Knowledge (XXG)

December 27

Bush family conspiracy theory

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Vacuum c 01:03, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This page is a jumble of conspiracy theories about George W. Bush and his family. A vast majority of the "theories" are nothing more than Bush-bashing. Few of the theories have credible sources. Carrp 18:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep. There's nothing wrong with this article. It's descriptive, NPOV, and heavily sourced. User Carrp confuses the map with the territory: his critique concerns the validity of the theories described in the article -- not the article itself. A similar leap would be to suggest deleting 'Cold Fusion' or even 'Kennedy Assassination,' ignoring their historical or sociological relevance by claiming that many of the claims described in those articles were 'not proven.' Point = missed. This may be a good candidate for the 'VfD abuse of the week' award. Auto movil 19:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you believe this page should kept, that's certainly your right. However, I am rather puzzled by your reasons:

• Descriptive - Many of theories are similar to this example: "More banking tomfoolery with Riggs by Jonathan Bush." It's a link to an blog with a conspiracy theory. That's it.
• NPOV - By nature, it's extremely difficult for this page to be NPOV. It's a page of attacks against Bush, but since they're called theories, it's somehow OK.
• Heavily sourced - The 18 conspiracy theories have a total of 4 sources. That's certainly not my definition of "heavily sourced." One theory is nothing more than "Prescott Bush supported the Nazis."

Vote to keep if you want, but don't pretend there's nothing wrong with the article.Carrp 19:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. And please stop deletion trolling. Mark Richards 21:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing about this article that qualifies it for deletion under Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. Theories critical of George W. Bush, and the Bush family, are absolutely allowed in articles such as this one. The title is, "Bush Family Conspiracy Theory." Do these theories exist? Yes. There's a vast literature, some of it by highly credible authors such as Kevin Phillips. I'm very curious as to why there shouldn't be an article on this topic.

Inter alia, I count at least thirty sources listed, and wonder how you can see only four. And apropos 'Prescott Bush supported the Nazis,' a conscientious author would have linked to the relevant government records -- Bush family assets were seized on grounds of trading with the enemy. This was also in the news recently, etc. It's not a 'conspiracy theory,' but a historical fact. I raise this example because you singled it out. There are other things in this article that I find dodgy or unlikely. The title is, after all, 'Bush Family Conspiracy Theory' -- a quite accurate title. I find that the author was quite evenhanded in stating that some of the listed theories were grounded in credible research, while some were, as he wrote, "specious and unsubstantiated."

It's certainly possible to edit the parts of the article that you feel violate, or strongly test, NPOV.

So how does this road lead to deletion, and under what policy? Auto movil 19:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The goal of Knowledge (XXG) "To become a complete, accurate encyclopedia." Conspiracy theories are inherently inaccurate because they deal with circumstantial evidence and attempt to make links where it's likely none exist. A page called Bush Family Conspiracy Theories is not only inherently inaccurate, but has an anti-Bush POV. While I concede that it's theoretically possible that this page could be brought up to Knowledge (XXG) standards, it needs so much work that, in reality, it will never reach that goal. Take a look at the history of the page and how little work has been done to maintain accuracy and NPOV.

My position isn't that this page should be deleted because it's critical of Bush. My position is that this page serves no useful purpose and is easily abused. Anyone who dislikes Bush or his family can post whatever garbage they desire on this page. I'd also support the deletion of a page of Clinton Family Conspiracy Theories (if it existed). Articles on these subjects are nearly impossible to maintain as evidenced by this Bush page. This information should exist, but it has no place in Knowledge (XXG). Carrp 20:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Articles about conspiracy theories are not the same as articles propounding conspiracy theories. The article is accurate in that it lists current conspiracy theories involving the Bush family -- some of which are grounded in fact, and some of which (as the article states) are not to be taken seriously. They exist, and this is an article about them.

When you say, "Anyone who dislikes Bush or his family can post whatever garbage they desire on this page," that's true, but also trivial. Anyone who likes Bush can also edit the article to their heart's content. The fact that Bush-dislikers could post negative things about the President is not a reason to delete an article from Knowledge (XXG).

I assume there's an anti-Clinton article like this one. I'd argue against deleting that page as well. The anti-Clinton conspiracy theories were a real political force in America in the '90s. I'm trying to underline a distinction. Am I explaining well? Auto movil 20:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. Everyking 22:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, I am continually amazed at how people weave family, school and business connections into conspiracy theories. Wyss 22:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wyss: I'm also amazed that people could believe in witches and flying monkeys, therefore I submit Wizard of Oz for deletion. It's simply amazing that an article could advance such unsubstantiated nonsense! The article refers to flying monkeys as if they were a proven fact!

Wait. Oh. It's about the movie, The Wizard of Oz, and not propounding the view of reality shown in the Wizard of Oz.

You can tell I'm frustrated from feeling I've had to overexplain this. The article is about these conspiracy theories. I recommend reading the article, for anyone who wants to vote for or against deletion

I need a nap. Salut! Auto movil 23:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Auto movil, I did understand... I just don't think it's notable... yeah, yeah, I could successfully argue that this topic is notable, but deep down, I think even a description of the phenomenon promotes it unreasonably. That said, if the vote gets close and you need mine, leave a brief note on my talk page ;) Wyss 03:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• It needs a lot of work, but doesn't seem like a deletion candidate to me. Keep Tuf-Kat 23:17, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. There are allot of conspiracy theories about the Bush family for some reason so it deserves an article, But the page really needs work. Arminius 23:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Intrigue 00:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Extreme ultrakeep. RaD Man (talk) 02:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Basically agree with TUF-KAT. Reluctant keep: it could use a lot of work by someone more sympathetic to the Bushes (which is not me!). -- Jmabel | Talk 02:40, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, informative. Having an article doesn't imply endorsement. Gazpacho 06:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strongest keep. I will watchlist this article and help it when I can, and I hope the nominator and delete voters do the same, which I believe would have been the appropriate response in the first place. Samaritan 07:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, and cleanup. Ambi 07:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep eh. -Ld | talk 23:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, clean up. ~ mlk 05:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
• Delete - Erroneous conspiracies aren't encyclopedic. -- Judson 22:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, just propaganda. -- Crevaner 00:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this an objection to the current content (which I agree is POV) or are you saying that the topic -- that people hold these theories -- is inherently unencyclopedic? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:52, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe much of the article violates POV rules. -- Old Right 00:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this an objection to the current content (which I agree is POV) or are you saying that the topic -- that people hold these theories -- is inherently unencyclopedic? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:52, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Megan1967 02:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Though these may be "conspiracy theories" to diehard Bush-backers, interested individuals can take it upon themselves to conduct further investigation. Iraq having WMD was a "conspiracy theory", 19 hijackers crashing airplanes on 9/11 is a "conspiracy theories, JFK assasinated by a lone gunman is a "conspiracy theory". If you're going to allow one then allow them all. Freedom of speech, use it or lose it.
• Delete Hoplessly POV title and subject. Masterhomer 01:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Keep and improve. If the article was more together there would be alot less antagonism, I think. Fact of the matter is, these theories arent just the subjective musings of the author, but objective theories that exist and are shared by many. Obviously their veracity is in doubt, thats why theyre theories. I understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and cant file every theory about everyone, but consipiracy theories about the Bush family are significant enough to keep, if not for any other reason because they are believed by so many. --Clngre 03:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep There are articles on 9/11 conspiracies, and JFK assasination conspiracies and any number of conspiracies. Shall we delete them aswell? Alexp73 14:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(These votes were placed after voting had closed 18:13, 31 Dec 2004 UTC.)

