Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 February 5
Contents
- 1 February 5
- 1.1 Brent Cameon
- 1.2 Devon kelly
- 1.3 Babyaevents
- 1.4 Naeemi
- 1.5 Rubberninja
- 1.6 Alforce Veedramon
- 1.7 Xerwer
- 1.8 A1 (code)
- 1.9 FunBrain.com
- 1.10 Anarki
- 1.11 Jameth
- 1.12 Machinedramon
- 1.13 International Biblical Online Leadership Training
- 1.14 Links to Opinion Pieces on George W. Bush
- 1.15 Solidwater.org
- 1.16 Jelluy
- 1.17 The Spiced Olive
- 1.18 Bradley Field
February 5
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. jni 07:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is both vanity and advertising. The guy is a recent law graduate who runs a website. Brent Cameon scores 4 google hits. Rje 01:04, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete ASAP. Why, oh why can't these be speedied? Brent, you're a smart guy. Next time, please read the directions that instruct you not to write about yourself. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 01:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable - fails Google test (4 hits), possible vanity. Megan1967 02:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, vanity, advertising, unencyclopedic. Whatever, just get it away from Wikipedia. — Ливай | ☺ 03:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. RJFJR 04:12, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, It's all been said. Inter 11:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, self-promotion. Wyss 22:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, person with website != notable. Bart133 (t) 02:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Not notable. The only things I can say about this article is "So what?" and "Who cares?" (Zzyzx11 07:51, 10 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 speedy delete -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is pure vanity, definitely not encyclopedic ÅrУnT†∈ 01:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Speedily deleted. We don't need to waste space and time on VfD with crap like this. Fredrik | talk 01:37, 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. jni 08:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Huh? -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 01:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, barely comprehensible advertising. Rje 01:38, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- If you were to read Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Babyaphotoworkshop and Babyaphotoworkshop, would this become clearer? I'd say that this was speediable under criterion #11. Delete. Uncle G 03:08, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
- Delete, this is an inappropriate use, Wikipedia is not an announcement site. We do not need an article just for their press releases. RJFJR 04:20, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, This page should be used.., How classy. Inter 11:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, weird press release attempt. Wyss 22:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all. Speedy if possible. This is total abuse of the site. - Lucky 6.9 02:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. What is this supposed to say? Bart133 (t) 02:15, 9 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. jni 08:53, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Google searches for Haji Mohammad Naeem Naeemi and "Haji Mohammad" Naeemi show nothing. I'm not convinced that this individual requires an article. Note: I reverted to a non-copyvio version before listing on VfD. —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-5 01:25 Z
- Delete, not notable - fails Google test, posible vanity. Megan1967 02:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, as non-notable (unless someone finds out this is a notable official in the government, the google test may under report people in such areas.) RJFJR 04:34, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: The previous copyvio version [1] is more informative; maybe his notability can be judged by the people who attended his funeral. Kappa 05:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, someone's cousin is all. Wyss 22:19, 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. jni 08:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Appears to be a non-notable vanity page. Evil Monkey∴Hello 02:52, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, possible vanity. Megan1967 03:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, almost certain vanity? Peter Shearan 07:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity. Do they really call themselves "Flashers"? That just about saps my will to flash (animate, sickos) someday.--ZayZayEM 08:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Looks like non notable vanity. Inter 11:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. Self-promotion. jni 14:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, self promotion (rhetorical side comment, not directed at this person- what is it with "flash artists" and their egos, anyway?). Wyss 22:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Self promotion? Well I wasn't the one who made this wikipedia entry, so I think you're talking crap :)"
- Delete. Omar Filini 07:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. How can vanity pages be about notable people? Bart133 (t) 02:18, 9 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. Keep 2 / Delete 8 / Merge 1 / Merge else Delete (1) -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Fancruft, not that notable. Luigi30 03:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Is there any way to be sure this is Fancruft and not a real (whatever that means) Digimon? (I'm surprised there are only 174 entries in category:digimon. Who'd have thought they'd be that popular a subject?) RJFJR 04:48, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- "Fancruft" != "not real". Bearcat 21:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Going by Veemon it seems to be "real" in terms of being an actual digimon. Unless we delete the entire Category:Digimon this needs to be a Keep--ZayZayEM 08:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Good idea. --BM 23:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The multitudes of Pokemon articles are annoying anyway, we don't need more Digimon articles. ugen64 03:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable - less than 22 hits on Google, minor fictious Digimon character. Megan1967 04:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, My eyes! My eyes! Inter 11:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep there is such a Digimon & most info about is is legit as Veemon was said in bandai to have the potential to be a Veedramon.
