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. Accordingly, the article will be kept, though may be merged and redirected according to editorial needs. Postdlf 21:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Pet theory

Non-encyclopedic. TigerShark 00:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not NPOV, and a dicdef besides. -- 8^D ^gab 01:31, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Delete. no aditional meaning other than pet + theory. Mikkalai 04:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep real term. Could be expanded by adding examples. Grue 17:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Yes, it's a real term. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Before you can make a term into an enclopedia entry, you have to say something about it that goes beyond a simple definition. The anonymous author of this article tried to do that, but didn't manage to get beyond some vague generalities. Perhaps we should process it for improvement rather than deletion, but I don't see anybody taking ownership of it for that purpose. Isaac R 20:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. -- TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Right now it's merely a definition and a stub, but it has room to expand using examples, etc. This is how many articles start, just give them time. -- Aranae 01:01, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree that it's a stub --- it's too vague and subjective. There's nothing here for anybody to expand upon. Which is why nobody's made any changes (except for a copy edit) in the 18 months since the article was created. -- Isaac R 01:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to theory. R adiant _* 13:56, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of merging with theory, but I'm not sure it could be done smoothly. In time that article will need to be split and this may be a later split. If anyone can merge with theory and make it work, then I'd change my vote to merge. -- Aranae 17:46, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Pet theory isn't about theories as such. It's about the psychology of people who have a personal stake in particular theory. Maybe you could make a case for merging Pet theory with one of the Objectivity articles, but even that's a bit of a stretch. There's a better fit in the ideas of Thomas Kuhn, but since the ideas don't seem to be consciously based on Kuhn, you can't merge it in there, either. --- Isaac R 18:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I apologies for rambling on, but writing the previous paragraph made me realize that Pet theory breaks another Wikipedia rule: No original research. The author is making wholly original observations about the psychology of inobjectivy. It might seem strange to penalize the author for thinking his own thoughts, but that's not the kind of thing you put in an encylopedia. --- Isaac R 18:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Real phrase in real use, but no potential to become encyclopedic as it can never be more than a dicdef. The portions of this article that go beyond being a dicdef are, as Isaac R pointed out, original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep please let the stub expand Yuckfoo 06:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or at the very least remove to wikidictionary. -- maru 00:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a phenomenon more than a definition. Potential for expansion to explain such things as researchers who include content in lectures that they never submit for peer review in publication form, colloquial usage of the term in the press and online, and how the term has perjorative impact when applied to any proposal. Tobycat 02:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Though it's not much at the moment, it has potential for encyclopedic merit. Josh 04:15, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-enciclopedical, NPOV, original research.
• Keep. Perfectly good wiki material. I can think of a few examples where some scientist's pet theory made a notable episode in the history of science. Usually such pet theories are wrong, but sometimes they are right. Consider Dick Feynman's pet theory about room at the bottom, or even Kelvin's pet theory of the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight. I'll put some examples in when I get a minute. Robinh 12:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It may be good wiki material. The question is, is it good Wikipedia material? This is a reference, not a soapbox. --- Isaac R 15:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Xezbeth 18:31, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Judeofascism

Neologism of utterly minor use (fewer than 60 non-dictionary, non-Wikipedia hits) -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge what little in here is NPOV and non-repetitive into Zionism. Nothing in the article suggests another application of the term. -- 8^D ^gab 01:24, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Merge, delete, no redirect. Neologism. Mikkalai 01:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The problem with breaking out sections from List of political epithets is, the articles encourage the ranters and loonies and bigots to carve out their own little POV forks. (Just look at how Islamofascism is turning into an even more biased take on Islamism.) Merge this article back to list of political epithets, or else move it to "Zionazism", which is a more common slur with very similar intent and meaning. — Charles  P.  ^(Mirv) 01:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Forget the move. A separate article under either title would be inherently POV and would probably attract original theses about the Revisionists' admiration for fascism, the Elon Plan and Lebensraum, and so forth. Merging back to list of political epithets is the only way to handle this. — Charles  P.  ^(Mirv) 13:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable racist neologism. Only 153 google hits. I might add this is really all part of User:Islamist atempt to clobber Islamofascism. He creates an objectionable article for the bogus neologism Judeofascism and then claims that the article on Islamofascism, a real word with 62,500 hits, must share the same fate (Merge and Protect/Deletion) as his obvious VfD fodder. This level of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty would make Noam Chomsky proud. I am somewhat saddened that VfD is being manipulated, for bad ends. Klonimus 02:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • But this includes mention in the mainstream antiwar.com. I see no harm in a redirect in case someone reads it on that site and decides to look it up. El_C 04:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • 153 google hits is non notable. 129.10.244.130 23:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 02:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this shit. Neutrality ^talk 03:25, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Negative, redirect to list of political epithets and permanently protect. El_C 03:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with El C: redirect/protect. Samaritan 05:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Zionism. Megan1967 05:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Vladko 14:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zionism. A noble attempt to counteract and highlight anti-Arab, pro-Israeli bias, but our policy says Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, so it has to go. — Helpful Dave 15:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Such a redirect would be inherantly POV. But I'm sure you knew that. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't find that comment very Helpful Dave. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The redirect is pejorative since it implies, that Judeofascism is a synonym for Zionism. Klonimus 07:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Either Delete or Redirect to List of political epithets. Firebug 17:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:POINT that gets almost no Google hits. If delete fails, the Re-direct to list of political epithets. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - aside from the fact that the term begs the question, it doesn't even make any sense. -- Leifern 02:28, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Delete. It is imaginable the term is used by someone (I'd need to see citations) and hence there could be a topic here. However, in the present article, it is just a nasty synonym for Zionism, and no citations are given for anyone using this nasty synonym. There is absolutely no value in keeping this. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • A decent case can be made for remving it on the list of epithets, since 153 hits aint very notable. Klonimus 07:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lack of notability. *Merge and redirect to List of political epithets. -- Viriditas | Talk 07:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to List of political epithets, and probbly protect the redirect. Delete I am not even sure this is a real epithe, and seems to be a violation of WP:POINT Dalf | Talk 05:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this junk term, it is a Term of disparagement and is on the political epithets list where it belongs only. See: List of political epithets#Judeofascism. IZAK 05:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. If people can show legitimate mainstream citations by notable commentators, I'll change my vote, as per Islamofascism. Meelar (talk) 05:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For the reasons IZAK listed. -- Goodoldpolonius2 05:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of political epithets, again. - Mustafaa 06:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect to List of political epithets#Judeofascism. ← Humus sapiens← Talk 07:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is WP:POINT, attempting to create a parallel with Islamofascism. It's POV, bad-faith editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of political epithets and permanently delete the POV commentary of this article, which is nothing more than an opinion piece, masquerading as an encyclopedia entry. NOTE: Clean up the definition at List of political epithets#Judeofascism! (In brief reference to that entry, I don't find Zionazism to be either derogatory or offensive...I find it, instead, to be an undeniable indication that people who hate Jews are (1) stupid beyond belief, as confirmed by the fact that they (2) don't take the time to learn how to says "Zionism"...) This term is emotionally charged, not only for me, as a Jew, but for pretty much all Jews for whom I'm not permitted to speak as well as for all peoples who have suffered under real fascism...I refer, of course, to the Republicans under Francisco Franco and the opposition under Benito Mussolini. If "Judeofascism" does exist, it is not exemplified in the policies of the state of Israel, nor is it condoned by any Jewish leadership of which I'm aware. That said, I fall back on the Wikipedia definition of Fascism:
  • exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual
  • uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition
  • engages in severe economic and social regimentation
  • engages in corporatism [1] ( http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=219369)
  • implements totalitarianism

Let me review these points one at a time:

(1) "exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual": The Jewish nation is exalted above others only in the fanatical imagination of Jew-haters who incorrectly assume that the claim of "chosen-ness" indicates a claim of superiority. Such a claim has never been made by any Jewish scholar (and Jewhaters everywhere, despite their ignorance and unmitigated stupidity, will immediately admit the preponderance of scholars among Jews...), nor is there anything in mainstream Jewish literature to indicate that the notion of chosen-ness has anything to do with national or "racial" superiority. Second point in this vein, only non-Jews would ever be so ignorant or foolish (or almost inconceivably idiotic) as to assert that there is anything even remotely "racial" about being Jewish.

(2) "uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition": While this may be characteristic of the current government of Israel, its forcible suppression of political opposition by "violen[t] and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship" is employed exclusively against Jews who oppose its policies. For the naysayers in the crowd, let me make clear: Fascism suppresses discontent from within. Oppression of the putative Palestian "national" dissent is irrelevant in this context, and takes on the same status (perhaps, although only in the grossest misinterpretation of international law) as Kurdish dissent in Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran. ... I can't help noticing however, that there are no articles on Syrian fascism, Turkish fascism, Iraqi fascism, Armenian fascism, Azerbaijani fascism or Iranian fascism--articles for which, in every case, there is much greater encyclopedic foundation. This leads me to the almost inescapable conclusion that whoever created this article holds Israel and Jews to impossibly higher moral and legal standards than those to which they hold Christians and Muslims, indeed, that they are trying to prey upon an obscene sort of lexical intellectual dishonesty in order to spread their own personal views and hatred against Jews beyond the limited scope to which they are presently privy.

(3) "engages in severe economic and social regimentation": Nothing about Jews as a whole, nor about Judaism as a religion, lifestyle or worldview, nor even about Jewish predominance in Israel (which I assume is the source of the major gripe of the miniminded person who created this article) can even remotely be described as fomenting, supporting or promoting "severe economic and social regimentation". Judaism as a religion tirelessly condemns social stratification, on whatever basis. Israel is the only country that is even remotely democratic (with the marginal exception of Turkey) in not only the Middle East, but throughout what the Muslims like to think of nostalgically (and through the perpetuation of historical ignorance) as "darussalam". In any case, the perception among so many Jewhaters that Jews are "rich" and that it's as a result of "Jewish greed", let me spell it out for you: YOU ARE WRONG. While perhaps prominent Jews are rich, or while more rich people are Jews than non-Jews, the vast majority of Jews are, like me, POVERTY STRICKEN, depending on the charity of the so-called "rich Jews" to get by from day to day. Also, if you study charitable donations, you'll find that Jews are far more generous in their donations, as a proportion of the population, than non-Jews, not only to Jewish charities, but (sometimes to the gross detriment of Jewish-oriented charitable organizations) to non-Jewish charities. Let me be as POV about this as possible: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

(4) "engages in corporatism": The only portions of the Jewish population with any power to do so that could ever be accused of "engaging in corporatism" are the socialists who founded the kibutzim...and the extent of their interests in engaging in such corporatism were limited to their individual kibutzim. That said, a number of Jews, some of them quite noteworthy or even famous, have wished to do such things on a grand scale...but they have done so not as Jews, but as socialists who happened to be Jews. With such a tenuous relationship, I fail to see how the article can stand on supposed merits all its own without the existence of articles on Sinofascism, Russofascism, Germofascism, Francofascism, Norgefascism, Danofascism, Svecofascism, Spanofascism, Italofascism, Wallacofascism, Bulgarofascism, Magyarifascism, Czechofascism, and any number of other -fascisms.

(5)"implements totalitarianism": This is almost ludicrous. Anyone who knows anything about the situation in Israel, beyond the unceasing propaganda spewed by CNN and the ISM and their ilk, knows that the only totalitarianism implemented by Jews, is in Israel, and there, it is implemented against Jews. This is, of course, the one point on which Judeofascism has a leg to stand as a legitimate term...but ironically, the people who like to fondle the term like a starving kitten in need of attention think it means totalitarianism against non-Jews...which is the exact opposite of what is required to give the term "Judeofascism" any legitimate currency. Small minds, of course, are wont to latch onto any small crust of legitimacy, no matter how moldy, in this case, their arguements are truly rotten—displaying in full view that their actual agenda is Jewhatred, not any legitimate gripe against Jews...and in so doing, they undermine every legitimate criticism of Israel and Israeli policy wrt the so-called "Palestinians".

That said, I think someone should nominate Islamofascism for deletion as well, a debate into which I'll happily insert my 2 agorot.

Tomer ^TALK 07:31, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable neologism. -- Mrfixter 11:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism created exclusively to counter Islamofascism. Tone of page is POV.-- Briangotts 15:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, and we should be careful about having artilces on ethnic slurs that are themselves slurs. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. No evidence provided of significant real use. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete this if you will Yuckfoo 06:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to list of political epithets -- AladdinSE 09:16, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• delete with no-redirect Where does this end? Islamofascism -Christofascism -Anglofascism -Eurofascism -liberalfascism -Wikifascism -Francofascism - .... ?? -- Doc Glasgow 19:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable neologism - Redirect to List of political epithets and Protect, as El C suggested - prevents the page from being recreated, so we avoid the Jewish ethnocentrism debacle from replaying itself. (Better yet, delete List of political epithets, List of ethnic slurs and a dozen other inherently offensive articles). Guettarda 20:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ejrrjs | What? 23:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a really stupid and misleading neologism. Wikipedia does not exist to establish counterpoints that are not widely represented in the real world. — Sesel wa 23:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism, minor use. ObsidianOrder 03:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Term invented here. Pavel Vozenilek 02:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Deeply bogus, pseudo-poli-sci rhetorical arrow. BrandonYusufToropov 15:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Term invented for Wikipedia probably Chunkyhoyo 12:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  User:Chunkyhoyo is a sockpuppet, just compare his user page to that of User:UDoN't!wAn* He has just committed acts of vandalism on a number of articles. -- Chammy Koala 13:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Xezbeth 06:41, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sandhill Farm

This is pretty much a vanity piece. A more interesting read than most vanity pieces, but says nothing to justify Sandhill Farm's importance to the wider world. Isaac R 00:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 05:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, and no real potential or use. Tho' it certainly does sound nice. -- maru 00:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, not notable, promotional Tobycat 02:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, Promotional. An argument could be made that any commune is notable especially at this point in history but it would be a weak one. Falerin 19:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, HUGELY POV. "we grow our food". And this line, "Extra hands are appreciated during our growing season, especially the sorghum harvest", makes it sound like an ad/promo. Delete I say! Delete! Master Thief Garrett 22:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE, which has already been implemented by User:Phils. Postdlf 21:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Espace du montage

:withdrawn since someone wants to give it two weeks on the translation page In French, it's an interview, not an encyclopedia article, and probably copyvio. Kappa 00:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 05:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with everything Kappa said. Mgm| ^(talk) 10:13, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for now Delete; it's kind of the same problem as with ARCHILAB (and in the same style); I can not establish noticeability. BTW, it's not only an interview, but also about film(s) concerning architecture. Leave it on the translation into english page for 2 weeks, then we can vfd it Lectonar 10:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Keep and withdraw my nomination since you want it left on the translation page. Kappa 22:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This material is not relevant. Before looking here, I was about to remove it from the translation page, and I think appropriately so. If someone want's to write an article on this topic, fine, but there is no point to using this French-language probable copyvio as a basis. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - translated it, but it is a mishmash of different pieces of information with no apparent theme, and the title not explained. Couldn't find copyvio on the internet, but part of it suggests it may be from a magazine or something. (The director "explains to us...") Saintswithin 11:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Translation doesn't help; it's not clear what the point of it is. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 12:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Saintswithin. Avocado 22:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Moncrief 05:42, Apr 21, 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. — Xezbeth 18:33, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Copying

Dictionary definition. TigerShark 00:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep & Expand. Copying has a particular significance in intellectual property law, where a number of cases have refined the question of what exactly constitutes the kind of copying prohibited by law. Just dropped that in this article, too. -- 8^D ^gab 01:19, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Keep, good point BD2412. Kappa 06:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Short, but longer than the first like dic def. Also possible to expand. Mgm| ^(talk) 10:14, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done BD 2412. Appears to have potential for expansion on significant cases in intellectual property law. Capitalistroadster 02:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but consider merging to copyright - or setting up a disambig. R adiant _* 13:57, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - needs heavy expansion if to be kept. -- maru 00:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; consider a merge of the IP issues involed to copyright. Josh 04:19, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering exactly such a merger - will get to it in about a week. -- 8^D ^gab 21:33, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

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

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

• 14:06, 23 Apr 2005 Taxman deleted "Googolplexian" (consensus delete per VFD)

-- Death phoenix 18:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Googolplexian

• A Wikipedia neologism. Georgia guy 00:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Its claim, copied from the web site, that this is the "largest number with a name" is, further, false; as transfinite number, which names several larger numbers, explains. There is no evidence that this word is in use by anything other than the referenced web sites, a bunch of submit-your-own-article web sites such as here and Urban Dictionary, and a bunch of "Oh look at what daftness the web has come up with this week!" sites. It has zero Google Groups hits as a mathematical term. Even if it were a mathematical term, it is so contrived that it would belong in list of numbers rather than merit its own article. Delete. Uncle G 01:38, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Delete. What Uncle G said. I was going to list this myself, but thought I would wait for a response on the talk page. This will do fine though. - Taxman 03:08, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• delete. neologism. and false claim, too. I say kilogoogolplexian is 100 times larger. Mikkalai 04:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Being a neologism is not fatal. But having no usage beyond a few enthusiasts is. And yeah, there is no "biggest number with a name". Still, if it were a popular folk believe that "Googleplexian is the largest number with a name" then it would rate an entry on that basis. Alas, that's not the case! Isaac R 20:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT, it's not even the largest googol derived named number. (discounting kilogoogolplexian... googolplexplex is the same as the proclaimed googolplexian, but with more hits) 132.205.15.43 22:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, there probably is not largest number with a name, since you can keep combining the methodolgies to create larger ones, but Graham's number is (from the article) often described as the largest number that has ever been seriously used in a mathematical proof. - Taxman 19:43, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a real word. Not in dictionaries. Not in real use. Name invented for the purpose of record-breaking. But insufficiently researched, as this is the same thing as "googolduplex," which is another phony word. And smaller than a googoltriplex, which is of course one followed by a googolduplex of zeroes. 'Nobody uses these. Scientists and physicists use exponential notation and metrix prefixes, and never need anything larger than about 10⁷⁰ or so. Mathematicians use various mathematical notations. These names are nerd games. They don't catch on because they serve no real purpose other than the vanity of those who create them. And this is not just floccinaucinihilipilification on my part. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It's not even very large compared to other ways of defining ridiculously large numbers such as Steinhaus-Moser notation. So I wouldn't say nobody uses these, these notations and concepts are studied by a few, but certainly not by the name of this article. - Taxman 19:32, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism, and not in popular use. The claims of "largest named number" are certainly false and imply that the number really has no purpose other than to be invented to be big. Josh 04:23, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as false infromation, silly neologism and mathcruft. (I just always wanted to say mathcruft to go along with fancruft and etc.) DreamGuy 09:45, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, made up, someone had too much time on their hands, etc. etc. as above. Master Thief Garrett 22:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. — Xezbeth 18:35, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Division No. 1, Subd. O, Newfoundland and Labrador

Non-notable. TigerShark 00:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep If we are going to have an article on every place in the U.S., I don't see why not in Canada. This is an unorganized census area. This place does exist, see here: [1] -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes it may exist but, according to the article, the population is 687. I'm not sure that's enough, in its own right, to make it notable. Do you know if there are any other facts that might increase it's notability? Cheers. TigerShark 02:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • A place's population does not make it notable or non-notable. In fact, we have a whole page dedicated to places with less than 10 people. See List of places with fewer than ten people. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes Earl. I didn't say that it made it non-notable (I'm not sure that anything can be made non-notable anyway, rather it is non-notable due to a lack of anything to make it notable). I just said that it didn't make it notable on the basis of population. That is why I asked if there was anything else that might make it notable. Also, I would suggest that high population could in itself make a location notable (although a location with a high population would almost certainly have something else to make it notable). Cheers. TigerShark 10:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Spinboy 02:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. EA is right, D1SO rates as important as most of the geographic entries we already have. But be fair -- TigerShark isn't being US-centric. D1SO sounds unimportant, because it doesn't have a name. Isaac R 02:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agreeing with Isaac R - IIRC a very important city in Soviet Russia didn't have a name, just a zip code. KickAir8P~ 02:31, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• This is like Sherwood No. 159, Saskatchewan, which I expanded out of a substub during its vfd a few months ago. Some weird naming conventions make real localities, at the right level of granularity, seem less important than they really are. Keep real places. Samaritan 02:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep real places, except for the occasional shed in someone's garden. Kappa 03:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but forget intentional sheds as well. Mikkalai 04:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all real places. Rick K 07:18, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep all real places" goes without saying. But determining what's a real place takes a little thought. "Division No. 1, Subdivision O" sounds like some arbitrary mapmakers thing, but turns out to be a real place. Sandhill Farm sounds like a real place, but is just a name 5 people gave to the farm they live on.
• Keep all real places. Including notable sheds.-- Gene_poole 00:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep real places listed in census data. Potential for expansion in terms of history of district and community of interest. Capitalistroadster 02:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE, which will be implemented pending resolution of block compression errors. Postdlf 21:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Daniel Wright

• Delete This is clearly a vanity page for a non-notable person. -- H. CHENEY 00:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable. Mikkalai 04:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 1.5% of the vote for a minor municipal post and no other claim to notability... Delete. Samaritan 06:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• People who lost the vote in minor positions aren't notable. Mgm| ^(talk) 10:16, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Oops, that would be a delete. Mgm| ^(talk) 10:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as disambiguation page. sjorford →•← 10:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Central

Unencyclopaedic, just a list of links elsewhere. ThomasWinwood 01:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• ... as most disambiguation articles are. This is a very badly written disambiguation article. I've given it a once over. There do appear to be various places and things commonly named "Central", and there thus appears to be a need for a disambiguation article. Keep. Uncle G 01:57, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Keep as useful disambig page. FreplySpang (talk) 01:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, noting that encyclopedias are more useful when they are navigable. Kappa 03:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of things to point to. -- 8^D ^gab 03:22, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Keep, useful dab page. Megan1967 05:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful as pointed out by others. Mgm| ^(talk) 10:18, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What WP:NOT refers to is lists of external links. I've improved it a little more. Chris talk back 21:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, WP:ALSONOT lists of internal links. Nevertheless, keep as valid disambig. R adiant _* 13:59, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. But Uncle G is very right, this article needs work. Mainly because it contains a lot of links (and non-link references) that should not be on a disambiguation page. --- Isaac R 03:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Myles Long 14:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 16:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Islamofascism

Votes

Neologism just like Judeofascism. They should be treated equally. -- Islamist 01:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• obvious Keep, 62,000 Google hits. Gazpacho 01:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually there are only 621 unique hits. The rest is google ghosts. Try to list until the last page of search results. Mikkalai 01:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: You are not the first person to misunderstand this figure. The figure of 621 is the number out of the 1000 best matching pages that Google considers to be distinct, not the number out of all 62,000 matches. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Not scientific I know but I have never heard the term Judeofascism but have heard Islamofascism many times. I doubt the former is a term at all. UDoN't!wAn* 23:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete or wiktionary. Neologism. Political slander of dubious merit under the notion. Probably original research: no authoritative sources with academic discourse of the term are provided. Mikkalai 01:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe no academic discourse, but the term (or the closely related "Islamic totalitarianism") has appeared in, e.g., an influential New Republic column entitled "Towards A New Liberalism", by Peter Beinart and this George Will column. Here it's cited by Andrew Sullivan in an interview. It's also used commonly on Free Republic and sites of that ilk. I think it's a legitimate political slogan, and we could have an article on it. keep. Meelar (talk) 01:36, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Dont forget the influential blog Little Green Footballs, which has done alot to popularise the term. Klonimus 863 hits for Islamofascism 01:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme Keep Islamist has been involved in snarky POV edits/vandalism of this page. He keeps removing wikiformating and link descriptions from the related links section. User:Islamism is trying to clobber Islamofascism, since he objects to the term. He creates an objectionable article for the bogus neologism Judeofascism (153 hits) and then claims that the article on Islamofascism, a real word with 62,500 hits, must share the same fate (Merge and Protect/Deletion) as his obvious VfD fodder since the two words have a similar construction. There is a big difference between a term with 62,500 hits and one with 153 hits. There is a difference between a term which is used noted authors in influential publications vs a neologism tossed about on antiwar.com. This is pure bad faith VfD.
  