• Keep --Yooden 01:01, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
• Keep no reason to delete except partisanship Philip 01:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep
• Obvious keep. Dan100 10:36, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although i agree it needs a bit of work done to it. I dont see a problem with articles on conspiracies since there are others, and a lot of work has been put into this article for it to be deleted. Newfoundglory 11:06, Jan 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 SPEEDY DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 18:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page was already deleted after a vote. I have moved the archive of that process to the bottom of the page. Please tell me if that is the correct thing to do in this circumstance, this is my first VfD. The current revision does not demonstrate any significance. Personally I don't think any dorm, no matter who slept there, needs more than a few sentences on the main page of a university. GabrielF 20:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. This article seems to have been re-created after having been deleted as a result of the earlier VfD basically for the reason that you state. That makes it a candidate for speedy deletion. I see from the history that you added the {{delete}} to it, which was correct. An anonymous editor removed it, probably the same anonymous editor who recreated the article, although the IP address is different. I'm replacing the speedy-delete tag, but I have no confidence it will stay there without a battle. --BM 21:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually {{deleteagain}} is the tag for this situation. Uncle G 00:39, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  • I have removed the {{deleteagain}} tag because this is no longer the substab that was deleted before. I am abstaining on whether to keep this version. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It wasn't deleted before only because it was a stub or sub-stub; among the reasons it was deleted before was that college dormitories generally are not notable and the article didn't establish that this dormitory was any exception. It still does not. It should be speedy-deleted, per Knowledge (XXG) policy, as the recreation of an article that has been deleted through VfD. If the previous decision was incorrect, or someone wants to argue that they have a new version that does not have the problems of the previous version, it should be submitted to Knowledge (XXG):Votes for undeletion, where the burden of achieving consensus will be on those who want to reinstate the article. Otherwise, anybody can re-create an article at will and argue that the new version overcomes the objections of the previous VfD, and VfD will have no meaning at all. --BM 14:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete again. Ths information is already (still!) largely covered in the Housing section of the Caltech page. If someone wants to break out a California Institute of Technology (Housing) article (or something similar) there is a case to be made for that. Articles on each individual House constitute excessive granularity. --TenOfAllTrades 16:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I have speedy deleted it as re-creation of an article voted for deletion. I have then made it into a redirect to California Institute of Technology and protected it in order to prevent further re-creation vandalism. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lloyd House was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

OK, are college dorms encyclopedic, in this case at a very notable institution? It looks like there are several of these created today. I've only submitted one of them. --BM 00:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Looking at the California Institute of Technology page, there's room for expansion. A photo; history; famous ex-residents. Knowledge (XXG) isn't paper. Dbenbenn 00:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: No evidence of being encyclopedic. DCEdwards1966 01:14, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Dunster House, one of the undergraduate houses at Harvard has an article. Al Gore lived there while at Harvard. (I lived there too -- is under-achieving notable?) So it looks like there is a precedent for this type of article. Caltech being the alma mater of many famous people, an article similar to the Dunster House one could probably be written about Lloyd House too. Still, I'm not sure about this as a precedent, since there must be a gazillion named college dorms. --BM 02:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. "It's a dormitory" isn't encyclopedic. If there's something special about it that makes it notable, then the article should say so. Shimeru 02:29, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.Mikkalai 04:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten to provide evidence of notablity. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:03, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think this needs an article. Other contributions from this author include Avery House, Dabney House and Ruddock House. Maybe Merge these into California Institute of Technology and Delete. Keeping these would open room for more college dorms and it's impossible to find how many of them are notable and how many are not. utcursch 12:18, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. So someone famous might have slept there. Well, so what? We're not going to create articles on the beds that Albert Einstein slept in, so this doesn't make it notable. If this had, say, won an award for it's architectural design or was a major landmark then it would be worth keeping, but the current article has nothing of note whatsoever in it. Since Knowledge (XXG) has a decent search engine facility, we don't need this substub as anyone searching the name would get Caltech anyway, which has enough details on these houses to suffice. Some of the other houses aren't stubs, but I'd vote Delete for the rest of these houses too. Average Earthman 17:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: This substub contains less information about its topic than the parent article, but doesn't mention that fact. Kappa 18:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 19:43, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
• Keep. And please stop deletion trolling. Mark Richards 21:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. IMHO this article, Dabney House, and Ruddock House all meet the speedy deletion criterion of "Very short articles with little or no context." I have refrained from voting on this for a day to see whether the contributor was going to write articles on these dorms, but it appears as if these one-sentence statements are it. These dorms could be listed under California Institute of Technology if they are not already, but it's not even worth describing this as a merge, since rewriting the single-sentence articles into a list is essentially the same as just creating the list. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I was going to see whether the dorms were already listed at California Institute of Technology and list them there if they were not. All eight dorms (yes, Lloyd House and friends are inaccurate) are aleady listed; see the Housing section. In a nice tabular format. With a little picture of the logo/coat-of-arms, name of membership, colors, slogan, motto, and a link to the dorm's website. There is less than no need for breakout articles that provide an inaccurate subset of material that is nicely presented in the CalTech article. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, dorms are inherently nn. Wyss 22:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a sub-stub on one dorm of many at the California Institute of Technology. hfool 22:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as it lacks any content. Had it looked like the Dunster House article mentioned above, it would have been keepable. But it doesn't. / up+land 22:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless there's actually something to say about it. I wouldn't consider any individual dorms from my alma mater notable, and I see no reason to assume Caltech's are any more so. Isomorphic 10:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, dormcruft. Edeans 04:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Useful information Masterhomer 01:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Inaccurate information. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Vote placed after voting had closed)

• Not sure which vote this unsigned comment by User:Vacuum is referring to, but it doesn't matter. Voting is not "closed" until whatever time a sysop gets around to acting on the discussion. If that takes longer than five days, people can continue to vote after five days. VfD discussions are guaranteed to last at least five days but can and do last longer, and all votes in them are valid. Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Old: "You can still add your votes to these listings if you feel strongly." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: no evidence of significance. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(End of Lloyd_House archive)

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

The Pillbugs

Rob hurley

The Oxford

Simax Classics

Kitty "Tigon" Charmines

Clarke Theorem

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Playboy Playmate of the year with no other claim to notability. The crude anatomical descriptions can be edited, of course, but is she notable? --BM 02:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete.Mikkalai 04:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.TOR 04:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• No vote: I cleaned up the article some. DCEdwards1966 06:28, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Why isn't being Playmate of the Year notable enough? P Ingerson 12:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Then we can make list of Playmates of the Year, and add these stubs, since I'm sure there are more out there somewhere. Delete. hfool 22:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your wish is my command... Dan100 10:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

