Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 4

[edit]
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 Delete

This page describes a small pile of rocks with a navigation light on it. The rock pile has no interesting properties; it is unremarkable in all respects. It is certainly no more interesting than any of thousands of other such anonymous piles of rocks with lights on them. I've been sailing in the waters around it for 20 years and I've never heard anybody refer to it as "Lighthouse Island". This article has no potential to become encyclopedic. I don't think I would go so far as to call it vandalism, but it certainly is pointless trivia. --RoySmith 02:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is a sub-sub-stub if ever there was one. I can't even think of a page where this can be merged. 23skidoo 06:03, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • When someone writes an article on New York waterways, merge it into that. Until then, keep. All geographic trivia is notable and encyclopedic. History teaches us that today's "trivia" is tomorrow's priceless data.--Centauri 08:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: At this point, we're looking at nothing at all here. There is no article. There are many islands off the main islands of NYC, many more off the coast of NY State. Even Rambot manages to say something about its towns. Geogre 14:15, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hart Island, New York. Gazpacho 23:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing here worthwhile to keep. Centauri please see Section 7 of what Wikipedia is not. "Wikipedia is not a general database". Megan1967 00:41, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Rossami (talk) 00:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if piles of rocks can be interesting. Wyss 03:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not redirect. RickK 06:19, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no opinion on whether to redirect. --fvw* 17:27, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
  • Delete -- DCEdwards1966 21:22, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; as above. Newfoundglory 00:31, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and no need to redirect. The name does not appear in the USGS and they generally do have the names of the most incredibly obscure piles of rocks. olderwiser 04:03, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia contains many obscure places. --L33tminion | (talk) 04:07, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Changed vote to delete following discussion with RoySmith. --L33tminion | (talk) 05:05, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Roy, is this perhaps referring to Stepping Stones Light? Gazpacho 06:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, it's not. See Talk:Lighthouse_Island,_New_York for more info RoySmith 15:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Greaser 06:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Decumanus 01:09, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Trend

[edit]

Discussion moved to talk page, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Trend.

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 Delete

ad for weblog DCEdwards1966 02:24, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Ad, possible linkspam. --Wikimol 07:48, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Advertising, and Wikipedia is not a blog register. Geogre 14:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad, WP not a webguide. Wyss 03:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad, remove. Andrew pmk 23:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Norway Lemming

[edit]

Discussion moved to talk page, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Norway Lemming.

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 Delete

About therandomjoe.com, which seems an unremarkable site of an unremarkable web development company.

(A distinctly mediocre one, actually: while its main page boasts All our site [sic] are W3C Approved and Certified with todays' [sic] Compatibility Standards, submitting that very page to W3C's HTML validator shows bathetic failure, as the page lacks a doctype declaration, contains Microsoft proprietary attributes, and worse. Duh!)