This article got split out of the list of political epithets because because the section gradually grew in size to the scope of an article. The term islamofascism may have once been an epithet, but over time it has evolved into a word describing the concept of violent totalitiarian islamism. As a notable word/concept it deserves its own comprehensive and NPOV article. If the final decision is to redirect, I urge that it not be protected, because Islamofascism will once again grow big enough and notable enough to be split out, again. Sealing the redirect will prevent tender love and organic growth
The term islamofascism gets 62,500 hits on Google compared to 153 hits for Judeofascism. The ratio is 85,100/73 on Yahoo! Search. Islamofascism has become a fairly common term since 9/11. Klonimus 23:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • This was written after Mikkalai's comment: "Actually there are only 621 unique hits. The rest is google ghosts." Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Example citiations are provided below :

• • "This was significant not only in facing down the twin evil ideologies of the 20th century, communism and Nazism. This is also essential to confronting the evil ideology of our time, Islamofascism. " Brendan Miniter on WSJ Editorial Page
  • " Correct me if I’m wrong, but surely the 9/11 hijackers were equipped with nothing more sophisticated than airline tickets, boxcutters and an unhealthy dose of Islamofascism." Be afraid in your armchair Sean O'Neill writing in the Times Online (UK) April 20, 2005
  • The Islamofascist Agenda by Deroy Murdock in National Review
  • A9.com query showing that the term "Islamofascism" appears in published books
• "Islamofacism" gets another 4,130 Google hits (or 483 if you subscribe to the "Google ghost" idea). Islamofascist gets another 67,200 (709 if you don't want the "ghosts"), and Islamofacist another 877 (577 de-ghosted). It seems to get sufficient hits to include as a term in common use. Keep Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Dumbya gets 23,000 Google hits [2], yet it is a redirect, not its own article. -- Blackcats 07:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• An interesting dilemma, given that I already voted to redirect Judeofascism to Zionism... but that was because the description for Judeofascicm was essentially the same as the negative connotation attributed to Zionism. I'd suggest a redirect for this also if there were an appropriate topic to redirect to, but what would it be? Islamic fundamentalism? Problematic, as that could be used to describe those who simply ascribe non-politically to deeply held religous beliefs. The term is in use in popular culture, and has a meaning unique from any article to which it might be redirected, therefore I must vote keep, but with the admonishment that the article should acknowledge that this is an inherently POV term invented by persons with beliefs that are probably generally hostile to Islam. -- 8^D ^gab 03:17, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of political epithets and permanently protect. Neutrality ^talk 03:21, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • • The reason this article was taken out of list of political epithets was that its entry had grown out much longer than the typical single paragraph list entry. As is the article is about four paragraphs long with an extensive list of outbound links. As is the article needs some serious work to make it more encyclopedic, but thats what tender love and organic growth are for. Klonimus 03:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, redirect. An article on fascistic tendencies in both Islam and Judaism cannot have such a title so long as its use —among politicans, scholars, judges, journalists, etc.— remains limited as an epithet. El_C 03:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I think there is good evidence that this term has grown out from being a mere epithet. it's mentioned in books, editorial pages and government officials. Klonimus 03:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • So, where is this evidence? Note that if they depict it as "Islamofascism", than that denotes it being an epithet rather than a construct. E.g. "Christopher Hitchens, for example, describes Islamic extremism as “Islamofascism” and strongly favored Operation Iraqi Freedom." Source: D.D. Walton, "The West and Its Antagonists: Culture, Globalization, and the War on Terrorism," Comparative Strategy, July/August/September 2004, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 303-312(10). El_C 04:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Au contraire, we have many articles on epithets. See e.g. nigger. Meelar (talk) 20:28, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, redirect. It's an epithet. As George Orwell said in 1948, the word Fascism itself has been so commonly overused that now it merely means "something bad". Tempshill 20:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect nobs
• Redirect to list of political epithets, until such time as this concept develops into something more than just an epithet. The article must be proportional to the thing. Has only appeared in two books before 2004. [3] -- bainer 05:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I understand why you might think that Islamofascism is a mere pejorative epithet; The term itself has a pejorative connotation. However it is a very common concept in neoconservative circles, and since neoconservativsm is a notable political ideology, it's common concepts are also notable. May I suggest looking at.
    • Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Anti-globalization_and_Anti-Semitism for some good arguments about being merged into a list vs being split out. Islamofascism is young article (having just been recently split out) , but I think that with tender love and organic growth it will stand on its own very soon. I might add that I have proposed an outline for this article in Talk:Islamofascism Klonimus 06:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable on Google. Megan1967 05:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redirect. I agree that Islamist ( talk · contribs) has behaved badly regarding this (blanking the article and making it a redirect), and has been pushing a very clear PoV in a number of related articles — but that's irrelevant. This article, the one on Judeofascism, and any other of the same kind, are simply ill-disguised attacks on racial or religious groups; they invent a term and a concept to go with it, and then use it to smear those groups. The claim by Meelar that it should be kept because some right-wing writers have written about 'Islamic totalitarianism' fails if only because it confuses totalitarianism with fascism. Klonimus' contention that the notion is encyclopædic because it's used in U.S. neo-conservative circles is equally unconvincing. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Finally, a voice of reason. El_C 11:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) His comment, that is, not his vote. The epithet is clearly notable enough to be redirected to list of political epithets. Please reconsider your vote, Mel. El_C 11:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, OK — though I'm inclined to say that if it's just the term that's notable, it should be moved to Wiktionary. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 12:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks. It's a valid concern, but it's important, I think, for Wikipedia to verify to the reader that it is (still) an epithet. El_C 13:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Sorry, I did the same thing as Islamist, because I misread the page, not realizing it was on VfD. Islamofascism should do whatever Slogan 'Islamofascism' does, and since it's a redirect, it should be a redirect too. If this is not made into a redirect, it should at the very least be moved to Slogan 'Islamofascism' instead of its current localtion. LDan 23:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually you did not mis-read it when you got there it had been vandalized which included removing the VfD template. Dalf | Talk 00:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be widely used with a fairly well defined meaning and the article is of sufficient size and quality to be kept, rather than merged. TigerShark 10:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm torn on this. On one hand, this concept does appear to be fairly notable - the term has been used by many prominent right-wing commentators in the United States. On the other hand, I see no effective way to prevent this article from becoming a POV playground. Currently the article has some serious NPOV issues, which I am going to attempt to rectify. Firebug 11:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a way: Neutrality, bainer, and myself are voting redirect/protect. El_C 12:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)\
    • I'll go along with that. Change vote to redirect and protect. Firebug 17:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Voting to redirect implies that the subject is non notable. 62.5 Kilogoogles is pretty darn notable. Klonimus 15:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Support Neutrality's solution. Agree with El C. It's what wingnuts call it, not what it is. You could sum up all there is to say about it in two sentences. Lists of who have used it are particularly ridiculous but I look forward to the same idea being applied to cunt. Grace Note 12:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If only I could be so concise, I would be far less longwinded. True, every word, down to the final (and inexorably most decisive) note. El_C 13:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge back to list of political epithets. Keeping it as a separate article legitimizes it and encourages the POV pushers (witness Klonimus's edits and proposed outline on the talk page). This is purely an epithet, and the only way to make sure it is treated as just an epithet is to merge it back into the list. Protect the redirect only if necessary. — Charles  P.  ^(Mirv) 12:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree, The concept of Islamic Fascism gets 704 kilogoogles, this suggests that the term is notable as a concept more than an epithet. And anyways the extant article is too long and encyclopedic for it to be a mere list entry. Klonimus 15:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "Dubya" gets over a million hits. It's still an epithet. — Charles  P.  ^(Mirv) 16:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Send it back to the fire from which it came. Okay, I've had my moment. El_C 13:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to list of political epithets. This is an epithet, not a well defined concept. 80.203.115.12 15:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, well beloved-epithet of newspaper columnists everywhere. Slac speak up! 00:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect, very redundant article and an offensive slur. See talk page of the article for further discussion.Yuber 00:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't agree that it's the same as "Judeofascism," but it's still meaningless. "Fascism" as it's commonly applied is a deliberately vague term, and there's no natural link between Islam and fascism. -- Leifern 02:34, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Merge back into List of political epithets and Redirect. I am not opposed to epithets having their own articles, someone above mentioned nigger, but in this case even if the term does see some amount of use in terms of google I do not see it as a significant term historically or in any other context. Some time down the road I think revisiting the issue of it having its own article is a good idea but for now redirect it back. Dalf | Talk 05:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep and delist; this appears to be a bad-faith nomination. Islamofascism gets 63000 hits, Judeofascism gets 150. Do the math. — RaD Man ( talk) 05:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge back into List of political epithets and Redirect. This is an epithet, not an encyclopedic topic. An encyclopedic article might conceivably be written about the history of the word's usage, but I very much doubt it. - Mustafaa 06:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of political epithets. -- Viriditas | Talk 07:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important political term for an important political concept. Capitalistroadster 02:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to an article named something along the lines of Islamic Theocratic Intolerance. I am on the border here. There is an obscene amount of historical evidence to give legitimacy to this term, c.f. the definitions of "fascism" at Fascism. Through every period of history since the historical (a term I use in an attempt at compromising deference to the Muslims who insist that Islam goes back to the creation of the World) inception of Islam, i.e., the time of the Prophet, pbuh, every characteristic of fascism has, at one time or another, characterized the majority interpretation of the Prophet's teachings. That said, however, in every Muslim realm where shari`a has not held political supremacy, the same characteristics have been, without a single exception of which I'm aware, absent from Muslim rule. So, the facts seem to me to indicate that there exists Islamofascism on the theocratic level, but not on the Islamosecular level, and so it seems to me that the term Islamofascism is too all-encompassing. It makes it sound as though all Muslims are fascists, which is simply not the case. From what I am preached by my Muslim friends, the teachings of the Prophet, pbuh, are also non-Fascist. I don't think the Wikipedia should play the role of inventing or supporting politically or emotionally charged appellations. It is my observation, that the term Islamofascism is used primarily by right-wing pro-Israel American Christians (NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT, to quote Jerry Seinfeld) more than by anyone else, to describe the exact phenomenon which I'm describing...but that doesn't mean that the term is exact or definitive. That point should be made VERY CLEAR in the prélude to the article as renamed according to my proposal. I hope people will consider my input carefully, and change their votes accordingly if they agree. We can take up a vote on an appropriate name afterwards, if need be. Tomer ^TALK 08:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my "redirect" vote. It is not a genuine "redirect", it is a keep, but rename. "Islamofascism" should be a redirect to something, I don't know what, perhaps Intolerance in Islam, as it is a subject about which voluminous amounts have been written. My opposition is to using what is really an epithet as the name for an article, especially when it denigrates people by association. I registered this same opinion in the discussion at Arab anti-Semitism. I'm saying keep the content, redirect Islamofascism to a renamed article, one which would ultimately be a better home (or lead article) for most of the content of Islam and anti-Semitism as well. Tomer ^TALK 11:15, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is borderline, and I was initially inclined to vote delete for the reasons stated above by Mel Etitis and El C. However, this term is starting to be used by reputable journalists on both the left and right. A quote here from Nick Cohen of The Observer during a debate last year:

Far too many people on the Left are inclined to make excuses for Islamic fundamentalism. They accept its misogyny so long as it doesn’t target Western women. They accept its fascism so long as it is anti-American fascism. We now have a Stop the War coalition led by Islamic fascists and Marxist-Leninists, and much of the Left is silent about it. Acknowledging the horrors of Islamic fundamentalism would sully their consciences, which they want to keep clean for the battle against America ... Much of the Stop the War coalition now actually supports a fascist resistance movement and ignores their Iraqi comrades entirely. You have to look back to the Hitler-Stalin pact for a historical parallel. The concept of fascism is being lost. It’s something you hear about on the history channels. But Islamic fascism is still fascism ... Islamofascism has been ripping through the Arab world, often supported by America, and it should be the Left’s worst nightmare. [4] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:14, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This is a term of widespread use, regardless of whether one believes it is valid or not. the tone of the article is NPOV. -- Briangotts 16:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As an added note, it is intellectually dishonest for Islamist to create a bogus Judeofascism article, solely for the purpose of demanding this article's deletion. Briangotts

• Delete, or Merge and Redirect to list of political epithets -- AladdinSE 09:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• keep' this probably it seems to be in pop use Yuckfoo 06:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Hesitant redirect: I confess to being the person who seeded the current incarnation of the article by farming it out from List of political epithets, and I am not happy with what has happened to the article since. Reason for farming out the content: the Islamofascism entry outgrew its section at that page, and it attracted a large proportion of the comments on the talk page (about 1/3 by my estimate): some other editors of that page also wanted to see the section farmed out. If we could keep the page focussed on the use of the term Islamofascism, I would vote keep, but I see no case for a page of this name being used to discuss the political phenomenon, which would much better be discussed in the Islamism article or a related page. --- Charles Stewart 08:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Phrase being frequently used in general political debate; content disputes are a separate issue. Dbiv 11:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• holy sweet crap... - The last time I read that it was fine, which is an acievement of itself considering how Charged up some people can get on this topic. But now.. it's fallen apart. Merge back into List of political epithets and Redirect -- Irishpunktom\ ^talk 15:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you sure you werent looking at the recently vandalized version. It's been reverted back. Klonimus 23:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Checked Back, seems ok. Keep an eye on this though. keep-- Irishpunktom\ ^talk 13:42, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I hear the expression on CNN all the time. It's not a nice expression but many aren't. UDoN't!wAn* 23:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note User:UDoN't!wAn* is an apparent sock puppet, just signed up on 22 Apr 2005. zen master T 00:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Info should already be covered elsehwere (under less of a cloud of POV hopefully). zen master T 00:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: A neutral article acceptable to all could be written if it stuck to the epithet itself (e.g. history of usage), rather than trying to invent a theory to justify the slur (as User:Klonimus is currently doing). Mirror Vax 00:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even islamofascists can get their own WP entry! -- Mrfixter 01:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously a zionist plot. Klonimus 04:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep article seems fine, reasonably NPOV, and this is a common term for a real phenomenon. ObsidianOrder 03:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Obviously a KEEP! This is a real and growing phenomenon. Porphyria 14:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep Last time I checked, the article discussed the usage of the term and separated it clearly from those who the term is used against. Since this term is used a lot these days, it deserves a discussion on its usage, origins etc. It is however most important that we make sure that this article doesn't deviate from that. If links to religious or political ideologies are needed, it should be stated clearly that "islamofascism" is a term usually (mis)used against those. If there are people who would object to the mere existence of the article, well... don't look it up. Where I come from there are people who are personally offended by practically our entire manga section (often for religious or semi-religious reasons), yet the deletion of those articles would bring, indeed, a tear to my eye. Although I don't feel that way about this article, I still think it's a bad idea to delete it, just because people are offended by it. Just make sure the article is as "clinical" as possible and it will all be allright. One could even mention in the article that a lot of people have objections to the term. Shinobu 22:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Meaningless fight talk, with a bogus poli-sci sheen. Orwell wrote a brilliant essay emphasizing that the popular epithet "fascist" had degraded to a point that it no longer had any practical meaning beyond "that which the speaker considers objectionable for some undisclosed reason." (Quoting loosely.) Others might disagree on that contention of his, but I see little in contemporary discourse likely to have made Orwell change his mind on this. I'm with him. Plus the compound-word thing feels like Newspeak. Brr. Same problem with Judeofascism, which I also voted to delete. BrandonYusufToropov 15:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: POV attack targeting religions should not be kept. -- Ragib 15:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I agree with Ragib. This is nothing more than a thinly disguised pretext for slamming a wide spectrum of people by squeezing them all into one contrived bucket. What an embarassingly awful article. What's next, " christofascism"? -- Lee Hunter 20:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If I get a vote, I vote keep, it's interesting and added a link to a CNN story that was on tonight about Aryan Nation wanting to be buddies with al Qaeda. Might be interesting. Walkingeagles 04:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I suppose we should apply the same decision made here to the newly created (and gruesome, watch out!) Islamic fascism that Walkingeagles just made. -- Dmcdevit 05:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that Walkingeagles, who edited Islamofascism, is trying to get around the eventual decision. -- Dmcdevit 05:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Walkingeagles is a newbie, who just stepped into the edit wars over Islamofascism, not such a great way to start your time on wikipedia. Klonimus 08:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this term does get used so we should cover it. Rhobite 05:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Do not delete this article. Perhaps some changes could be made in terms of neutrality, and once it is acceptable, protect it from further editing (other than through the discussion page). Otherwise i see no problem here. It is a notable issue. Once again Keep
  • Unsigned vote by User:Aeroflot on 06:35, 24 Apr 2005. I moved it out of Mel's comments section. Klonimus 08:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of political epithets. As others have said, the article itself might be useful material for an article on authoritarian currents in contemporary Islamic politics, or something like that. But the word itself is inflammatory, pejorative, inaccurate, and misleading, suitable perhaps for op-ed discourse, but not as the primary title for a Wikipedia article. I beg others who voted "keep" for this article -- especially those who voted "keep" based upon User:Islamist's behavior -- to reconsider their positions. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP, remarked 209.6.216.228 ( talk · contribs), at 01:49, 25 Apr 2005
  • This anon seems to specialise in PoV edits ranging from near-vandalism to genuine vandalism. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• redirect. It's just a slur. Anything of substance can be discussed under Islamism and Islamic Fundamentalism. Also, any word in Islamo- is ugly (on morphological gorunds). This article can only ever be about bloggers and fearmongers on the extreme political right, and not about the movements they refer to, which have their own articles already. dab (ᛏ) 12:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Many supporters of deletion, I suspect, are shy of the forthcoming exertion to come with the article in question. This vote of mine is not without ambiguity; however, I believe the content is being unjustifiably threatened, but in parallel does not warrant its own special article. At first, I voted to keep the article, but after contemplation, I changed my vote. It suits a journal, but not an encyclopedia. The content, much of which is noteworthy, should be placed in a suitable article in an impartial tone. Usedbook 18:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Redirect, or Keep depending on if its NPOV and can be so maintained. Its of course a huge double-standard that a title like Judeofascism can be deleted, and Islamofascism can be claimed to be NPOV. Many here I suspect are newbies, and hence dont have the concept of NPOV under their grasp. Others are yet POV warriors seeking to push or repeat an agenda. If its written in an NPOV way, keep. But the mere existence of this kind of article lends its proponents to claim it like it was theirs to define, forgetting the basic fact that its just a word, and a POV word at that. Theres nothing wrong with POV word articles, as long as the articles themselves are not POV. Judging by many of the comments above, it would seem that there is a basic ignorance of that distinction. So, thats my vote. - SV| t 21:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. To suppress such a well-documented and scrupulously colorless report might suggest that some agenda is at work. -- Wetman 01:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP We don't create terms or conceive of a philosophy attached to it. We report what exists in popular culuture, academia, etc. There is ample documentation of use in the popular media. Lotsofissues 13:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Common and completely misleading term. - Sean Curtin 00:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to, and merge all relevant content to Islamism. Then protect the article. -- Blackcats 06:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, since the article defines it as a political epithet rather than any actually existing political entity. -- goethean 17:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I change my vote to redirect to Islamism. Since Islamofascism is defined in the intro of Islamism, the Islamofascism article is suprefluous.-- goethean 17:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Do not let Islamists hijack (no pun intended?) Wikipedia! - BSveen 21:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

What a surprising vote from someone who shows his hatred for the Islamic religion on his userpage. I guess a deletion of a redundant article is Islamists hijacking Wikipedia, some NPOV editor you are. Yuber 04:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Enhance, Redirect if not delete. I still see paragraphs in the article that start with an S and end with a D like Some people have used..., Some have applied..., Supporters of the term contend.... Some or many? The other para suggests that most Muslims feel that the comparison of Islamic extremism to ideologies such as Nazism or other forms of fascism is offensive and nonfactual.. Most or all muslims? Equal-Arm, Unequal-Arm, or Spring balance? The article obviously has not been enhanced enough in order to be deserved a status of a NPOV article worth reading for most people. Doesn't the style sound like a bloggy one? The existance of Islamofascism is still questioned let alone its POV style! Well, I gave my vote before the end of the month.