• An obvious keep. Everyking 21:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, this distinction is not inherently notable. Wyss 22:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, Playboy Magazine is notable. The only notability that most of the young women who pose for them have is that they are in the top couple of percent in looks; and they are willing to be photographed in the nude for payment and to have the pictures published. Neither of which makes them especially notable. Some of them manage to turn their Playboy exposure into successful modeling/acting careers, in which case they may become notable and merit a Knowledge (XXG) article. --BM 22:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - "notability" still isn't a listed reason on the Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy. You know, that thing you're supposed to read before nominating anything to this page. Merge and redirect to a list of playmates at most - David Gerard 23:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You persist on making this comment on almost every VfD vote you comment upon. Notability is not only de facto one of the main reasons articles are deleted via this page, but as has been explained numerous times, notability is derived from the basic requirement that an article be "encyclopedic" which is most certainly mentioned in the policy as the basic principle underlying all the others, and which is also implied by several of the more specific categories under "What Knowledge (XXG) is not". --BM 00:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The word "notability" isn't on Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not either. A lack of notability is a possible indicator of other problems, but you've named those neither in your original nomination nor in your response. I can only conclude you don't have any reasons that actually accord with policy - David Gerard 09:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • False, if you are going to accuse people of not having it read it, you should read it yourself first. Paragraph 17. "The people who have biographies here should be important or otherwise notable for some reason." --BM 17:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • And if notability is a "proper reason" for including a biographical article or not, certainly the same standard can be applied to other topics? Or do we have different standards of inclusion for different types of article? Elf-friend 10:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • The fact she was, above all others, named PLAYMATE OF THE YEAR firmly establishes notability. —RaD Man (talk) 10:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Thank you, RaD Man. I don't set the same standard of notability as you do, but I certainly can deal with the idea that people might differ. What I can't deal with the idea that there is no such thing as notability, or that there is some algorithmic way to decide what belongs in Knowledge (XXG) that is free from the exercise of human judgement and community consensus. You have made a clear statement of a well-defined criterion which provides a reasonable upper bound on the number of such biographies (approximately fifty per sufficiently-notable skin magazine). Dpbsmith (talk) 11:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • 'Notability' is referred to on the Deletion policy page as 'encyclopediac', which links to Knowledge (XXG):What wikipedia is not. However this particular article is clear notable enough under the terms of that page for this to stay. Dan100 10:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless a GFDL image can be procured. The only notable thing about a Playmate is the ability of photographers and retouchers to use them as sources of images which inspire erotic reveries. Without an image, all that is left is a meaningless advertisement for Playboy. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral, leaning toward delete because of the very real possibility of this becoming orphaned. I think the info is better served by being a part of a total list of Playmates of the Year. There isn't much here beyond what Geogre frequently refers to as a "predicate nominative." In other words, anyone searching for info on this woman already knows these basics. - Lucky 6.9 00:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Elf-friend 08:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and move on. Unless she has any other merit than having been featured in Playboy she does not deserve an article. Move along, now. --Phils 19:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: random nudie models aren't notable, but Playboy Playmates of the Year are. -Sean Curtin 01:15, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Extremely obvious keep. Come on now. —RaD Man (talk) 10:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Extremely obvious delete, and I wish people would address the articles, and not the nominations or nominators. Is this woman known for something other than being a Playmate? If no, then she should be mentioned in an article on Playmate of the Year or a List of... article. If she is known as a person independently and just, as one part of her glorious and notable life, was a Playmate, then she needs an article on her own. Geogre 13:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Dalene is indeed a notable celebrity. -- Judson 22:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, with 103,000 google hits, this woman is indeed a celebrity. -- Crevaner 00:08, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Being POTY is itself criteria for an article. -- Old Right 00:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Acting sysop: please note similarity in user pages and voting histories for Crevaner and Old Right. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:45, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it needs obvious expansion but Playmate of the Year makes it imo notable. Megan1967 02:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\ 18:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Is that like tumescence?
• LOL! Only when referring to the surgical alterations! Keep new stub and slap a bio-stub header on it. - Lucky 6.9 01:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this pr0ncruft. Agreed w/ Geogre. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• An ordinary playmate would be hard to decide, but playmate of the year? Keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:04, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep for notability reasons, not just because there's no grounds for deletion either. Some people really need to take time out to read the policy pages. Dan100 10:41, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Notable for people with a certain set of interests, and as such as worthy of being here as various minor league baseball players, pokemon characters, or 1920s record labels if someone cares to write article on. -- Infrogmation 19:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Jasoncart 20:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Playmate of the Year is sufficiently notable. Dbenbenn 18:53, 8 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

The speech of Kemal Ataturk on the tenth anniversary of the Turkish republic. Interesting, but more a candidate for transwikification to Wikisource. JFW | T@lk 02:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Transwiki to wikisource. Rje 03:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikisource. J.K. 09:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki. utcursch 12:24, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Megan1967 02:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Greaser 07:21, 28 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. I made the following judgment calls. Rossami (talk) 05:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The unsigned vote is discounted.
• Old Right's vote discounted as a probable sockpuppet of Crevaner.
• Kappa's comment interpreted as Delete.
• Edean's vote discounted because "merge and delete" is not an allowable option under GFDL.

At best a neologism, but more likely advertising for a pornography web-site. --BM 03:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• As far as porn sites go, this one is fairly notable. Weak delete for now, but I could be convinced there's a reason to have an article. Tuf-Kat 03:13, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.Mikkalai 04:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I've heard of this. It's marginally article-worthy. Keep for principle's sake, although the chance of a good article here seems rather small.
• Delete as I don't think it's notable (as I have heard a fair amount about Internet porn and never heard of this, and merely hearing of something by itself wouldn't be notable, there'd have to be a solid reason, some major effect on the world) and it's specifically created to only be advertising, with nothing to say if the plug for the site is removed. DreamGuy 08:38, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete even the article says the term's exclusive to one site. Icundell 12:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Bad Ad. utcursch 12:25, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: I would vote to keep if there was any evidence of even moderate notabilitysignificance in its field. Kappa 17:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete nn Van Nuys slang. Wyss 22:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Very well known internet porn site. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Erring on the side of keep. This term doesn't appear to be exclusive as the article claims. Has anyone researched this? Why is Google returning over 598,000+ hits?? Notability is obviously understated. —RaD Man (talk) 10:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Do keep in mind that some of the results do end up literally regarding canine flatulence. =) --Andylkl 11:14, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Promotion for pornographic website and absolutely no encyclopedic content. --Andylkl 11:14, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Like it or not, pornography is a genuine subject and that brand of porn is rather notable. -- Judson 22:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it just needs to be expanded larger (no pun intended). -- Crevaner 00:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with points made above. -- Old Right 00:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • acting sysop:please see concerns expressed at User_talk:Dpbsmith#sockpuppetry& and ballot-box stuffing Michael Ward 07:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It is not at all exclusive to that site. You can find dogfart at thousands of places across the web, as even a cursory Google search will display. Edit out the bit about its being exclusive and expand the rest. Dr Zen 01:21, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with the Pornography article and delete. Edeans 05:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --BM 13:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• keep I strongly suggest we should keep this page.Don't be afraid to admit that interracial porn has been our culture.User:HansChung

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

Born on the same day

Shoshanna Lonstein

Nietzsche language

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Was tagged as speedy with the comment: "Dead-end page with no context, probably written with spy novels as the source". Delete.-gadfium 03:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The subject itself is encyclopedic, and the material sounds reasonable enough. Needs wikifying, references, and a page move to conform with title capitalization guidelines, but otherwise what's the problem? Isomorphic 06:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• The problem is: it has no context, no sources, and is unverifiable. Who knows anything about this subject who is going to write an article for Knowledge (XXG) about it? What sources are there other than the imaginations of spy novel writers, which is probably how this was written? Finally, even if we didn't have all those problems, it would make more sense as part of an article on espionage or intelligence agencies. Delete. --BM 08:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless the creator pitches up to back it up with sources. Even then probably merge into espionage 12:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I'll vote keep if some references and context show up. Kappa 19:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs scads of work and references. Wyss 22:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, yes more work is needed. -Ld | talk 00:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Allow for organic growth. GRider\ 22:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Remove vfd tag and leave on clean-up. Dan100 10:51, Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

No clue as to whether it's copyrighted, and even if it isn't it should be on wikisource.

(VfD submission was from User:66.92.237.111)

• Yep, definitely a copyvio. Album on Amazon iMeowbot~Mw 07:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've listed it on WP:CP instead - arguably this is a speedy. sjorford 17:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, copyright violation. Megan1967 23:19, 27 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

The Naked Now (TNG episode)

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

The result was keep

Code of Honor (TNG episode) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Please read this.

This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. Knowledge (XXG) is not a general knowledge base. Knowledge (XXG) articles are neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. But of course critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations.

The page in question is about the third episode of the television show Star Trek, The Next Generation. It is not a biography about an art work, but a mere synopsis of a Star Trek episode, and it has little potential to become encyclopedic because it was not a notable work on its own, and did not affect society in any observable way.