- Vote by anon user 68.200.81.62. It doesn't count. --Neigel von Teighen 23:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, cruft. Wyss 22:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, it's a real Digimon & here's the site to prove it. http://shiningevo.ultimatedigimon.com/encyclopedia/digimon/alforce_vdramon.html
- Vote by anon user 209.208.108.179. It doesn't count. --Neigel von Teighen 23:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Should we have an article for each Digimon/Pokémon??? --Neigel von Teighen 23:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep (in spite of the fact that I find all the digimon stubs irritating. I'd actually like it if all the forms of Veemon were rolled into one article and the names redirected to it, but I'm not currently willing to do the work myself, and there would be a lot of different digimons for this kind of merging to be done for). RJFJR 23:16, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- For the reasons given in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Machinedramon: Merge the lot, or failing that Delete. Uncle G 02:43, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
- Delete. We delete top professors, but want to keep every single Digimon there is? We should have one article on Digimon, and that's it, the rest is pointless - they have no relevence, influence or importance outside of Digimon. Average Earthman 11:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. All of these Digimon character articles should go. See my comments on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Machinedramon. --BMdramon 23:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Bart133 (t) 02:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into Veemon. We may not like, it but both Pokemon and Digimon have a real impact on children, we can't just delete them all. They are notable whether we like it or not. Mgm|(talk) 13:04, Feb 10, 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. jni 08:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Page is in French, but it is rather obvious vanity (visit the site, for example). ugen64 03:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- "Xerwer is a character created by his shadow in 1997. He has a web site: http://xerwer.wazzza.org/ . He is a permanent student in Quebec. Xerwer" Delete as non-notable/vanity. — Ливай | ☺ 03:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Vanity. Inter 11:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Supprimer, c'est à dire delete. Promotion. Andrewa 13:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, comme un ombre. Wyss 22:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Bart133 (t) 02:24, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, promotion of non-notable vanity page. Mgm|(talk) 13:12, Feb 10, 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. jni 08:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dictionary def (from FOLDOC) but has no context and makes no sense (i.e. not even a good dictionary definition). It's been in existence for a couple of months without significant improvement. Someone added an example but that seems to be a trivial example and not particularly enlightening (with 2 red links). RJFJR 03:47, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. No real info. I see no example. -- RHaworth 06:02, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Important information for Wikipedia, personally i didn't know about it. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
- Delete unless context can be found. Does not currently make any sense. jni 14:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The definition is tautologous. The only external hyperlink is broken. And "A1 code" fails both the Google Web and (more importantly, given the purported topic) the Google Groups tests, all hits being either Wikipedia mirrors, FOLDOC mirrors, or other submit-it-yourself listings where this very same entry has been submitted. "Important information" my eye. Delete. Uncle G 16:14, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not sure how this info would be useful. Carrp | Talk 20:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unhelpful fragment, article explains nothing. Wyss 22:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:26, 10 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable web site. (Probably not an advertisement; the page creator didn't even add a link to the site.) —tregoweth 04:00, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- "FunBrain.com's monthly pageviews are 35 million and the number of teachers registering to its QuizLab tool is 65,000", says this press release. Its Alexa rank is a very heady 2629. Owned by Pearson PLC. Keep and expand. Samaritan 04:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, needs expansion. Google gets 500,000+ hits with "Funbrain", mostly related to this site. Megan1967 05:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I have added an external link and some details as a start. Megan1967 05:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, seems rather notable per Samaritan. Shimeru 05:34, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Given the above comments, and because I can't cancel this VfD, I'd like to declare never mind, if I may. —tregoweth 17:40, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep it, obviously. Wyss 22:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- keep. Yuckfoo 01:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable educational website. Capitalistroadster 08:02, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, notable website. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- keep, and expand. Bart133 (t) 02:27, 9 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 to Anarchy and merge. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article was link from a badly linked list, also, it is a rather useless subject. I vote it be deleted, since it has been orphaned as well. --Jimius 13:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The above was begun by user:Jimius. I am attempting to finish the procedure for him. (placed note on his user talk page). merge somewhere and delete. trivia. RJFJR 04:06, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge anything useable to Quake III Arena, and add redirect. Megan1967 05:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, cruft. Wyss 22:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect turn this page into a redirect for a misspelling of Anarchy ALKIVAR™ 08:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and Delete Lectonar 08:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Quake III Arena, then Redirect to Anarchy. Bart133 (t) 02:26, 9 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.
Article created again. Delete --DuKot 03:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Anti-vanity. A lot of these seem to crop up amongst deadenders.--ZayZayEM 03:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- delete anti-vanity. RJFJR 04:38, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Are there grounds for speedy on something like this?