All that said, I have just presented a newbie one called Americofascism to Vfd (Btw, I had given before my comment somewhere in this discussion about the fact that Islamofascism would open the door to all kinds of X-rated fascism articles that goes from A to Z like Americofascism). So that is what happened! So we got work to do; let's again vote and argue our POVs regarding the new star. Cheers Svest 06:09, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: This is PROPAGANDA, not an article. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda. Islamofascism is a neologism and is not an accepted word in circles other than neo-conservative hate forums. We do not need this utterly disgusting anti-Islamic and anti-Arab propaganda on our encyclopedia. - Stancel 16:36, 30 Apr 2005 {UTC)

Comments

Don't place votes in this section

(copied here from Talk:Islamofascism)

You can, of course, create any number of words using the formula: X + Fascist tendencies = Xofascism. How about 'Graecofascism'? 'Sinofascism'? 'Hindofascism'? The trouble is, having created the term, it's also easy to create a concept to go with it, and then to create a history. You don't even need to go outside the facts; there'll always be, in any nationality, race, or religion that's been around for a while examples of people or groups acting badly. The term 'fascism' is being used in such a Usenet/school-debating-society way that that's all you need. Wikipedia isn't here to invent new concepts, nor to parrot whatever nonsense the U.S. neo-cons have come up with as they flail around trying to find reasons to attack other countries. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I am not sure you are being fair to school-debating-society's ;-) Dalf | Talk 22:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Don't forget Wikifascism :) TigerShark 12:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm seriously considering creating an article on Christofascism if this article and Judeofascism aren't deleted or redirected. Why should only two of the three main Abrahamic religions have an insulting POV article with the suffix "-fascism" attached? Or would that constitute WP:POINT? Firebug 17:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It would of course be deleted by the same faction who want this epithet kept. Grace Note 16:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily so... I for one would vote to redirect Christofascism (which would be a pretty obvious neologism, btw) to Christian Fundamentalism. -- 8^D ^gab 16:49, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

      Wow. I guess I'd consider such a vote as an irrefutable demonstration that there are people voting on such issues who haven't the foggiest notion what they're talking about. Tomer ^TALK 23:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hinduist, Buddhist, etc. 'fascism' are a frightening reality, involving ...'the most heavenly exctacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimantalism'... [towards] a new high-tech Dark Ages. But I have yet to see the oh' shorthand used in any serious exposition (from within revolutionary currents, at least, where I've seen such concepts elaborated on at some length). E.g. [5] El_C 21:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the article is developed, it's becoming more and more distasteful (and many of the comments made by those who want to keep it betray an ignorance of the issues here, as well as a disturbing emotional tone). We're told, for example, that some Islamic leaders allied with fascists in the second World War, but no mention is made of the fact that the fascists in question were Christians, and the purely pragmatic, non-ideological nature of the contacts is not properly explained. There's in fact no indication that any of the Muslims involved held any sort of fascist belief. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 13:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hitler was not a Christian, he was an occult follower of the "Thule Society," a pagan group that was highly influential in the Nazi hierarchy. User:Porphyria 00:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Mel: Your assertion that the contacts between Islamic leaders and European Christian fascists were non-ideological in nature seems to overlook recorded statements of, e.g., the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. User:Mike Thomas 00:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm arguing this in two places – here, and on Talk:Islamofascism – and the result is sometimes a bit disjointed. It seems clear that al-Husseyni was ideologically involved with Nazism (just as some English aristocrats, royals, and politicians were), but any general Arab support for Nazism shouldn't be attributed to so-called Islamofascism.

Here's the logic, folks: I identify a Nazi-sympathizing Muslim. Islam therefore has a fascist dimension. Hmmm. Does the failure of the Catholic Church to vigorously and explicitly oppose Nazi crimes against Jews justify an entry for Catholifacism?

I suppose that what's offensive about this article (and the comments of some people on this page) is that, whereas we talk about Italian fascists, and Spanish fascists, and Greek fascists, etc., rather than Christofascists, when it comes to the Muslim world it's OK to lump all the Islamic countries and groups together. The turning of Judeofascism into a redirect presumably involved a recognition of the same fact in that case; there are of course Jewish fascists (Jews are no more immune to human stupidity and nastiness than any other group), and many people have seen the actions of certain Israeli politicians and parties as having fascist aspects — but it's wrong to use the general, smearing, and to my mind bigoted term 'Judeofascism'. Why on Earth can't the same reasonableness be applied here? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 21:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I like your reasoning here, but the thing is. If the use of the term was reasonable then it would not belong in List of political epithets. The question for me is weather or not the epiteth merits an article and if such an article can possibly in the current enviornment be NPOV. I think the answer to the first question is yes, this term is used enough that someone will likely look it up here. The second question is what will they find? I voted to re-direct because that seemed the safest waty to make sure they found somethign reasonable. If the article could be keep about the epiteth and NPOV I would have voted to keep. Dalf | Talk 09:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Islamic/Islamo Fascism

For those of us learned in Middle Eastern history, it is clear that fascist-derived ideologies and Islamism have always been violently opposed (see: Hama Massacre). The fascist-derived ideologies in the Middle East such as the Kateab Party, the Baath party, and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party have been almost entirely supported by Christians or minority groups in the Arab world that feared Islamism. The founder of the SSNP was a Christian, as the founder of the Baath was Greek orthodox. The Kataeb was founded by Bachir Gemayel, a Maronite Christian militant. All these ideologies were officially secular but had mainly Christian support. Islamic fascism is a contradiction in all senses of the word. Islamism has no ideas about racial superiority either. That is why it is utterly ridiculous to have an Islamic fascism article.

My views on this article are that it is a way for WalkingEagles and Klonimus to insert their own judgement into an Anti-Islamic term that should frankly be listed under political epithets. Just because neo-cons have started using this term more does not make it factually or historically correct. Yuber 16:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Yuber, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia ergo it is encyclopedic, It's pretty clear at this point that Islamofascism is a widely used term with a specfic meaning, and hence deserves inclusion in WP. Just because you and your buddies don't like the term, or think it's anti-Islamic, has no bearing on the matter. Klonimus 01:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice job not refuting anything I had to say :). Yuber 02:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, you remind me of the texas farmer who was the best shot in the west. First he would shoot, and then he would paint a bullseye. I'm not playing a game with you about weather Islamofascism exists or not. It doesn't matter if the term is as you claim "factually or historically correct", it matters that it is being widely used to mean a specific concept. And therefore must be documented in an encyclopedic encyclopaedia.

At the moment I have to say that I agree with the general direction of the Islamofascism article. It was a mistake on my part to combine Islamic Fascism (Fusion of Islam and fascist political movements) with Islamofascism (term to describe totalitarian Islam, and groups that support it.). I think the current split is a good idea, and the two articles can crosslink. I do wish the whole thing could have been done with less rancor, which would have been the case if people hadn't been so quick to delete materiel they found objectionable. . Klonimus 17:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to Resort this VfD

IMHO it would be nice if thise VFD could be reformated along the lines of.

• Evidence of Notability
• Keep Votes
• Delete Votes
• Redirect Votes
• Comments

The current VfD would make a nice article in itself. Controversy surrounding Islamfascism anyone? Klonimus 01:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No resorting, please. It only confuses things even more, and breaks the cronological flow. -- cesarb 01:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps once this debate is closed. At the moment any resorting, especially by an involved party, would just complicate matters. — Charles  P.  ^(Mirv) 01:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• And for heaven's sake, the last thing we should ever do is an article based upon a controversy as expressed in a VfD. Wikipedia is not about Wikipedia. (And, no, please do not resort or refactor VfDs, ever.) -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question for all who vote to keep

If a coalition of hate groups (may Allah(swt) forbid) started talking about a Jewish conspiracy to control the global media, coined a single catch-word for that supposed conspiracy, and kept posting that single catch-word on blogs until it started showing up on Google, would that new word deserve an entry in a responsibly -edited encyclopedia? (Not a rhetorical query, I'd like your answer, please.) BrandonYusufToropov 17:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is in fact such a term. It's called Jewish Supremacism. It gets thousands of Google Hits and was coined by a White Supremacist. It is merely a political epithet just like Islamofascism. Yuber 17:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well Yuber, go make an article on it. Klonimus 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why would I? That would be hypocritical of me, and I have no interest in making articles just to degrade religions and people, unlike some people here. Yuber 23:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's also Zionist Occupied Government, for which we have a decent article that treats the slur as a slur and doesn't spend time on the backgrounds or political views of U.S. neocons. As it should. — Charles  P.  ^(Mirv) 19:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go make an article about Jewish Influence on American Politics Klonimus 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I were going to do that, which I'm not, why would I use that awkward title when Zionist Occupied Government and variants get thousands of Google hits? — Charles  P.  ^(Mirv) 23:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Nigger" gets thousands of Google hits too, but we don't make "Nigger" the primary title or even a redirect to "African American". -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. Yet we (or Klonimus and co., at least) use "Islamofascism" as the primary title. — Charles  P.  ^(Mirv) 00:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mirv, ZOG is a term used by racist kooks, Islamofascism is a commonly used word in the media when talking about totalitarian Islamism. Klonimus 01:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Islamofascism" is similarly a term used by racist kooks and political polemicists. In academic discourse, for example, it is a non-starter. — Charles  P.  ^(Mirv) 01:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Islamofascism" gets used in the Wall Street Journal, National Review and the Sunday Times, this suggests that it has entered the mainstream of respectable opinion. Weather or not you personally agree with that. I take your further silence as the sound of profound ownage Klonimus 16:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two outlets of U.S. right-wing opinion, and which Sunday Times? Your failure to refute my argument about academic discourse is telling. — Charles  P.  ^(Mirv) 16:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am unsure how many people voting to keep this article are doing so out of a misguided attempt to present articles on all phrases that enter common parlance. This is not and has never been the objective of a responsible encyclopedia. (Is there an entry in the Columbia Encyclopedia for "trailer trash"? Or "retard"? Or "wetback"?) This is the kind of pejorative we're dealing with, and if you don't think so, you're not thinking very hard. BrandonYusufToropov 01:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for someone who voted to keep to respond to this (non-rhetorical) question. Once again, it is:

If a coalition of hate groups (may Allah(swt) forbid) started talking about a Jewish conspiracy to control the global media, coined a single catch-word for that supposed conspiracy, and kept posting that single catch-word on blogs until it started showing up on Google, would that new word deserve an entry in a responsibly -edited encyclopedia? BrandonYusufToropov 19:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who answers your question can probably expect to have his words used against him in some way. You're not exactly being subtle about it. Rhobite 20:02, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I translate as: Yes, there is a double standard at work here, but I'd rather not discuss it. BrandonYusufToropov 20:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No there isn't such a term, but if it existed then it would merit inclusion and good article. I can understand why you might find casual use of the term islamofascism offensive. How ever the term is in wide use, and a comprensive encyclopedia must document it. This is independant of the moral value of the word itself when used to describe totalitarian Islamism. Klonimus 01:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, thanks for the stealthily amended answer (above) to my complaint (below, entered 23:01 24 Apr), but it would have been more comprehensible, and more honest, if you had not gone back and quietly edited the line I was complaining about, so as to make it look like I was making things up. You did offer a straight answer to the question, though, which is something. What you're saying is that something patently offensive, a la "K-ke conspiracy to dominate world media" deserves an entry on its own, yes?[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 10:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure go wild on Jewish influence on world media, Jewish influence on american politics, [[ Jewish influence on israeli politics, Jewish influence on iraqi politics, Jewish influence on candian politics anything you like. Having an article on something doesn't mean you agree with it, wikipedia exisits to document all that exists. BTW I changed my signature so that anyone could see that I edited my reply. Klonimus 00:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are either deliberately ignoring, or somehow failing to understand, my point. I suspect it's the former. But, just in case .... I am not talking about sanitized article titles like the ones you propose above, but rather something patently offensive -- just like Islamofascism -- as the title for an article. You're not talking about calling the page something vaguely intelligent like Political trends in Islam, but instead insisting on a single, foul-sounding coinage that lumps 1 billion people together with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. My question is, if bloggers made a similiarly offensive, similarly paranoid neologism about Jewish people show up on Google, would that offensive term itself be appopriate as the title of an article? BrandonYusufToropov 02:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If that term became very popular, was cited in prominent mainstream media and books, and described a concept that is notable: then yes it deserves an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia exists to document what exisits. Klonimus 16:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With respect, I can't help noticing that you're ducking the question I posed. BrandonYusufToropov 23:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I have not and do not indend to vote, but I just wanted to say, perhaps the problem here is systemic bias against Islam due to lack of editors. Ideally, I'm sure we all agree that whatever the decision is, delete, redirect, or whatever, should be applied consistenly to equivalent articles. We all know that there are probably fascist tendencies everywhere. So consistency should be easily achieved, escpecially with all of this interest. -- Dmcdevit 20:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of people ready to insert Islamic bias at the drop of a burqa. Klonimus 22:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • To say that is intentionally dishonest. How could anyone imply Islamic topics have the same scope as Western ones? Compare Israel and Belgium, for example, to Western Sahara and Mali. I think the idea that a because term is heard of (it's certainly not wide) makes it encyclopedic is just wrong. That's for a dictionary. There has to be something to it to be encyclopedic. And, just wondering, where is Islamodemocracy? Surely that's just as common a phenomenon... -- Dmcdevit 22:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • My understanding is that the article is NOT about the supposed phenomenon, but is about the epithet. Dalf | Talk 04:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • That last note was meant as sarcasm, didn't you hear my tone of voice? :) -- Dmcdevit 04:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Israel is far more interesting to more wikieditors than Belgium, Western Sahara, and Mali are. Sadly, in the present world, Islamic Democracy is much less common than Islamofascism, but hopfully in the future Islamic Democracy will become more common than Islamofascism. I think we can all agree on that. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, ergo it is encyclopedic. Klonimus 01:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Umm... I'm sorry but interest is not what makes something encyclopedic, and lack of interest does not make it not encyclopedic. You should come take a look around CSB sometime. -- Dmcdevit 02:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Answers to Yusuf's question

1. I voted redirect to list of political epithets but I see the case for a keep vote provided the page documents the use of the epithet and only provides links to more appropriately titled articles for discussion of the content. In an ideal world, editors could actually keep to such a policy, and so an article on Yusuf's hypothetical epithet would be good for Wikipedia, but too many editors are too gummed up with hormones and propaganda not to opine on the content, so redirects are better. Please note the parallels between this argument and that on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Prussian Holocaust... --- Charles Stewart 08:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. I'm gonna be bold, answering, as one who did not vote for "keep", in a forum in which the requestant has not requested my input: Islamofascism is a term that has come to be accepted in journalistic circles, if only "outside CNN", as a descriptor of fascistic tendencies exemplified by the leadership of certain (sadly, the vast majority of) Islamic régimes. Wishing the term into oblivion is neither intellectually honest nor encyclopedic. That said, you'll note, my vote was to redirect the content of this article to Islamic Theological Intolerance or something equally descriptive. The concept within modern Islam is, not only present, but prevalent, and in certain circles, predominant. The term "Islamofascism", however, as derogatory as it might sound to the vast majority of Muslims, is one that has gained a not-insignificant currency in the Journalism of the West. The only relevant question here, if I might be so bold, is whether or not this term should be the TITLE of an article, or a redirect to an article describing the phenomenon. My contention is that Islam has inherent tendencies that permit the interpretation thereof in favor of Fascism, but that the term "Islamofascism" should be applied exclusively to such groups as follow this interpretation, which is, unfortunately, gaining sway within the muslim world. As such, any such article should concentrate on these groups, rather than dragging down the erstwhile phenomenal accomplishments of Islamic Civilization (which OK, here's my bias, is nothing more than the preservation and encouragement of the achievements of civilization overtaken by muslim warriors, but that really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand). To say, however, that fascism is not a(n unfortunate and predominant) trend within modern (vocal) Islam, is neither historically nor intellectually honest. I wish it were otherwise, perhaps more than most muslims, in fact, but the fact remains, Islam in "this day and age" has been coöpted by the dominance and influence of Wahhabism and Allawitism, both of which are quintessentially fascist, sadly. Tomer ^TALK 10:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
   • I think you should have voted redirect. Apart from that I pretty much agree with everything you say. --- Charles Stewart 10:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) --- Postscript: A caveat: I don't think that Islam is ideologically a good fit for quasi-fascism, but the fact in most Arab countries is that Islam provides the only non-suicidal means of dissent. The connection is structural and circumstantial, and quite different to what User:Klonimus has been arguing. --- Charles Stewart 11:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you're illiterate: I did vote redirect... Just to make sure... Tomer ^TALK 12:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Illiterate? No, rather literate, just time-challenged: I misconstrued a less-than-ideally-worded sentence that I could have figured out with more care. --- Charles Stewart 19:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I guess I can understand the argument for a redirect to list of political epithets. I agree we could probably handle such offensive terms in this way, assuming intelligent editing that does not succumb to cultural or political bias.

I do have a couple of questions about some of your underlying assumptions, though, which I hope you'll consider.

When you say that fascism is descriptive of 'the vast majority" of Islamic regimes -- I hope you don't consider Egypt, UAE, Indonesia, Turkey, etc. to be members of this universe of "Islamic regimes"? Do you? That there are Muslims within a secular government does not make it an Islamic regime!

Which "Islamic regime," specifically, do you consider to be fascist? If your answer is, say, Saudi Arabia, how does the fact that Osama Bin Laden is a bitter enemy of the ruling monarchy enter into your calculus? Does that mean that the ruling family are Islamofascists, but Bin Laden, by opposing them, is anti-fascist? Are you sure you don't mean to say that some governments that rule over Muslims are authoritarian?

No, they are totalitarian, try waving an Israeli Flag in Mecca or Riyadh and see how long it takes before you get arrested. Try walking around in shorts on a hot summer day in Jeddah, Try having a satellite dish and watching CNN in Teheran. Islamism invades every aspect of life in Saudi Arabia or Iran, not just politics. Egypt is authoritarian, Saudi Arabia/Iran are totalitarian. The bitter enemies of these totalitarian regimes, do not in anyway exonorate the regimes they are attacking. Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were totalitarian states, same for Saddam era Iraq and Iran. Klonimus 20:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(sigh)I know you don't like those countries. Question is not whether you like them, but whether a) they are "Islamic regimes," as has been claimed, and b) whether they are fascist, according to some meaningful definition of the world. I can't get Bridges TV (Muslim cable network) here in Massachusetts, but that doesn't mean Massachusetts is fascist. Are you arguing for Islamototalitarianism? If so, you're on the wrong page. Please stay on topic, and please try to focus on the actual conversation we're trying to have, ok? BrandonYusufToropov 22:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iran claims to be an "Islamic Republic", the rulers of saudi arabia claim to be custodians of the two holy mosques and defenders of the faith. IMHO they are self proclaimed "Islamic regimes." Both governments also enforce sharia law which would make them Islamic by definition. I personally have no opinion if they are fascists or not, but I think a good case could be made for both sides. Klonimus 01:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yusuf, you seem to be missing the point that Wikipedia does not exist to pass judgement, only to document: that means that we are documenting the claims that surround the useage of the term Islamofascist without passing any judgement over its existance or nonexistance, pejorative nature, moral value of those who use the term, history of use, etc etc. Klonimus 01:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you and I simply disagree on this.

• If it were as you say, we would have an independent main article on the word "Nigger," and we don't.
• Why don't we? Because it's patently offensive.
• Now then. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two examples I thought of, too, that might conceivably be called "Islamic regimes."
• But -- reality check -- the claim was that a majority of these "Islamic regimes" were fascist, and that is simply not factual, unless "fascist" means "objectionable to the speaker" or some such ridiculousness.
• Factuality is apparently not a big deal for you, which is fine, but if you believe, as you appear to (with others on this page) that there is some "trend" toward fascism in Islam, then I submit that it is incumbent upon you to explain why you believe this, and to use the words "Fascism" and "Islam" as though they had consistent meanings. BrandonYusufToropov 01:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When you say that fascism is a "trend within modern (vocal) Islam," I assume you mean fascism, the real thing, as opposed to fascism, the "boo" word that carries no actual meaning beyond "you're a bad guy." So presumably you are saying that there is a sect within Islam that embraces corporatism? I'm unfamiliar with this sect or its proponents. Can you please be a little more specific about it?

Its the fusion of government ideology plus national oil companies as a source of wealth. Klonimus 20:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

a) That's a "trend within modern (vocal) Islam"? Where's the trend? Which scholar is espousing it? b) By your logic, USSR, which had both oil wealth and a state ideology, was fascist, not Communist. Is that what you mean to say? Again, I thought fascism had something to do with corporatism.

Again, thanks for the response. BrandonYusufToropov 12:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems that this is going nowhere! I just wonder how come a NPOV of a few right-wing writers (I say a few) could turn into a 1-0 in the propaganda war and How the right played the fascism card against Islam! I just wonder indeed how come two articles of the same nature (talking about this one and the other shamefull non-sense fictitious Judeofascism) could have different fates! How come Judeofascism got already a status of pending deletion?!! Because of google hits?! Is this the main argument? (If yes is your answer, then refer to the end of my intervention below). Who spends most of his time discussing the phenomenon of Islamofascism on forums and blogs? Aren't they people who got an anti-islamic agenda?

In this list of pejorative slogans at Nationmaster.com both expressions are listed and explained without any POV. So wouldn't be the same in Wikipedia? Worse indeed. Some users have already started Islamic fascism and claim both articles mean different things!! . So explain to us how different they are please! It is clear that there is a difference between Big mama and Big Mama, between bin Laden and Bin Laden ("He's one of them bin-ladens") as refering to Arabs.

If we follow this trend we will end up having duplicate articles confusing readers and ourselves.

I still believe this article have to be kept but also have to focus on the pejorative nature of the term instead of claiming non-sense things relating state controlled business to fascism without any single reference! Do we have to include countries like France into that category?!! A break please!

Do we have to start an article called Americofascism (or whatever you name it) because of Guantanamo camp? It will be a total non-sense kind of article though I will give you this argument:

• "Islamic fascism" offers you 17,500 barrels of oil.
• "american fasicm" cannot offer you less than 17,300 dollars.
• guantanamo +fascism in google gives you 48,200 handcuffs.

