. Even if all schools end up being notable, keeping a two sentence stub that says x school is in y city and the principal is named Bob is a disgrace to wikipedia. Indrian 06:02, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that notability (sex scandal) has been established. This differentiates it from most schools, which are inherently non-notable. Jayjg (talk) 20:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wiki is no paper, schools are encyclopedic. --ShaunMacPherson 18:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Remember kids, if you want your HS covered in Wikipedia, cause a sex scandal.
  • Keep. A high school article that actually establishes notability. What a concept! Needs some cleanup, though. — Gwalla | Talk 02:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are inherently notable. Da 'Sco Mon 01:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree that schools are inherently notable CunningLinguist 01:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep with a strong recommendation to redirect. Rossami (talk) 02:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Program register

Non-notable. This is a very general term being given a very trivial article. text is: A program register is the program counter in an Artronix PC12. RJFJR 04:32, Feb 1, 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) 02:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Origin register

Non-notable. Trivia about semi-notable procesor (PC12). Text is: The central register in the Artronix PC12. The argument always landed on its feet here. see program register and stack pointer. RJFJR 04:44, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Gazpacho 06:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to PC12. Megan1967 01:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say merge with attribution instead of redirect, but there's nothing there. Delete instead. —Korath (Talk) 07:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:24, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Strombo

nn neologism. humblefool® 04:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I vote to keep it. --Jino 05:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)Jino

User's only edits are to create the article in question and to vote on this page. Less than trivial. Delete. RickK 05:41, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --202.138.180.36 05:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivial. RJFJR 05:10, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Cdc 05:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable neologism, trivial. Megan1967 05:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 23skidoo 05:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote to keep it -carl0
  • Delete Vanity JimmyShelter 11:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism, self-promotion, vanity. Cma 8:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, neologism, trivial, self-promotion, potential insult to people mentioned in the article, pointless and not notable. Anything else? Average Earthman 12:43, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. After deletion, redirect to George Stroumboulopoulos, a Canadian tv star who is commonly nicknamed Strombo. Samaritan 14:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and redirect to George Stroumboulopoulos. —Mar·ka·ci 22:56, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gigglecruft, I guess the same guys vandalised Urban Dictionary too. Andrewa 17:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't know it was possible to vandalize Urban Dictionary. RickK, posting from school. 66.60.159.190 19:23, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Yes, indeed. The Urban Dictionary terms of service prohibits users from doing a number of things, including 10. stalk or flame another person by submitting content deemed inappropriate. While the Urban Dictionary text doesn't identify any particular person, the Wikipedia article does. So if they are part of the same project, it is vandalism both of Wikipedia and of Urban Dictionary. It's a guess, and not really relevant to the decision here. No change of vote. Andrewa 02:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Beyond trival. Edeans 05:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, may even be speedyable. (A redirect to George Stroumboulopoulos wouldn't be unreasonable, especially since his surname is notoriously hard to spell correctly. I almost accidentally spelled his surname wrong when I first created the article. But delete first, then create the redirect; we wouldn't want to keep the existing article's edit history.) Bearcat 06:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:23, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Cabos

An opensource filesharing system that's still in beta with one developer listed on sourceforge. This ain't kazaa, folks. humblefool® 05:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not yet notable. Ad-like. Mgm|(talk) 11:37, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. More than ad-LIKE, IMO. Pretty blatant. HowardB 13:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:23, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Synima

I can't find any proof on notability on Google; some photo artist on DA comes up higher, and with 56 hits total, well... humblefool® 05:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks like vanity. JimmyShelter 11:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - less than 60 Google hits, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable RJFJR 18:51, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:21, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

List of religious forums

Wikipedia is not a collection of links. - UtherSRG 06:40, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is

There are many other Lists that have just links on them. Which is why I bothered in the first place.T3gah 07:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are external links on every wikipedia page on this web site. Should I wrte an article then for the and make them External Links?T3gah 07:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you can make an encyclopedia-quality article (or even a stub with encyclopedic potential) about religious forums, then yes. Otherwise this list of links should be deleted, as should any other page that is only a list of links. --Angr 07:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Auf Wiedersehen WIKIPEDIA t3gah 07:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A total waste of my time. t3gah 07:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Free? Yes free for us, the world, to add content and then you, the insiders, to make it the way YOU want and delete the rest. Of course you wait until someone else does whatever. ugh. Hours wasted. t3gah 07:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to stop telling my friends about this place. t3gah 07:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I didn't even get a chance to add my content to List of religious forums before some bozo comes along and says "let's vote over the deletion of the page" because they didn't have the temarity to send me a message first. t3gah 07:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
unbelievable t3gah 07:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unfortunately, time invested doesn't always translate to quality. I'm sorry that nobody stepped in sooner but these things happen when you're working on a volunteer encyclopedia. Rhobite 07:56, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete  — Saxifrage | ☎ 09:14, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
JWs post messages at religiousforums.com all the time. that person already deleted the article and then you people put it back up! are you crazy? I saw this whole cherade posted at religiousforums.com just af ew minutes ago. you just want to feel good about deleting it yourself even though T3gah already deleted it. man, losers.
Nobody is allowed to delete a page of this type without it going through the formal process of a vote. It keeps everyone honest and it maintains standards of quality by allowing the community to judge what gets kept and what gets cut. A project as big as Wikipedia needs to maintain focus on what it is for or suffer spiraling into uselessness.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 09:14, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete An encyclopedia article should be more than a link collection JimmyShelter 11:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ditto previous comments. And give us a break T3gah: your investment of time was in creating a list of six links, with a lot of misguided formatting. This "investment" doesn't obligate Wikipedia to keep your list. --BM 11:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • He also had added a link to this "article" to 50-100 religious articles. I reverted all of those changes. - UtherSRG 19:05, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore not a web directory. - Mgm|(talk) 11:42, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this page should only exist if there are Wikipedia articles on these different forums (and it would be probably better in a category anyway). Talrias 14:06, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A waste of User:t3gah's time. JFW | T@lk 14:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm a bozo, T3gah? You should have learned from religious forums [1]. I prefer to not argue with anyone involved in religious matters since such people tend to be believers in their own manifesto of which they require no evidence to support their behavior. Moreover, a list of religious forums is entirely subject to spam (and other mischief) being that anyone with half a brain can setup forum software. Such sites are not historical, meaningful nor worthy of encyclopedic filing. Ecumenical councils are traditional religious forums; however, we already have a useful directory of those. Adraeus 14:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no article consisting solely of external links belongs on Wikipedia.-gadfium 22:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Un-encyclopaedic - Wikipedia is not an external links collection or mirror. Megan1967 01:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lists should only contain lists to other articles and not to external websites. Neutralitytalk 06:24, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The proposer is exactly right, this is a mere list of external links and a classic case of what Wikipedia is not. IMO some of the points made by the newbie who created it are valid but not relevant to this decision, so see User talk:T3gah for replies. Andrewa 16:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We include links on Wikipedia so people can explore further the topic discussed in the article, rather than links for links' sake. This is not DMOZ. — Ливай | ☺ 20:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For the reasons above. -- Necrothesp 04:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:21, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Ryhanna Tittle