There is a Star Trek Wiki at http://www.memory-alpha.org, where articles like this would be appropriate. --NoPetrol 05:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Gamaliel 06:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, because this article would fit in Sci-Fi encyclopedia and there's no reason why Knowledge (XXG) can't be all sorts of different types of encyclopedias instead of just a general reference. Listing all these pages at once for the same reason wastes our time, you should have listed only one and then listed others if people agreed with you. DreamGuy 08:31, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Xezbeth 09:47, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. See above for my comments about why "critical analysis of art" is not "welcome". (Besides, if you start deleting Star Trek episodes, what next? Deleting Sherlock Holmes short stories?) P Ingerson 12:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if an article about a Sherlock Holmes story is not about a story that has any significance on its own, then it should be deleted too, I think. An encyclopedia isn't supposed to be a substitute for narrative works- if a person is interested in a story, they should read or watch that story, not read about it in an encyclopedia. --NoPetrol 12:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But if you haven't time/opportunity/etc. to read the whole story or watch the whole episode? If you need to know background details about why the story was written that way, and which real-life events/places/people inspired it? Or behind-the-scenes information about the controversial reasons why this actor was cast in the guest-star role, and how that particular special effect was done? You can't get all that just from reading/watching the episode, especially if you're skimming through it in a hurry. (Ok, so you can't get it from this particular article either at the moment, but that's a reason for expanding it, not deleting it!) P Ingerson 13:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Second, Star Trek: The Next Generation arguably "affected society in an observable way". And yet that series primarily consisted of its episodes. Do you think you can judge exactly what made it affect society, an why this episode certainly had no effect? JRM 17:27, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Yes, it created a group of people that everyone else stereotypes as being over the top obsessives (see the character of Comic Book Guy in The Simpsons). This is what the vast majority of people think when you say Star Trek - that it's followed by really, really obsessive fans who dress up as Klingons at the drop of a hat. And it should be noted that it is not the Next Generation that started that, it was the original series (which I used to watch as a kid). Apart from having the first interracial kiss on US TV and having fans campaign to get a Space Shuttle named Enterprise, I can't think of that many major contributions to the world that it really achieved. Average Earthman 12:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. While I appreciate you telling us all what the Knowledge (XXG) is and isn't to you, I think you are mistaken if you think the whole world agrees with you. Michael L. Kaufman 18:00, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Hmm, tricky one. I'm going to have to vote Merge and Redirect into Star Trek The Next Generation Episodes. --fvw* 19:48, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
• Keep. Delete nominator for blatant and deliberate violation of Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy - David Gerard 23:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Rubbish. The nominator believes that it does not have the ability to become encyclopedic. You have a different definition of encyclopedic to him, that's all. Suggesting he should be deleted is just ridiculous. Average Earthman 12:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The web is not lacking in Star Trek episode guides. -- Walt Pohl 06:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The net is not lacking in many things that appear here. Should we delete the pages about the US presidents because there is a government web site that shows the same information? Should we delete the Oscar winners? Should we delete the pages related to current events because there are plenty of news sites? As far as I know, the Knowledge (XXG) was not designed to fill in the missing pieces from the rest of the web. Michael L. Kaufman 19:45, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

What do you think an encyclopedia is? It is a reference work that collects information that would be difficult to obtain otherwise (as high school students have known for several generations). An NPOV account of a US president's career is the perfect example of what you turn to an encyclopedia for. We shouldn't have a Star Trek episode guide for the same reason we shouldn't include listings for the local movie theatre. -- Walt Pohl 21:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have looked and looked, but I can't find any part of the definition of a Knowledge (XXG) or an encyclopedia that mentions anything about it being important that the information is difficult to obtain elsewhere. It uses inclusive words like compendium or general. Plus, I just don't get your anology. We shouldn't include local movie listings, because that information is constantly losing its value and there is essentially no chance that the information will be of interest beyond a small group of people. Neither case is true here. The information about the epsiodes is not expiring, and it certainly is of interest to a large group of people. How do you feel the anology fits? Michael L. Kaufman 02:00, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into an appropriate season guide. Average Earthman 12:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge this and all other season one TNG episodes into a single season guide. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep unless there is a specific Knowledge (XXG) policy against doing so. There are other articles devoted to individual episodes of other Trek series such as Enterprise, as well as individual books in a series (see James Bond). If Knowledge (XXG)'s admin wants to cast a blanket rule, that's their perogative. (Cutting and pasting for all TNG episode-related VfD, apologies for duplication) 23skidoo 04:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Dbenbenn 18:36, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sick of this, from the amount of stuff on here about Star Trek TNG you'd think it was the towering achievement of human history, which it isn't. The Simpsons is. Alexp73 14:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Holodoctor1 11:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, silly deletionists. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 16:18, 1 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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.

The Last Outpost (TNG episode)

Where No One Has Gone Before (TNG episode)

Lonely Among Us (TNG episode)

Datalore (TNG episode)

When the Bough Breaks (TNG episode)

The Royale (TNG episode)

Future Imperfect

Conundrum (Star Trek)

Power Play

Adrian Speyer

Ms.Swan

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

I can't see any value in starting a list like this, when the same result could be accomplished with the "Category" facility. Deb 10:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that's an argument for deletion. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The list has potential to become encyclopedic. Abstain for now.Keep. --Viriditas | Talk 22:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. surely not fundamentally different to list of mystery writers or list of science fiction authors? Icundell 13:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm not convinced as to the usefulness of theselists either, since we have categories. However, I see no reason to delete this if we are keeping other lists which are similar. Rje 14:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep lists have different uses to categories, for example they can include red links to needed articles, disambiguation information, and complete 'substub' coverage of item which don't need their own page. Kappa 16:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with any of the above points, but we started making lists before we had categories, and the authors in this list almost all have their own articles already. Surely this is just duplication -- we should keep lists for things that can't be included in categories, eg. song titles, which generally don't have their own articles. Deb 20:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I found the two cites above via the categories - but both are useful in different ways. Unil WP has a halfway decent search engine, both are needed Icundell 21:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, lists like this are ok so long as they're not along the lines of Sussex 6th formers with AB blood types. Wyss 22:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, one of the few lists that actually should be kept on wikipedia. Megan1967 23:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep; we haven't made a community decision yet to move to using categories instead of lists; such a decision is not one to be made here, but in the wider community. James F. (talk) 02:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as lists have inherent advantages over categories. When the tide turns we can revisit this and other lists. GRider\ 17:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe categories to be better than lists as there has to be a pre-existing article before it even gets included in a category. Lists can act as a portal to abuse of mass listing and encourages non-notable and trivial articles to be created. Megan1967 00:25, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Categories suck. How do you create red links in categories to show potential articles? Nelson Ricardo 01:38, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. No community consensus. --JuntungWu 07:16, 1 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Dead star assembly

Wanna get away?

First AfD

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 the article, barely. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:51, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

"often used coupled with an expletive, such as 'Shamone mother f-----'". Bad dicdef (or whatever, but doesn't belong here). utcursch 11:59, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Tentative Keep. People watching something like Bo' Selecta! for the first time will be wondering what it means, like me. Xezbeth 12:50, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Not sure it really exists outside Bo Selecta, in which case it should be merged. Kappa 16:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, merge if you must. What's the deal with the signatures at the bottom of the page though Utcursh? --fvw* 19:56, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
• Delete Icundell 21:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• ...uhm ...Delete, trivial slang def. Wyss 21:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Megan1967 23:09, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Move to Cha'mone and keep. chocolateboy 06:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Move if necessary. We have articles on other catchphrases and pop culture references. This is a valid topic for an article. I suspect it has been expanded considerably since the VfD listing and the first few votes. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete too minor and will fall out of use once the next student comedy comes along. adamsan 22:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't believe I've ever heard it outside Bo Selecta. It certainly hasn't entered the mainstream consciousness like other comic catchphrases have, some Monty Python lines are still very famous 30 years on. This isn't even famous, or notable, now. Rje 01:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Wereon 12:53, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Neologism and a word that has not penetrated culture yet. Geogre 14:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep!, Its a word in popular western culture and people need to understand the connotations and the value of it. (Note: This is an IP vote by 217.42.24.93 - his/her only contribution).