- Delete, not notable, personal attack, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as attack page, probable libel. Shimeru 05:33, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I almost speedied this as a candidate for speedy deletion case #3: Pure vandalism, but on looking at the talk page history there's more to this. It seems a website advertisement, and that's not a speedy. Andrewa 12:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- These idiots have popped up before, with the resulting creation of encyclopedia dramatica after we deleted an article on this moronic subject. Delete garbage, possibly as recreation of speedily deleted content which I can't find at the moment. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as vandalism or libel, pick one. Wyss 22:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Originally a vanity page, then vandalized into a personal attack. Either way it goes in the circular file. — Gwalla | Talk 02:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I think Cyrius' recollection is correct. I seem to recall this as well. Edeans 05:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete This seems to be a vandalism victim...--Urbanguy1 00:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Very not-notable -- I third Cyrius, I don't remember the original article title, but it claimed that the minor spat in question had "consumed LiveJournal" for the entire summer in which it occurred, and the VfD drew in a sizable number of "run-in" voters. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, victim of personal attack by vandalism. Mgm|(talk) 13:14, Feb 10, 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. Delete 10 / Keep 3 / Merge 3. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is obscure details of an anime series. Wikipedia is not a fan site. The same goes for all the articles contributed by user 68.200.81.62. --70.104.81.173 04:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree I think as long as they are not too long and complicated I think they should be okay. I am also the one contributating information and the occasional summaries to help User 68.200.81.62. I admit that that user needs to work on spelling and sentance grammer but other then that I like it. Heck I am also the one who created the knowledgeable summary for the Legendary Warriors and am also the one who helped make sure that Japanese Digimon Information was in the summaries. So in other words I have also been a major player in this as well. So my decsion is that you are taking this a little to far. Keep 24.20.153.45
- What links here (for Machinedramon): Digimon, Agumon, WarGreymon, MetalGreymon, Piedmon, Digimon: Digital Monsters (anime). 5050 web and 667 Usenet hits. Unless a merging swath is cut through Digimon characters, of which this seems to be an entirely notable one, keep. Samaritan 04:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per above but no oppostion to merging (in swathes, not individual articles). Kappa 06:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as it hold information on the show & the offical profile gaven about it by Bandai.
- Delete. The problem I have with all of these is that people like me who aren't interested in Digimon have no way to know which of the characters are notable without doing mind-numbing research on the subject, which none of us want to do. But the people who are interested in Digimon think that every last Digimon character is absolutely above the threshold of notability for inclusion in a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. It makes no sense to me that we have a notability test for the biographies of actual people, and we have no such test for Digimon (etc) characters. This undermines the Wikipedia in a major way. How many times have you read something like: "(fill in the blank) is definitely more notable than Machinedramon, and we do have an article on Machinedramon". Digimon/Pokemon characters (along with Star Trek episodes) are almost the paradigm example of things which ALMOST ANYTHING is more notable than. For this reason, my opinion is that no individual Digimon character is notable enough for a general encyclopedia and every single last one of these articles, including this one, should be deleted, transwikied to Wikimon (or something) or else merged into one or a few summary articles about Digimon. --BM 21:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 22:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree 100% with User:BM: we need some standards for notability of cartoon characters. — Gwalla | Talk 02:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Most of these Digimon articles resemble utter gibberish ("Drambuiemon is a mutant digimon who is derived from the Great Volovoron. His powers were granted by Drabblemon. He fights little pink newts. Attacks: Lice, Peanuts. He lifts in baby form.") and it's hard to tell which ones are notable. Indeed, it would be hard to know if there weren't someone generating hoax Digimon articles. (Pop quiz: Without checking, are you able to tell whether the example that I gave is a hoax?) As it is, these articles are fiction masquerading as fact. I've added {{cleanup-context}} to several as I have seen them added, in the hope that at least it would nudge the Digimon-Dumpers into checking their fiction, but that hasn't happened. And a look at how many dangling hyperlinks there still are in List of Digimon gives me a feeling of dread. Perhaps a Merge the lot, or failing that Delete, will get the message across. Uncle G 02:26, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
- Delete, fancruft, article as it stands is unencyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Uncle G's argument about the verifiability of the article. Rossami (talk) 05:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Grue 10:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. ugen64 16:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep(unsigned vote by an anon user, 68.200.81.62, therefore invalid)- Delete. Or let them create a new Wiki just for Digimon as BM has suggested above. -- RHaworth 22:56, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