Non-notable. Not personal vanity, but certainly vanity. RickK 06:50, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • no evidence presented of notability. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this vanity. Edeans 06:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 63.249.99.158 17:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. RJFJR 18:52, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep. Note: There does appear to be concensus that if kept, the article should remain as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 02:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

4077

I can't imagine there being a need for an article on either the year or the number, and the link to MASH seems tenuous. RickK 07:04, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

It was a harmless redirect to the TV series until recently; I've changed it back to redirect to M*A*S*H (disambig). sjorford:// 09:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the redirect. --BM 11:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, until someone actually writes an article on the number 4077 :) j/k. Megan1967 01:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect I'd suggest making it a disambig page, but I can't think of any other uses of the number 4077 besides in the context of M*A*S*H. Is anything important scheduled to happen in 4077? --TenOfAllTrades 16:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, agree with TenOfAllTrades. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:59, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, maintain current redirect, until it needs expansion (approximately 2,070 years from now). Keith D. Tyler [flame] 22:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the redirect. --Neigel von Teighen 22:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to M*A*S*H, link is not tenuous, the 4077 was the unit it revolved around. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

In reviewing the revised article, I conclude that it is still a definition (though significantly improved over the original version. Noting that transwiki does not destroy history and therefore does not require a VfD vote, I am going to be bold and add this to the transwiki queue. Rossami (talk) 02:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NEET

Dictdef of a slang term. Do they actually use an English abbreviation in Japan? RickK 07:36, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

yes, it is a common term used in news and everyday speech. eg - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=NEET+Japan

  • Google shows four hits on the front page with Japanese text and NEET in them, so yes it appears this is a genuinely used term in Japan. That doesn't mean it's suitable for Wikipedia, of course, so transwiki to Wiktionary if they want this sort of thing and delete. Average Earthman 12:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Not in Employment, Education, or Training; or, a nickname for a japanese bum. Hmm, the only context I've ever hear it is Imageboards, but it might be wider. No Vote Yet. humblefool® 01:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 01:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • At least Wiktionary. I think interesting enough (as an English-language acronym used specifically in a non-English-speaking country) to merit a weak keep -- Jmabel | Talk 05:00, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It is actually a term used in local government youth services in the United Kingdom. I'll update the article. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 16:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note to admins: when considering whether this article is to be deleted, please bear in mind that I have just completely re-written it. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 16:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Transwiktionary the rewrite; it's a dictdef plus usage. —Korath (Talk) 07:17, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:19, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Sermonti

Student vanity page. Alison Rowe 08:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A Google search shows he's an upstanding member of his community but not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, at least not when it's probably autobiographical. I like the other edits this user has done, it looks like he's trying to contribute material he's familiar with in more notable subjects too. foobaz·✐ 08:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (or userfy if he registers). —Korath (Talk) 09:42, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough for inclusion, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:36, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:18, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

VirtualiPhone

Ad-speak, probably a copyvio from their website, but I don't care to look because I don't want them to get a chance to actually create a non-copyvio version. This should be deleted as non-notable. Note that it was created by User:VirtualiPhone. RickK 10:11, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertising JimmyShelter 12:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising, non-notable (13 displayed google hits). I'm boggled and heartened that he forgot the external link these typically include, though. —Korath (Talk) 12:19, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. HowardB 13:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure spam. There is also V-Phone (now in VfD) and Virtualiphone (now a redirect). jni 17:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spamilicious (cue the vikings). Edeans 06:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Postdlf 23:13, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robby Van Dine

This has been lingering in CAT:CSD, but is unfortunately not nonsensical enough to be patent nonsense. Zero Google hits. Delete as vanity. jni 10:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Only claims to notability are creation of the sport "Spaab Kugel", with no web hits, and role in designing and building the "SS Shocker surface ship"; "SS Shocker" +"Van Dine" is hitless. Delete. Samaritan 15:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think he sounds like the man. you all are just jealous.

    • That's right. We're hellajealous. NOT. Delete this drivel. Edeans 06:15, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Word, yo. :^P Delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


(Note: page was blanked by User:212.143.231.118)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 03:42, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lee David Zlotoff

Brookie 11:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) Pointless nonsense

  • Keep. Notable enough. sjorford:// 11:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this notable tv and film writer/director. Samaritan 14:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a pathetic substub, but the subject, or rather person is noteworthy. Mgm|(talk) 09:42, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Capitalistroadster 09:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I have expanded this article somewhat so it is no longer a substub although I'msure it could be expanded. Have also added details of other work notably his work as the director of the Spitfire Grill which won an audience prize at the Sundance film Festival. change to KeepCapitalistroadster 08:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It steams me no end to see how the IMDb link was added, which would at least have some cursory information, but none of that information was added to the article itself. I see some organic expansion here. - Lucky 6.9 21:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. MacGyver is so famous that even this is to be considered notable.--81.225.27.164 00:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Postdlf 23:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Big Bertha (Nintendo character)

Brookie 11:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) No content at all - just rubbish!

