Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 17

5821:. In General, the deleting of Ads is a good thing as this is an encyclopedia. BUT: Let me ask you the question: have you ever heard of this technology before or found something on the web that explains it like this article? I guess the answer is NO. So, this article serves, even if it doesn´t present a critical view of the technology/product, as a means to give you an idea how it works and what can be done with it. Precisely the purpose of an Encyclodpedia! If you have any other views on the technology or discovered disadvantages, just edit the article or start a discussion. But deletion will lead to nothing. No information, no discussion. If you delete this article, you have to delete the Microsoft article too ... and all other articles on existing commercial products and goods. And "in dubio pro reo" (you could look it up, if it´s not been voted for deletion from the dictionary). Robert, 10:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) 5646:. In General, the deleting of Ads is a good thing as this is an encyclopedia. BUT: Let me ask you the question: have you ever heard of this technology before or found something on the web that explains it like this article? I guess the answer is NO. So, this article serves, even if it doesn´t present a critical view of the technology/product, as a means to give you an idea how it works and what can be done with it. Precisely the purpose of an Encyclodpedia! If you have any other views on the technology or discovered disadvantages, just edit the article or start a discussion. But deletion will lead to nothing. No information, no discussion. If you delete this article, you have to delete the Microsoft article too ... and all other articles on existing commercial products and goods. And "in dubio pro reo" (you could look it up, if it´s not been voted for deletion from the dictionary). Robert, 10:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) 463:"American Revolution," something like that. The article is certainly noteworthy, though. I think that wikipedia would lose an asset if this article was removed (it's certainly a very interesting part of American history without the stink of uncertainty that accompanies legend), though it seems that some rather narrowminded people are bent on doing just that. Therefore, I would like to pose a question: if we absolutely cannot accept this entirely legitimate article, where should it go? Does anyone have know of any websites where this could be posted, or any other area of wikipedia where it could find a home? I remain steadfast in my opnion that this article SHOULD BE KEPT. 309:

brother Manuel was a member of the Committee of Correspondence. Obviosuly, their work was highly influential, but neither one is particularly famous. Separate articles would be immediately debunked as, "non notable," and it's ,much easier to just include every significant Eyre on one page. The Bill Clinton thing sounds like it would be right, but I haven't been able to find anything that confirms it, so it should be taken out. I hope that someone else can locate something about him. It appears that Jehu Eyre had a lot of children beside this one daughter, perhaps it's through another child.

575:

me the teensiest bit riled. For you see, not only are you incorrect in your assertion about my edits, you have also impugned my integrity by suggesting that I am a, "sock puppet," which, I can assure you, I am not. I take history quite seriously and do not appreciate an insinuation that I would somehow try to twist it. And, given your incompetence in reporting my number of edits, are we sure that all of these accounts were created on the same day, as you've said, or are you wrong about that, too?

5741:. I am really sad that you guys voted for deletion of my articles, because I spent a lot of time creating them. It was not meant to be commercially persuasive but only an informative description of what is nowadays possible in the field of real-time operating systems. I tried to keep the article as objective as possible. Perhaps you can tell me which paragraph(s) sound too much like advertising then I can consider changing or deleting them, but please do not destroy my whole work! -- 5553:. I am really sad that you guys voted for deletion of my articles, because I spent a lot of time creating them. It was not meant to be commercially persuasive but only an informative description of what is nowadays possible in the field of real-time operating systems. I tried to keep the article as objective as possible. Perhaps you can tell me which paragraph(s) sound too much like advertising then I can consider changing or deleting them, but please do not destroy my whole work! -- 314:

legend to be verifiable. It now appears as if the Truelove article is going to stay, namely because so many Wikipedians changed their votes. I hope that this article is given the same consideration. I have found that there are some people here who are a bit, "delete happy," i.e., they attack things just to attack. Come now. I thought that our goal here was to report the facts. This is history, and, HISTORY BACKED UP BY REFERENCED FACT.