Follwing vote is invalid. It is an IP edit, not by E-Val:

• Keep, Until just looking up this word i didnt know what it meant. It was useful to me and will probably be useful to others. I have heard alot of people using this word, not just in Bo Selecta. E-Val 12:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:06, 5 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

United Liberation Front Of Tibet

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Mgm dropped me a note about this article on my talk page. I can certify that the Fredrik Johansson described in the article is not me, nor anyone I've heard of. And according to Google, there doesn't seem to be any pro surfers with this name who are top traders on the stock market. Delete as not notable and unverifiable. Fredrik | talk 12:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! :) Mgm| 17:31, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, sounds like a hoax. Rje 14:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I couldn't find anything relevant in either Swedish or English. I think that Fredrik Johansson is one of the most common names in Sweden. Jeltz talk 15:03, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  • Out of Sweden's population of 9006405, there are 50582 Fredriks and 283184 Johanssons, ranking at #20 and #1 respectively. Assuming that the ratio of Fredriks to the entire population is the same as the ratio of Fredriks to Johanssons, there are (50582 × 283184) / 9006405 = 1590 Fredrik Johanssons in Sweden. Fredrik | talk 16:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Pity, we could have gone for the record disambiguation page. And that's just for Fredrik Johansson (Sweden). But maybe not. Andrewa 17:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --fvw* 19:57, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
• Delete, article offers no verification or evidence of notability. Wyss 21:53, 27 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Not notable. Delete. utcursch 12:22, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete --fvw* 20:01, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
• Delete nn Wyss 21:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, though "FIST" may be the most ironic name for a philanthropic group ever. Shimeru 01:37, Dec 28, 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

This page is marked as inactive. It looks bad to leave dead collaboration pages lying around; they are depressing and de-motivating, and also cause confusion and sometimes wasted effort. The requests that currently sit here unattended should be divided up among the appropriate active pages mentioned in the header (or wherever else might be appropriate) and then this page can go away. -- Beland 12:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete unless I'm missing something. Abstain Wyss 21:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Object to listing: VfD has no authority over anything other than the main name space; if you want people to not use it, put a note at the top, as normal. James F. (talk) 02:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: I'd much rather see this revived than removed. And that sort of thing happens now and then. Even if it's a bit moribund right now, that's better handled with a notice to that effect and an invititation to revive it than by throwing away a good idea. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:46, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Concur with Jmabel. Keep. VfD isn't for wikipedia namespace pages. Start up a poll or discussion about it. Mgm| 17:34, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, in fact can't we just remove the VfD tag and delete this from here? Dan100 12:08, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is absurd. Andre (talk) 21:21, Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Appears to be original research or perhaps a personal political tract. --LeeHunter 16:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing on Google. Jeff Knaggs 16:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Wyss 21:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. What they said. Shimeru
• Delete. Original Research by Saroj Khanal. utcursch 10:46, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a translation, and keeps the work fairly accuartely summised. Encyclopedic. Needs cleanup, perhaps. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 14:23, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given by others. Josh Cherry 00:14, 2 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Non-notable, unverifiable, and/or prank. Zero hits for Bassam kouzi. Article doesn't establish notability (being a criminal IMHO is not inherently encyclopedic). Niteowlneils 17:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Rje 19:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity (almost a speedy, but not quite IMO) Wyss 21:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Shimeru 01:41, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, Takes idiocy to a new degree. 12 year old kid trying to make himself sound specialCTerry 20:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete; Vanity; Newfoundglory 19:28, Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 18 keep, 20 delete and 4 redirect (with 2 votes excluded). Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the decision defaults to KEEP.