  • Delete Not directly rubbish, but not fit for an encyclopedia. JimmyShelter 12:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm a Mario fan and even I've never heard of Big Bertha. Not even a mini-boss, it's a minor enemy in Super Mario World, and it has no place in an encyclopedia. --TheCoffee 13:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to List of Super Mario characters or Cheep-Cheep. Also shows up in Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario RPG --Matteh (talk) 19:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I cannot condone this as an article. -R. fiend 21:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of Super Mario characters, and add redirect. Megan1967 01:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect somewhere. Kappa 04:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, gamecruft. Edeans 06:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, probably to Cheep-Cheep. Super Mario Brothers 3 was big when I was young, and I actually did have a special fondness for Big Bertha, but she doesn't really merit a separate article. But keep the information. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 02:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • MergeRedirect it. Its information, which you cant have enough of...but a minor enemy of a Mario game has no place being its own article.User:elmCitySlim 04:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


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

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

Football World Cup 2002 (squads)

  • Delete Football Statistics do not belong to an encyclopedia Faethon 08:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, organized lists of notable people are kinda useful. Kappa 12:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia etymology is "complete-round education". What kind of education does this football statistics offers to you? Faethon 12:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I would tend to go by dictionary definition rather than etymology; in any case wikipedia is a new kind of encyclopedia so its nature is not set in stone. Kappa 16:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I suggest you to go read Encyclopedia first. Then read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, where it is clearly written in the first line that wikipedia IS an encyclopedia. Can you point to a single online or paper Encyclopedia worldwide that has football squads inside?Faethon 06:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Reading Encyclopedia I find that Everything2 is an encyclopedia. A quick search of Everything2 reveals various world cup squads. [2] Kappa 07:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Everything2 is NOT an encyclopedia. It is written there that "Everything2 started as an encyclopedia, but it changed and become an online community". Everything2 is what its name says, its everything. Wikipedia is primarly supposed to be an encyclopedia and not an everything2 online community. Thats why football squads and any similar not instructive or not educative articles have to be rejected. Faethon 11:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Even if you want to apply the rules from a traditional encyclopedia to this, see the first line of the Encyclopedia article: An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia) is a written compendium of knowledge. Which is what this article is. But wikipedia is NOT a traditional encylcopedia; in fact, there are various sports encyclopedias out there, just search Amazon.com for "sports encyclopedia" or amazon.co.uk for "football encyclopedia". I don't know why this needs to be argued any further, since this is clearly one person's quest to bring down this article. --Dryazan 14:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Look, its not that I dont like football. I just think football squads are not encyclopedic. I think that if you are going to create articles for all football squads from 1930 until today, the admins are going to delete all of them. Do you want to try it? If your articles will survive, then I will create european football cup squads, because I am a european football fun. Faethon2 22:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No they won't. That isn't how Wikipedia works. Philip 02:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Like these, you mean? Go for it. sjorford:// 00:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah! like this! Thanks for creating it. well...its not encyclopeadic, but who cares? Wikipedia seems to be a community and NOT an encyclopedia. I think I like it that way too. Faethon11 07:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, they do belong. Keep. sjorford:// 12:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A well organised list for one of the world's largest sporting events (possibly second only to the Olympics in viewers), and easily as notable as any episode guide for a TV series. Average Earthman 12:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This does not mean that it is encyclopaedic, unless of course you change encyclopaedia's meanning. Remember, encyclopaedia is a greek word used also by Jean Jacques Rousseau to describe something that surely was NOT football statistics. Faethon 13:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
By that logic a book isn't an encyclopedia because it's rectangular, rather than circular.Nateji77 14:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately Jean Jacques Rousseau hasn't contributed anything useful to Wikipedia lately.--Centauri 01:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - rather tedious Brookie 12:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 12:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. THIS IS RIDICULOUS. I just spent a number of hours compling this, and a number of people are helping. There is Football World Cup 1994 (squads), there are multiple numbers of squad pages for Euro 2004, and for Men's Football at the 2004 Summer Olympics (team squads). There are also detailed pages for most important football tournaments. I put this page up because I wanted one central place where all the rosters for the WC could be found. I've been contributing a lot to football (soccer) sections of Wikipedia lately, but if this gets deleted, this is gonna be one sad joke. Also, please note what User:jni wrote at User:Faethon's talk page: Please do not put {{subst:delete}} to some random articles, that is totally inappropriate. Read the Wikipedia:Deletion policy and other relevant policy pages first! I have also fixed your Votes for Deletion submission. Thanks, jni 11:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) --Dryazan 13:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry about your hard work. It isnt that it is not a good work. I just think that your work has to be moved somewhere else, as long as it is not instructional or educative, and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be educative. Can you point to a single instructional institute that teaches football squads? Faethon 07:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Staffordshire University, with the so-called "David Beckham Studies" degree (a cultural studies degree with emphasis on media and football culture). The Brandenton Acadmey is also an instructional institute.Nateji77 09:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I didnt know that. IMHO those odd studies are not notable. Especially "David Beckam studies" seems to me like advertisement. Even if we accept that these are real studies, I still believe that no student there is forced to learn football squads. Can you point to a lesson named "football squads" or something like that in those academies? And how long shall we keep football squads in wikipedia? Shall we write all squads from 1901 until now? I think an encyclopedia with football squads does not make sense.Faethon 11:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
University of Florida 22 March. Lecture: World Cup History Assignment: 4 v 4.Nateji77 14:15, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, not 1901, but 1930, when the first World Cup took place. I wonder what students are forced (FORCED??? -- it's interesting how this champion of education calls it forced) to learn Pokemon characters or Seinfeld episodes? --Dryazan 14:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you'd bothered to look it up you'd know that "David Beckham Studies" was a sensationalist nickname the British press contrived to sell broadsheets, not the official name of the degree.
I'm also not sure where you get the idea that encyclopediae are equivalent to textbooks and only supposed to include information that will be taught in schools, since that seems to be your yardstick of relevance. I don't see a lot of high school freshman memorizing the List of geological features on Triton, but that is something that belongs in wikipedia. Students might not use the list for class (they also might; it would be very relevant to an undergraduate sociology paper on say, German-Dutch or Anglo-Argentine fan animosity), but fans and sports journalists can use it as reference.Nateji77 14:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lists and tables are helpful. Given that Faethon also slapped {{delete}} to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and to few other odd places, I must question his judgement about what should be included/deleted, and I have a hard time taking this nomination seriously. jni 15:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 15:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — I think it's VERY appropriate to have squad lists for truly major competitions such as the World Cup, European Championships, and the like. Dale Arnett 17:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful, of course. bbx 22:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous, I agree. KEEP, OBVIOUSLY. GRider\talk 22:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bogus VFD.--Centauri 01:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't even like soccer (football) and I say keep. It's just as valid as if someone posted full rosters of the Super Bowl teams of American football. --Woohookitty 01:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a ridiculous snobbish nomination. Philip 02:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Sports statistics do belong. There's professional companies like Elias, but it's just as relevant to wikipedia.Nateji77 09:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Summarizes a great deal of information, and ties together links on a lot of existing player articles. Certainly seems to do no harm, and the World Cup is a big event. This isn't a list of high school football players. --TenOfAllTrades 16:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A decent resource of note. Qwghlm 16:20, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although I do wonder why you didn't use an external link to FIFA or something (OTOH, the player hyperlinks are rather nice). Junes 00:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, the point of this was to group all the players together, as TenOfAllTrades said above. --Dryazan 03:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. And I hate football. James F. (talk) 12:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is one of the advantages of Wikipedia over conventional encyclopedias. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 01:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As informative and useful as any other article we have. And I'm not a football fan either. -- Necrothesp 04:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