I am sorry but I am not that good on googlewhacking though the above is not a real GW. -- Svest 14:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete votes

Somebody deleted (by accident? intentionally?) a keep vote. Please please please don't do this, it makes things far more difficult for everyone, okay? BrandonYusufToropov 16:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. It was clearly unintentional. It probably happened because I saved the page twice when the server was having some problems. It is already fixed by TShilo12 now. -- Svest 16:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, sorry to even bring it up, but I wanted to err on the side of caution. BrandonYusufToropov 17:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recap for those who voted to keep

I voted to keep because there are indeed fascistic trends in contemporary Islam.

Are you really and truly sure you understand the definition of Fascism? Is it worth clicking on the link for thirty seconds or so to check? Do you realize that people who are actually promoting contemporary brands of fascism in the Middle East are bitter enemies of Islamists? Do facts matter in an encyclopedia, or not?

• • Somehow you seem to miss the point, that Islamofascism is "new" idea, and not one derived mathematically from first principals of Islam and/or Fascism. So insisting that it be made to do so is silly and nonproductive. And voting to delete on this basis is also silly. Klonimus 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

• • • Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

• • • `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

• • • `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

• • • `The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.' BrandonYusufToropov 20:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC), channeling.

I voted to keep because the term is apparently in common use.

Is the word "Jap" in common use to describe Japanese people? Does it deserve an article unto itself? How about "Sand Nigger"? Is there any point at which patently offensive epithets do not deserve an entry?

• • If they are a neologism of utterly minor usage, like Judeofascism, then they dont belong in WP. Otherwise they do. Klonimus 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • FWIW, Sand Nigger is currently a redirect to List of ethnic slurs, as is Jap. I think that Islamofascism and Islamofascist should be redirects to List of political epithets for the same reason. (They're not quite ethnic slurs, because most commentators who use these terms deny that they are referring to all Muslims or Arabs.) Firebug 06:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Great Firebug. But, as we know, Islamofascism is a phenomenon according to some writers. It is not a connotation as for Sand Nigger or Raghead. On this basis, the article should exist by itself. The question now is why having two articles instead of one? According to Klonimus, there is a big distinction. Defending the idea of having two separate articles, He explained this yesterday in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Islamic_fascism. He wrote:

Just so people are clear on what it being voted upon.

• • Islamofascism Term used to describe totalitarian Islamism
  • Islamic fascism Term used to describe actual muslim fascists. I.e Bosnian SS Units, Grand Mufti, etc.

(by Klonimus, only signed timestamp) 20:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now, do we agree about the definitions or not? Personally, I don't buy it for reasons explained in response on the discussion there. IMHO, we need to discuss this here as well as we are doing in Islamic fascism before deciding what to do; whether to merge and then keep them or not merge and redirect them to whatever we agree about. -- Svest 10:32, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

RE: "Do we agree about the definitions or not?" I just want to point out that Klonimus is now arguing that Islamofascism is a "new idea" that need not conform to the real-world definition of fascism. Yet, before he took this position, in his many edits on this article, he repeatedly (and vainly, in my opinion) argued that state-controlled oil wealth amounted, more or less, to corporatism. This was a clear attempt on his part to match this patently offensive epithet with the actual poli-sci meaning of the term "fascism."

Well, which is it? Is "Islamofascism" a "new idea" that floats effortlessly above the real-world meaning of fascism? Or is it an actual description of an Islamic political philosophy advocating the combination of state and corporate power? Forget about whether anyone else agrees about the definitions. Does Klonimus agree about the definitions? BrandonYusufToropov 12:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unlike some people on wikipedia, I can change my mind. I carefully reconsiddered what my understanding of the facts of the matter are and came to a new conclusion. Islamism and Fascism are distinctly separate idea's however many Islamist movements are inspired by fascists and may share elements of fascism. My current understanding is that Islamofascism is a notable neologism used to describe sub-types of Islamism that share certain attributes (Anti western, pro Jihad, and seeking to create totalitarian Islamic societies) At this point I don't think Islamofascism as a concept is deeply connected to fascism. How ever many Islamofascists, are inspired by people like the Grand Mufti who are undeniably fascist. In some countires the government is Iran, or is influenced by Islamofascists ( Saudi Arabia. I still think that the fusion of oil wealth plus Ideology brings elements of fascism to countires governed by Islamofascit governments. Klonimus 03:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I voted to keep because Wikipedia is here to document, not to pass any kind of judgment on, ideas.

Are we prepared to employ this standard consistently, even with ideas with which we personally disagree? For one fascinating answer, see [ [6]

• • Behold the miracle of WP:NPOV Klonimus 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if the word "fascism" isn't quite a perfect fit, I voted to keep because I feel sure there is something troubling happening in Islam, and this term is the word that currently seems to be connected to that troubling process, the details of which I am unable to specify.

See systemic bias.

• • See I voted to keep because Wikipedia is here to document, not to pass any kind of judgment on, ideas. Klonimus 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I voted to keep because journalists are using this term, and they tend to be correct.

No comment.

• • See I voted to keep because Wikipedia is here to document, not to pass any kind of judgment on, ideas. Klonimus 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I voted to keep because I personally do not like Islam, and this term insults Muslims in a way that I feel is probably justified these days.

Okay. Nobody actually wrote this, but: shoe ... fit ...

• • No one has said or Implied anything remotly like that in this entire VfD: except you. There is no vast zionist conspiracy to fill wikipedia with anti-Islamic bias. The vast majority of wikipedian's dont care about Islamoanything, but they sure do care about creating a comprehensive encyclopedia that doccuments all human knowledge. Including knowledge that may be offensive to some muslims. Klonimus 20:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov 18:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Brandon, this "patently offensive epithet" is just that--it is not a scientific term, and is therefore not bound by the need to fulfill any criteria whatsoever, other than its ability to get people to latch onto it. At the same time, however, there are three problems with what you're trying to do here. (1) You're basically trying to browbeat people into agreeing with your point of view by arguing in terms that really have, unfortunately, nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the article. (2) You're using this logical subterfuge to cloud the issue: there is a phenomenon in the muslim world which this word was specifically coined to describe (which, frighteningly, has more in common with Hitlerian and Goebbelsian Nazism than it has to do with the more readily recognized forms of Spanish and Italian fascism). And (3) you've turned a VfD discussion into a freeforall. Stick to the subject matter. You've succeeded in derailing the relevant discussion (the de/merits of the article), and turned it instead into a discussion of how those who wish to keep the article, with whom you've been very unprofessionally adversarial, should really be doing original research instead. Tomer ^TALK 13:15, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying, but I would ask you in turn how you would pursue a discussion of the "merits of the article" if it was your faith or nationality that had been targeted by an article's patently offensive underlying assumption/implication.

Let's begin here: Would you agree with me that it is possible that the reason some people want this article to stand independently is in order to lend some kind of legitimacy to a blatant religious slur?

With respect, the "merits" of such an analysis as appears in Islamofascism are not what we should be most concerned about. (And as a side note, I think my edits have substantially improved the "merits" of this particular piece, which should count for something.)

With regard to your points on the "phenomenon in the Muslim world" that you find disturbing. Let me draw a parallel.

• The Cosa Nostra has for many years appropriated the trappings of Roman Catholicism in its rituals, meetings, initiations, etc.
• The Cosa Nostra has also undertaken many loathsome crimes, including assassination, drug dealing, mass murder, extortion, etc.
• Are members of the Cosa Nostra "Catholic"? Interesting question we could debate at length.
• Do the actions of members of the Cosa Nostra represent a "phenomenon in the Christian world" that we would find disturbing? I think not. Rather, they are thugs.
• Their actions represent a "phenomenon in the thug world," definitely disturbing, but not to be confused in a million years with Christianity or its teachings.
• If someone were to write an article about, say, Catholic doctrine as reflected in Mafia hits, would you expect a Catholic to patiently discuss the reasoning in the article? Or would you expect that Catholic to tell you forthrightly that the very existence of the article was patently offensive and did not belong in WP? BrandonYusufToropov 14:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Brandon, as I've pointed out previously, I think this should be a redirect, either to an article that deals with racism, anti-semitism, anti-westernism, or whatever, in the muslim world, or simply back to list of political epithets. I agree it's patently offensive, and while anti-semitism and anti-westernism are rampant in the arab world, there are other articles that deal with this already. The Islamofascism article had the potential to be a decent article at one time, but there are related issues, no matter how remotely, that are too close to the hearts of too many of us for it to long remain an NPOV article, unforunately. Deleting it altogether, however, is a bad idea, however, IMHO, because it will open up the slate for someone to start this whole machlochet again. (Hmmm...maybe I should start Machlochet and make it a redirect to this talk page...) Tomer ^TALK 17:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I see that the issue is getting out of hand and being deflected to personal attacks instead of being a responsible discussion. We don't care too much about keep, delete, merge, but we do care more about being reponsible. User:TShilo12 claims that there is a phenomenon in the muslim world which this word was specifically coined to describe (which, frighteningly, has more in common with Hitlerian and Goebbelsian Nazism than it has to do with the more readily recognized forms of Spanish and Italian fascism). Are you serious??! Is this the point you are trying to inject into the article? Is this the agenda behind your support to keep the article? If yes, then I would really Reconsider my earlier keep and merge vote.

If your personal comments are based upon the Grand Mufti, than this excerpt is worth reading:

• ...The most damaging development in this respect was itself the result of western meddling. When the Mufti (religious leader) of Jerusalem died in 1921, the recently appointed British Governor, Sir Herbert Samuel, took charge of appointing a successor, inventing the new title of ‘Grand Mufti’.

When the local electoral college of pious Muslims voted for a moderate and learned leader and placed at the bottom of their list Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a young man in his twenties, given to fanaticism and hatred of the Jews, the Governor was initially content and confirmed the appointment. However, at this point the Hajj’s powerful family, backed by right-wing extremists, launched a fierce campaign of denigration against the electoral college, accusing its members of treacherously conspiring with the Jews to appoint one of their own party.

Sir Herbert, who was himself Jewish, sought the counsel of E. T. Richmond, who acted as adviser on Muslim Affairs, and who was an extreme anti-Zionist. Richmond persuaded Sheikh Hisam al-Din, the man who had already been confirmed in the post, to stand down. He then convinced Samuel that the best way to restore order was to concede to the agitators by letting the Hajj become Grand Mufti. This was in spite of the fact that the Hajj had already been imprisoned by the British in 1920 for his role in fomenting vicious anti-Jewish riots.

The British themselves were thus responsible for turning an electoral process upside-down in order to install an extremist Palestinian leader. This abuse of power would have fateful consequences not only for the future of Israel but also for ordinary Palestinians who were now subjected to a leader they had not chosen but for whose ill-judged actions they would, in the years to come, repeatedly be held responsible... -richard webster, [7] New Statesman, November 29, 2002

If that happened yesterday and explained today, what about today? Which relation is there between the muslim world which this word was specifically coined to describe (which, frighteningly, has more in common with Hitlerian and Goebbelsian Nazism than it has to do with the more readily recognized forms of Spanish and Italian fascism)?

Cheers and total respect! Svest 16:04, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not injecting anything into anywhere, so put your soapbox away. :-p Tomer ^TALK 17:20, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

And no, nothing I said had anything to do with where the (deposed) "Grand Mufti" spent the bulk of WW2. What I'm referring to are the blood libels that fill the official state-run newspapers of such "moderate" countries as Egypt and Qatar, as well as the laws in such wonderful countries as "our friend" Jordan, prohibiting the sale of land to Jews, a "crime" that is punishible by death. Tomer ^TALK 17:27, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tomer. No worries about the soapbox ;-). I believe we are dealing here with something called Islamofascism and not Arab Fascism. Do you mean you are giving your ok vote on the basis of the Arab official state-run newspapers instead of Mr Big Mufti? Cheers & TR. - Svest 17:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Grrrrrrrr! Apparently you haven't been listening! I voted redirect! I voted redirect! I VOTED REDIRECT!!! </yelling> :-p -t Tomer ^TALK 17:51, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

One other minor point tho...I would have said "Arab antisemitism" if it were limited to the Arab world, but, sadly, it's not. This same kind of rubbish gets big play in Pakistan and Indonesia, for example, which are not Arab. Tomer ^TALK 17:53, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Just because there has been a confusion between the explanation given for your keep, but rename and your comments relating the phenomenon to Nazis. I am with keeping it though I will not be against renaming it or even redirecting it. IMO, the problem is the potential duplication (i.e. Islamic fascism). But anyway, let's deal with this first. Cheers Svest 18:15, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Closure

• Can't we put this VfD out of its misery and close this page? It's clearly a no consensus. --- Charles Stewart 20:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agree No concensus on any outcome. But the article iteself is constantly undergoing work. This suggests that its subject is notable and encyclopedic. And hence the final closure should be 'No Consensus-Keep. Most of the arguments presented for deletion amount to an "appeal to political correctness" noting that article covers a subject which may be offensive to some muslims. IMHO thats a very weak argument for deletion. Klonimus 21:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• What say you and I and the rest of the partisans be quiet now, Klonimus, and let the grownups decide this one, eh? BrandonYusufToropov 03:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

1. There's no such thing as no consensus-keep — it doesn't even make sense.
2. To say that most (or even many; indeed, any?) people have voted against merely because of political corretcness is absurd and insulting (and indicates that you have either not really read or not understood the arguments. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Disagree with Klonimus and Charles Stewart: This article should be deleted. If Americofascism is deleted, then this article should be deleted along with the other article Islamic fascism. It is not objective to delete articles such as Americofascism while keeping others such as Islamofascism. I might as well create an article called Christofascism. I see alot of hypocrisy with the people voting "keep" for this but "delete" for "americofascism". This is a HATE article, propaganda, and a hodgepodge of misconceptions and allegations. If you want to debate Islam, go somewhere else. - Stancel 18:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that you eem to have missed the point of the process. When you vote and give your reasons, that's when you say what you want to happen. If a clear majority doesn't agree with you, then it doesn't happen. By entering the process, you agree to that. In this case, it's likely that an unpleasant, bigoted article will remain on Wikipedia; that's sad, but it's unrealistic to expect that Wikipedia will be more rational and moral than the outside world. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 23:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: This is a crude tally of votes (and, as many of them were a bit vague, it's not even guaranteed to be pin-point accurate even then). The admin who has the unenviable task of sorting out this VfD won't just count votes, but will look at the arguments offered, and try to come to some conclusion concerning consensus. For my money, too many of the 'keep' votes were either based on Google hits or on anti-Islamic prejudice, but I'll not be the admin responsible because I'm involved.

Delete:           8
Keep:             26 (of whom one wants a rename)
Merge and/or redirect: 23

Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the admins themselves should decide this, not some of these bigots. It is Wikipedia policy to be fair, objective, and NPOV. If you want to be objective, you can not delete an article called Americofascism (it looks like this will be deleted) while keeping an article called Islamofascism. It's HYPOCRISY!. If one wants to discuss the authoritarianism in Islamic societies like Saudi Arabia, one is welcome to add information, as long as its NPOV, factual, and without the word "fascism". But making an article by the name of some bogus term and trying to make a point that Muslims are "fascists" is not NPOV. DELETE! - Stancel 18:46, 30 Apr 2005 {UTC}

Taken from the Wikipedia VFD page, "Merged and/or redirected to an existing article" counts as one type of vote. I've changed the tally accordingly. Yuber 23:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: After all we have argued about above -in a civic manner, I only found one single disgusting vote, one vote comming from someone. He it goes: Keep. Do not let Islamists hijack (no pun intended?) Wikipedia! - 21:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC).

This is Wikipedia, not an airplane, neither a Wbur forum! Are you serious? Is that the only reason you got for us here to your vote? No other reason letting us know why? I couldn't judge your temperament but my comment now is based on you userpage instead. I am sorry to give you now my POV on it; I mean you still got the definition of the term fascism the wrong way. Anyways, I hope that your vote will be considered. Cheers and respect - Svest 03:57, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Expect me to be working real hard on Christofascism. - Stancel 12:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

1. Wikipedia:Avoid personal attacks
2. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
3. WP:POINT

An anon editor left {{ unclosed, and this caused yours and MANY OTHER comments not to be displayed. Nothing was deleted, nothing was lost, calm down. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. But if this article is kept on Wikipedia, I'm still going to be working on Christofascism. Until Islamofascism is deleted, I will bring Christofascism to perfect featured article status, although it currently does not exist yet. I hope we'll be able to come to a compromise in the following days, if not, expect Christofascism to grow! I'm doing this in the name of NPOV, because I don't believe it's right to allow this clearly biased article to exist. So in the end if all goes well both Christofascism and Islamofascism and all others of these ridiculous -fascism suffix articles will be deleted. And my plan will have been accomplished. LOL I just told you my plan. oh well. ;-) Stancel 14:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Just to repeat one of Jpgordon's links more clearly: Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Wouldn't starting an article called Islamofascism in the first place be considered "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point"? - Stancel 2:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

No. You should read the page to which I gave the link. Creating an article that you think should be here might be a mistake, or misguided, but it's not disrupting to make a point; creating an article that you think shouldn't be here is. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

So what's the final verdict on this? - Stancel 14:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 21:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Metropolitan School District of Perry Township

Non-notable. TigerShark 01:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say merge into Perry Township, Marion County, Indiana, but it appears we don't have that one. Did Rambot fail us? Meelar (talk) 01:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like it, since Perry Township appears to actually exist. Indianapolis is located within Marion County; maybe this township is a more-or-less obsolete township because of Indianapolis's sizable metro area? I've never been to Indiana, so I've got no clue. android↔ talk 04:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Townships in Indiana (even in Indianapolis) often form the basis for structuring school districts. Indianapolis has eleven school districts; three of them (Indianapolis Public Schools, Speedway and Beech Grove) are legacy districts from before Unigov; the other eight correspond to (but do not exactly coincide with) eight of the nine townships that comprise Indianapolis. Elsewhere in Indiana, it's quite commonly the case that school districts closely follow township boundaries, although it's far more common in less densely populated areas for one district to contain multiple townships. (There are other township-related functions -- property tax assessment and collection is a township function, as are poor relief, small claims courts, and, in many places, fire protection.) Kelly Martin 03:34, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perry Township, Indiana is redlinked on the Perry Township dab page. Perhaps it should be moved there? Grutness| ^hello? 07:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • There is more than one Perry Township in Indiana. It should be Perry Township, Marion County, Indiana (there are also Perry Townships in Allen and Vanderburgh Counties, and possibly in others as well.) Kelly Martin 03:34, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. School districts I believe are inherently keep-worthy (whereas the schools themselves aren't always) Arkyan 07:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a listings directory. Do the districts not have websites with this info? The JPS 11:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep despite the usual attempt to stack the vote for this vfd [8], and be sure to merge in any attempts to make useless stubs for the constituent schools. — Korath ( Talk) 14:16, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and pray it gets expanded. -- Carnildo 20:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A school district has the combined notability of each of its constituent schools. Klonimus 00:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A perfectly valid article subject. -- Gene_poole 00:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The mergists out there should appreciate that this is an article about an entire school district, not just one school. Ostensibly, this would save us 4 or 5 VfDs down the road when the constituent schools would without a doubt be nominated. -- BaronLarf 22:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - CunningLinguist 02:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is a place for school districts on Wikipedia :o). -- ShaunMacPherson 03:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep this school district please for reasons by baronlarf Yuckfoo 06:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Baronlarf, despite not being Romanian, has a good point. NazismIsntCool 00:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article as it stands is a worthless list that should probably be deleted on its face, but school district articles themselves are a good idea provided that information on individual schools is placed in such articles rather than on independent pages. Indrian 05:08, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth since this passes the Pokemon comparative notability test.   ALKIVAR ™ 09:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. For crying out loud. — RaD Man ( talk) 10:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until there is something to merge it into. Noisy | Talk 11:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep What's wrong with school district's? We should really be watching for real nonsense like...you know what I mean. Let the school districts shine!!! What's more, it's first Wikipedia article ever made (I think?) Pufferfish101 04:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is merely a link-farm, although without the links. Basically I could find similar in the local phonebook. Master Thief Garrett 01:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MEH. No one actually voted. The only remaining problem cited by the lister appears to be cleaning up the article. And anyone is still free to merge and redirect to the main show article. Meh. Postdlf 22:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Hohne (Andromeda)

This is an unwikified block of text (despite having been listed as such for almost two months), it appears to be a bio for some bit part character in a sci-fi tv show and as such doesn't count as encyclopedic in my view. If this article is kept it should be disambiguated, Hohne is also the name of a town in Germany which is host to a sizable British garrison. Rje 01:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Uncle G added a piece about the town, and I split these in two. You may still want to delete the original one, which sits at Hohne (Andromeda). Mikkalai 04:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 22:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Framingham High School