9455: 9306: 3699: 5410:

information about our existance to stand here on Knowledge, which more and more is used for all levels of reference in the business world. I would also like to note that the article on Mr. Kallet referred to our company by link, a link that led nowhere before this entry was created - isn't that alone a reason for this article, in order to provide comprehensive information on a given subject, ie Mr.

8676: 8572: 3585: 4393:

Americana has blocks of pages of photographs not integrated into the text), and I strongly disagree with the suggestion that any and all photo galleries should be deleted. IMO to keep or delete this article should be based on specifics. This one IMO does seem a bit of overkill, and I'm not sure the copyright status of all the images is adiquately researched and taggged. --

5133:. According to the informative, NPOV article: 1) it looks like construction is pretty much done on the main building and it's going to open soon, so there really isn't a lot left to speculation at this point; and 2) however new it is, as a major casino, one of the largest buildings in Vegas, and the coming venue for a notable Broadway show, it's a notable landmark. 253:

Revolutionary War ancestry, and this would seem to fit. However, if definitive proof cannot be found then the article should be modified so that Clinton's name is not included. Connection to an American president is too huge a claim to pass off without verification. Other than the Clinton thing, the rest of the article is fine. Great job finding resources!

5181:). Such an article isn't advertising unless it consists solely of puffery. Although this facility won't open until next month, it's a major current construction project, it's been the subject of considerable media attention, and the hiring for it has already affected some of the other Strip casinos. 374:

Rick is right. If no one has any objections, I am going to edit the article so that the part about Bill Clinton is ommitted. I will postpone doing this to allow for any kind of debate on the issue, but I've got to say that the evidence just isn't there. Liz1848 has a point, too, though; the family as

313:

Hi, same person again. I just went over to Truelove Eyre and was reading the Talk Page that debated whether or not the legend was genuine. I just wanted to add that the Truelove Eyre article was widely denounced by Wikipedians following the Eyre Empire garbage, but that evidence eventually proved the

5604:

So you're basically saying it isn't advertising because it didn't make you buy the product? I disagree, it's blatant advertising. There is no attempt to look at how the product fits into the history of computing, into a general category of products, to look at criticisms of the product -- the only

4324:

And which image is a copyright violation? All have been licensed from their original sources and are noted in the text. Other images are from Eddie Schneider himself and were his publicity photos and are also marked with the appropriate copyright notices. So please be specific and tell me which ones

4269:

and allow for organic growth; appears to be a valid and encyclopedic reference. On Knowledge, we have room for fictitious laws in the make believe Star Wars universe; fictitious gym trainers from the world of Pokémon; and Star Trek characters so utterly minor they only appear in a single episode. We

1128:

and allow for organic growth; appears to be a valid and encyclopedic article. On Knowledge, we have room for fictitious laws in the make believe Star Wars universe; fictitious gym trainers from the world of Pokémon; and Star Trek characters so utterly minor they only appear in a single episode. We

400:

In the face of the overwhelming evidence (the profusion of websites detailing the family), I can reach no other conclusion but that the Eyres were a family of great importance, both politically and socially. Unless anyone can find a website stating, "all of these other websites are completely false,

256:

Okay, I've got something about Bill Clinton: "Furthermore, he is related to every Scottish monarch to the current British royal family. Clinton's royal roots include several medieval monarchs and Simon de Montford, a statesman and soldier under King Henry III. Through de Montford, Clinton is related

217:

Member of the Committee of Correspondence of Philadelphia, 1775; Delegate to the Provincial Convention of PA, Jan. 23, 1775; Member of the PA Navy Board, 1777; Private, Capt. Jehu Eyre's Artillery Company, 1777; Capt. of a company of Artillery, First Brigade, Gen. John Cadwalader, 1777, Philadelphia

210:

Capt., Philadelphia "City Guard", Aug. 30, 1775; Capt. of Artillery, Philadelphia Brigade, Gen. John Cadwalader, June 5, 1777; Col., Philadelphia Artillery Battalion, Aug. 25, 1777; at Trenton, Princeton, Germantown, and Valley Forge; commanded the Forts at Mud Island and Billingsport, 1780; died in