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

I count 29 clear delete votes, 10 clear keep votes (4 of which are discounted as extremely new users who may be sockpuppets), 1 clear keep-as-redirect vote and 3 abstain or ambiguous votes. Note that even if the ambiguous votes are considered as keeps and even if the new users are counted, the vote still reaches a concensus to delete.

Note 2: Based on the general tenor of the comments, the community concensus is that there is not sufficient notability for this slogan to be discussed in a separate article. It may well be appropriate to discuss it in the context of some other article. Rossami (talk) 03:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Slogan:The foreskin is not a birth defect

Horrible page title. Duplicates information that is already elsewhere. Neutralitytalk 06:10, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Some people, the edithistory tells the tale, keep stubifying the article in what appears to be an attempt to make it look like a nonnotable stub which should go. of course that is just my opinion. Still, incase the current version is a mere stub, I want people coming from that stub hither to vote for its deletion to see the full article, so that they should have a more rounded view. I therefore place the full version of the article here -- Ŭalabio 16:03, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)  :

The slogan "the foreskin is not a birth defect" asserts the genital integrity position that male genitals of a human being are designed properly and do not usually require genital modification and mutilation or male circumcision of the foreskin of a newborn.

The slogan casts the debate of infant circumcision in terms of personal rights of the man and the rights of him to retain his healthy, living tissues. It implies that the decision about whether to undergo plastic surgery or amputations should be made by the man involved, and should be protected by the United States Constitution under rights to life, liberty, and property, and under the principle of Equal Protection.

The chief argument against this position, as asserted by circumcision advocates, maintains that the choice may be made by doctors or parents to perform genital alterations they might desire or consider healthy. Moreover, for those who consider foreskin to be a birth defect, all reasonable effort ought to be made to sever the organ to make the child match his father.