Non-notable. Delete. Neutrality ^talk 04:11, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. notability. Mikkalai 01:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Jimbo [9] that all high schools are notable enough. We should relax and accomodate them. Kappa 01:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Jimbo didn't say that. He said a two page article would be notable, and that one sentence stubs would be annoying. Rick K 07:22, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • So he said all high schools are notable enough to have two page articles... Kappa 18:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Nice try, but since you linked to it we can read what he actually said. Gamaliel 18:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • No, that's not what he said, and you know it. Rick K 19:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
        • OK, RickK's interpretation is that two pages articles on high schools are notable, I'll use that one. Kappa 20:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Given that we're talking about the internet, a page can consist of two words, or ten thousand. -- Gene_poole 06:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough for me I'm afraid. Rje 01:27, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Why do we have to debate high school notability every single time, when it's already been established there's no consensus? Kappa 01:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know, it bothers me as well. R adiant _* 14:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Kappa gren 01:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless collection of generic facts about an insignificant school. This is not an encyclopedia article. Individual schools are not inherently encyclopedic and there is nothing to distinguish insignificant schools like this one from thousands of nearly identical schools around the world. Gamaliel 02:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If people are just using templates, how can this be considered a discussion? Kappa 02:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't realize only inclusionists were allowed to use them. Sorry. Gamaliel 02:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Heh. Shouldn't {{User:Gamaliel/S}} be added to the ongoing VfD?  ;) — RaD Man ( talk) 02:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I don't really like inclusionist templates either, but this is the first template I've tried to reply to. Kappa 03:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Notability not established. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing notable here. Indrian 04:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: BEEFSTEW score of 2. I'll abstain from voting for now. -- bainer 05:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails to estabilsh notability, however, the fact that students are able to flunk in the school almost does it. Vote changed, see below. -- Carnildo 06:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as "On a visit on October 20, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) in the school's John F. Kennedy gymnasium." is notable for me. But I'd love to see some 2-page articles about schools Jimbo mentioned instead of stubs containing only trivial info. Mgm| ^(talk) 10:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Otherwise we can create an artcle about Brenda's Mobile Sandwich Bar, because Clinton once bought a can of coke there. The JPS 11:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I see that it was only today that someone bothered to create Improving America's Schools Act, and even then it doesn't even mention the school! (I'm sure it soon will, tho') If the IASA is so notable that it was only created as a result of this vfd, why should we care about where it was signed? The JPS 21:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a WP:BEEFSTEW thing. "G) Does the article mention a regional or national news story that mentions the school?" Kappa 22:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oh, and move my userpage into article space. I've shaken hands with Rhodri Morgan, therefore I'm notable by this definition. Chris talk back 21:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - as with other schools - SimonP 12:52, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per low BEEFSTEW score. Note that, as usual, there was an attempt to stack the vote on this vfd. [10] — Korath ( Talk) 14:14, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Listing school's on User:GRider/Schoolwatch is not a crime. Both deletionists and inclusionists can use the information therein. Klonimus 23:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you really voting on the BEEFSTEW? But you don't want people to find out so they can improve the articles? Kappa 18:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • We both know that's not why it was listed. — Korath ( Talk) 19:48, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well if you say so, but how much BEEFSTEW do you need? Kappa 23:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Schools can be notable. This one isn't. Carbonite | Talk 14:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 14:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Unsigned by User:Juntung ~ 14:48, 17 Apr 2005. [11]
• Delete, another non-notable school. Grue 17:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cmon people, deep inside we all know that each and every school is notable in its own way and worthy of inclusion in a truly great encyclopedia. If I wasn't so tied up with dealing with bad faith deletionism with Islamofascism, I'd polish up this article. The current article passes the Toowoomba Grammar School test. Klonimus 23:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Since those of us who feel this article is not worthy also largely voted to delete the article you refer to, that is not a particularly good test. Indrian 23:58, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • So we have to do it all over again every time? Kappa 00:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I am not quite sure what that is supposed to mean. As long as two groups of people have strong opinions on what is best for the project and cannot come to a consensus then we most certainly do have to do it over again every time. Indrian 00:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • So when there's no consensus, we have to continue fighting indefinitely... sad. Kappa 00:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • No one is making you come here and vote or discuss. Furthermore, I do not recall seeing you try to affect a compromise between your position and mine. Indrian 00:48, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
            • I feel I have to come here and vote and discuss because I care about the potential users of this project, who will not be best served by having useful, encyclopedic information deleted. Kappa 00:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • And I feel I have to come here and vote and discuss because I care about potential users of the project, who will have legitimate credibility concerns about the project if they see a large number of small articles on schools or other topics that are poorly crafted and have little useful (from a research standpoint) information. It would be arrogant to think that I care any less about wikipedia than you. We have strong disagreements on what is best, but we are both working for the greater good. Indrian 01:37, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
          • I've been hearing this "credibility" blather for years, and I've yet to encounter a single instance of anyone being scared off Wikipedia by so-called "poorly-crafted" articles. On the contrary, I'm aware of several people who have become contributors specifically to improve articles they thought could be improved. -- Gene_poole 05:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Not spoken to LMS recently, then? Chris talk back 23:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • What do you suggest as an alternative? Gamaliel 01:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I think that routine information on schools should be included on the page of the relevant town or county or whatever. I am fine with redirects as appropriate. If those pages get too large as a result, the information could be transferred to a page on the school district or whatever administrative unit is used by a particular country. If individual schools are particularly significant (as opposed to just having long-winded entries) then that school can have its own page. This allows the information to be kept and the proliferation of small, often poor quality articles to be kept in check. Indrian 01:37, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry, guess I should have specified I was asking Kappa what s/he thought would be an alternative to these "sad" discussions happening over and over again. Gamaliel 01:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • No worries, I am still blabla happy to give my view and see what Kappa thinks about it. Indrian 01:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
              • I'd be happy to hear an alternative as well. Would there be some way of getting a consensus here? R adiant _* 14:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
                • A consensus would have to allow average schools to have articles if they are reasonably long and informative, per " relax and accomodate". If you want to cut down on "small, often poor quality" articles stop voting "delete all average schools" and we can try and work out guidelines on which articles should be deleted or merged. Kappa 21:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                  • Please cease and desist from putting words in JW's mouth. That is patently not his intention, nor is it even a valid interpretation of the post. Neither should it be taken that anything that JW says should be construed as de facto policy. To do so is a substantial misrepresentation of the facts, and an abuse of everything we hold dear. Chris talk back 23:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                    • He said "if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them, even if we wish they wouldn't do it." I'm not putting those words into his mouth, and I'm not saying it's policy, only that consensus will not be achieved without it. Kappa 01:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                      • You are putting words into his mouth. You know the old saying "Even Satan may cite scripture to suit his purposes." You're taking a quote out of its original context, made in references to a completely different situation, and stating that somehow it applies here. Very unwiki of you. Again, please stop such activity. It's not fair on Jimbo, and it's not fair on the opposition. As for any chance of reaching consensus, you don't seem to be intent on giving an inch, so any claim that it is required for reaching consensus is entirely hypocritical. Chris talk back 03:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                        • I'm giving a lot of "inches". What I'd really like is for articles on schools to just be able to grow normally like anything else, but all I'm asking now is that the best quality articles have a chance to stand. Kappa 10:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nomination does not comply with deletion policy.-- Gene_poole 23:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. (excerpted from WP:NOT, which is one of the criteria in the deletion policy) Indrian 00:06, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • And how is that comment relevant to a discussion on the subject of whether a concise presentation of organised data on a clearly defined subject should or should not be deleted?. -- Gene_poole 05:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Just that regardless of your opinion on the article you should do more research before accusing fellow wikipedians of acting in bad faith; though I assume you are smart enough to realize that and are just egging me on a bit, because that is a more positive thought than the alternative. Indrian 06:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually I'd just like you to explain how you arrived at the conclusion that a coherent arrangement of information on a single mundane topic is nonsense - or as you so nicely put it, an "indisciminate collection of items of information". I see no nonsense here, and hence no reason for deletion. -- Gene_poole 07:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • You have misread the quote. The phrase "indiscriminate collection of items of information (which is taken straight from the policy page and is not how I put it) refers to wikipedia and not to an individual article therein. Whether you agree that including this article violates said policy or not is immaterial to whether this is a valid VfD. There is a difference of opinion about what information belongs in the encyclopedia and what information would turn it into an indiscriminate collection of items of information (something quite different from nonsense; I am intrigued at how you pulled that definition out of those words), which is why we have these discussions and votes, but this nomination is perfectly in-line with policy. Your view that only vanity, original research, and nonsense should be deleted is actually a narrower view than the deletion policy itself puts forth. You are entitled to have that opinion and vote based on that opinion, but you are not entitled to accuse users of nominating articles contrary to the actual deletion policy when they have not done so. Indrian 07:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
            • As you are well aware, the Wikipedia default position on all articles and the information contained therein is retention - unless - and only unless - there are compelling reasons for deletion. This is the clear and unambiguous intent and spirit of the deletion policy as it currently stands. Nonsense, vanity and original research are the only stated compelling reasons to delete content from Wikipedia under that policy. This nomination fails that basic test, and is therefore invalid. -- Gene_poole 23:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
              • Have you even read the deletion policy? The following reasons are unambiguously given for listing an article on VfD: "No potential to become encyclopedic (see WP:NOT), Original research, Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases, Vanity page, Advertising or other spam, Completely idiosyncratic non-topic." Notice that WP:NOT is unambiguously tied to the deletion policy as the place to go for a definition of no potential to become encyclopedic. If one were to bother to read that page, one would see the following categories unambiguously stated: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base is further defined as follows on the same page: "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base, that is, it is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not: Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, Travel guides, Memorials, News reports, Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries, Directories, directory entries, or a resource for conducting business."
              • I have directly cut and pasted this information from the appropriate pages which expound the official deletion policy of wikipedia. This policy unambiguously states many more categories of articles that can be placed on VfD and properly deleted than just nonsense, vanity, and original research. Your position is directly contradicted by the express words of the policy. You are certainly allowed to vote your conscience and vote to keep the article, but the listing is perfectly valid. Indrian 00:22, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
                • You can cut and paste as much as you like, but unfortunately you still haven't demonstrated any direct correlation between Wikipedia's deletion policy and this nomination, which clearly does NOT comply with ANY of the policy requirements listed above or anywhere else within Wikipedia. -- Gene_poole 00:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
                  • There is plenty of play in the joints of the unencyclopedic criteria and in what wikipedia is not. The listed examples are only those for which a strong consensus has been reached, and some of those examples are ambiguous themselves. Due to this ambiguity and differences of opinion on what the limits of this criteria are, there are naturally debates that play out on VfD. You interpret the guidelines narrowly, others do so more broadly. Claiming that there is no room for debate is simplistic, and claiming that only vanity, original research, and nonsense are the only criteria is just plain wrong. And besdies, if these school nominations are not valid, why do admins honor the results whether it is to keep or delete? Indrian 01:09, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep -- this particular otherwise uninteresting public high school in an otherwise uninteresting outer suburb of Boston seems to be marginally notable. Still, it's no Stuyvesant High. Haikupoet 00:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If it's so uninteresting, what makes it "marginally notable"? Gamaliel 01:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Clinton visit and Improving America's School Act make it notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Framingham, Massachusetts (which is very good start in my opinion, by the way) and delete - Skysmith 09:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. R adiant _* 14:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - as with other schools - Dittaeva 14:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While I believe that all high schools deserve an article on Wikipedia, this high school should meet the standards for those who believe some sort of notability is required. President Clinton signed the Improving America's Schools Act here. Christa McAuliffe, the teacher and astronaut who died in the Challenger disaster graduated from here. The school has a history dating back to 1792 as an academy and 1852 as a reorganized high school. I've made improvements to the article. More are needed, as can be said for almost any article, but it should not be deleted. -- BaronLarf 21:59, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If it's really got a history dating back to 1792, it's encyclopedic. -- Carnildo 22:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a very good and very notable article compared to some of the other stuff on Wikipedia. - CunningLinguist 02:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is a place on Wikipedia for schools. -- ShaunMacPherson 03:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep, why does this keep happening? 1792 seems historical. Yuckfoo 06:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This time, it happened because the original article put up for VfD was a bland two-sentence stub saying "This is a school. It is in this city." -- Carnildo 06:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep this extremely notable school. This is not a template.  ;) — RaD Man ( talk) 08:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - As per all Schools, I vote to keep. -- Irishpunktom\ ^talk 15:23, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Decent article, has potential to become enclopedic. -- Andylkl ^(talk) 15:30, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Wikipedia would be less valuable without this article. Fg2 01:23, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Like colleges and universities, schools are enduring institutions. Tobycat 02:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, schools = notable. -- Myles Long 15:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is an enduring institution affecting thousands of lives. Could be a very interesting page.

-- VorpalBlade 17:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep  The Steve  19:00, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth.   ALKIVAR ™ 09:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep'. Houshuang 01:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Where else would someone find this concise description of this school? — BenFrantzDale 15:17, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Certainly not in this or any other encyclopaedia, because that's not where someone would be looking. Chris talk back 13:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry boys and girls, but NN = Delete for me. Master Thief Garrett 01:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is subjective. Wikipedia is not improved by the removal of school articles. ~ leif ☺ _{( talk)} 20:02, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • However, it is improved by the removal of articles about subjects that don't merit them, and articles that don't contain any information which separate it out from an article on a near-identical subject. Wikipedia is not, however, improved by keeping them. Common sense, people. I find it disturbing that people are still voting on this after 2 weeks. Chris talk back 13:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Thank you so much. That is exactly my view. People seem to think that a school automatically has a Vfd-proof bubble around it and vehemently oppose any naysayers. However, I wouldn't say two weeks is overly long. Since the Schoolwatch team have now made the deletion of all schools a point of contention, each and every deletion discussion that would otherwise be short and simple now becomes a bitter struggle of wills between the "keep every school no matter what" and the "delete if it's useless/obscure" camps. Master Thief Garrett 00:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 22:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Originality

• Abstain now I suppose It was transwikied to wiktionary and therefore is not needed here. gren 01:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important concept. Has potential to be expanded to cover the question of if computers can have "original" ideas, and the legal definition of original in copyright/patent disputes. Kappa 03:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

wow, I figured this was a sure delete.... I'd take it off VfD (not sure if I can thought...) since I guess I figured those issues would be covered elsewhere. gren 04:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If they are, we'll still need some kind of disambig page. Don't worry about withdrawing though, I'm sure there'll be some delete votes. Kappa 04:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Like, ohmigawsh. I've never heard of originality before. Keep, on condition that someone do what Kappa suggests. Haikupoet 00:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Kappa, I dropped a few lines about originality as a requirement for a patent in the U.S. -- 8^D ^gab 06:29, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
  • Thanks BD2412. Now all we need is an article for nonobvious ... Kappa 21:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Turns out there's already a nonobviousness article; I added a redirect. -- 8^D ^gab 16:52, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
      • Nice find, thanks Kappa 17:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Theo (Talk) 00:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Normally I'd go with merge with votes like this below, but their intentions involved another article that was on VfD and was kept. So if some enterprising youngster wants to be bold and merge this puppy somewhere, I won't squawk, but I'm not going to do it myself. Postdlf 23:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

South Gin

Delete as pure advertisement. FreplySpang (talk) 01:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Create Pacific Dawn Distillers and move the content there. Mikkalai 04:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Megan1967 05:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why delete this? It's a brand just like Coca-cola. The other alcoholic beverage produced by PDD, 42 Below, has its own page; why not this too?

Comment. Good point. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/42 BELOW. FreplySpang (talk) 15:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with 42 BELOW to form Pacific Dawn Distillers. Individual brands are rarely noteable (I have spent ages reducing Category:Brands of beer by merging stubs into brewery articles where they belong, but companies who produce things have more permanence, and this is would make a small article about a distiller using local ingredients to make a NZ distilled product range. Justinc 11:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'm with Justinc; merge the two brands into one article, leaving redirects behind. Deletion would be inappropriate, since the current text doesn't actually encourage one to purchase the drink, even if some of the text reads like slightly POV ad-copy. It's not a fantastic article, but it is wearing its stub tag like a good boy and some South Gin fancier will come along eventually. Dave1898 12:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, it seems the 42 Below (brand) deletion tag has been removed; this is also a brand owned by 42 Below Limited. Lets remove this deletion request too. More will be added to this page as the brand becomes more popular. Cheers.

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 21:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Gallery of illuminated manuscript images, Gallery of Book of Kells pages, Gallery of Vergilius Romanus miniatures

• delete. See an identical discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides about the Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides. Mikkalai 02:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete Move to wikicommons. (by User:Sparkit who forgot to sign. Mikkalai 05:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC))
• Keep Notable pictures. Klonimus 07:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Gallery of Book of Kells pages and Gallery of Vergilius Romanus miniatures. I have made these arguments at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gallery of pages from the Vienna Dioscurides, but I will also make them here. First, I strongly believe that pictures are absolutely essential for understanding art objects. If a particular art object is notable enough for an article then the pictures themselves have encyclopedic value, the only question is how best to present them. the same can be said about individual artist, the best way to understand their works is to see as many images as possible. (See for example the William-Adolphe Bouguereau gallery) In my opinion, there are only two viable options: tacking the images onto the end of the article, as has been done for the Codex Aureus of Lorsch, or creating a separate article, as has been done for Gallery of Book of Kells pages and Gallery of Vergilius Romanus miniatures. I believe that the second option is superior because these galleries can contain a very large number of images. Tacking these onto the end of long article such as the Book of Kells can make the pages unwieldy and ugly. Creating a gallery on Commons is not, in my mind, a viable option. First, the most common means of informing a reader of the existence of Commons material, use of the {{Commons|article name}} template, is not particularly useful for a casual reader, they won't know what that little box in the corner means. It is true that a link to a gallery on Commons can be constructed which looks like a regular wiki link, but as this would take a hypothetical casual reader out of Wikipedia, without warning, which at the least would cause confusion. In addition, there is an active discussion on Commons as to whether images should be collected into articles or into categories. At some time a consensus will on Commons may be reached to not have articles, only categories, at which time we would be left without the galleries we need. Finally, Commons is a multilingual wiki. I do not think it would be a good thing to send casual readers to a gallery that is a babel of languages like this one, or even worse, one that has no English text. Dsmdgold 16:37, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I have not voted on Gallery of illuminated manuscript images. Although I created this monster, I have been recently thinking that the same purpose would be better served by creating a Category, Illuminated manuscript images. It would not grieve me to see this go. Dsmdgold 16:41, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, concur very much with Dsmdgold. Categories cannot be annotated, or arranged. Kappa 23:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I think that there should be deletion if there is a commons page and it should be used because syncrhonization of en and commons pages is unlikely to be flawless. I also think there needs to be a specific policy about how the use of the commons so that this issue is settled. I am not sure I understand the article for redundance with commons and en pages unless they aren't released under free licenses. That might be a good reason *shrugs* I just want an official decision so it can dictate my actions... I just stress to anyone working with gallery pages to please help put things to the commons if they are under a license that allows it so that we can help our friends using other languages. gren 00:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep CristianChirita 12:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep An excellent companion to any article mentioning the Book of Kells. Visual art's impact and importance should not be ignored in wikipedia.  The Steve  19:16, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to Animusic. Postdlf 21:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Future Retro(Animusic)

Article consists of an image, watched it for awhile and nothing of use was added-probably should be a speedy Delete but I thought I should run it through here just in case. Rx StrangeLove 02:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• At Animusic we find yet another redlink farm. I wouldn't be surprised if there were as little to say about those as there apparently is about this. Given the images that Animusicboy ( talk · contribs) has uploaded, I suspect that more such empty articles will be along shortly. I'd say Merge to Animusic, except that in practical terms there's pretty much nothing to merge. Delete all of those redlinks regardless. This can be handled by a simple list within Animusic itself. Uncle G 03:21, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Merge into Animusic, which itself needs some serious cleanup, but sounds notable enough at first glance; SIGGRAPH is a huge deal in computer graphics. Being "featured" (whatever that might mean) at that conference is potentially quite notable. android↔ talk 03:54, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not an article. Rick K 07:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Animusic. Megan1967 08:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Nothing to merge. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Delete. Rossami (talk) 03:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Closedown

I'm not as familiar with the "This article is actively undergoing a major edit" tag as I probably should be so I left a note on the talk page indicating that I'd be putting it up for vfd. It had been sitting like this for 3 days, which seems like enough time for someone to make something of it if they intended to (especially after "locking" it in this manner). Considering the content I think deleteing it would be appropriate for now and if someone would like to make something of it later they can. Rx StrangeLove 02:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under CSD criterion G2. Uncle G 03:08, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Yup, definitely a Speedy candidate. Even though this article is on VfD, is it okay to slap a CSD notice on it? android↔ talk 03:47, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• speedeleted. content was OMG BillyH is writing this article! {{inuse}}. Mikkalai 04:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

OpenExpression

This article doesn't define its title, and as far as I can tell there's nothing called "OpenExpression". There do appear to be some web sites with that as their domain names that are either under construction or invitations to purchase the domain name. The final two external hyperlinks are suspect, moreover. Uncle G 02:58, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

• Delete what is it? Vegaswikian 07:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless context is given. Gazpacho 08:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unnoteworthy babble CustardJack 23:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Candlelight Spells

Delete as non-encyclopedic. There are lots of similar books of spells out there, and this one doesn't seem to have had any particular impact on the world. FreplySpang (talk) 03:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The reviews at amazon seem to indicate that it's influential. Rick K 07:26, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure which listing on Amazon you found. A sales ranking of 720,107 seems pretty poor to me. It's one of over a dozen books published by the same author. I can't find anything to distinguish this one. Inclining toward delete for now. Rossami (talk) 03:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Rossami. R adiant _* 14:09, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep non-vanity books. Author also has a book ranked #104,415 [12], must be reasonably notable in the crowded field of Spellcasting, Feasting, and Healing. Kappa 22:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Your second sentence would seem to be an argument for keeping an article about the author (which I would support except that the current article is a copyvio). I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of the comment to this article about the non-selling book. Rossami (talk) 16:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • My thinking is that if an author is interesting to significant numbers of people, any books they might write can also be presumed to be interesting to them. Kappa 20:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't look notable. Tempshill 20:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. ("non-fiction"? I dunno about that. ;-)) RussBlau 19:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep non-vanity Citadel Press book  The Steve  19:29, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This 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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Matthew McGrath

Pure vanity of Vandy student. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Indeed, you do not often see purer vanity. FreplySpang (talk)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Oh, dear Lord, delete as pure nonsense. Speedy if possible. He defeated Blackbeard?!? - Lucky 6.9 07:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and send to Best of BJAODN. This is really funny... defeating Blackbeard off the coast of the Outer Banks of North Carolina? Nice deleteable imagination. -- Idont Havaname 21:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to Rainbow Gathering. I'll tag the article so someone else can do it. (just kidding...I'm not that lazy) Postdlf 23:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Rainbow gatherings

Nonsensical ramble. I'm not sure what this is, but it's not encyclopedic. CJCurrie 03:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete sermon, copyvio Gazpacho 03:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  and then redirect to Rainbow Gathering Gazpacho 07:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, etc. -- Curps 03:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Rainbow Gathering. This is a large annual event with thousands of participants. Encyclopedic, even for non-hippies. FreplySpang (talk) 05:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Megan1967 05:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It's a teen sex comedy just waiting to be made! "Really, man, I thought it was gonna be a rainbow party..." No? No. Redirect to Rainbow Gathering. Samaritan 06:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge any non-duplicate non-copyvio non-rambling-sermon content and redirect to Rainbow Gathering. Annual event for decades, thousands of people per year, the most notable countercultural phenomenon in North America. More year-round influence in society than Burning Man or any concert tour or the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally or even a Woodstock revival. Barno 15:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful into Rainbow Gathering and redirect. Jonathunder 04:22, 2005 Apr 19 (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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bud Rue

This seems to be a piece of well-intentioned vanity by the subject's son. I am sure Mr. Rue was a very fine and respected person, but he does not meet the bar of notability in my mind for an encyclopedia. Delete. Indrian 03:42, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 05:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I must agree. He looks like a very nice person but does not meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Delete. Rossami (talk) 03:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete' no matter how well written this eulogy is. -- Wetman 15:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TNL Freighting

Does not seem a big enough company to warrant its own Wikipedia entry. The article itself says the company "...has 100 trucks." · Katefan0 ^(scribble) 03:37, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, 100 trucks seems like a lot for a small country. Also being a publicly listed company seems like a good criterion. Kappa 05:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, being publicly listed does not automatically imbue notability. Rick K 07:28, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to skiing. Postdlf 22:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Cat skiing

Non notable dicdef, should be merged and deleted into skiing, no potential to become encyclopedic. Klonimus 03:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or keep types of skiing. No reason to delete redirect. Kappa 05:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. At the main skiing article it is more likely to attract related info about helicopter and other backcountry skiing to itself. FreplySpang (talk) 05:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Link's Quest for Ass

• delete. For an internet thing, miserably small number of google hits, hence nonnotable. Mikkalai 04:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I suspect the user who posted this is a sockpuppet of User:SamuraiClinton. User's very first post was a comment to SamuraiClinton's talk page. This is precisely the type of article and subject matter that have gotten SamuraiClinton run up for an RfC. - Lucky 6.9 07:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with all reasons given - Stoph 08:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Lucky. android↔ talk 15:33, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. — flamingspinach | (talk) 23:34, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. -- The Anome 00:18, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable fancruft. — JIP | Talk 06:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete, not sure what this is about but seems disruptive Yuckfoo 06:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnotable sprite flash. Nestea 17:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Too few votes for consensus. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kitco Inc.