- Keep. Not delete. At least merge it into one article if you're going to do that. ✏ OvenFresh² 02:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge with Digimon. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't like it, but Digimon are notable. Hordes of kids are obsessed about them. However, a seperate wiki or notability standards would really help. And I'd like to ask Pokemon fans to assist the Digimon people in formatting the pages into a more appealing look. They seem to have the taxobox thing down. Mgm|(talk) 13:19, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- That may be true, but nobody is proposing that Digimon be deleted. It seems a logical fallacy to conclude from the fact that Digimon is notable and merits an article that every single aspect of Digimon, including all the separate characters, is notable and merits its own article. Just because the Digimon company keeps churning out characters so that they can sell comic books, TV episodes, trading cards, and action figures, doesn't mean that Wikipedia needs an article on each one of them. --BM 14:07, 10 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Seems like a vanity article, the place doesn't even offer their own courses, they re-sell other college's courses. Spinboy 04:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It was created under inauspicious circumstances, at "Internatonal" Biblical Online Leadership Training (!), and I noticed it after the creator salted an entirely inappropriate wikilink at distance education. However, it checked out as legitimate and notable and I wrote out the adspeak and added what little I quickly picked up. They appear to offer not Vanguard courses, but their own courses for credit through Vanguard. The limited set, in Canada, of small quasi-universities that teach towards a larger uni's post-secondary degree are all absolutely notable. That it's new and, rarely for Canada, private, religious and distance learning makes it more notable. I'd like to dig again and take part in expanding this article over time. Keep. Samaritan 04:59, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Btw Spinboy, you added to the article that they are "for-profit". In the Canadian context, that would add even more notability, but I can't confirm it elsewhere. (.com means nothing, and "Inc." is a corporate title for non-profits too.) Samaritan 05:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. No evidence of notability, and it probably isn't. How many Vanguard graduates have these courses on their transcripts? For that matter, how notable is Vanguard? The fact that it is "for-profit" in Canada makes it exceptional, not notable. --BM 15:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- At the very least, the information should merge/redirect to Vanguard College, but at this moment that's one of the last post-secondary institutions in Canada that hasn't been created. Samaritan 17:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Then delete it, and re-direct it if that article is ever created. Spinboy 21:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- At the very least, the information should merge/redirect to Vanguard College, but at this moment that's one of the last post-secondary institutions in Canada that hasn't been created. Samaritan 17:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article provides no evidence of encyclopedic content and given that, it's an ad for some sort of hybrid religious correspondence course. Unhelpful. Wyss 22:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, article does not establish notability, advertisement. Megan1967 02:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Whether it is for-profit or not-for-profit makes no difference. It is blatantly an ad, and the company lacks any notability beyond the fact of it's existence. If they sold rice-crackers, would we be debating this? HowardB 09:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, spam. Edeans 05:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:29, 10 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 SPEEDY DELETE. jni 08:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nominated for speedy because Wikipedia is not a link repository. However this is not among the speedy criteria. -- Curps 05:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- *looks down* Oops, sorry; that was my bad. I guess I should stick to inclusionism, but delete. Samaritan 05:09, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted under CSd criterion #9. RickK 05:47, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 08:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Non-notable website. -- Curps 05:04, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- delete for advertising. Thryduulf 12:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. jni 16:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the blog ad. Wyss 22:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable enough, website advertisement. Megan1967 02:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:29, 10 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 already SPEEDY DELETED. jni 08:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This substub posted by an anon is a neologism, dictdef, nonnotable, etc. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete concur. RJFJR 05:41, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Already speedy deleted -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:29, 10 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Student newspaper, only one hit on Google using a search of ("The Spiced Olive" Davis). Delete.-gadfium 05:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 10:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Not notable. Inter 11:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Concur. jni 14:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, may not even have much local interest. Wyss 22:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable - 14 Google hits with only 1 relevant. Megan1967
- Don't Delete, link is given to website- paper is funny and enjoyable by people that read it online, simply because it is written by highschool students with some local jokes is no grounds for deletion if non-locals can enjoy it TheCrudMan 14:41, 6 Feb 2005
- One reason for deletion is we have no evidence that significant numbers of people read it, either online or off. Kappa 03:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. Above vote is that user's only edit, BTW. - Lucky 6.9 02:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:29, 10 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Vanity, though probably more of an attack ad. RickK 05:41, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- RHaworth 06:08, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
- Delete. Listed for speedy twice after he removed it the first time.. no redeeming conent at all. -Goldom 06:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I reverted the "attack" portion, as it was entered by a different anon than the article's creator. Even so, as Goldom says, the original is vanity without redeeming content. SWAdair | Talk 11:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, Obvious vanity. Inter 11:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable enough yet. Thue | talk 21:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme Delete then, as blatant vanity. Wyss 21:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. ComCat.
- Obviously the person "Bradley Field" doesn't merit an article, but someone might search for that phrase, looking for information on Bradley International Airport. I used to live near there and often heard it called "Bradley Field." Anyone object to a redirect? JamesMLane 07:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:30, 10 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.