See also

  • Comment Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Inclusion of Slogans as Separate Articles ÅrУnT†∈ 01:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, the information is covered elsewhere. RickK 06:20, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    (see comment at bottom of page)
  • Keep. Please refer to activism references or run a search on this slogan. Here is the US Capitol with the slogan in front[3]. It is used by the activists and we do indeed have Slogan:A woman's right to choose and Slogan:Human life begins at conception as articles in Wikipedia as blurbs to the pro-choice and pro-life groups. They are on the list of political slogans. I am referring to Wikipedia:Deletion policy which does not give abortion special privilege. So I ask Delete votes for a distinction to be made based on actual Wikipedia policy, not personal whim. DanP 06:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do you feel that anyone is trying to give abortion privilege? If you feel those other slogans need to be deleted, feel free to list them on VfD. RickK 07:14, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • They are only reported as slogans, not being promoted. So I don't personally care that they're there -- just as long as we all follow the same rules. Consensus, right? DanP 07:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Put articles from the other side on VFD too, rather than keeping this dreck. Ambi 11:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The slogan does not seem less deserving than other slogans one finds in Category:Political slogans. -- Ŭalabio 16:59, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, stated already in genital integrity. - Jakew 23:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    (see comment at bottom of page)
  • Keep, but redirect to The foreskin is not a birth defect, as long as we're keeping all the other slogans on Political slogans. Exploding Boy 23:37, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Robert the Bruce 04:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rhobite 06:46, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Genital integrity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)Withdrawn. no vote --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, stated elsewhere, almost no Google hits. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    (see comment at bottom of page)
  • Keep, seems as encyclopedic as the abortion slogans.-gadfium 21:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know the foreskin isn't a birth defect. This is not the reason why Jews and Muslims still chop it off. This is not the reason why my father was circumcised. Every male is born with a foreskin - it's just beliefs and **** that lead to circumcision. Mine's still intact. Scott Gall 00:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, precedent set by other similar articles, article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep precedent set by other articles. As long as the other articles remain, so does this one. Edit: this part of comment withdrawn and vote changed due to lack of notability (see below). This is not the place for an entire category and its articles to be deleted as far as I know. However the validity of all articles in Category:Political slogans and the category itself should be looked into. My suggestion is that it be brought up on the village pump. I'd say delete the category and create a list. Merge all slogans with their respective movements/with whatever article they belong in and link to them there from the List of political slogans. ÅrУnT†∈ 04:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Has it occurred to you that that makes no sense? "This can't go unless those go, because they're the same." But if they're the same and this can't go before them, isn't the reverse (They can't go before this) also true? And then doesn't that make your point just silly? Because then, they can never go, and neither can this. PMC 04:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, if you'll reread my comment it makes perfect sense. For clarification, I mean that this article should not be deleted because of its POV title, or because of the fact that one doesn't believe slogans should be included in wikipedia as separate articles. I'd like to add to this list of reasons why one shouldn't vote delete, the fact that one disagres with the slogan. However, regardless, I've changed my mind on the notability of this slogan (I didn't see most of the google hits were mirrors), and have decided that it is a Delete candidate. I still believe the validity of all slogans and the category should be put on trial, however. ÅrУnT†∈ 08:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Calm down, please. I don't need extra emphasis to see your point. I don't know why you're talking about disagreeing with the slogan, because that had nothing to do with my point. I don't really care about the slogan. I voted delete because I don't believe slogans should be separate articles; that's why I said to merge. (Perhaps you missed that, it's an understandable mistake.) I do care about the fact that your delete rationale was illogical. However, considering that you've re-voted, this point and this argument are moot. It would be pointless to continue, so let's just end this now. PMC 19:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm calm. I just like using extra emphasis =) Talking about disagreeing with the slogan was on a completely unrelated train of thought, sorry I should have been more clear. I wasn't disputing your delete vote, only defending my rationale, which was, as you can see through my clarification above, perfectly rational. Whether slogans should be included as separate articles should have its own policy discussion since there are already so many of them. Edit: them is referring to the slogans. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Inclusion of Slogans as Separate Articles] If the slogan was notable my vote would still be keep for this reason. ÅrУnT†∈ 00:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or else merge this and ALL political slogan articles into a main List of political slogans-type article. Yes, it is a valid piece of information. Is it a valid piece of information that deserves an article unto itself? No. PMC 06:57, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 06:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agenda promotion, hopeless POV, nonnotable slogan. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. If the slogan were notable, I'd vote for keep, but I can find little evidence of notability. A google search of "The foreskin is not a birth defect" finds only about 230 hits. If there is evidence of notability, I will change my vote. — Asbestos | Talk 11:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regardless of your or my POV, I can find no evidence that this slogan is yet significant in public discourse. It gets a mere 233 google hits, the eighth in the list being not even the Wikipedia article but the Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion page. Google is not god but in this day and age, that's pretty damning evidence for a political slogan. Rossami (talk) 00:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This page didn't seem to be linked to a VfD subpage, so I linked it to February 1. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This vote not listed on the main Votes for deletion page. Is that an oversight or is there a reason it is not listed? -- DanBlackham 13:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Fixed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Many people state that 1 the slogan is POV and therefore should go, or that 2 the POV is stated elsewhere and therefore the slogan should go. I would like to address these points:
    1. Political slogans are by definition (I never heard an NPOV political slogan) POV. If we delete this slogan just because it is POV, we should list every slogan on Category:Political slogans on VFD and Category:Political slogans on categories for deletion.
    2. If we place the slogan in genital integrity, then we should logically do so whenever possible to other slogans in Category:Political slogans. Almost all political slogans have associated movements. Category:Political slogans will become a shadow of its current incarnation with just a few orphaned slogans. Ŭalabio 01:07, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please would DanP declare that he is the primary author of this page, in accordance with policy at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. - Jakew 14:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, I apologize. I declare that I am the primary author of the article, and I believe it to be in compliance with precedents in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents, which includes the precedent that the word "slogan" be included. I am asking delete votes to stay in compliance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and use a specific reason from that policy, instead of mere difference of our opinions or a personal whim. DanP 18:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment ¿Why is this real slogan up for deletion, while, the so called slogan which does not seem to exist in the wild the science is settled not deleted? -- Ŭalabio 05:02, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)
    • Comment: Please would Ŭalabio also declare his vested interest in this page, in accordance with policy. See photograph of anti-circumcision rally on his user page, and describes himself as a "full time intactivist"[4] - Jakew 05:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Response I was not aware that it is necessary to declare that I believe that one should not mutilate babies. Frankly, I tire of protecting babies. I just wish that the circumcision-advocates would stop advocating universal circumcision of all of the babies. If someone at the age of majority wants to undergo medically unnecessary procedures, that is fine with me, but one should not medically unnecessarily modify children on whims. Now that I stated that I am an Intactivist, ¿could all of the circumcision-advocates please standup? -- Ŭalabio 01:03, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