Currently tagged with {{ cleanup-importance}}. As it is now, it is more of a company ad. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. -- Mb1000 18:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Konstantin Karamanlis

Has been tagged with {{ cleanup-importance}} for two weeks. The article just says, "Former Prime Minister of Greece." Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Constantine Karamanlis -- Chris Johnson 04:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • done. Mikkalai 04:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to copyvio. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Iowa wine

I don't see where this is going, unless it's going to be a list of Iowa wineries, but so far it just states something that can be applied to just any winiery in state if not the world. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, presumably it will go on to discuss the history of wine production in the state, the characteristics of Iowan wines, local vineyards and commercial success around the US and globally. Kappa 05:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio from [13]. I have tagged and listed it. FreplySpang (talk) 06:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • "I want the wine of my country! I want the wine of my country! I want the wine of my country! The wine of my country—is beer!"—King Maximilian, Rodgers and Hammerstein, Cinderella

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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Koree Storee

Has been tagged with {{ cleanup-importance}} since February: "A 10-minute sitcom created in the summer of 2004, The Koree Storee displays the stupidity and ignorance of a 16 year old by the name of Koree." Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete. there is no such sitcom. hoax. Mikkalai 04:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Megan1967 05:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Tagged as a speedy for patent nonsense. LevelCheck 22:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Kroxyldyphic

Has been tagged with {{ cleanup-importance}} since January! It says, "Kroxyldyphic is a made-up word that is used in the television cartoon series South Park to make spelling-competitions impossible to win." Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• del nonnotable. No google hits. Mikkalai 04:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You probably spelled it wrong. -- Bobdoe ( Talk) 07:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: fan cruft. -- Bobdoe ( Talk) 07:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not even notable among SP fans; it occurred once in one episode. We don't know how to spell it (all we know is that it doesn't begin with C). The article isn't even accurate: Cartman was given chair and spelled it wrong. Kyle is the one who was given kroxyldyphic (or however it's spelled). -- Angr/ _comhrá 12:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Coheety

Band Vanity Coheety is a four-piece rock band from Tiverton, Rhode Island in the United States. ... The following summer, 2001, they recorded and released their third album, The Sizbotean. There was one last farewell show and the boys all went off to separate colleges. This didn't stop them, though. They got together during their winter break and recorded some demos. That is to say without Matt Cellemme who joined the Air Force Academy and as a result hasn't been very active in the band since. Klonimus 04:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Three albums seems above the bar for notability. -- Theo (Talk) 15:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neither allmusic nor artistdirect has heard of them, and their "albums" seem to be nothing but collections of downloadable MP3s. Rick K 20:12, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if self-published. R adiant _* 14:10, Apr 18, 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. sjorford →•← 10:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Colin Todd

""Not notable sports vanity""Colin Todd is the curent manager of Bradford City A.F.C. As a player he was sucessfull winning many england caps. Klonimus 04:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep international athletes and managers of professional teams. Kappa 04:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Vanity? Notable player and notable manager. Xezbeth 07:40, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Definitely notable. Keep Qwghlm 12:58, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, def-ly not vanity. Grue 17:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep professional soccer player who played for England. Now manager of professional team. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to Super Mario Land. Postdlf 22:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Sarasaland

Super Mario cruft, Redirect and Merge into Super Mario Land. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as fancruft. Martg76 07:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft. Megan1967 08:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge into Super Mario Land, not enough info to warrant seperate entry. Mgm| ^(talk) 10:33, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Super Mario Land since the article is too short. The subject is as valid as other fictional places in games. Aslo, I thought World 3 was called "Easton Island" and not "Easter Island". Sjakkalle 07:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge sounds good Yuckfoo 06:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Postdlf 22:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Costin_Manu

Personal Vanity Costin Manu was the Owner and Executive Producer of Not A Hobby Productions in Toronto and held the position of Managing & Artistic Director at Victoria Playhouse Petrolia from 1995 until December 2003. He is now the President and Executive Producer of StageEnt Inc., www.stage-ent.com a theatrical Production & Management company in Toronto. Klonimus 04:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. -- Spinboy 06:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Pavel Vozenilek 02:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/cleanup. Samaritan 16:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep as redirect to Marquess of Tweeddale. sjorford →•← 10:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marquis of Tweedale

Currently tagged with {{ cleanup-importance}}. This article only tries to describe George Hay, the 8th Marquis of Tweedale. Still, I fail to see how the title "Marquis of Tweedale" is notable enough. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Should be moved to George Hay, 8th Marquis of Tweedale and expanded, and the Marquis of Tweedale page made into a dab page for a list of all of the marquises. That's the standard for other British title articles. Rick K 20:14, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like someone has mostly fixed this already. Briefly:
  • In the UK, the title is usually Marquess, rather than Marquis.
  • Tweedale is a typo; it should be Tweeddale.
  • Marquis of Tweedale's content should be moved to George Hay, 8th Marquess of Tweeddale. This has been done, but by cut & paste rather than page move; an admin will have to properly merge the histories.
  • Marquis of Tweedale should redirect to Marquess of Tweeddale. This has been done. The latter page lists all the Marquesses of Tweeddale.
• So, leave this as a redirect to Marquess of Tweeddale. -- TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur with RickK's fix below. -- TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We now have a cut and paste move. I'm going to delete George Hay, 8th Marquess of Tweeddale, revert Marquis of Tweedale, move it to George Hay, 8th Marquess of Tweeddale, then change the redirect to Marquess of Tweeddale (then fix the markup). Rick K 20:58, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Done. Rick K 21:05, Apr 18, 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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael J. Pohl

Has been tagged with {{ cleanup-importance}} for two weeks. Just says, "Former Assistant press seceritary for President James Carter. Former CEO SkyConnect. Former CEO nCUBE Inc. Current President of Business Software solutions LLC C-COR Inc." Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as a page with little content-- nixie 02:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Check of Carter Library only shows only one reference to him, and it is as Director of the Office of Media Advance. Not a significant member of the Carter administration. Tobycat 23:44, 22 Apr 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 delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mick Martin

Has been tagged with {{ cleanup-importance}} since February. Just says that this person is co-editor of the Bold DVD And Video Guide. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, really really not notable or encyclopedic-- nixie 07:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Provisional delete if more can't be said about him than that or the Bold DVD and Video Guide is more notable. I thought it referred to former Kangaroos AFL premiership player Mick Martin (AFL) who warrants an article. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not an actual author but a two-time book editor. Checked Amazon and has only the two edited works mentioned in the article. Additionally, those works are non-enduring. As movie-guides they become outdated within a short timeframe. Tobycat 05:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Murray Cumming

Has been tagged with {{ cleanup-importance}} since January. It just says that this person is a software developer who maintains gtkmm and other open source software. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless more information is added. -- DuKot 05:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agreeing with DuKot. Joyous 02:04, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Though the project (gtkmm) is noteworthy, the role of its current maintainer is not. The project has more than one maintainer and the role is not permanent. Source: gtkmm developer page Also, a review of Mr. Cumming's Curriculum Vitae reveals a typical programmer/developer career with nothing particularly notable. This may be a vanity page. Tobycat 05:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Nightshift Magazine

Tagged with {{ cleanup-importance}} since February. Just says, "A paper magazine run by Ronan Munro. Listings and reviews of Oxford's music." Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• They appear to be web-based, with a web site at http://nightshift.oxfordmusic.net/ . I've googled a number of artists quoting Nightshift reviews, so I'm uncertain how notable they are. Pass. — RJH 18:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Servant of the shrub

"Delete as vanity page for nn RPG guild. FreplySpang (talk) 05:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense -- DuKot 05:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity -- nixie 07:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• RPG groups aren't notable. An article about a mere bug in the game would be cruft.Delete Mgm| ^(talk) 10:35, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Karl Rove. Then delete. Jonathunder 04:24, 2005 Apr 19 (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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nishan de Mel

Tagged with {{ cleanup-importance}} since February. The only things that it says about this Harvard economist is that he recently gave a series of important lectures on the topic of healthcare in developing countries, and that "in light of the recent Tsunami disaster, it would appear his work will take on increased importance over the next few years." Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Well, the article was wrong - he's a lecturer at Oxford, not Harvard (where he got his BA). But having looked at all these minor actors and sportspeople get keeps on Wikipedia, I have to say I'm now going to employ the same rule to academics as we do to actors - verifiably employed by an important university, so keep. Average Earthman 13:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Does your rule have a minimum rank, or does any academic qualify? Kappa 14:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • So teaching assistants should have articles? What about the janitorial staff? Delete, article does not establish notablity. Rick K 20:16, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe only the "academic" janitorial staff, like that guy in the movie. Kappa 20:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the bloody minded refusal to grasp the point. Since when is a cleaner an academic? He's a lecturer, for a top department in a top university. You want an arbitrary limit, fine, say it should be a university that could be considered to be in the world's top 50 [14]. Average Earthman 17:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • You might want to start filling out List of Professors. Rick K 20:55, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, I see you've edited the Madonna article recently, so I'll be looking forward to your complete and comprehensive List of entertainers then. Average Earthman 16:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• No evidence that he exceeds the "average professor" test. Delete unless further evidence is presented. (The argument that we set the bar too low for minor actors and sportspeople is no reason to propogate the mistake.) Rossami (talk) 03:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, arguably being employed as a lecturer at Oxford University is a bit of a hint you're not just average. Average Earthman 17:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Not really. Every organization has average performers even when average is measured against the greater population. With very very few exceptions, the standard deviation across individuals is much greater than the difference between the population means. Rossami (talk)
• Keep per Average Earthman's proposed standard. Kappa 21:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete per Uppland's findings below. Kappa 05:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am usually all for keeping academics, but the only thing this guy has written that I can find – assuming it is the same person – is a 2002 Oxford M.Phil. thesis, Hyperbolic discounting and pensions, which I found in the OU library catalogue. [15] He doesn't even seem to have finished his doctorate. / Uppland 20:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that research, I've changed my vote. Kappa 05:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I am Nishan de Mel. I've stumbled apon this page and am somewhat amused, I have no idea how this page came to be created. The picture associated with the page is certainly not my picture even though the information contained in it is basically accurate. The argument for my importance seems very dubious; and all the criticisms except the one which claims I have written almost nothing, seem rather well directed. Please feel free to write to me at: nishan.demel@economics.oxford.ac.uk for verification, and any other information. I myself do not think that I warrant a listing in Wikipedia.

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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pascal Thériault Lauzier

Currently tagged with {{ cleanup-importance}}, it looks like vanity. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, poor vanity. Grue 17:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Verified that Mr. Lauzier is a typical college student...indeed on his school football team, presented a math paper, and is in the astronomy club. Not much different from the rest of the college students out there. Tobycat 05:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Well this article is about me and I am not the author. A friend of mine wrote it during a party when we were talking about wiki. We wanted to know how fast it would be deleted. paslau 1:49, 26 Jul 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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Philip Rieff

Currently tagged with {{ cleanup-importance}}, this person's only claim to fame was that he was the first husband of Susan Sontag. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete spouses that aren't notable in their own right-- nixie 07:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not inherently notable. Megan1967 08:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Redundant with content on Susan Sontag's page. Also delete links to Philip on the Susan Sontag and David Rieff pages. — RJH 18:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable in his own right, although it wasn't clear from the previous state of the article. The Encyclopaedia Britannica mentions two of his books in the "additional reading" section of the article on Sigmund Freud. / Uppland 08:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Uppland's findings. Kappa 22:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep' this please Yuckfoo 06:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the added material makes it appropriate content. Tobycat 05:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so kept. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pop.a

Tagged with {{ cleanup-importance}} since February. Just says that this person is a German pop artist who invented art with stickers in 1987. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect to Enugu. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Presidential Hotel, Enugu

Has been tagged with {{ cleanup-importance}} since February. All that it says is, "The Presidential Hotel is the main hotel in Enugu, Nigeria. It was built in the 1970s." Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Expanded slightly Kappa 06:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the city its in and include in a list of ammenities. Conferences get held in hotels all the time. -- nixie 07:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Enugu. Megan1967 08:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Meh. Keep the main hotel in a large city, and help redress systemic bias against developing countries. Kappa 22:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zezima

Unverifiable, non-notable, POV, possibly a personal attack. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as personal attack with personal information. - Lucky 6.9 07:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, personal attack. Megan1967 08:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 10:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

David Gonterman

Non-notable. The only thing that he appears to be notable for is being a loser on the Internet. -- Bobdoe ( Talk) 06:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable web cartoonist, vanity and/or self-promotion, someone should nerf the external links-- nixie 07:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE, most Internet users eventually hear about this guy, and he is therefore notable.
  • User:Krishva's twelfth edit.
• DO NOT DELETE, Gonterman is an interesting figure and the archetype/originator for several kinds of promenent comic/writing styles on the internet.
  • User:67.173.255.141's third edit.
    • You're kidding me, right? I've read some of his works, and to be honest, there was little difference between them and all of the other bad self-insertion fanfiction out there. Please tell us why he, of all the lame fanfiction writers, deserves an article. -- Bobdoe ( Talk) 18:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe Gonterman deserves a place on Wikipedia as he is a particularly notable figure in the Internet domain of bad fanfiction writers. His works may not stand out, but his reaction towards others' opinions on him or his fanfiction does. I'm willing to expand the article or allow someone else to do so. - Grumpyhan 03:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vaNNity. R adiant _* 14:13, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As unintentionally hilarious as he is, he hasn't broken into mainstream internet unintentional hilarity. That said, he doesn't even have enough information on him to make him a notable article (as of yet, at any rate). PS: Bahahaha. RickGriffin 22:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Either expand or, if the article can't be expanded, delete. DS 15:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Marlinspike Symphonic Orchestra

Zero Google hits for "Marlinspike * Orchestra"; created by a user with a history of dubious edits. — tregoweth 06:59, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Marlinspike Hall is a house in Tintin comics. José San Martin 13:47, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Very sneaky vandalism--I actually looked at this page when it was created and, seeing nothing amiss, moved on. I should have been more thorough--I can find no evidence of this existing on Google or Allmusic. Delete. Meelar (talk) 20:20, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Slac speak up! 23:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:00, 25 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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of rock musicians

In theory, this could be an interesting list - if it wasn't likely to be far too long to be viable or useful. As it is, it seems to have had just one name on it since its creation. Grutness| ^hello? 07:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Would a "list of rock musicians by country of origin" be more maintainable? Mgm| ^(talk) 10:38, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This makes more sense as a category, I would think. Conveniently, we already have one: Category:Rock musicians. If someone really wants to sort them by country of origin, then that could be done as well: Category:American rock musicians. -- TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- could be renamed to "List of notable rock musicians", but that would still be too long and rather POV. Haikupoet 00:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable — Wahoofive | Talk 04:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A category makes more sense than a list for this. Angela . 20:50, Apr 24, 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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of nu-soul musicians

Perhaps a little more saveable than the predecessor, but one name does not a list make! Grutness| ^hello? 07:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, there is already an expansive list at Neo soul. Until that page becomes too large there is no need for this fork. Megan1967 08:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- hard to even define such a term, never mind say who belongs to it. Haikupoet 00:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One item is not a substantial enough list to make an article. Though I guess it can be argued that even an empty list is in itself a list (see empty set). -- Idont Havaname 15:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Neo soul#List of nu soul artists. Angela . 01:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slanguage

Neologism, already transwikied, delete or redirect to slang if absolutely necessary-- nixie 08:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 11:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Not just a neologism but a mediocre word humor book that never really lives up to the potential of the subject matter (and completely drops the ball when it comes to foreign languages). Delete with extreme prejudice. Haikupoet 23:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gila trout

I really can't see any meaningfuly expansion coming out of this artilce, Redirect and Merge to/with Cutthroat. -- Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. They're different species - Oncorhynchus gilae and Oncorhynchus clarki. And if it's merged it should be to Cutthroat trout. Rick K 09:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Any valid biological species is a subject which a user of Wikipedia might legitimately wish to enquire about; clear potential to become encyclopaedic with the addition of information on morphology, behaviour, ecology etc. - SP-KP 09:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep all individual species. Xezbeth 10:02, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is a legitimate biology entry for wikipedia. Megan1967 11:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all species. Meelar (talk) 20:16, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all species, especially endangered ones. — RaD Man ( talk) 23:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I'm sure that more can be said about it than this. Capitalistroadster 03:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Dinner Keep R adiant _* 14:13, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This nomination is ridiculous and a waste of VfD space and time. -- Aranae 18:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• keep Endangered species are extremely notable. Sabine's Sunbird 04:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I've expanded the article and even found a public domain image (bless the USFWS!), and there's more an interested person could write if they wanted to. Sabine's Sunbird 17:22, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

El Camino Bible Church

a local church, the article provides no reason why this should be in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a web directory or a phone book. Gentgeen 09:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 13:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable public institution. -- Gene_poole 23:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a web directory or a phone book. -- Calton | Talk 02:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, ergo it is encyclopedic.-- Gene_poole 05:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • • My god, call the editors of the Beg the question article, we've got a winner here. -- Calton | Talk 11:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Congratulations! You're the first human being in 2005 to use the term "beg the question" with its correct meaning!
      • This article isn't encyclopedic without significant expansion - unless that happens, Delete or Redirect to Mennonite. KickAir8P~ 05:53, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
      • My what circular logic. Dave the Red (talk) 06:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Delete nonnotable. And incidentally, in the United States, churches aren't public institutions, at least not yet. -- Angr/ _comhrá 13:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The inclusionists define "public institution" to include churches and private schools. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another church--only 42 displayed hits, a number of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages or a web or neighborhood directory. Niteowlneils 01:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe it rates an entry in the SantaClaraYellowPagesPedia. -- Calton | Talk 02:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't the yellow pages. Gamaliel 06:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are probably well over two dozen churches in a 25-mile radius of my residence. Do all of them deserve encyclopedia articles? Of course not. Nothing indicates that this church is more notable than any other. Firebug 06:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable church. Dave the Red (talk) 06:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Santa Clara, California and delete - Skysmith 09:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable church. Substub. Unreasonable granularity. Plenty of room for this single line and web link in Santa Clara, California. I have already merged the material into Santa Clara, California and supplied a history-preserving notice at Talk:Santa Clara, California, so a merge-and-delete is valid. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I like the approach of listing it in Santa Clara, California. I should have thought of that to start with. Jake 00:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Well, I just added the four catholic parishes in Santa Clara to the page, it seems only right that all the baptist, lutheran, orthodox, jewish, islam, buddist, shinto, LDS, wiccan, and so on, get listed soon as well. This will likely be a very long section. Gentgeen 00:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't be unmanageable. My local Yellow Pages covers four towns with a combined population of well over 100,000 and lists less than fifty churches. If the editors of the Santa Clara page ultimately decide that churches should not be included that will be their business, but if they are not worth a mention on the Santa Clara page they are certainly not worth their own articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough info about this entity to justify separate entry. Agree with others that inclusion on other pages (Santa Clara) is more appropriate. Tobycat 03:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jornversken steel

This type of steel does not exist. A Google search for "Jornversken" returns no hits that are not Wikipedia mirrors. The creator and sole editor of the article, User:Wikiphreak, is the same person as User:FarQPwnsME, who is a known vandal (see, for example, these two edits: [16], [17]). — Lowellian ( talk) 09:42, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

The picture used in the article, Image:F431-838-72-steel-blue.jpg, should also be deleted. — Lowellian ( talk) 09:46, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons given above. — Lowellian ( talk) 09:42, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And I'm not even sure that's steel at all (in the picture). Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 'Nonsense Steel is an alloy of iron and carbon, not bronze and sulfer. Klonimus 00:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Rossami (talk) 03:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm also FarQPwnsJoo Wikiphreak (talk) 13:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Bluemoose 09:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A2Kafir 23:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rebuke

Dictionary definition, no potential to be encyclopedic. Wiktionary already has a definition. Oliver Keenan 09:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, concur. Kappa 21:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Delete then. Pavel Vozenilek 02:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was move to Wikipedia talk:2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia/archive. I deleted the redirect at the original namespace. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia/Archive