Having done that, I now choose to be bold as I exercise my own discretion as a normal editor and merge & redirect the article to Kentfield, California. Rossami (talk) 06:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a non-notable article on a middle school. There's nothing apparently unique about this middle school, no famous alumni, etc. - Walkiped 18:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/schools for a long discussion relevant to this vote. Dbenbenn 00:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Textbook example of a page that should be deleted. Carrp 18:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • er, if that's the case, what's the justification from Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy? Please quote - David Gerard 22:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • "No potential to become encyclopedic." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC).
      • The word "encyclopedic" links to Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not - please quote rather than handwaving - David Gerard 09:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • It is not apparent from the way these policy pages are presented that Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not is intended to exhaustively define "encyclopedic". In fact, the page itself describes the numbered paragraphs as things on which there is consensus. But this does not preclude that consensus might emerge on other categories of articles that are "not encyclopedic". There is in fact Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Precedents which mentions many specific cases. Berating people who use the word "non-notable" rather than the magic words "no potential to be encyclopedic" does not make sense, and does not inspire confidence in the judiciousness of someone who has just been elected to the Arbitration Committee. If the VfD page is not where consensus emerges on what belongs in the encyclopedia and what does not, where is the correct place? And as precedents are established by votes here, why are they not better documented? Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Precedents is not a very satisfactory document. --BM 01:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • A member of the Arbitration Committee who makes sarcastic remarks like You know, the thing linked in BIG TEXT up the top of the VFD page doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence either ... Elf-friend 08:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: It might not be a notable middle school, but it has the potential to be an encyclopedic article. Photos, history. Sorry to sound sentimental, but maybe the kids at the school will make it into a project. I mean, the Daylily isn't notable either, but it has an article. Dbenbenn 19:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment The daylily is one of the most popular summer-flowering bulbs in the world, with countless (like 100,000) cultivars and many fanclubs devoted exclusivly to the propigation and development of new ornimental strains. Fledgeling 02:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • oh and it gets 357,000 google hits too Fledgeling
• Abstain. 0987 19:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, unless it can be shown to be noteworthy/encyclopedic. The article is also only 16 words long, too short to be anything but a sub-stub. Rje 19:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It isn't a sub-stub any more. Dbenbenn 20:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but it's still not noteworthy. Demography and classroom size doesn't make it encyclopedic. Rje 21:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --fvw* 20:02, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
• Schools can never be textbook examples of deletable articles because there are editors who consider all schools notable. However, I'm not one of them, and I vote delete. --BM 20:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. And please stop deletion trolling. Mark Richards 21:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, middle schools aren't inherently notable. Wyss 21:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • For the record, notability is not a deletion criteria. Mark Richards 21:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • For the record, notability is a key aspect of encyclopedic, which is a deletion criteria. Wyss 03:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • For the record again, I'll go out on a limb and say that it has full potential to be encyclopedic. Notability, just like art, is very subjective and opinions varies from person to person. --Andylkl 11:33, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is a deletion criteria in at least some cases (for exemple biografies). I think we should try to abolish the "include your own school"-idea that some people seem to have. Only include notable schools. Jeltz talk 21:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep and stop trolling VfD. GRider\ 22:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• delete notability is the main criterion for inclusion. This is not notable. Dunc|☺ 22:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Your statement is not supported by Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy. If you disagree, please quote the bit about "notability" - David Gerard 22:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - entirely valid as per the deletion policy. You know, the thing linked in BIG TEXT up the top of the VFD page - David Gerard 22:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability presented. Not notable = not encyclopedic topic = cannot be made encyclopedic = deletable per policy. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Intrigue 00:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Does Anthony have a school wiki up yet? If so, transwiki there. Weak keep otherwise. Not a particularly notable school, but not a particularly bad article either. - Lucky 6.9 00:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: And stop inclusionist trolling. Notable schools, like notable donut shops, should have articles. Geogre 00:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Gamaliel 02:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Lack of notability is not something that I consider applicable to a school that presumably has affected tens of thousands of people in the last decade or so. James F. (talk) 02:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge to town or school district. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:47, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete ,not notable. Fledgeling 03:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Schools are inherently non-notable, and this particular one makes no claim to the contrary. —Korath 03:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Elf-friend 08:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, and do not transwiki. We should be moving out Star Trek, Pokemon and other fan-based minutiae before even thinking about piecing out schools. —RaD Man (talk) 09:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into Kentfield, California and delete- Skysmith 09:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a directory. This is not an encyclopedia article, and it has no apparent potential to become one. Isomorphic 09:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into Kentfield, California. The article does not suggest sufficient notability to stand on its own, and the significant information will be more usefully incorporated into the Kentfield article. Average Earthman 12:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools are inherently notable and article has full potential to be encyclopedic. --Andylkl 11:33, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously.--Centauri 13:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Considering how controversial this subject it, it is most obvious that it is not obvious Fledgeling
• Keep this and all schools. There is nothing in the deletion policy to suggest that not being "notable", whatever that's supposed to mean (since someone has noted it by writing the article, it is clearly notable in at least one sense), is a criterion for deletion, and furthermore, nothing in the appropriate article to suggest that it is a component of "encyclopaedic" either (in fact, that seems to suggest that so long as an article is "what you would expect" if you clicked on the link, or could become that, then it is "encyclopaedic". In any case, schools are perfectly notable. They are responsible for the education of thousands of people and are a central part of their communities. Leaving them out of an encyclopaedia that is the repository of all human knowledge is senseless.
  • BTW, uncivilly berating members of the arbitration committee for suggesting that you follow the instructions on pages you contribute to is something you might consider not doing, BM.Dr Zen 05:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Dr Zen, Knowledge (XXG) is not supposed to be a repository of all human knowledge. Now it is also your turn to read Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not. --BM 12:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • You are very wrong: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Dr Zen 23:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Well that statement sounds impressive to newbies, but as we all know, it hardly reflects reality. Dunc|☺ 23:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Because there are far too many people whose idea of an encyclopaedia is extremely narrow. Jimbo's vision is inspiring; Geogre's is not. We already have Encarta. Dr Zen 23:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I doubt that "the sum of all human knowledge" in Jimbo's "vision" includes my shirt-size, although my wife finds this helpful to know when shopping for Christmas presents. Somewhere between an article on Charles Darwin and an article on my shirt-size, there is a line. We are just arguing which side of that line Kent Middle School is on. --BM 00:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Your shirt size is not verifiable, unless we email your wife.Dr Zen 00:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • What does "verifiability" have to do with "sum of human knowledge". By the way, it is easily verifiable: I can upload photographs depicting my shirt size being measured, with close ups of the measuring tape. If you are hoping that verifiability is the thing that is going to filter out all the trivia: nice try, but it won't. There is tons of verifiable trivia. --BM 01:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Dude, I'm not the guy trying to "filter" the encyclopaedia. If several people besides you and those who know you want to write about your shirt size, it's in.Dr Zen 01:57, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • Well, dude, if the aim is "sum of human knowledge", why even rule out articles about my shirt-size written by me and those I know. It's knowledge, and its even verifiable. What difference does it make whether I write it or someone else? Is there maybe some notion that it should be of wide interest creeping in here? If so, I would agree, and now we only have to debate how wide an interest is wide enough. --BM 02:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • A very good question. I cannot think of a good reason for ruling them out. "Wide interest" would be important were this a book but given that it isn't, why should there not be an article about your shirt sizes, perhaps with a graph of them over the years? Really, I'm not seeing from you a good reason not besides your belief that an encyclopaedia should only cover "important" things.Dr Zen 02:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • "The sum of human knowledge" actually was the Encyclopedia Britannica's slogan. "Knowledge" has more than one meaning. If you use the widest meaning, rather than the meaning associated with the "-paedia" root—teaching, erudition—then "the sum of human knowledge" means a general knowledge base rather than an encyclopedia. Yes, Jimbo has used the phrase "sum of human knowledge," but he has also said that Knowledge (XXG) "is a 💕, meaning it must be free and it must be an encyclopedia." There are many good reasons why Knowledge (XXG) can and should include more than a traditional paper encyclopedia, but it should not automatically include everything that happens to be a fact (such as autobiographies of non-notable people). Dpbsmith (talk) 01:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Sorry, did he go on to say the stuff you tacked on the end or are you saying it? I think he's been perfectly clear on several occasions that he believes an encyclopaedia should be very broad and I agree with him. You don't, that's fair enough, but don't be making out that it's the policy here. That's clear enough. Notability doesn't figure in it except that people should be notable in some measure. "Notable in some measure" and "world-famous" are not necessarily synonymous.Dr Zen 01:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • The stuff after the closing quote is mine, not Jimbo's. Due to careless editing on my part there was one revision posted I failed to close the quote, for which I apologize.Dpbsmith (talk) 02:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • So, Dr. Zen, are you saying that notability is a valid criterium for real people but not for schools or fictional characters, creatures, weapons, etc.? If you believe so, please tell me what your reasoning for this belief is? Elf-friend 08:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • I'm saying that's what the policy says. I've said more than once that I do not believe this encyclopaedia should be cut to my personal taste. FWIW, I think "notable" is as "notable" does. What's "notable" to me isn't to you, and vice versa. My mother is "notable" so far as I'm concerned, but you'd never have heard of her. Do you see? It's a poor criterion as generally understood. What the policy suggests is that people should have been noted because this is not a primary source. IOW, you shouldn't write about your mother unless you use other broader sources to do so. (Yes, I know, she might feature in your uncle's blog; it's not straightforward.) The latter is explicitly barred because it is vanity to write about your mum if no one else knows her or her achievements.Dr Zen 01:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Any school article has the potential to be made encyclopedic. For instance, detailed historical information would do a lot here, especially if cross-referenced with comparable information for the locality. That this content has not been added is no basis for deletion. At any rate -- although this isn't part of official policy, alas -- in an inclusive community the burden of proof must always be on those who wish to exclude. The article should not be expected to justify its own inclusion. It is up to the deletor to explain why it can *never* be made adequate. -- Visviva 16:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Indrian 23:46, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Public educational institutions are inherently notable. Too many people around here have become afflicted with the Academic Standards Disease. GRider\ 23:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --JuntungWu 07:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Dan100 10:59, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has potential to become encyclopædic. Lankiveil 12:54, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC).
• Keep. The mission of Knowledge (XXG) is to amass "the sum of all human knowledge" here. I think schools have a place within that vision. --ShaunMacPherson 21:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Most American middle schools have classrooms, multipurpose rooms, a gym, and a library. The article makes no claim of notability or importance. Neutrality 23:28, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Schools aren't "important"?Dr Zen 00:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Knowledge (XXG) is not a general knowledge base. Not notable = not encyclopaedic = should not be here jni 07:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Ben Brockert (42) 08:00, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Note: User:Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW test. Passes on A (> 2 sentences) B (1 paragraph), marginal on D (contains useful facts; contains random facts but not necessarily useful), fails C (<2000 bytes), E (photograph), F (1 alumnus!), G (no national news), H (notability besides F and G), I (would an alumnus be proud? I'd hate to think so), J (info for teachers? maybe they could know how many classrooms there are!). So this gives a beefstew score of 2, maybe 3 if you're willing to be generous. That's out of ten. 2/10. what's that, F-? Dunc|☺ 11:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I use the ZEEFSTEW method. Ten points for each question answered in the affirmative. A/ Is it a school? Yes? A+. Dr Zen 12:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh yes, BEEFSTEW is intended for secondar schools, so Dpbsmith says he is also inclined to give primary schools and middle schools -3 bonus points, giving Kent Middle School a score of -1/10, or if you're being generous 0/10. Although flawed, BEEFSTEW is pretty good at picking out notable keeps, and is good at identifying this as horrible. Dunc|☺ 15:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, we can agree to differ. I believe ZEEFSTEW correctly identifies articles that should be kept in accordance with our aim to make this a great encyclopaedia. Dr Zen 23:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm the one who added most of the article's information content. For what it's worth, I think the school is utterly un-notable, but that it should still be kept. It has the potential to improve its score on the BEEFSTEW test. How do you expect it to improve if it gets deleted within a few weeks of creation?
  • The school appears to be fairly internet-savvy. The students do a web-page creating project every semester. Possibly we could get some of the students interested in improving the article as part of their project. If this page survives deletion, I intend to propose that idea to someone at the school. Dbenbenn 00:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It would be nice if we had encyclopedic articles about all schools, but too many have already been deleted at birth, so there's not much point any more. P Ingerson 15:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • That last comment is incorrect. I tried to track every school article for a month, November 2004, to satisfy my own curiosity on this point, and what I found was that during that month about 65 school articles were created. Of these, only 19 were nominated for VfD. One or two were speedy-deleted, one or two were deleted as copyvios. The other forty or so sailed right in. Conversely, of the 19 nominated for VfD, about ten were actually deleted, suggesting that these were not frivolous nominations. In point of fact, it is quite easy to get a school article into VfD; it just has to be a half-decent article that gives a glimmering of a reason why the school should be included. Produce an alumnus who invented Murphy's Oil Soap and an Olympic gold medalist and your article will be quite safe. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:07, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Only 19?! Only 19 perfectly valid subjects for an encyclopaedia were burned without a consensus for it. I don't feel like reaching for the shampoo.Dr Zen 02:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Dr Zen, he's saying 19 since November were placed on VfD in total out of 65 school articles. Of those only 19 VfD votes, only 10 resulted in deletion. Considering that there seem be a number of automatic "Keep" votes for any school, that it requires two-thirds voting the same way to be considered consensus, and that "Merge" and "Redirect" votes muddy the waters, those 10 were probably very stubby articles about very non-notable schools. I'm surpised actually that so many as half of the VfD's resulted in deletion. My impression recently is that it is basically impossible to get a high-school article deleted. And this vote is about to extend the precedent to middle schools. So Dr Zen, unfortunately, your view that every one of hundreds of thousands of schools on Earth is notable and should be in the Knowledge (XXG) seems to be prevailing. --BM 15:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete BrokenSegue 04:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is not a key aspect of encyclopedic. Please stop wasting our time and start expanding Knowledge (XXG). arj 19:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • This exercise is not a waste of time. Open, civil discussion is an integral way in which a community deals with conflicting points of view. - Walkiped 06:25, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• please keep this, it is valuable to wikipedia. Yuckfoo 07:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. Barely a stub, and would fit nicely in the article we already have about the location. If someone wants to expand this so it doesn't fail Knowledge (XXG):Informative, they can always remove the redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 8 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Stubby orphan with little meaningful content by an IP with no unrelated contributions. Taken directly from . Ground 19:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete The text = a striking little knot of Business English. I guess Production and Material Control impacts a paradigm in quality-based market dynamics, or something. I actually wish it were longer, so more of it could go away when it gets deleted. Auto movil 20:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Barely comprehensible business jargon with no context. Rje 21:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Wyss 21:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense or short and noncontextual article. Shimeru 01:43, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, it's a portion of a course description. Cut and paste from WWW. iMeowbot~Mw 09:09, 29 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Not notable. Scores quite a few hits on google, but these all appear to be the same text on link farms. --fvw* 20:21, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