2292:

I believe this page to be a hoax- this is a rather unusual name for a compound more normally known as orthosilicic acid. Most of the information in this 2003 stub is either wrong or overly simplistic. I have never seen this name in any chemical catalogue, and books such as the ref. below refer to

704:

This is not an advert. It is a page documenting a major construction project that, from it's announcement, has been a hot political topic in the area. I don't see how someone would think that an $ 800 million project by the world's largest local casino operator would need advertising on wiki. If

574:

whoa, there, cowboy. First of all, this is NOT my first and only edit. You'll want to check your records a bit more carefully before you, you know, make a fool of yourself be proclaiming, "Only one edit!" As I said, not so. And I would just chalk it up to a mechanical error, but your disrespect has

3964:

This page has been around for almost a year and in the Wiktionary queue for four months. In all that time it has not grown into an encyclopaedia article (as per the {{move to Wiktionary}} notice) clearly demonstrating the improbability of this expanding into an article. Wiktionary already has an

423:

Not a single person here has accused this family of being insignificant. What we are saying is this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. It isn't of interest to general readers of an encyclopedia, except as a geneaolgical resource. Since Knowledge is not a genealogy site, the article should

308:

I respectfully disagree with that view. I think that the family as a unit (that is, all together) is far more significant than any of its members (Truelove Eyre notwithstanding) alone. For example, we have established that Jehu Eyre helped build boats and give money to the Revolution, and that his

4392:

article) when such images are informative and too numerous to include in the main article without clutter, though such have become less common since the start of the Wikimedia Commons. I know of no blanket policy against image galleries if they are encyclopedicly done (for print parallels, my old

8742:

s on latest phase in Classicjupiter2's quest to purge all information on surrealism from Knowledge: What would be the point of advertising a now-defunct gallery? Historical relevance (site of 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition, largest-ever surrealist exhibition) is stated in article. Saying the

8342:

A common mistake is to think that "if it is more than 1 line long, it isn't a dictionary entry". This article very clearly demonstrates the error in that thinking (to those who haven't been to Wiktionary lately and so haven't noticed that many of the entries are a lot more than 1 line long ☺).

418:

It may be my first contribution, but that does not detract from the legitimacy of said contribution. To 208.22.177.10: you can set up a user account by going to the upper right hand corner of your computer and clicking, "Log In." It's pretty self-explanatory after that. By the way, there are ten

261:

It's not a lot, but it is a small thread that leads me to believe that the Clinton-Eyre connection is genuine. If Clinton is related to every aristocratic family (I capitalized EVERY in the quotations to emphasize that point) in Britain, then he has some connection with the Eyres. The quote also

187:

new sources not only show that Jehu Eyre existed, but that he was instrumental in the Revolution (the Washington website, second source listed). I am interested by this,as I see it as a more realistic portrayal of an actual family. I've been searching,and I found something listing Jehu's brother

5409:

As I am new to this community, I hadn't completely reviewed your policies; as of my latest edit, I have reviewed the two articles you cited. I would like to do what I can to ensure that a legitimate profile of our company remains on this site - I have no desire to advertise, I would simply like

2573:

I know this is probably closed by now, unfortunately I didn't see it before...but is there actually an Orville Simpson? Simspons' characters are very frequently invented by anonymous vandals, and this one may have slipped through somehow. I don't think I know ever character ever mentioned, but

2740:

described above, I believe this page (same author) to be a hoax. The author of this 2003 two line stub would have us believe that we can generate oxygen by mixing sand and water, while generating a trivalent silicon atom. This violates the rules learned by my students in freshman chemistry!