Delete. Wikipedia does not want humor in any of its articles. 66.91.63.100 03:28, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (and move to wherever it is that its corresponding article ends up). I originally removed the vfd notice from this page, as no subpage had been created, it hadn't been listed on vfd, and deleting a talk page archive is nonsensical, but since the anon reverted me, I'm bringing it to today's vfd page for resolution. — Korath ( Talk) 10:21, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. It's a talk archive and those shouldn't be deleted without a really good reason. Jeltz talk 11:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a talk page and I do not see a sufficient reason to delete it. Zzyzx11 | Talk 12:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep "Wikipedia does not want humor in any of its articles.", and this isn't an article. Move it to whereever the article goes. It's an historic archive of discussion related to the page and should be kept for anyone who wants to delete it or learn about its origins. Mgm| ^(talk) 19:50, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Talk page with no accompanying article. Rick K 20:24, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, so you want to delete all archived talk pages? Dave the Red (talk) 06:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to the BJAODN subpage where the main article ended up.-- cesarb 01:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename/move to stay with its parent page as Cesarb suggested. Barno 15:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep talk pages if you will Yuckfoo 06:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was kept at Disciple whom Jesus loved. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Disciple who Jesus loved

Original research, delete-- nixie 11:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Someone speedied this article. I re-created it as a redirect to John the Apostle since that is whom this phrase is generally considered to refer to. LevelCheck 22:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I just did the same with The Disciple whom Jesus loved — Wahoofive | Talk 04:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - this should not be a redirect. While it has long been traditional to assume that the Beloved Disciple was John this is a matter of much debate among Biblical scholars and a redirect to John explicitly takes one side of that argument. - SimonP 19:47, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep under the Disciple whom Jesus loved, and redirect the other variations to that. This phrase, and the debate over it, is definately notable. Jonathunder 22:24, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 02:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you please comment as to why? I've worked to improve it, and have added references. Jonathunder 05:21, 2005 Apr 21 (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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Justin Sofio

Delete. Anyone have a clear notability line in this area? This seems pretty lightweight to me. Mwanner 23:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Was never added to VfD it seems, adding it today. Hedley 11:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as article creator. Professional racing drivers are notable at all levels. Google brings 175 results for "Justin Sofio" but he is included in the Speedsportmag database. A page featuring him would be here. Hedley 15:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Average car racer. (since we have an average professor rule, why not an average sportsman rule?) Average Earthman 12:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is borderline. Google doesnt show up any notable achievements by this driver. Megan1967 13:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Per the site I given above, Sofio has won several karting championships and a Formula Toyota Atlantic title. Professional championship winners are notable. Hedley 14:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you hazard a guess at how many drivers would qualify under the standard you're proposing? Mwanner 15:54, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • A lot. Professional racing drivers are all notable. I'm no inclusionist, but if they have competed in a professional event and especially won one, they are notable. People will look in an encyclopaedia for information on a racing driver. Thousands of people attend racing events, all who will see the drivers as quite important. I wouldn't of added an article if it wasn't important. Hedley 16:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. As it stands the article fails to note Sofio's numerous titles at various levels, or his vast karting experience. I would add to it if this article was done the justice necessary. Hedley 16:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, winning a championship race is notable. Mgm| ^(talk) 19:53, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Hedley. Oh, and the best way to stop something being deleted, Hedley, is to add good material to it, so I'd encourage you to do so and not wait until the end of this vfd--it'll probably be worth the effort. Meelar (talk) 20:15, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until and unless the supposed notability is included in the article. The article doesn't seem to know what state he was born in, and indicates only that he raced in one race. BTW, he gets 90 Google hits. Rick K 20:27, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• I have re-written the article to add extra information. I can't see any lack of notability now. Hedley 21:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The article says he's a mechanic. It makes no mention of what he might have won. Rick K 21:47, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I still feel that it fails to pass the "more notable than the average professor" test. Thousands of people attend college lectures, all of whom (well, most) will see the professors as quite important. But most of the professors do not rate encyclopedia articles. Further, is this really the place that most race fans would turn to for info on drivers? Should WP duplicate the Speedsportmag database? -- Mwanner 21:53, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? Thats like saying, "Should we duplicate 1911 Britannica's articles?" or "Should we duplicate ~any site~ with information on the USA?". Wikipedia is aiming to become the sum of all human knowledge, and why not everything is important in that sum, people may look here for info on a driver. Speedsportmag, which you refer to, doesn't provide anything other than Sofio's one race. Wikipedia provides more and so a race fan would possibly look here. As for professors, it is a completely different issue in that they aren't important out of that local area. I'm nowhere near where Formula Toyota Atlantic and Binder Racing are based, but to me the information on Sofio is relevant. Hedley 22:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like he won the same event this weekend, also as per Mgm Rx StrangeLove 23:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Professional motor racer with reasonable career success. Capitalistroadster 03:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Hedley seems to know what he's talking about when he says "Professional racing drivers are notable at all levels" and a lot of people would want to look them up. Kappa 21:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article has improved since original listing, and now seems to pass all reasonable thresholds. Pcb21| Pete 06:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. sjorford →•← 10:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crazy Frog

The previous deletion discussion of this article, blanked by 67.15.2.22 when re-nominating this article, is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Crazy Frog.

Article about ringtone frog wasteful not notable. Delete 67.15.2.22 12:09, 2005 Apr 17 (according to history Uncle G 13:56, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC))

• Keep. I've spent some time researching this entry, I'd be sorry to see it go. -- taviso 13:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's notable. A google search reveals many hits [18]. There is also a BBC article linked form this article. Jeltz talk 13:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This only survived VfD recently, and is just as notable now as it was then. Xezbeth 13:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, come on, it's almost a FAC. never heard that song though Grue 17:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, has link to BBC article, survived a VFD and explains a controversy. I'm actually surprised so many interesting info can be dug up on a ringtone. Mgm| ^(talk) 19:55, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (but is it possible to delete the ringtone itself from existance?) The JPS 22:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the article, which is much more interesting and encyclopedic than I was expecting. Delete the annoying ringtone itself, as The JPS suggests. Jonathunder 04:30, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
• keep this again like last time Yuckfoo 06:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but it's a sad day when you can earn 14 million pounds off a ringtone. Meelar (talk) 06:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A lot of information here about a pretty well known subject. - MykReeve ( T) ( C) 23:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Anything this fucking annoying deserves an entry. Lee M 22:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jukashi

Article fails to establish notability. A Google search fails to find any race horse named "Jukashi", see [19] and [20]. External link leads to a personal website/blog. Possible self-promotion by Villan [21]. JamesBurns 12:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Grue 17:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CSHN

Delete - gratuitous disambig page. Offers several options, none of which is a Wikipedia article about CSHN. Suspiciously, one is an external link to a n RPG hacking community. Most of the options seem fake, but one is legit - CSHN is an acronym for Children with Special Health Needs. That brought it out of speedy-land for me. FreplySpang (talk) 15:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, i'm still editing it. I also see another definition leading to hacking clan, though this doesn't contain virus, just a group of people that play. Look up "csd". Please keep this, as I'm looking for more acronyms!

• Delete. Admittedly a stealth disambiguation page intended to house an external link to this "hacking clan." Disambiguation pages ought to disambiguate actual articles, not external links. android↔ talk 15:35, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as long as none of the things it stands for is notable. Martg76 15:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Can Spam Hacking Nonsense. (Delete.) Samaritan 16:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Disambig pages are just for articles, not for external links. José San Martin 16:20, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Jeltz talk 19:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

42 BELOW

Note: This is a relisting of a previously kept article, but the previous vote seems to be lost in the acres of vfd history.

• Delete as pure advertising. FreplySpang (talk) 15:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Clearly an encyclopedic topic - if the article is not neutral it should be edited not deleted. Keep. Pcb21| Pete 19:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Not sure about it being an encyclopaedic topic, but not quite pure advertising in its current form. Weak keep. Chris talk back 21:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Megan1967 06:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Tell me which sentences you guys are finding non-NPOV, and I will fix them, rather than have you delete the whole article. Pcb21| Pete 12:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of Vodka brands. R adiant _* 14:16, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's the #1 google hit [22] for vodka "new zealand", obviously notable in the crowded field of New Zealand vodkas. Kappa 00:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please - vodka brands are interesting enough Yuckfoo 06:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it's not significantly different from any of the other pages on vodka
• Keep - If this is deleted then so should be Pepsi, Nike etc etc etc .... it's a (very good) brand :)
• Merge with South Gin to form Pacific Dawn Distillers. Individual brands are rarely noteable (I have spent ages reducing Category:Brands of beer by merging stubs into brewery articles where they belong, but companies who produce things have more permanence, and this is would make a small article about a distiller using local ingredients to make a NZ distilled product range. Justinc 11:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

brands. StuTheSheep 06:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge - Note that the awards section needs to be fact checked. The Beverage Testing Institute web page does not list 42 BELOW as winning any awards in 2004 and it earned a tasting score below other vodkas Beverage Testing Institute Results. Also, I cannot find any info on the web pertaining to San Francisco Beverage / Spirits awards except for the mention on the42 BELOW manufacturer website. Tobycat 05:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also remember that 42 Below is a company; an NZX listed public company. They own the brands 42 Below and South gin.

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. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heritage Valley

Non-notable stub. Delete. Residential communities aren't enciclopedic. José San Martin 15:42, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Valparaiso, Indiana and delete - Skysmith 09:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Dubious. Term gets 12,000 google hits - because there are lots of places called Heritage Valley. Nursing homes. Schools. I wouldn't be surprised if there's an actual city by this name somewhere. -- 8^D ^gab 21:44, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uidefaults

Thue marked this vfd on March 2, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. — Korath ( Talk) 15:21, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into a new section on the Swing (Java) page. — RJH 18:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I wonder why I didn't complete that one. Anyway, merge whatever fits into Swing (Java) and then delete. Thue | talk 19:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Swing (Java). Megan1967 06:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete and redirect. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Understanding Oil

Delete: all the information in this article is already on the Serj Tankian page, and the piece is certainly not notable in itself.-- XmarkX 08:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect -- InShaneee 15:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. — Korath ( Talk) 15:22, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, duplicate/redundant article. Megan1967 06:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - duplicates existing info on Serj Tankian page. Tobycat 06:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Vanquish

Delete - this is about a trademarked name for a standard anti-spam technique. - DavidWBrooks 23:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete it should either be about the company or the technique... not the trade marked name gren 02:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. — Korath ( Talk) 15:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. This page is also a link site for the Aston Martin V8 Vantage and for the dictionary term template. There was also a HMS Vantage and an Operation Vantage in 1961. It should probably be a dmg page. — RJH 18:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is Vanquish, not Vantage. Only the anti-spam measure and the car are candidates for the disambiguation. (The band that fails to meet the WP:NMG criteria isn't. ☺) As Grenavitar alludes, the anti-spam measure really belongs at Bonded Sender (a redlink in anti-spam) or message bonding, in any event. Which leaves just the car ... ☺ Uncle G 00:25, 2005 Apr 18 (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 23:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Vlacula

MCBastos marked this vfd on January 13 with edit summary "vfd: is this a joke?", but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. — Korath ( Talk) 15:28, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — It seems to be associated with World of Warcraft in google. There were no other solid English references that I could find. Besides the spelling is atrocious. ;) — RJH 18:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not attribute it's source, I doubt it is from a major literary source. Previous comment would suggest a gamer's character. Average Earthman 19:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Bad joke. Pavel Vozenilek 02:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Not funny enough, you say? BJAODN is not paper. -- 8^D ^gab 21:49, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Vladimir Golosiy

Vanity/nonsense fataltourist 05:47, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. — Korath ( Talk) 15:30, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Grue 18:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This reads like nonsense to me. Average Earthman 19:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 06:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like nonsense as said above. Goodness, use paragraphs once in a while! Master Thief Garrett 03:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity, not notable Tobycat 06:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Wahid Momand

Delete Vanity page, not notable Refdoc 23:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. — Korath ( Talk) 15:41, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity, stinks of advertisement. Master Thief Garrett 03:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity, nothing notable. If his website had some sort of notable impact or noteriety then I might think differently...in which case the article should probably be about the company more than its CEO anyway. Tobycat 06:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete (blk-cmp err). – AB CD 23:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Partial list of partial lists

This page is redundant. It should be deleted and replaced by the category Wikipedia:Incomplete_lists. This would make everything more automated by allowing users to place a {{listdev}} tag in the article and get automatically added to the list. What do others think? - Dirkbike 23:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no one has made any comments in days, I still think this list should be removed. Most of the listed sites already link to the category Wikipedia:Incomplete_lists. This list is redundant and creates confusion. Dirkbike
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. — Korath ( Talk) 15:44, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — The template idea works for me. — RJH 18:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, use the template. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 20:43, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why do we need this? Haikupoet 00:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant list. Megan1967 07:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, the Incomplete lists category is good enough. -- SuperDude 04:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, It looks like the votes are unanimous for deletion. Who actually has the authority to do the deletion? Dirkbike

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway| Talk 00:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC) reply

World Almanac's Ten Most Influential People of the Second Millennium

This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. (And, if I may say so, eaagh, what a mess.) — Korath ( Talk) 15:59, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Why not hold a open for wikipedia users, list to nominate and vote for Top Ten Most influential people of the second millennium and we can then print a final page to show the results. This can be similar to how BFI does it, http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/index.html
• Comment: Please do not refactor the list into "delete" and "keep" sections. The context of the comments and rebuttals is as important as the actual votes. Sorting the votes makes the deciding admin's job much harder at the end of the discussion period. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not a list of the Ten Most Influential People. . . but rather of people who one man has considered thus-- XmarkX 11:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is original research. Adraeus 12:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. ...into the article about the chap who came up with the list. Philip 12:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't be what it claims to be. This kind of list is by nature arbitrary. PRiis 14:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In terms of what the title claims to be, it inherently cannot achieve NPOV. In terms of what it is, i.e., one journalist's opinion on the ten most notable personages of the last thousand years, it is New Year 2001 ephemera. Shimmin 17:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. As interesting as it is, i Keep. Sure, it's just one man's opinion, but now the title has been changed it's encyclopedic Zerbey 14:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV and Anglo-Americo-centric at that. Lincoln and Shakespeare??. An article including a discussion of several such lists made by various people, why they chose the persons they chose, etc. might be interesting. — Gabbe 21:13, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Leave it alone This is a very interesting entry and quite educational! Perhaps the better name would be "Schlesinger's Most Influential ..." so that to leave space for "UK Public's Most Influential ..." and "Time's Most Influential ...". Why delete stuff that inspires so much!!!! To cripple Wikipedia? I would rather delete half of those brainless rock-bands that only pollute this planet with music nobody listens to (entries written by band members themselves). Never enough of Newton, Darwin or Einstein!!! unsigned comment by anon user:194.24.244.5
• Merge. ...into either the Schlesinger article or the World Almanac article. It is interesting, but on its own it's also POV. BTW, I must note with great satisfaction that both Lincoln and Darwin are on the list. Vincent 07:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. I think it's interesting information, but not enough for a full article. LockeShocke 02:45, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) (PS: Lincoln above Gutenberg?!)
  • Why not? We would eventually have had printing without Gutenberg, but without Lincoln the USA might not have survived the South's secession. People like Newton and Darwin belong in the list not so much for their discoveries (we would have figured out gravity and natural selection without them) but because their entire body of work has a beauty of its own, much like Michelangelo's or Leonardo's. Frankly, I'm surprised Gutenberg is even mentioned. Vincent 06:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • ( ...and frankly, I'm not surprised why nobody—except the loons—takes you seriously, Vincent...) You cannot state with any degree of reasonable certainty that moveable type would have been invented without Gutenberg. Why? That's purely hypothetical and untestable, and lacks complete rational support much like your ideas that a) the U.S. required Lincoln and b) Lincoln and Darwin's birthday coincidence require mentioning. Apparently, you're just another Sam Spade cronie. Adraeus 07:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I say, your fondness for me would appear beyond measure, dear Adraeus. I'm not sure I've ever had a more vigorous enthusiast of my fine self. Please keep it up, if your hard work continues I should have more than enough "cronies" to shout down incivility and intellectual dishonesty whenever it rears its ugly head on the wiki. Keep, btw, titles don't have to be NPOV (altho I think the list is utter crap myself ;) Sam_Spade ( talk · contribs) 14:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)(see my vote below)
    • Actually, I did hear somewhere that other people were working on a printing press before Gutenberg's - there was just something special about his when it came out, or he was the first, or something. (He was the Discovery Channel's Man of the Milennium, if I remember correctly.) But I don't understand how Lincoln changed the world on such a scale as Gutenberg. He prevented an insurrection and gave a nice speech, but it was all just pertinent to this one country. Not to be a cynic. He's a great guy, but I don't think greater than Gutenberg. LockeShocke 16:47, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Gutenberg invented movable type. Henry Ford invented assembly line manufacturing. Henry Ford had far greater influence on humanity than Abraham Lincoln who was merely another political figurehead for the activities executed by those behind the curtains. Most so-called national leaders accomplish little in their lifetime yet they're credited with so much. Lincoln is credited with starting the Civil War. A leader who orders attacks on his own people is considered a great leader? Pfft. Ignorance is the enemy of truth and propaganda is the purveyor of deceit. Adraeus 23:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Can you say "the Emancipation Proclamation"? Henry Ford having more impact than Lincoln is ridiculous. Gkhan 00:09, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, Ford did write "The Eternal Jew" -- Tydaj 05:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Arbitrary to say the least. Impossible to name all the flaws such a list would present in any case. For example, it only includes western personalities (being very incomplete and arbitrary even at that!). Also, perhaps national/regonal lists would be more appropriate, though I believe this sort of article could attract unwanted political discussion! livino 14:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • edit history shows this comment was actually made by anon user:200.166.90.180
• Keep. The title is appropriate and the information is accurate as it is a reprint of someone's opinion. unsigned comment by anon user:206.170.33.162. A user from that same IP later deleted the vote. I am showing it as a strike-thru to preserve tracability. Rossami (talk)
• Keep. I concur, now that it has been accurately titled (as World Almanac's Ten Most Influential People of the Second Millennium), it's a useful article. I find these lists are kind of fun and thought-provoking, because you can look at them and say "boy, they sure blew it when they listed X about Y, Y clearly was more important". Plus to which if you see someone you don't recognize, it's fun to look them up and see what they did that the lister rates so high. A pefect example is Tsai Lun, often considered one of the half-dozen most important people of all time (and certainly more important than, say, Gutenberg) - I'd have never have known who he was unless I'd seen him in one of these lists. Noel (talk) 22:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree that this list is arbitrary. In my interpretation, the guidelines for pages suggest it should be removed. unsigned comment by anon user:128.172.212.43
• Keep. Same reasons as above. Gaurav 15:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have the list of The 100 greatest britons, Time most infuential people of 2004, even the greatest dutchmen of all time. Why not have this one? And as for the arguments that the list is arbitrary, 1) thats not the point (what if you wanted to know which people the World Almanac named as the greatest?) and 2) all these lists are arbitrary (Copernicus, really, the ones that made a difference was Newton, Galileo and Kepler). As such, strong keep. Gkhan 00:25, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: At this point in the discussion thread, Korath posted the discussion to VfD.
• Delete. This list is not notable. Martg76 19:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Arbitrary list, not encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep informative list. Klonimus 23:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Stupid list, highly encyclopedic. Were here to document verifiable POV's, not express absolute truth. If only more people read NPOV... Sam Spade 00:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a second vote by Sam Spade. However, given the confused history of this discussion thread, I believe it was probably an innocent error. Rossami (talk)
    • Hmm, ok. I thought this was a new list of the best. Where are Hitler, Marx and Thomas Jefferson? Or Adam Smith? Where are all the minority and female faces leftist wikis are always screaming about the lack of? Anyhow I struck out my earlier vote, so what say we count this one? And why has the voting gone on for so long, or is this a second vote or what? Sam Spade 06:26, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful list, even if women and minorities are under represented. I would sooner have a list based on what a person has done rather than the colour of their skin or whats between their legs. Megan1967 07:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, just making fun of the sexism and reverse racism on the left. Gotta love those double standards, eh? Sam Spade 07:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research Trödel| talk 13:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, inherently POV. R adiant _* 14:16, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, NPOV, and the original research was done by the World Almanac. Also useful for comparison with other similar lists. Kappa 03:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it has historical importance given the publication source and the millenial event it coincided with. World Almanac has been publishing since 1886 and has high market penetration. Accuracy/fairness are not at issue...it's a reflection of the time by a prominent publisher with a sizeable audience. Tobycat 06:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly not original research but an attributed list. No different from all the other 100 Greatest Xs lists maintained here in terms of unscientificness/POV. Given that Schlesinger knows what he's talking about far more than some dimwit with a mobile phone texting a TV programme I can't fathom why anyone's voting for deletion. adamsan 17:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as long as it's titled properly I don't see what the problem is. Philthecow 19:49, May 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. — Xezbeth 18:29, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yab

• Delete This article smacks of self-promotion; while neologisms are fine so long as they are not our creation, it seems that this one is known to but a few individuals who are trying to promote their blogging style. I am a near-extreme inclusionist, but I vote for deletion. Zantastik 05:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism. Nice try, though. It reads better than most VfD candidates! - Lucky 6.9 06:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I fail to see how this can be considered self-promotion seeing as it how it neither links or even mentions any specific blogs, websites, or people. I think this can stay. Shakeer 16:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Shakeer that this entry is not self-promotion; it mentions no specifics other than the nature of term and how it came about. It can be kept. Zozmata 03:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. Rick K 20:37, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. — Korath ( Talk) 16:04, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, bloggercruft. Grue 18:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, self-proclaimed importance. Average Earthman 19:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Rick K 20:35, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Neologism with no findable presence even on Google. Rossami (talk) 02:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, promo. Megan1967 07:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated. -- Bucephalus talk to me 14:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway| Talk 12:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Young Maylay

The Wikipedia doesn't even have pages for most famous rappers. LeeJacksonKing 02:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Can you justify that? -- GatesPlusPlus 05:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• I could list any number of successful rappers with no articles. The Lost Boyz, Mo Thugs, Capone-N-Noreaga, The Fat Boys, Das Efx, Freestyle Fellowship, MC Breed, Spice-1, T-Rock, Kokane, Boss, et cetera. DJ Pooh has no page and he is the person who found "Young Maylay". LeeJacksonKing 20:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Just use the Chris Bellard page you set up. Pacific Coast Highway 20:55, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. — Korath ( Talk) 16:09, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Invalid, according to what has occured the page shall be kept. Feel free to renominate for deletion in the future. — 82.46.90.231 18:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) (I was logged out - Oldak Quill 18:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC))
    • Please elaborate on the reasoning, I'm not sure I follow it. Chris talk back 21:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • An article should not be kept merely because one person feels the nomination process was not followed exactly. Thus, vote remains open. R adiant _* 14:19, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete up-and-coming rappers, they should come back when they're famous. R adiant _* 14:19, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• "So far he only has one song on the internet". Delete per WP:NMG. — Korath ( Talk) 16:19, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable enough simply for playing the lead in GTA: San Andreas. sjorford →•← 10:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - same as above

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. Tony Sidaway| Talk 13:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Zebbug, Malta

Darwinek marked this vfd on January 9, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. — Korath ( Talk) 16:18, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Not that I can even tell what language that is, it seems to be a copy-paste job of [23], [24], and other articles on that web site. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 17:49, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, probably a copyright violation. But it is a real location, so I'd say replace with a stub article. — RJH 17:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Indeed so. But, as said, it is a real place, so never fear - I have provided a stub! ;). Grutness| ^hello? 05:50, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now, nice job Grutness. Someone should probably delete the original copyvio version.