• Delete it till it glows. —Korath 20:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete nn Wyss 21:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Shimeru 01:45, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. looks like every other of the 1000s of pseudo-D&D MMOGs knocking around the internet. Rje 02:02, 28 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deleted at 01:10, 28 Dec 2004 by CryptoDerk who did not close out this discussion page.

In preparing to close the discussion page, I note that CryptoDerk wrote (confirmed that it was merged with the main article). Since this was merged, not simply deleted, we must preserve the attribution history in order to comply with GFDL. I have restored it and converted it to a redirect to the main article instead. Rossami (talk) 03:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vfd tag added by Cantus, however they did not deem it useful to also list the page here. No opinion at present personally. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful information, and not enough space for it on the main page 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake - MPF 21:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful. --Frankman 21:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Poor title, page has no context outside of the parent article (simply a direct dump of content with no explanation behind it). Re-merge for now, deal with excessive size and/or summarisation once page is no longer in high state of flux. Discussion is commencing at Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake#Move_of_section. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Actually, it was incorrectly marked as a speedy by cantus first. Keep, but if someone can come up with a good title that'd be nice. --fvw* 21:24, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Now I know a little more about how it came into being: delete --fvw* 07:49, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

• Yeah not a great title, but I think this page is useful - not that I'm biased :) Bobchalk 21:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. And please stop deletion trolling. Mark Richards 21:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Move .. somewhere. This title is terrible. -Ld | talk 21:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete This content has been moved to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Paul August ☎ 23:01, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with Tsunami article under a seperate subheading, perhaps 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami? Majority of people were killed by the tsunami rather than the earthquake. The present title is very cumbersome. Megan1967 23:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Move or Merge or something, but don't leave it like this. Tuf-Kat 23:09, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, information has been merged in what appears to be its entirety to 2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake. hfool 23:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete violet/riga (t) 00:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with Ld and Tuf-Kat. Interesting (but sadly so) and useful list...horrendous title. Maybe merge this to the main article? - Lucky 6.9 00:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: already remerged into main article. There's a bit of tussle between the people who want to keep all the earthquake info on one page until the situation stabilizes in a few days, and those who can't stand the fact that its above 32kb and are cutting sections out and pasting them on new pages (or just blanking the end of the article). BanyanTree 01:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • off-topic question, sorry: are they 'blanking' it because their browsers can't cope with edit boxes that big? Kappa 01:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Or merge/redir back in. First, the 32K "limit" is somewhat archaic and arbitrary--I test software for a living, have current versions of all common browsers, and they don't have a problem at 32K--older versions, such as Netscape 4 look like crap, let alone editing. And _if_ something must be split off, there's got to be a way to do so under a cleaner title, such as moving the discussion of the tsunami effects to a separate article from the earthquake itself. Looking at the talk page, only one user wants this division under discussion, and all others think it is not the way to go. Make sure sections are under 32k, put a 'fake' edit link on the first section if necessary, or whatever, but splitting this particular chunk off to meet the 32K 'desired' limit seems ill-advised. Niteowlneils 12:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: May I direct people to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake no. Another poorly named and poorly structured offshoot. violet/riga (t) 22:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge: Doesn't need to be its own article. There are only about 200 countries on the planet, so even if 190 of them lost citizens beyond those directly affect, it won't take up too much space to list them. Plus until the Tsumani/Earthquake is no longer a current event, this type of information should be in one place otherwise we'll end up with duplication. 23skidoo 03:57, 30 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Not notable. --fvw* 21:27, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity Wyss 21:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 22:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Shimeru 01:47, Dec 28, 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Redirection has been completed.

Dictdef. --fvw* 22:15, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

• What a load of bull. Delete as dicdef -- Ferkelparade π 00:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Dicdef, belongs on Wiktionary. — Dan | Talk 00:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, speaking of bullshit... Rje 00:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone's bullshitted here... P Ingerson 00:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bullshit without merging. Kappa 00:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect without merging. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. Norman Rogers\ 20:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 22:38, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bullshit, even though everybody knows the correct past tense form is "bullshat". — Ливай | ☺ 00:56, 7 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 Salad Fingers. Rossami (talk) 06:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not notable. --fvw* 22:36, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

• Merge into Salad Fingers and redirect - David Gerard 22:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Self-made vanity page. Delete, since salad fingers can easily include these scant lines about its creator. Auto movil 23:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect will leave a redirection here, which will discourage recreation of the article - David Gerard 23:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Good idea. Auto movil 23:54, 27 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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.