462:

for obvious reasons. This could be helpful to anyone who's ever had to do a history report on the American Revolution, or on influential American families. Perhaps this should be placed under "Important Families of the Revolution," or, "Important American Families," or even incorporated into,

1087:

verifiable. The usual claimed rationale for articles on about-to-be-released things is that they are certain to be big hits. What reason is there to think that Red Rock Resort Spa and Casino is going to have more than local significance after it is complete? And what is the urgent reason for

6483:

Sonic has had the same success as Pokemon yet characters from that would not be deleted. Just because there aren't a lot of Wikipedians contributing to Sonic articles doesn't mean that this article isn't of interest to the users of Knowledge who come and go everyday looking for information.

252:

With or without Clinton, this family has (based on the evidence) played a fairly large role in American history (with special regards to the Revolution) and is significant in their own right because of their connection to the Truelove Eyre legend. I have heard that Bill Clinton had a strong

106:, but slightly humbler. I did a little searching around during the downtime and the Bill Clinton relation seems very tenuous, especially since there are no Google hits for "Anne Eyre", "Anne Heller", or "Jehu Eyre" in conjunction with Clinton. Genealogy sites aren't great sources, either. 1139:. This article is hardly an ad; it's consistant with the many short articles about Las Vegas casinos, and there is room for organic expansion. Me, I'm just hoping it has a nice poker room when it opens. (Disclaimer: I've been watching it under construction for the last year or so.) -- 2293:

it as orthosilicic acid. It would be impossible to "pass SiO2 over water vapour" as the boiling point of SiO2 is much higher than the 800 C mentioned. Also, the ref mentioned below implies that complex mixtures of silicic acids are formed, not just one. I have created a stub for

4259:. This sort of thing belongs on Wikisource, not here. A contemporary pamphlet is not the sort of thing we should be using as the basis for an encyclopedic article. Our sources should be researched histories, not a popular account potentially rife with inaccuracies and biases. 620:

Sock puppetry aside (I'm sure that nanaszcz... is really offended), this article seems to have historical merits. There are about ten or eleven websites listed here. In spite of my annoyance with these vandals, I simply can't find any real reason to delete this article. Sorry.

8498:

for four months before this article was created. 6 months later, this article has seen zero expansion, and is still a dictionary article about the word, rather than an encyclopaedia article about the concept, indicating that there's probably nothing to say about the concept.

5036:

is anything, it would seem to be an unpublished story by JD Salinger, which I doubt would be a French black market commodity. Also no hits for the supposed medium "Franz Delmonait." This might just be a notable French book that doesn't Google, but without any evidence, I say

8743:

Surrealist Movement in the United States is a commercial enterprise is in my opinion a real stretch, but that's just my POV; at any rate, this POV could be stated in any relevant article but you do not explain in any way how this would make it a grounds for deletion. --

8793:

before dismissing it like this. Over five hundred works, almost all from active surrealists from thirty-one countries, the surrealist exhibition with the largest-ever scope, though I'm sure Classicjupiter2, for whatever reason, has already decided it is non-notable.

6030:

Wiktionary independently grew an article, from a stub, in less than a day, better than what Knowledge had grown in four months. This is, of course, an adjective article title (not a noun as per Knowledge naming conventions) so redlinks to it should disappear too.

9688:

Wiktionary would reject this for being encyclopaedic. It's an article about the method, not about the phrase. And a Google Groups search reveals that this phrase, and related phrases like "3S dog", are in use, and that this method of dealing with animals exists.

419:

websites referenced on this page alone about this supposedly insignificant family! If their influence was really that miniscule, why are so many people talking about them? There is no reason to create so many sites about a group of entirely unimportant people.

5386:

and condense it to something your competitors, detractors and sceptical wikipedia voters would agree is true. Also you will need verifiable evidence that this is an important company, maybe media coverage. You may also need some luck (and get a user name).

4400:

Fair enough, but I think such gallery pages are the exception rather than the rule. Certainly for a minor biographical article like this such images are overkill, copyrighted or not. And I maintain that the article on the person has too many photos.