Kappa 20:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep agreed as above and can the vfd be removed since it is no longer a copyright violation? Falphin 00:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Uh. Keep. Everyking 04:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. — Xezbeth 18:27, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Zeeky boogy dook

• Should have been speedy deleted. Rick K 06:55, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Rmhermen marked this vfd on April 4, but never made a subpage or listed it on vfd. I'm just bringing it here for resolution; do not consider this a vote. — Korath ( Talk) 16:22, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Used to good effect in the Flash movie it came from, but most people don't think it's funny. Also, it's "doog," not "dook". *rolleyes* Marblespire 02:04, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What the heck is this?!?!?! This is Wikipedia, not Whateverlanguagethisisphrasebookia. Master Thief Garrett 03:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Wtshymanski 03:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Zweikatai

Don't really know where to start... strange article that seems to be made up. Bantman 08:19, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. — Korath ( Talk) 16:22, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Term invented by the same two people with e-mail addresses listed. It can't be all that old. — RJH 17:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nonsense. Grue 18:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Yes, quite nonsensical. -- Natalinasmpf 18:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (speedy?), nonsense spam. -- Idont Havaname 21:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Megan1967 07:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What the heck is this?!?!?! This is Wikipedia, not Whateverlanguagethisisphrasebookia. Master Thief Garrett 03:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway| Talk 13:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Blaze (Pokémon)

Some ability that three Pokemons happen to have. Not sure what this article offers to Wikipedia. Delete. Grue 17:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. I wikified the original article a little, but I don't really know whether it's encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 17:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and Torrent (Pokémon). I'm all for inclusion of "fancruft", but this will set a very bad precedent. Xezbeth 18:51, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and Shield Dust, Swarm (Pokemon), Shed Skin, and Compoundeyes, as well as the hundreds of articles that haven't been made yet but probably will be. Xezbeth 18:52, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Abilities in Pokemon or something of that sort, but it wouldn't kill me to see this deleted. Meelar (talk) 19:40, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like User:User142 contribs created all these ability articles. Phils 19:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Far too trivial and granular a level of detail. Average Earthman 19:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Suggestion: why not a list of pokemon abilities and merge them all into it? Mgm| ^(talk) 19:59, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or delete it if none wants to do the merge. Jeltz talk 20:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Per policy, merge into a list with brief descriptions of all of them. Not widespread enough to deserve their own articles, however, may be relevant to more than one Pokemon article. (Disclosure: self-confessed Pokemon-hater) Chris talk back 21:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• merge or keep pokemon abilities and other stuff from notable fiction. Kappa 21:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)\
• Strong Keep by defintion this passes the pokemon test. Why is there so much hate for pokemon. Most pokemon are far more notable than even the most notable school's Klonimus 23:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete first choice, Merge/redir second. What Xezbeth, Meelar and Jeltz said. Niteowlneils 01:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to a single list. Andros 1337 03:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• There's already a comprehensive list of these things - Pokémon Abilities. Just Redirect them all to this article. -- Sparky the Seventh Chaos 04:42, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the find--that's perfect. Meelar (talk) 04:44, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, trivial, cruft. Megan1967 07:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge into one place. Should Keen Eye be included in this discussion? Vegaswikian 08:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft. -- Bucephalus talk to me 14:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Sparky (and WP:FICT), nothing left to merge. R adiant _* 14:20, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pokémon Abilities. Sinistro 17:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is definitely GameFAQs stuff. I can see how someone might stumble across a pokemon name on a website, go 'oh what's this' and look it up on Wikipedia and be all like 'oh I see it's a pokemon'. Listing an attack for Pokemon would be similar, if not completely equal to making Hookshot (Zelda) a legit entry, or Super Hammer (Mario) or even Tifa's Attack Option (Final Fantasy VII). RickGriffin 22:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete minor trivia CDC (talk) 20:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The Guildies

Almost no band just 5 months old can be notable. Smoddy ( _t ^g _e ^c _k) 17:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. Vanity article. -- Randolph 18:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 07:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Wmahan . 22:58, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Delete, by the time this vote goes through they'll be gone anyhow. And if not we'll all eat our words as we rush down to buy their album. Yes I am being sarcastic. 03:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

MTV Jams Playlists

I don't consider this encyclopediac. It is just playlists of music videos that were aired on the digital television channel, MTV Jams. Of course, I'm also nominated the sub articles: MTV Jams Playlist For March 30, 2005 and MTV Jams Playlist For March 4, 2005 to be deleted. -- Chill Pill Bill 18:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A playlist for every day... there's a great idea. Feco 18:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jamscruft. -- 8^D ^gab 19:46, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikisource. Hip hop researchers from the future, (assuming hip hop is notable in the future) would find this interesing. Otherwise Delete Klonimus 23:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, cruft. Megan1967 07:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki per Klonimus. Kappa 20:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 23:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Zaangast

Incomplete nomination by User:Kb6110, I'm completing the process. Abstain. R adiant _* 14:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless someone can prove it does exist. - 83.129.8.229 14:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete no evidence found of existance. - User:Kb6110 16:35,18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Assuming good faith, I don't think the burden of proof should be to prove that it exists. Wmahan . 22:59, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

• Delete without evidence of existence, because wikipedia articles have to be verifiable. Kappa 02:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Socia mare

Advertising, non-notable. Gamaliel 17:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete, it's, um, just... just a company. Not really a very noteworthy one either. And yes it does sound suspiciously like an ad. Therefore, delete it. Master Thief Garrett 05:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Intervessel

Advertising, non-notable. Gamaliel 17:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• delete, it's, um, just... just a company. Not really a very noteworthy one either. And yes it does sound suspiciously like an ad. Therefore, delete it. Master Thief Garrett 05:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Edward Rice

Article doesn't indicate notability. Thue | talk 18:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete total nonsense vanity article. -- Randolph 18:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wait and see I have heard of this Edward Rice and I have added some data based on what information I could dig up. This may have started as a "nonsense vanity article" but it may develop into something more. Every article on Wikipedia starts off small; it is prudent to consider that even narcissistic entries could be the foundation for real articles that add to Wikipedia's completeness. Kiroshi 18:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wait and see It is hard to tell. According to the article he seems like a developer.
  • Above unsigned comment by 69.142.214.108 -- Randolph 19:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment at least remove the claim that compare his programming talents to Ben Stiller and Sun Tzu. That was the state of the article when I first saw it. -- Randolph 19:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Linux has how many developers? Unless someone can actually provide concrete evidence of notability rather than ludicrous claims, this is not justifiable as an article. Average Earthman 19:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, nonsense. Rick K 20:42, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
• It has been said of Rice that he is of great potential. It has been said of him that he has the markings of the legendary Linux coders, such as Linus Torvalds, Sun Tzu and Ben Stiller. (The aforementioned data is disputed.)

  Unless someone can show me some part of the kernel which mears a resemblence to Art of War, this looks like nonsense or a possible hoax. Either way, the wikt:PICOW of Gaim might merit an article, random contributors do not. At least, not this random, anyway. Chris talk back 21:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I find no evidence of natability. The only thing I found about him was this [25] and the official JGrader site. He hasn't done anything notable yet as far as I could see. Jeltz talk 21:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wait and see This article is only a stub. Leave it and see what happens. More information about him will be contributed sooner or later.-- 68.48.178.199 23:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Unless verifiable evidence is available now that he is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, our community rules say that the article must be deleted. If he becomes famous later, we can always write the article then. However, this would be acceptable on a user page if the author wants to move it there. Rossami (talk) 02:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Wait and delete. Also, kill the socks. R adiant _* 14:21, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Do not wait and Delete now this sock-supported vanity. VladMV ٭ ^talk 17:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. As Rossami suggested, this could be "userfied" (move to the user's personal Wikipedia page). The three references provided are to a personal website, a web page describing him and several of his acquaintances, and a Sourceforge site which says "Sorry, but we currently have no downloads. A file release should be out in some time. We have not set a date, however." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Ethics and morals

Another POV essay on this subject created by banned user Entmoot of Trolls. He wasn't satisfied leaving it as a re-direct, but appears to insist or turning it into another version of Simple view of ethics and morals, which is about to be deleted (although he keeps removing the VfD notice). See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Simple view of ethics and morals Jayjg ^(talk) 19:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV, personal essay. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to ethics. -- TenOfAllTrades | Talk 00:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV research. Megan1967 07:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to ethics. Pavel Vozenilek 02:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Fantasy football cafe

Delete spam article/self promotion written from a personal POV -- Randolph 18:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Ditto. -- Natalinasmpf 18:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'll edit it to fit better and be less spammy- Atog
• Alexa ranking of 189,614 and falling. Even during the height of the season, it never reached 25,000. The article says the site has just over 15k registered users. That does not meet the cut-off to me. Delete. Rossami (talk) 02:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, promo. Megan1967 07:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Edited. Howsitlook now? - Atog

• Delete, it's like every obscure website in the universe has listed itself here. Master Thief Garrett 03:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Youri_Messen-Jaschin

This is self-promotion (given away, apart from any other consideration, by the use of "I" in the text) and written in very poor, almost illiterate, English. It is nowhere near Wiki quality. Eilthireach 20:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. "I bild a Kinetic steel sculpture and copper of three tons. From what I can make of that, sounds like it's vanity. No real Google presence either. — Asbestos | Talk 10:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Confirmed copyright violation. Almost all text taken from René Neuenschwander. See external website for confirmation of violation Tobycat 23:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Oliver Battrick

Unknown rock musician wannabe. Only a couple hits, none directly related to his music career. Niteowlneils 20:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Awww, bless him. Delete The JPS 22:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 07:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE, which will be implemented pending resolution of block compression errors. Postdlf 22:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Persikka Interactive

Non-notable. TigerShark 21:06, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment, i don't intend to vote, but their homepage says (in Finnish) that the company is now defunct. bbx 01:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• If it's defunct, then delete. — JIP | Talk 06:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to creed. Postdlf 22:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Masai Creed

Not encyclopedic. TigerShark 21:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to creed, but we don't need the whole text transposed. Slac speak up! 23:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• It seems as relevant as any of the others referenced in creed. I am inclined to keep it. However, if the concensus is against this as a Wikipedia article, it should at most be transwiki'd to WikiSource. Rossami (talk) 02:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Creed. Megan1967 07:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I can't see why it should be removed. If it is merged with creed please do not remove the complete text! -- Dustin, 05:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC).

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Functional acceptance simple test

Appears to define an acronym (FAST) that doesn't Google. Might be a fragment of a description of an internal term at a software company, or something like that. Delete. -- TenOfAllTrades | Talk 21:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The Google test is notoriously unreliable - except on technology issues. Based on the available evidence, this is not even a neologism. Delete. Rossami (talk) 02:03, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Shadow Sanctuary

Online game community with 130 members. Delete as advertising/vanity/not-notable. -- Henrygb 21:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity CDC (talk) 20:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Just deserts

Half dicdef, half bbs conversation. The info has already been transwikied to wiktionary. -- ran ( talk) 21:27, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as transwiki is completed. Slac speak up! 00:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• After removing the rant, what's left is a misspelled dicdef that has already been transwiki'd. Delete. Rossami (talk) 01:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, already in wiktionary. Megan1967 07:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to northern Africa. -- SPUI ( talk) 13:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Tony Sidaway| Talk 13:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Chicago Democratic Machine

Ordinarily, I don't favor the deletion of topics that deserve articles. But this article has literally no content--the full text is "The Chicago Democratic Machine is a well known example of machine politics.", plus a few see alsos. In addition, the see alsos are themselves dubious--for example, Mike Madigan gets only 23 Google hits for "Mike Madigan" "Chicago Democratic Machine" (compare 7000 for "Mike Madigan" +Illinois). In short, this article has no content--WP would be better served by a red-link unless this is severely expanded, and I don't have the knowledge to do that. Meelar (talk) 21:40, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Would go better with actual content, and a title along the lines of History of the Democratic Party in Chicago or suchlike. Merge to machine politics for preference, but if significant new content appears, retitle & keep. Slac speak up! 23:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Slac's title is better as being less POV. Important topic but poor article and NPOV make it improper as an article topic but could serve as redirect to main page. Capitalistroadster 03:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Isn't this more commonly known as the Cook County political machine? Neutrality ^talk 06:27, May 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. Postdlf 22:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Thomas Scire

Notability not established, and with only 9 hits, there doesn't seem to be any. Niteowlneils 22:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 22:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

R10 (New York City Subway car)

Nn. LevelCheck 22:14, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, seems factual, forms part of a larger article series about railway systems that it would be difficult to merge into anything. Slac speak up! 23:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep article as part of a series on NYC subway cars. This is actually one of the better articles in that series. Sjakkalle 07:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (or make a huge article at New York City Subway rolling stock from merging them all). -- SPUI ( talk) 13:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Has some really good information. Pacific Coast Highway 00:25, Apr 21, 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 22:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Latest Version Power Player game cartridge

appears to be a pirate multi-game cartridge for the Famicom game system. Clearly NN. LevelCheck 23:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. What is this, a flea market? — tregoweth 01:24, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Utterly trivial. android↔ talk 02:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of different bootleg Famicom multicarts that have been released in Asia, South America, Russia, and other regions. The concept itself might deserve an article, though even this is questionable, but individual bootleg multicarts? No way. Firebug 04:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We want to know more about power player products. As a matter of fact, I own a PPSJ3.5. -- SuperDude 19:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Subtrivial. As has been pointed out on similar votes, Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. - Lucky 6.9 04:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as trivial gamecruft. — JIP | Talk 06:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Crap. Postdlf 08:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think the key here is that it only "appears" to be anything: the page itself doesn't make any real sense at all. I've been busy working on various entries related to NES unlicensed games and peripherals, and even I can't make heads or tails of this thing. – Seancdaug 21:00, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Our anonymous friend who created this appears to be trying to sidestep VfD and has moved this article to Latest Version Game Player. — tregoweth 23:46, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge/redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Mother/whore dichotomy

• I don't query that this dichotomy exists, but I do wonder if we need a separate page on it. Wouldn't it be better to rework it into views of Women somewhere? Slac speak up! 23:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. It's a widely used term -- even on Wikipedia. Even if its part of a bigger subject, you give popular jargon its own article. Problem is, I have no idea what the bigger subject is.
  • Unsigned vote by Isaac Rabinovitch ( talk · contributions)
    • My apologies --- Isaac R 01:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The exact phrase returns only 35 non-duplicative Google hits (and several of them are near duplicates). The content of those hits show that the phrase is used in a reasonably consistent manner. Despite the low number of google hits, it appears to be a recognized phrase in post-feminism. However, none of the available evidence supports the claims made in the current version of this article. Delete as unverifiable unless authoritatively sourced and/or cleaned up within the discussion period. Rossami (talk) 02:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Whilst the "madonna vs. whore" concept deserves an article, this isn't it. Unverifiable. Delete or rewrite completely and rename to a better name. -- The Anome 02:05, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Try madonna-whore complex as a better title? (760 Google hits) -- The Anome 02:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Important concept but is this the right title for it. Capitalistroadster 04:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • PS. Would vote to keep decent article or stub but this isn't it. Delete unless improved. Capitalistroadster 04:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jungian psychology? — Wahoofive | Talk 04:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable theory. Megan1967 07:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• JUST KEEP IT! Same reasons as Isaac Rabinovitch. Scott Gall 09:06, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's a good article - a widely used term. I was born in Romania, therefore I know where I stand on the scale. I'm more of a mother than a whore. I have a two-year-old son named Peter. NazismIsntCool 09:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per The Anome. A mention of the concept may be made at Misogyny if it isn't already. -- Angr/ _comhrá 13:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I hope that those voting "keep" are undertaking to improve the quality of the article. Slac speak up!
• Delete. Seems mostly like nonsense to me. Arkyan 03:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless seriously cleaned up and probably renamed. The "infamous" Tim MacKay has no article, which makes me wonder just how infamous he is. Brief mention of this theory can be made elsewhere. - R. fiend 15:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You're right, the bit about Tim MacKay is probably in the author's imagination. But that's an argument for converting the article into a stub, not for deleting it. --- Isaac R 04:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with a possible rewrite. It's a real term that is worthy of an article, regardless of the current state of the article. -- Myles Long 20:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to misogyny. It's a highly notable concept that goes by several names; I think misogyny is the best umbrella to park it under. Don't delete it, in any case. FreplySpang (talk) 00:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep it! it's a commonly used term in Women's studies and historical feminist studies. It sounds bad, but it's an intellectual term found in university text books and journals. (Unsigned comment by User:154.5.70.9).

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. — Xezbeth 06:38, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

DOOM cheats

A list of cheat codes for the DOOM video game. Wikipedia is not a place to post cheat codes. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is semi-encyclopedic. The phrase "Delta Q Delta" along with the predicate "in the college years" denotes origin of these cheat codes. A similar article can be found on this net link. Also, the SPISPOPD link can also describe encyclopedic value. And this is worth keeping. -- SuperDude 00:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. GameFAQs is the place for this, not Wikipedia. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 00:11, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I'd normally vote Delete, but User:Zzyzx11 admitted on User talk:Lucky 6.9 that this was a spite nomination, driven by the belief that User:SuperDude115 is actually User:SamuraiClinton. Thus I will abstain from voting and recommend that others do the same. I prefer not to participate in a high-tech lynching. LevelCheck 00:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That is your point of view LevelCheck. If you think the message I wrote, I want to let you know that I just put up one of SuperDude115's articles, DOOM cheats, on VFD because I saw that you suspect that he may be SamuraiClinton [26] implies that it is a "spite nomination" then so be it. The only thing I was doing was notifying them as a favor. As for the nomination itself, I think many people will agree with my original reason: Wikipedia is not a place to post cheat codes. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • LevelCheck, you also say that I am participating in a high-tech lynching. Isn't that what you did when you put SamuraiClinton on RFA? Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Nominating someone for a position constitutes high-tech lynching? Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. LevelCheck 00:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • So you think exposing SamuraiClinton to (as of now 14) opposing comments (and growing) is not high-tech lynching? Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • As I've pointed out on your talk page, there's really no other way for other editors to interpret your nomination of SamuraiClinton as anything but malicious. android↔ talk 02:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• I believe there is a fair case to be made that SuperDude = Samurai Clinton, or is at least associated with hir in some way. That totally notwithstanding, this article is worthy of deletion because a list of cheats is unencyclopedic. Who wrote the article has nothing to do with it. Slac speak up! 00:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What Shiri said. Niteowlneils 01:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's nothing wrong with a cheat code list as such -- but a bare list, with no description of the game or gameplay, is unencyclopedic. And "high tech lynching" is a very subjective concept, as Anita Hill can certainly attest! --- Isaac R 01:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no encyclopedia article here. Rossami (talk) 01:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is appropriately covered in the specialized wiki that User:SuperDude115 was kind enough to mention above. FreplySpang (talk) 02:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. It would be nice if SamuraiClinton, SuperDude, or whatever he chooses to call himself this week would respond to the items outlined in his RfC rather than continue to create these inane articles. android↔ talk 02:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated. - Lucky 6.9 02:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated. -- Bucephalus talk to me 13:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I was going to say "Put small relevant bits in main article" but SPISPOPD is already mentioned. Kill it. -- Golbez 17:49, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Whatever the reasons behind the nomination, article is clearly unencyclopedic. VladMV ٭ ^talk 18:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete this probabyl Yuckfoo 06:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. -- Carnildo 23:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Myles Long 20:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic, whatever is useful is already covered. -- 8^D ^gab 18:21, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
• Keep the list of random game cheats is unencyclopedic, but this is DOOM for heaven's sake. Many of these have entered popular culture. As a bonus this article explains the etymology of these cheats, and I always wandered what IDDQD and IDKFA mean... Grue 18:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Just because a topic is encyclopedia-worthy, it doesn't follow that every related topic is. Unless it'spart of an encyclopedic topic, etymology belongs on Wiktionary. Trivial factoids belong in a reference for DOOM enthusiasts. --- Isaac R 19:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• IDDELETE. Cheatcruft. Nestea 17:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• IDDELETE!. Cheatcruft! Until such time as "WikiWalkthrus" is launched, this doesn't belong here. And, in fact, GameFAQs' system of bogus code reporting is much more reliable than a Wiki where anyone can edit and say "blabla doesn't work at all, it should read blabla2000". Master Thief Garrett 23:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cheat codes aren't exactly encyclopedia-worthy. Linuxbeak 23:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. not encyclopedic as a stand-alone article. Tobycat 00:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment; saying IDDELETE is kinda funny, but I would rather keep this article since the sources of the acronyms in the cheats are notable. -- SuperDude 03:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • But the problem is, if we do keep it, people could easily "correct" the "false" cheats and completely stuff up the data. And I don't really know that it couldn't be put into WikiBooks under Doom Guide or something... Master Thief Garrett 04:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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