Not notable. Hoary 05:05, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. LostCluster 06:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete mlk 06:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Gazpacho 06:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I am the owner and operator of The Random Joe, and I would like it to be noted that we are currently going through a redesign at the moment. The current page, which doesnt no validate, does work in most browers, but is temporary. It is only a template while the new site is being made... btw, I would NEVER use frontpage if that is what you mean... added at 07:57, 2005 Jan 4 by 24.18.105.75; oddly, the same IP number that created the article in the first place
  • Delete - Even if this is true, Mr. Random Joe, I cannot see how this apparently larval-stage web development company is notable. – ClockworkSoul 08:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Lacrimosus 08:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Me Again, My name is Saidan Ryuuza, not Mr. Random Joe for one... and my company is not larval-stage. You name me a Web Design company off the top of your head... i can name off some hosting companies, and a few Designers, only because I am in the business. My point being that you should not remove the entry for my site on the basis of revenue, or how many employees i have   ...added at 08:34, 2005 Jan 4 by 24.18.105.75
    • I hereby name Webcredible off the top of my head, although I'm not in the business. I'd also name Vivtek as a fine company that has no employees at all (a one-man outfit). I don't rush to say that either is Wikipedia-worthy, though. Hosting services? pair.com for one. What's your point? Or rather, how is it that your company is outstandingly notable among web design companies and thus Wikipedia-worthy? Hoary 13:27, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising, which is not allowed, and Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 14:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Advertising Tompagenet 14:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Saidan, you should look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the items on Wikipedia not being "a general knowledge base," and Wikipedia articles not being "vehicles for advertising and self-promotion" or a "Yellow Pages or a resource for conducting business." Samaritan 19:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; nn. Newfoundglory 23:20, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad for website so minor it doesn't even have an Alexa rating. —Stormie 00:20, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn ad. Alexa is not a reliable indicator of traffic, nor of notability. Wyss 02:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Saidan: It's not so much the number of employees you have or the quality of your work, but rather lack of notability. We have to delete lots of articles about small businesses for that reason. "therandomjoe" gets seven unique Google hits, three from www.therandomjoe.com and four from forum posts. Everyone else: The article's author seems nice enough, and he's come here to defend his article without flaming us (which is rare), so please don't bite the newcomer. =o) - Eisnel 20:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Delete

Not notable. --fvw* 05:14, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

  • Non-notable, even if he has had three ex-girlfriends. Delete Lacrimosus 08:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thue | talk 16:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure how many ex-girlfriends you need for notability but three is definitely not enough. --LeeHunter 22:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, v. Wyss 02:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, three ex-girlfriends isn't bad for a 12-year-old. Still, Delete. RickK 06:16, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page. --MPerel 03:01, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Doesn't establish notability (or much of anything else, for that matter). --fvw* 06:48, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. Lacrimosus 08:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If it could be expanded to give some interesting information about the band's original contributions (assuming there are any), and assuming it's not simply vanity, it might be working keeping, but as it is, I'd say Delete. RoySmith 19:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, explained to be nn. Wyss 02:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 00:13, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't establish notability. --fvw* 06:59, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

  • Merge note on the coop house at Stanford with Theta Chi and redirect --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Merge is inappropriate. —Korath (Talk) 20:09, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 02:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 06:20, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not notable, the almighty google only gives 1.5k hits for "defunct games" console, and most of those aren't even referring to this site. --fvw* 08:24, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks like self-promotion of a minor website. --Carnildo 08:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Defunct er... Delete, nn ad. Wyss 02:43, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promotion. RickK 23:17, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No longer self-promotion. Now just stubby, and needing cleanup. The website it's about looks like it might be of interest, and the people authoring content might even add lists of bad console games, and such, to Wikipedia. Gavin White 18:35, Jan 8, 2005 (PST)
  • Delete. Still not notable. Indrian 03:59, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, evean after the cleanup the heart of the article is just a list of the review staff. -Willmcw 05:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not notable, 4 google hits. Thue | talk 15:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. RoySmith 19:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, website flyer. Megan1967 00:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn ad. Wyss 02:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is very interesting because i am an other Chris Thacker From canada

This is pretty obviously a vanity page. The acting references might be notable, but he's not listed on IMDB so his appearances (if they actually existed) were uncredited (and probably as extras). Appearing as an extra in a movie does not make you notable. --Kelly Martin 18:05, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Here is a headshot and stuff. Does he look familiar to anyone? It says on there he's semi-pro, suggesting an extra. iMeowbot~Mw 18:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a vanity page. Needs major clean-up and wikifying to boot. 23skidoo 18:35, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no notability established Egil 20:45, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no such person anywhere on IMDb. --MarkSweep 23:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Wyss 02:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. not even well written. --AmeenDausha 20:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Made up word (not notable). "Nuclear+n00b" A google search for it produces a mere 2 results. -Frazzydee| 18:13, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable.--RoySmith 19:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not notable. K1Bond007 20:27, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism; not notable. --Kelly Martin 21:00, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

spam Michael Ward 20:33, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Content-free. 23skidoo 22:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, website flyer. Megan1967 00:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as pure, trivial ad. The marginally creative content, unfortunately, prevents it from being a speedy under the current criteria. Wyss 02:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dicdef with inadequate context to even figure out what it is referring to. I think this is a heraldic term. Nothing links to it. It's also word for word from one of the online dictionaries Google uses, although that in and of itself doesn't make it a copyvio (doctrine of merger). --Kelly Martin 20:59, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) from VfD:

Old rumor that turned out to be Nintendo DS. Non-notable. The user (IP) who created it also has a history of vandalising articles pertaining to Nintendo. K1Bond007 22:23, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; nn. Newfoundglory 23:25, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, not an article. Wyss 02:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe make a redirect to Nintendo DS, otherwise delete 23skidoo 03:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I said it turned out to be the DS, but that might not be true, that was more a guess since I don't recall ever hearing what it really was, if anything. It was just a rumor. K1Bond007 05:26, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • A little searching [2] reveals that there was a brief rumor last March that the Nintendo DS would be renamed Nitro before retail launch. Wasn't true. A note of this should be added to the page for the NDS. There's a chance that this could be searched for, and redirects are cheap. --Plutor 19:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Plutor. Redirect.--JuntungWu 06:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I originaly made the entry. I have clarified with the name Project Nitro. Purhaps a redirect there would be appropriate. - Ritz 10:20, 6 Jan '05
  • Redirect to Project Nitro. Megan1967 03:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion

List of italo disco artists

[edit]

Was moved to the talk page of the article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of italo disco artists.

I am the author of this article, and wish it to be deleted because it appears the related article, Triangular Earth Calendar will be deleted as well. Thank you. --DeWayne Lehman 22:24, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as an honest user mistake/fork the original author wants gone. Wyss 02:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apparently there is another punk band by this name started in the 1970s. This one, though, is less than a year old with no albums identified and no evidence of non-local interest. Delete band vanity. Gazpacho 23:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Wyss 02:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity. Edeans 00:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Note: lengthy commentary moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/The Exchange*. If you have comments please put them there. If you want to vote please vote here. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC))

This band article lists one (short) album. They're "planning to tour extensively," their recordings "shine with potential," and most of the article comes from the band's web site. Best of luck, guys. For now, delete band vanity. Gazpacho 23:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It isn't the job of Wikipedia to give unknown bands attention. DCEdwards1966 00:45, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not affiliated with The Exchange. They are start-up musicians. Please, keep. Jamirus99 01:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe Jamirus99 has a point, keep StrYkEr963 02:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • Having read what has been said, keep. DragonAvatar 02:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, however why is there an asterisk in the title? The article says the asterisk was only used on a certain webpage to differentiate the band from another with a similar name. I don't see a reason for it to be used here, so recommend the title be corrected. It should also be reworked to removed POV, and if this is quoted verbatim from a Website, then this becomes a copyvio issue. 23skidoo 02:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm a band inclusionist, but this is a PoV rant with some info about a group. Where's the music? The shows? nn. Wyss 02:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Band vanity (as well as utterly POV boosterism). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Famous first, page second is the way it works. A desire to promote them so they don't "sink unnoticed into the deep waters that surround Indie rock" is not a reason for them to have a page. Delete this, if they become famous later then a page can be written. Shane King 04:29, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Obviously, didn't read the Vanity page: " Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable, but it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project." Jamirus99 19:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotion is not what the Wikipedia's about. Whan the get as big as Yellowcard, then they get the article. On an unrelated note, personal testamonials are a bit of a problem under the GFDL, aren't they? hfool/Roast me 01:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Another person who didn't read the Vanity article. Jamirus99 19:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Start-up musicians are wonderful things, as are start-up businesses. Once they have become notable then we should have an article about them. -Willmcw 05:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Three in a row: " Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable, but it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project." Jamirus99 19:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)