      • Comment: 1) it's only etiquette, not policy. 2) did you declare your own interest, infered from your user page? — Asbestos | Talk 18:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Ok, from my user page, for what it's worth: I am neither in favour of or against neonatal circumcision. Rather, I am in favour of parents making an informed decision. An informed decision requires accurate and honest information, so I am opposed to attempts to mislead. - Jakew 19:43, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Agreed. I'm getting the distinct impression that some people are voting based on their support or lack of support for circumcision. I remind everyone that votes for deletion should be made on the basis of the merits or lack of merits of the article, not on users' individual politics. Exploding Boy 18:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Though I like the idea of "Slogan:An unwanted baby is not a disease". DJ Clayworth 06:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For a slogan, this few google hits is damning. —Korath (Talk) 13:26, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • The Washinton Times seems to think mentioning this slogan in an article is part of valid criticism.[5] The Sunday Business Post[6] has a mention in a clear political context too. Also try Google searching for "a foreskin is not a birth defect" which is a slight variant. Let's try referencing Wikipedia policy please, instead of kneejerk censorship. DanP 19:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • 15 displayed google hits for "the foreskin is not a birth defect". 9 displayed google hits for "a foreskin is not a birth defect". This is plenty for an 18th century artist. For a contemporary political slogan, it's very, very few. No change of vote. —Korath (Talk) 19:49, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • And furthermore note that of the non-displayed hits, 203 (for "the") and 535 (for "a") are sigs from mostly-irrelevant forum posts on a single site. —Korath (Talk) 20:17, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 20:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP! The previous poster was either misinformed or dishonest about the number of Google hits. For "the foreskin is not a birth defect," the correct number of hits is 224 - [7] If you remove the article "the," then the number of hits increases to almost one thousand - [8] Also, the article is written in such good NPOV form that it could be a model for other authors to emulate. I'm also left to wonder if we'd even be having this discussion were the slogan in question opposing female circumcision. Blackcats Feb 3rd, 2005 - 20:22 GMT
    • Please push the "Next" link at the bottom of the page, and note my explicit use of the word "displayed". Google quite rightly does not display the rest because they are mirrors of each other, or identical. —Korath (Talk) 21:12, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • And a belated welcome to Wikipedia, by the way—I see that you joined us on February 1st. —Korath (Talk) 21:16, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I must say, it's a little distressing when new users come to Wikipedia, and start flinging about accusations of dishonesty, and questioning the motives of other voters, while asserting that they understand which articles are "models for others to emulate". It's even more distressing when their accusations regarding links are incorrect, and their comments about NPOV are irrelevant to this vote. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Blackcats obviously has a vested interest in this page. Why else include nothing but the slogan on his/her user page? - Jakew 00:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Is this link to your satisfaction?[9]
  • Comment: Well, if a numerical hit level on Google is required for Wikipedia, let's at least say what it is and set a precedent for the Wikipedia community to follow. DanP 20:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Nah, let's just use the best judgement of Wikipedia editors instead. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's such an important slogan, why does it get so few Google hits? --Carnildo 21:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Funny rationale that motivates many of the 'delete' votes... no precedent is needed (or even desired) by some of the pro-mutilation folks. Please specify and link to a real reason from Wikipedia policy -- not an imaginary one. DanP 22:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Dan, non-notability is a very common reason to list an article on VfD (see 90% of the articles listed). Notability is often provided by Google hits, unless it can be shown to be notable otherwise. As for the existance of other, less notable slogans, unless they've previously been listen on VfD and have been kept (i.e. unless there is precedent), it really isn't an argument. I personally would be for merging this and others to the List of political slogans, i.e. with short explanations under each, but the others would have to be brought here and argued case-by-case. — Asbestos | Talk 23:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • You pro-mutilation apologist!!!! Jayjg (talk) 23:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Asbestos, I like your idea. But then in terms on non-notability, let's list eyeglasses fetishism and Vorarephilia fetishism on VfD, which seem pretty obscure once you remove the Google hits due to Wikipedia. There just no space in Wikipedia, right? But actually, for this slogan, non-notability is not the absolute strongest argument, given that bumper stickers and T-shirts have been available. But if we want to set precedent here, what the heck? Anything under 940 hits should go then, right? DanP 00:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • You should feel free to list those articles here. But there are no hard cut-off lines for Google hits. 1) Different standards of notability are used for atomic physicists than contemporary political slogans. 2) If you can cite other evidence, such as sales numbers of the bumper stickers, then that would be evidence for notability. 3) As there appear to be less than about 50 real hits from Google, this one really some other evidence of notability, because nobody's seeing any on the web. — Asbestos | Talk 11:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP Every mammal on the planet is born with a foreskin, and we need the slogan to remind some of the pro-mutilation folks of that!Bell Bottom Blues 22:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • And a hearty welcome to Wikipedia to you as well, BBB! How did you find this on your very first edit? —Korath (Talk) 23:07, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • Korath, wasn't your 'delete' rationale For a slogan, this few google hits is damning? Perhaps you can explain your superior interpretation of Wikipedia:Deletion policy? I don't really care how this turns out, so long as Wikipedia's policies aren't slanted by random POV-based deletions. DanP 23:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, your indifference to the outcome is quite obvious to all. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Since you insist, "No potential to become encyclopedic"→Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base: "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by not indicating Wikipedia is not a soapbox instead. —Korath (Talk) 23:55, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually I don't have any opinion whether it's deleted, as long as policy is followed (despite Jayjg's obvious trolling). As previously noted, I added the word "slogan". This adheres with past precedent of deletion policy. So the only deletion issue mentioned is notability, not POV. Are you saying this slogan is "general knowledge"? The reference you cited says nothing about Google hits, now does it? Get serious -- did you read it? -- how is this or any other slogan in any way equivalent to a travel guide or a list of phone numbers? DanP 01:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • While I broadly share the sentiment, BBB, your vote on VfD is not valid, since the account was created after the VfD. —Ashley Y 06:40, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
  • Keep The foreskin is a normal part of male anatomy. It should be obvious that this statement is entirely accurate. - Craig Feb 3, 2005
    • Wow, another first time editor. What a surprise and honour that on your very first edit you should somehow find this page, and know how to vote on it. Welcome, welcome to Wikipedia; the project can certainly use more astute and savvy editors such as yourself. Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • More to the point, Craig seems to feel that the issue is about whether Wikipedia is for or against foreskins. Of course, the issue is only whether this slogan is a reasonable encyclopedia article topic. Not grasping the difference is one of the reasons that votes from new users don't usually count for much on VfD. --BM 02:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The article on the Genital integrity movement does not even mention this slogan. How significant can it be? In any case, we don't need separate articles on slogans which are no more that excuses to "explain" (yet again) what it means, and push the POV. If a political slogan is very notable, we might have an article about who came up with it, what occasioned its invention, how it was propagated, how it became notable, and some examples of situations where it was used. Few slogans are notable enough for that kind of treatment and most of them merit no more than a sentence or two in the relevant articles about the political issue or movement. This one is no exception. --BM 02:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete detail. Gazpacho 02:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Evil Monkey∴Hello? 02:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete genital integrity spam. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • (personal attack deleted by DanP), come one, come all! Nary a better place to meet new people than a VfD on a controversial topic! People whom you've never seen here before! People who hail from open proxies! And yes, even (personal attack deleted by DanP)! It's fun for the whole family! Oh, and delete. Mackensen (talk) 03:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep... my brethren from going insane. Delete ugen64 03:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless detail. Edeans 06:21, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: great slogan, worth mentioning on genital integrity, but not worth its own article.—Ashley Y 06:40, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)
  • Redirect to genital integrity. -Sean Curtin 06:58, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC
  • Delete. Non-notable slogan. Xezbeth 22:20, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