Text copy/pasted from Vim (which was recently split into Vim (text editor) and Vim (cleaning product), this is the same as the latter) Goplat 22:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• You don't need to list it here to make it a redirect - I've just done so - David Gerard 22:51, 27 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Rossami (talk) 06:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User page without associated user. --fvw* 22:52, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

• Also see Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Willy on Wheels --fvw* 22:54, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
• Delete. Megan1967 22:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• D --BesigedB 23:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• oughtn't these be speedy? Dunc|☺ 23:29, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. We have a userpage on Mr. Treason. Useful place to point people to when he strikes again. Neutrality 23:57, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • There is however a user Mr. Treason. There is no User:Willy on Wheels. --fvw* 00:24, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
    • There are many Users:Willy on Wheels. Just none with that particular typography. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. According to Special:Listusers User:Willy On Wheels, User:Willy On Wheels!, User:Willy On Wheels!!, User:Willy on Wheels on Wheels, User:Willy on wheels and User:Willy on wheels! are all registered users, but not this one. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Move to User:Willy On Wheels or one of the other variants and delete the redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Didn't read the results of the above VfD. Just delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's always good to keep the history of Knowledge (XXG) intact. I, for one, am very interested in all the different ways trolls have found to vandalise Knowledge (XXG). *registers username* Willy on Wheels 16:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) Sorry, delete. (Note: I'm not the "Willy on Wheels") Willy on Wheels 16:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with Neutrality and vote keep. Etz Haim 21:53, 7 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was investigated as a copyvio. As of 07:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC), copyvio investigation continues. Rossami (talk)

Can a physicist (or three) look at this page and decide if it is patent nonsense? It certainly looks like it to my non-physicist's eyes, especially given the links that were created (and reverted) within Tunnel diode. Atlant 23:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Comment. Based on googling relevant phrases, it doesn't look like patent nonsense or a hoax, just very badly written and going off in lots of directions. At least the topics mentioned are all connected. Apparently relevant links: , , . However, apparent coherence does not guarantee anything, and this is definitely way above my head. Nevertheless, you might also want to put up a notice at Knowledge (XXG):Pages needing attention. JRM 00:13, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
• Delete. Mostly copyvio Fuelbottle | Talk 04:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. That would explain the apparent lack of focus. Of course news flashes don't look like encyclopedia articles. JRM 12:59, 2004 Dec 28 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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. Deletion performed by User:Wile E. Heresiarch (who forgot to close out this discussion thread). Rossami (talk) 03:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article, describing an organization of "honorary citizens of the windswept island of Rockall", fails to note that the tiny rock is uninhabited. The information in this article is at best unverifiable, at worst a hoax. I suspect the latter as the creation of the article was the sole edit of an anonymous user. Ливай | ☺ 23:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Also note that a Google search for the term turns up 21 unique pages. Most are copies of this article, and the rest give no information about the supposed group at all. Ливай | ☺ 23:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed, I couldn't find anything from repuatable sources (my apologies to open-source projects). Kappa 01:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a hoax. I can't find anything about it. Shimeru 01:52, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable -- unable to find any non-mirror/fork reference to this rather unlikely group Michael Ward 00:35, 31 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on 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 as copyvio at 03:19, 8 Jan 2005 by User:Infrogmation (who forgot to close the discussion)

This might well be a valid topic, I don't know, it's so poorly written it's hard to tell. I don't think articles should start out this bad. When someone wants to contribute one good sentence on this subject they can start a new stub from scratch. ike9898 23:40, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, it's an ad. Reads like a company PR release. This moving company may or may not be notable enough to warrant a page, but even if it is, it shouldn't be this page. Shimeru 01:59, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Copyvio from . Delete. hfool 02:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Now listed as a copyvio. Will probably be deleted by this process in 7 days.ike9898 16:19, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as link spam; a previous spam at Movers from the same outfit (mover4u.com) was deleted within the last week, though it had completely different text, so it can't really be speedily delted as a repost. It had been marked as a candidate for speedy on 8 December and was deleted on 23 December (which isn't exactly speedy).
• Delete There might one day be a valid article called Movers, this is not it. Shred' it. Phils 19:34, 28 Dec 2004 (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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

Non-notable. Neutrality 23:52, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Neutrality 23:52, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, self-important vanity. Rje 00:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Even I'd heard of this flamewar and seen first hand its long-lasting after effects in groups that weren't even directly involved. So, as Usenet flamewars go, this one must have been pretty notable. P Ingerson 00:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. chocolateboy 01:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Now that's funny. Delete anyway. hfool 02:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• About as funny and notable as a me. Delete. :: DarkLordSeth 02:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, notable enough in my book. James F. (talk) 02:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Megan1967 02:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - if we're going to keep the f'n GNAA article, we're damn well going to meow meow Henrietta Pussycat meow. -- Cyrius|✎
• Delete. King Friday says, "The sole criterion for deletion should be whether the Knowledge (XXG) would be improved by deletion." The GNAA, as always, is insignificant, and that they've been able to successfully game the system with regard to "their" article shouldn't have any bearing on other articles. - Nunh-huh 06:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I've also heard of this before in forums far removed from the actual events. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, these are very notable - certainly anyone who frequents Usenet discussions has heard of them. Grue 16:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Meelar (talk) 17:05, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Scrat5150 (talk) 17:22, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 17:34, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Notable, continually relevant (the 'meowers' keep invading other newsgroups nearly 9 years later), real phenomenon, absolutely Wiki-relevant. The piece needs cleanup and NPOV by an old Usenet wonk. Auto movil 17:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Not voting, because I'm not an impartial observer. There is a lot more to be told in there, and that incident had long term effects on policy and software too. iMeowbot~Mw 19:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Obvious keep. A noteworthy piece of Usenet history deserving of its own article. ] 23:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Ld | talk 00:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Already survived VFD before and article has been around for over a year. No valid reason to delete. Norman Rogers\ 02:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Usenet is not its own microuniverse where important things are done by important people or groups. Usenet is notable, internet history is notable. Events in Usenet history do not seem notable to me even if they go on for a year unless they had some impact in the real world outside of usenet. Indrian 06:57, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Extreme keep, highly notable. This VfD listing is invalid, but it could be worse; at least its not surviving its fifth successive VfD. —RaD Man (talk) 07:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. See comment by iMeowbot. While I would tend to agree with the point raised by Indrian, the incident in question is notable enough. --Viriditas | Talk 11:19, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Knowledge (XXG) is a web guide, to an extent-- c.f. w:Category:Web_comics-- and this is a large piece of USENET history. Ashibaka tlk 23:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A legitimate bit of web history. Denni☯ 03:07, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
• Keep. I remember seeing this on Usenet in the 90s, and the article has a lot of good information. Most trolling/flaming events are not notable, but this one is. Dave6 05:34, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep this time, keep next time and keep every time it's listed. Imagine, an online encyclopaedia that doesn't consider online phenomena to be notable! Next, the deletionists will have their teeth into 13th century Polish kings, because they didn't have impact on the world outside Poland.Dr Zen 05:43, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Meow. Work is in progress to deal with NPOV, and some of the effects outside Usenet are slowly finding their way into the piece. Please keep this in mind if you read the article in its current state. Thanks. iMeowbot~Mw 11:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep... —OvenFresh☺ 21:32, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Mindspillage | spill your mind? 22:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, after perhaps merging some of the information to Usenet. Usenet is notable. One of the notable things about it is the number of petty squabbles. Particular squabbles aren't likely to be individually notable. If this is one of the more long-lived and far-reaching squabbles on Usenet, the most it merits is a mention in the Usenet article. Apparently, Usenet just continued, as did the lives of those involved. Just a bunch of kids typing away at night. Nobody got arrested; nobody got kicked out of school. Nothing actually happened except a bunch of narcissists got some attention, mostly from each other. While it isn't the main reason for my vote, it also occurs to me that Knowledge (XXG) doesn't do Usenet, slashdot, etc, any favors when it acts as an enabler for trolls seeking attention and notoriety. --BM 00:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  Notoriety is of course given as a reason for inclusion. It's quite clear that these people have "some measure" of notoriety. Few people who use Usenet don't know who they are, and in particular anyone who is interested in trolls, trolling and the like -- and people are, whehter you approve or not -- is familiar with them.Dr Zen 01:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd vote to delete an article on some drunk bar brawl, too, and drunks have better reasons for fighting than these people. That someone would remember enough to write this almost ten years after the fact gives me pause, but not enough. Give it a brief mention on some article about trolling or whatever. Everyking 09:49, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's interesting, and that's reason enough. Plus, if it has already survived one vfd, then there is no reason to delete it. Dan100 11:01, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting. Willy on Wheels 16:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting & informative Jasoncart 20:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting. Erik 16:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Dbenbenn 04:08, 3 Jan 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.