743:, I'd like to see more proof of political debate surrounding the proejct for this to be kept. Unless proof can be provided of some major press or political interest this is just another future casino. We can always put it back when it's in business. 753:

Articles exist in the Review Journal and Las Vegas Sun newspapers on the political debate. The tower has been erected, so this is a project that is happening. In any case, why pick on this project when pages for similar projects were allowed?

8723:

created by user Daniel C.Boyer to promote his, "surrealist" friends as a means for advertising this gallery that is no longer in existence. The question of any historical relevance should be considered as well. Advertising and Spam for the,

10133:

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.

9895:

9628:

9558:

9212:

9149:

9082:

9000:

8947:

8870:

8683:

8599:

8464:

8370:

8312:

8186:

8042:

7973:

7905:

7773:

7684:

7185:

7058:

6882:

6816:

6657:

6593:

6541:

6389:

6322:

6150:

6069:

6000:

5927:

5840:

5665:

5477:

5334:

5261:

5070:

5002:

4923:

4693:

4460:

4301:

4139:

3934:

3706:

3604:

3500:

3167:

3038:

2975:

2864:

2766:

2706:

2582:

2375:

2262:

2095:

1939:

1823:

1724:

1594:

1493:

1282:

1170:

648:

505:

Besides referencing every other keep vote on this page, I draw my evidence from the listed websites dedicated to the Eyres. If any one family is notable, this one is it. They remind me of an eighteenth century version of the Kennedeys.

7822:

that article survived a VfD. It's possible that this child, however short-lived, was the focus of enough attention to also have as much to say about her, but someone familiar with the British royal family should make that judgment.

1393:, though it did make me laugh. "she now resides in an elusive manner", eh? (Though if the assertion "She has famous breasts" can be independantly verified, perhaps they deserve an article <-- Note: that is a sarcastic joke) -- 1045:. "Articles about books, movies, games, and software that are about to be released within the next few months should be considered advertising, unless convincingly shown otherwise." The same should apply to construction projects. 6912:

Appears to be vanity. I always suspect vanity when the first sentence is "X is a famous Y" and the second sentence, instead of describing X's accomplishments in the field of Y, describes what X is now studying at university.

7276:

This is different from the other article which was just a simple dictionary definintion but seems to meet the "Ideally this would redirect or disambig to something about saluations in letter writing" comment from the previous

7631:

The Wiktionary article preceded the Knowledge article by 5 months. And in the 6 months that this article has been in Knowledge so far, in various forms, it has never expanded to be more than a dictionary entry about a word.

6495:

Furthermore, there are several Sonic articles already in the Sonic characters category, and it is a growing area, so I don't see why the progress of those Wikipedians should be hampered. The character seems notable to me.

9588:

Seems nonsensical. Gets 30 Google hits, most of which relate to a graphics company by this name. Separating the words only jacks it up to 140 Google hits, mostly relating to an icon you might find on your desktop. I say

7831:

OK, you make a valid point; some articles about infants can be informative and encyclopedic. It's just that this one isn't. It doesn't contain anything remotely comparable to the Kennedy article or the one on her sister,

321:

The above User's only edits are to this page. Please note that Knowledge is not a genealogy site. If you want to write articles about noteworthy individuals, please do so. But remember that they should be noteworthy.

4803:. Doesn't seem notable to me. Looks like someone wrote a "that was funny" article, which are almost never encyclopedic. A wouldn't totally oppose a few sentences merged into the movie article, but most of it has to go. - 5163:. Notable project underway. This crystal ball policy needs to be applied with discretion - I also note that it states that projects where work has definitely started are acceptable providing they meet other criteria. 3775:

whether Wiktionary has it already or not. It's not as if wiktionary can't come up with simple definitions of common words if we don't spoon feed them. Same goes for many other such words that may exist in wikipedia.

7039:. Can't find anything on Google with his name and variations thereof that links him to gay rights in Yorkshire. I possibly suspect the page may have been an attempt at a personal attack on student Christopher Proud. 2574:

whenever I am suspcious that a certain character does not exist, it usually turns out that some idiot anon made it up. I've removed the references to Orville but I haven't deleted the redirect in case I am mistaken.