KEEP!

  • Comment Frankly, I would almost advocate a new Wikimedia project to include cultural references such as these. They are not encyclopedic topics, but they do have cultural relevance. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 22:53, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Arguments against circumcision should be covered, but not in an article like this. Josh Cherry 20:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What other slogans that no one was ever heard can YOU think of? Da 'Sco Mon 01:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. w00t. JFW | T@lk 22:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Summary of votes to date

As of the last version (16:03, 5 Feb 2005), here is a summary of the votes so far:

Deletes (regular)

User:RickK. User:Ambi. User:Rhobite. User:Jayjg. User:Consequencefree. User:Premeditated Chaos. User:Gamaliel. User:Wile E. Heresiarch. User:Asbestos. User:Rossami. User:DJ Clayworth. User:Korath. User:Postdlf. User:Carnildo. User:BM. User:Gazpacho. User:Evil Monkey. User:Cyrius. User:Mackensen. User:Ugen64. User:Edeans. User:Ashley Y. User:Xezbeth.

Deletes (special cases)

User:Neutrality (initial vote page creator). User:Jakew (anti-genital integrity activist). User:Robert the Bruce (anti-genital integrity activist).

Keeps (regular)

User:Exploding Boy. User:Gadfium. User:Scott Gall. User:Megan1967. User:KeithTyler.

Keeps (special cases)

User:DanP (primary author). User:Walabio (genital integrity activist). User:Blackcats (new user). User:Bell Bottom Blues (first ever contribution). "Craig" (first ever contribution).

Redirects

User:Sean Curtin.

I believe this summary is accurate. - Jakew 19:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Following User:Walabio's change (moving User:Robert the Bruce to special cases and adding description), I no longer consider the summary accurate. To my knowledge, Robert has never advocated universal circumcision, nor has he declared an interest on this page. - Jakew 21:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) Additional: Following User:DanBlackham's change (moving myself and identifying me as an "anti-genital integrity activist", I further disclaim the summary. - Jakew 11:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I protest being in a special case. Indeed, the only ones belonging in special cases are those showing up after the vote began. -- Ŭalabio 21:41, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
  • Suggestion Ignore all votes from people who do not have ten surviving (neither deleted nor reverted) over a minimum of ten pages (at least one surviving edit on at least ten pages). Understandably, anyone, even anonymous users, may comment. -- Ŭalabio 21:41, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
  • From the VfD ettiquette: Votes by suspected sock puppets or votes which do not seem to reflect the opinion of Wikipedians may be ignored. In particular, votes from anonymous persons and accounts that did not exist prior to a nomination are typically ignored on strong suspicions of sock puppeteering or being cast by biased outsiders unfamiliar with our policies. If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else. My reading of that is that primary authors and those with a vested interest must be special cases, otherwise why the need to declare it? - Jakew 22:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should propose your suggestion on the Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion page. - Jakew 22:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I know the policy and suggested changing it before. The problem is that that admins only typically ignore new voters. This leads to both sides asking for friends to help (robert Brookes came here from a call from circumcision-advocates and I had to make a reciprical call to intactivists). I and I hope the other side are not proud of that. I would like the policy absolute. I hope that the policy will be applied here. But this is not about that.
    • I do not like being singled out. I anm sure that you probably feel the same way. When it comes to counting, policy only really supports separating potential sokpuppets. The summary should read thus:

Deletes (regular)

  1. User:RickK
  2. User:Jakew
  3. User:Ambi
  4. User:Rhobite
  5. User:Jayjg
  6. User:Consequencefree
  7. User:Premeditated Chaos
  8. User:Gamaliel
  9. User:Wile E. Heresiarch
  10. User:Asbestos
  11. User:Rossami
  12. User:DJ Clayworth
  13. User:Korath
  14. User:Postdlf
  15. User:Carnildo
  16. User:BM
  17. User:Gazpacho
  18. User:Evil Monkey
  19. User:Cyrius
  20. User:Mackensen
  21. User:Ugen64
  22. User:Edeans
  23. User:Ashley Y
  24. User:Xezbeth.
  25. User:Neutrality
  26. User:Robert the Bruce

Keeps (regular)

  1. User:Exploding Boy
  2. User:Gadfium
  3. User:Scott Gall
  4. User:Megan1967
  5. User:KeithTyler
  6. User:Walabio
  7. User:DanP

Keeps (special cases (new users))

  1. User:Blackcats
  2. User:Bell Bottom Blues

Redirects

  1. User:Sean Curtin.

Resolution and a compromise

I propose that, upon deletion of this article, a new precendent be entered into the record. Apparently, the angry rhetoric from the 'delete' side of this debate deems it important enough to vote on personal whim (some are saying notability is contested, but apparently there is plenty of recognition of the slogan too). Leaving policy justification out of the equation is simply anti-Wikipedia. Therefore, because the attack on this article is unprecedented, I propose adding to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents the following entry:

Are articles on slogans with fewer than 1000 Google hits permissible? - No, slogans need at least 1000 Google hits