757:

I'm not picking on this page in particular. I just happened to notice it. And also, note that I'd be happy to keep the article if more sources are provided. You don't need to take a deletion discussion personal.

4349:

An image gallery is not sufficently educational for a fair use claim. Therefore most of these images should be removed as copyright violations. The others should be transfered to commons, and this page deleted

6977:

existed, either. If it did, it must have been promoted solely to a group of patrons who promised never to mention it anywhere on the World Wide Web or on Usenet for a period of at least 4 years. Those, and

7121:, award-winning perl programmer, managing editor of www.perl.com; I'd expect a programmer to get a lot of google hits, so I don't think they're particularly important in determining notability in this case. 4336: 5453:

Many thanks for that... And thanks as well for cleaning up my formatting - or is that SOP? I would like to change the title of the article, by capitalizing the 'L' in laboratory, but can't seem to do so...

5768:. I think this article is very interesting but I don't feel like urgently having to buy this product now. As Windows XP and the like have found their way into Knowledge why not other software as well? 5579:. I think this article is very interesting but I don't feel like urgently having to buy this product now. As Windows XP and the like have found their way into Knowledge why not other software as well? 1098:"And what is the urgent reason for including it now rather than later?" It's already written up; it's stupid to delete it, only to write it up again if it become notable enough for the deletionists. -- 3220:

If the consensus is delete, I will move this to my user space. (I only created the article as a more encyclopedic replacement for the earlier JMMMM, which was complete nonsense, written in Swedish.)

9112:

Non-notable, hardly verifiable article about a small faction within Jehovas Witnesses. Zero Google hits for the lemma. One of the external links given (on GeoCities) has already stopped working. --

9826:

already exists" is rather bizarre, considering that that is the very article that was nominated for deletion here. Similarly, saying that the article nominated here should be deleted in favour of

4204:

The article is filled with things like "The story of the riot is more thrilling than any moving picture." and "That curious psychological phenomenon, known as "mob spirit," was evident frequently."

241:

If you can find a reference for Clinton or the "numerous senators" mentioned, I'll change my vote. Otherwise this is merely a genealogical reference. Genealogy articles don't belong in Knowledge.

8922:. Not a word. Just because some author throws together a string of characters doesn't mean we should have an encylopedia article about it. I'd hate to think of some of the stuff coming out of 1058:

No hits found for phrase "Red Rock Resort" in New York Times online database. The political debate surrounding its construction is not important enough for the New York Times to have noticed it.

8629:

As the notice says. After a year of sitting here, half of that with a notice affixed encouraging the creation of an encyclopaedia article, this is still a dictionary entry describing the word.

5372:

Hi- I put up this page this morning in my capacity as an editor for Buyers lab... Please let me know how I could render the page less "spammy" so that the legitimate information can stay up... (

4345:

Hello! The copyright for Gone With the Wind (1939) expired in 1989. Images from the 1930's are NOT covered by copyright. The only issue to debate is whether these photos are useful or not.

4342:

This page is an image archive. Most of the images come from the 1930s and are therefore probably covered by copyright (the uploader claims them to be public domain but provides no evidence).

6806:

After Kevin's complaint I added several links to that article in related topics, so it is not out of context now. Another user expanded the article and now it is big enough to not be merged.

5414:? Again, please let me know whether this re-edit satisfies you in regards to your editorial policies. Here are several articles that I hope may show that we are in fact a legitimate company: 3412:

Perhaps merge or keep or rename if this can be verified. Also, if Janos said the emperor would die, and the priest said Janos was lying, how can they both be right, as the article implies? -

3384:. Unfortunately I know only very little Hungarian and no Czech at all. Someone who is better at one or both languages might want to write the relevant section in the Jan Jesenius article. 2060:

Keep or merge. Lean toward keep: there isn't much here yet, but I believe a lot more could be written about her. There's probably more than a bit to be said about her marriage to novelist

262:

mentions, "medieval monarchs," which would ostensibly be the House of Wessex through which the Eyres claim descent. Obviously more specific information must be found, but this is a start.

4412: 9180: 4643:, bad enough that SamuraiClinton spews myriad articles with non-standard names about trivial topics that can at least be verified, but articles on trivial, invented phrases -- no way. 6969:

I find the veracity of this article highly suspect. I cannot find any evidence that the incident mentioned in the final paragraph, something which one would expect to make the news

8562: 5378:

Um hi. I think you missed the bit that says "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business". If you want this to stay, I suggest you read

6419: 981: 9173: 6784:

as the Latin equivalent of Poly as a Greek prefix. While Grue's attempt to salvage a vfd candidate is commendable, there's nothing that that can't go into the MMOPRG article.

5174: 4026: 554:), but this just isn't one of them. To be perfectly honest, it seems silly that this is being debated. What more could possibly be done to prove this family's significance? 3298:

I am reasonably sure he's Jan Jesenius. I remember very little from my Hungarian, but the original article mentions the cities of Wroclaw and Praha, and I spotted the word

6484:

Personally it doesn't matter to me whether it stays or goes, but it is a character from a notable franchise, and based on the behaviours of Pokemon articles i'll go with

874:

If you feel we should delete that, list it. Of course, you don't, and that comparison is flawed. My analogy of course refers to the policy quoted below by Dpbsmith. Read

9550:: This should be transferred to an Internet pop-culture article, as well as the other Internet memes that don't have substantial information to be their own articles. 4041: 2205: 8981:

for a month before the creation of this article. No-one of note commonly referred to solely by their given name "Andreas" springs to mind for a biographical article.

5778: 5589: 379:

and the talk surrounding it show. As the politicalgraves website shows, the Eyres have significant political connections. This family should be included on wikipedia.

9379:. Not notable, using the android-hasn't-ever-been-forwarded-a-link-to-this-Flash-animation-by-his-annoying-relatives test. Seriously, though, this is unencyclopedic. 4030: 3490:

In that case, a proper vote would be "merge and redirect" to preserve information about authorship (and to discourage recreation of the previous nonsense article). -

9540:. Had I known that this would be such a lively discussion, I wouldn't have tagged it as a speedy! BTW, has anyone checked out "The Drugs I Need" over at JibJab? - 3118:. I've encouraged the article's author, who has already added several dictionary entries to the encyclopaedia, to redirect xyr efforts to the dictionary instead. 6906: 932: 9106: 7558: 1748: 7586: 9358: 7754: 863:

What is difficult to understand about Radiant's crystal ball analogy is that we don't need to use a crystal ball to see this project. Perhaps we should delete

6231:, POV all the way (not just final section), as well as remarkably bad original research, IMHO. The two first sections almost deserve to go to Bad Jokes etc:) 3115: 1029:

or transWiki to Wikitravel, unless a very convincing explanation is provided as to why the project is important in its present state, such as having made the

8250: 7265: 5774: 5769: 5585: 5580: 4368:. I'm pretty sure there's a policy against photo galleries such as this. Also, Eddie's article is littered with them too. All but 2 ot 3 should be removed. - 3970: 3863: 3268: 905:

Never mind, I take it your vote meant something like "This project isn't notable now but might be notable when completed, at which time we can reconsider".

7708: 7016: 6974: 6934: 6918: 5824: 5699: 5649: 5511: 1440: 715: 385: 281: 267: 229: 172: 158: 10121:. Common misspelling. Not everyone is a spelling genius. Knowledge must be usable by all, even those who can't spell, if it expects mainstream success. - 9472: 9274: 7880: 627: 576: 6699:

at the time that this article was originally written. The only growth that this article saw in 10 months was some etymological rubbish about the word "

768:

Sorry about the reaction. The newspapers are the only available sources, don't know how to show them to you. Don't know if it made the national press.