If this precedent existed beforehand, we wouldn't have needed this vote because deletion would be justified. DanP 14:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This vote (not "attack") on the article is not at all unprecedented, there is no need for policy creep (which itself is "anti-Wikipedia"), and please avoid the ad hominum characterizations of those whose votes you disagree with. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL @ Jayjg talking about ad hominem attacks! If that aint the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what is. I'm the one who first brought that term into the disscussion - in direct response to you and a couple other people here trying to dismiss what people were saying simply because they were (or appeared to be) new to Wikipedia, rather than rebutting the content of their messages. I believe they call that "biting" here...[10] 4 Feb 2005 - 19:37
Do you mean the precedents Slogan:A woman's right to choose and Slogan:Human life begins at conception? Those precedents? Aside from the policy-be-damned shenanigans in the discussion, I am respecting opinions of those I differ with. I have not used ad hominum arguments at all, and I find it strange that you'd make the accusation. Could you please review this discussion and describe your objective and impersonal contributions? DanP 18:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"angry rhetoric" "vote on personal whim" = ad hominum. As for precedent, as has been explained to you before, 90% of the items deleted here are deleted on the same grounds being cited for this article. That is plenty of precedent. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You must have a different definition than I, or maybe just picked the wrong Latin word. While I am sorry for upsetting you, we can respect each other and be critical of the arguments at the same time. Criticising words is not the same as criticising a person. I have linked to a documented precedent, and asked for yours. Let me get this straight: you claim deletion is right because the precedent is that 90% of articles are deleted on a basis of unspecified precedent, and this article is one of those, therefore it is one of those. Correct me if I read you wrong, but does that sound like non-circular reasoning to you? DanP 18:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I am not upset, and that accusation again is ad hominum. Rather than trying to characterize the statements of others as emotional states (e.g. "angry", "upset"), or making suppositions about their reasons for voting (e.g. "voting on a whim"), or using pejoratives to describe them (e.g. "pro-mutilation"), or using pejoratives to describe their comments (e.g. "trolling"), please deal with the content of their statements. You have linked to no "precedent", as each article is evaluated on its own merits. There is no standard rule about slogans, nor is there a standard creteria for their deletion. However, there are other standards that are frequently invoked and used for deletion in general; non-notability is a primary one. Also, please note that invoking a two wrongs make a right argument is a logical fallacy. Jayjg (talk) 19:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That you were upset was only my opinion. I am sorry if I incorrectly assumed that -- it's not an insult. Precedent is inherently based on the assumption that the past can be interpreted in the present. It is "two wrongs" or "two rights", not random behavior. Your reason for deletion was "POV, stated elsewhere, almost no Google hits". So in your words, 940 is "almost" zero, I have "indifference to the outcome", new users are "distressing", and some users are "apologists". Other than (maybe) the last sarcastic term of yours, I am perfectly aware that even these are not truly ad hominum. They do not attack the person, and neither did I, so I find your accusation unsubstantiated. But you should direct this to my user talk page, instead of here. In any case, the section Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents specifically permits slogans. No other deletion-supportive policy or precedent has been stated except notability, so that is why I'm proposing we set precedent at 1000 Google hits. DanP 19:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I described no editors as "distressing" or "apologists". I have not even used the word "apologist", and I described a "delete" editor as an "apologist" in jest, obviously. Please read my comments more carefully. Regarding your "almost 940 hits", as you know already, that is actually fewer than 50 unique hits. That is not notable in my opinion, and in the opinion of many other voters here and elsewhere. Google searches are often used as a means of ascertaining notability on VfDs and elsewhere. Policy creep is a bad idea, but if I were proposing one, it would be more on the lines of "any VfD'd article that gets the support of more than 5 editors who make their first edit on the VfD should be automatically deleted." Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This isn't you?[11] In the past, we've always counted TOTAL hits -- it doesn't even display your stated number. Policy creep indeed! I'm, of course, accepting of any notability decision -- it's the stated rationale that seems elusive and worthy of study. The articles Slogan:A woman's right to choose and Slogan:Human life begins at conception have the desired hit-count. So why are you complaining about my proposal? DanP 20:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall only counting TOTAL hits at all; in fact, the Google results are often examined for source and uniqueness, and particularly whether or not they reflect independent sources, or merely Wikipedia and its many mirrors. As for your other arguments, please read my previous comments; it's not about those articles. Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Google doesn't even display the number you want to substitute. I never proposed a change to hit-counting in Wikipedia, did you? The existing precedents all use the total, not your method. The only arguments you've made are for 1) deletion without need for giving rationale, and 2) adding a precedent to count new users instead of Google-hits (call it a meta-precedent). Either way, neither of your arguments would ever inform Wikipedia users what is considered notable for a given article. Many precedents do precisely that, saving us all a great deal of frustration knowing the articles won't get trashed. DanP 22:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Huh? What number do I want to "substitute"? Nor have I made any arguments for a new precedents or methods. The slogan is non-notable, amongst other things, because it gets very few unique Google hits. That about sums it up. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Existing precedents use total page hits. My perception is that you're using some other number. In any case, there is a broader discussion on slogans at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Inclusion of Slogans as Separate Articles]. Your arguments, if valid, are not limited to this article. DanP 08:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Instruction creep Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Robb Zipp

Posted as a speedy-deletion candidate, which it isn't, so reposting here instead. -- Curps 14:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Actor with one minor role in his filmography and homepage that redirects to livejournal.com. Few Google hits, found nothing that indicates notability. jni 15:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete' unless evidence of notability is established. -R. fiend 19:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - fails Google test, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Edeans 06:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 02:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Industrial Sounding System

Apart from the fact that it is unintelligible, this entry has no merit, and I cannot see anyone adding to it or editing it. The web site link provided is good for a laugh, however -- especially the part about sending your loved ones' remains into outer space. Delete HowardB 14:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • (article rewritten but not expanded) If there's a cleanup tag, it's reasonably likely someone will edit it. At least the link is a useful one. See also space burial, it's not a joke. Not sure about this things "notability" so no vote at the moment. Kappa 16:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article needs expansion. Megan1967 01:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. On a re-look, I concur that Kappa does have a point. The question would be on notability since ISS is 'work in progress' rather than a proven technology of any particular note. HowardB 02:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:07, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Theis

  • Delete - Vanity. Auto-biography that is not notable. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Vanity page by an anon – welcome to Wikipedia! Don't do this. Delete. Samaritan 15:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/Stick it in a user page. Xezbeth 15:46, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity - sorry Mike - you're just not interesting enough for the Wiki. Brookie 17:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_February_1&oldid=9859255"