9236: 8016: 6776:. There is not a single article in the article namespace that references this meaning of the word "multi". In fact, the only artcle that links here is 6565: 4770: 4484: 3198: 1858: 1618: 1306: 469: 7231: 4040:

The tag tells people only to expand if they can make a (presumably complete) article, so it prevents incremental growth. Maybe we can discuss this at

551: 42: 37: 9651: 5609:, the prospective buyer?" and this is betrayed openly when the text comes right out and claims "Your application gets the best of both worlds". -- 3765:(Note: CSD is full of dicdefs that already exist in wiktionary, and it seems like they will be hanging around for a while if they don't get Vfd'd). 586:, voting to keep this article was your first (and only, at the time) edit. Please find something more productive to do with your time on Knowledge. 9337: 7803:

Delete. A page about a child who died within a day of birth, even if she was a member of a royal family, has no potential to become encyclopedic.

6617: 5364:

This is a pretty spammy page, but it does make claims for notability, so I'm converting it from a speedy candidate in case anyone wants to fix it.

5314:

No. Treat it as you would any other VFD nomination and vote on the merits, with the exception that you cannot vote "transwiki to Wiktionary". ☺

5307:

Delete. Previous content was "To be able to enjoy analysing things; critical". But are we supposed to vote delete just because it was transwikied?

4564:

to a related article. I don't consider this a neologism, because "romantic" and "forgery" are 2 common words; and there is a space between the 2.

3860: 490: 9798:

already exists as an article, and there is nothing here to merge there. I cannot imagine anyone searching for this article using the term "3 S's"

6931:

He achieved prominence in 2001 when he organised Big Pink Yorkshire, the first of, a now annual, gay and lesbian festival which runs in Yorkshire.

9582: 8894: 3524: 10025:

I should hope it's not a common misspeling, becaus that wold maek me shuddre abuot the wolrd's ecudation. Nevertheless, delete and replace with

8937: 9341: 7315: 7287: 4947: 3628: 2999: 2935:

there's no shortage of punk/straight-edge info on the web, so you'd expect that a notable sub-movement could manage at least one hit. Delete.

2888: 5324: 848:

How is a project like this non-notable, even if not completed? In fact, being started and not completed often makes something MORE notable. --

10046: 9492: 9402: 8720: 8305: 7101: 6497: 6489: 6423: 5285: 5192: 4271: 3746:. Dicdef, and I wouldn't consider it the start of an article. Nothing has been or needs to be merged with the existing wiktionary definition 3675: 3006: 2681: 2550: 2536: 2209: 1689: 1457: 1130: 103: 85: 3276:☺) and turn this into a {{bio-stub}} on the person. It depends from who János Jeszenszky actually is, of course. I'll have a look around. 7547: 6846:

Whilst this article about a word and not a thing/person/concept sat languishing in the Wiktionary queue, Wiktionary went and grew a better

4335: 643: 1523:

Being the younger sister of a first lady is nice and all, but is that really sufficient notability to make for an encyclopedia article? --

8001: 5742: 5703: 5554: 5515: 1963: 1962: 555: 3836:. As an historic form of judicial punishment, notably in the Byzantine Empire, as well as elsewhere, this is more than article-worthy.-- 437:

just to counter this silliness of adding obviously self-interested genealogical cruft. Very few families merit coverage as families. --

8488: 8351:

2 minutes after this article was created. So somehow I doubt that it was by a different editor, and GFDL considerations don't apply.

8336: 7096:

Are the authors of PERL modules inherently noteworthy? If not, how is encyclopedic notability being illustrated within this article?

6024: 5433: 1355:

This is the first ever vanity page I've seen that praises the author's breasts. That is quite funny in a way, but alas, I have to vote

1198: 2624:

Dicdef substub - has existed sporadically since September 2004 with no meaningful expansion. Attempts to redirect to related article

7451: 7251: 5373: 2680:, since no expansion has occurred in such a long period. Substantial expansion by the author or others will change my vote to Keep. 8725: 7929: 7836:. Is there any reason to think that there will ever be anything more to say about this poor child than what appears on this page? 9912: