Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science and medicine/Closed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Epalaeontology.com

PHP Nuke site that barely receives visits (no Alexa rank). Written as an advertisement. Delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 01:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; nn; "a hub for the Italian-speaking paleontological community" <-- Soo... basically a website for 3 people? | Celcius 02:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Alan Au 04:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 07:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; unencyclopedia advertisement--Craigkbryant 17:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/promotion — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn/ad. I'm suspicious of any supposed academic site that isn't a .edu or .org, but that's another matter. --Etacar11 22:38, 18 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black flames

Highly original theory with no source cited. 202.156.2.74 16:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article terrifies me. Sdedeo 17:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Black flames" + "creation of the universe" get 13 google hits, none of which describes this concept. -- BD2412 talk 18:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unscholarly unverifiable nonsense. DreamGuy 20:43, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; OR that just looks like a re-wording of the Big Bang theory and Dark Matter Tonywalton  | Talk 22:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Khaosinfire, the author, has placed a rather plaintive query as to why it's been VfDed on the article's talk page; I've pointed to WP:NOT, explained what OR means and encouraged them to discuss further here if they wish to defend it, so can we go easy on the article-bashing? Tonywalton  | Talk 22:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I didn't mean to make fun of the article... I just mean... imagine if it were true... doesn't the phrase "black flame" freak you out? I can imagine some horrible monster sneaking up behind you chanting "black flame... black flame..." Now I've gone and freaked myself out again. Sdedeo 04:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
There are much scarier cosmologies than that. 192.18.1.5 Tonywalton (not logged in)
  • Delete. OR. Boxclocke 22:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Could also be speedy-deleted as patent nonsense. --Carnildo 22:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OR. --Etacar11 23:37, 18 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 03:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magnetoelectric induction (Faraday's induction)

Ugh. Sidam (talk • contribs), also editing as 194.158.222.26 (talk • contribs), 194.158.208.242 (talk • contribs) contributes a number of strange physics article with out-of-date, strangely worded and strangely formatted informations and fails to discuss his changes and new articles. We're doing reverts, redirects and (where a previous VfD exists or its a very clear clase) speedy deletions, but I'll put this article on VfD to make the problem more transparent. --Pjacobi 18:25, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unnecessary, confusing fork of existing articles covering the subject. --Pjacobi 18:25, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Pjacobi that this is not a useful addition and seems to have been created solely to circumvent opposition to this material at electromagnetic induction [1]. --Laura Scudder | Talk 20:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete please! This is a junky confusing mix of material already well-covered on the already existing articles on this subject Salsb 20:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very nonstandard notation. Half of the equations seem to be wrong, though it's hard to tell with this notation. What is useful duplicates Faraday's law of induction. ManoaChild 21:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with all above statements. linas 21:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete oh my eyes! This article is a serious danger to the encyclopedia-going public. -Splash 02:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this article seems more comprehensive than Electromagnetic induction. 80.255 21:55, 19 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (The second one will be recreated as a redirect to Traveler's diarrhea.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prevention of Travelers Diarrhea and Travelers Diarrhea

Advertisment for diarrhea medicine Nelgallan 00:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Poorly titled advert. Flowerparty talk 00:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete ad. Ken talk|contribs 00:55, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. ManoaChild 01:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand, is this diarrhea you get while you're abroad, or is this when you find travelers in your diarrhea? Delete as per above. JDoorjam 01:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the first, and redirect the second to Traveler's diarrhea. Pburka 02:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and don't forget to flush! Hamster Sandwich 02:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Pburka. --Apyule 03:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Flush the first spamvert straight down to Wiki-Hell; redirect the second per Pburka. -- BD2412 talk 04:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- avertising and non-encyclopedic. DavidH 05:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete first and redirect section per Pburka. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This joke is not funny. D. J. Bracey (talk) 15:35, 17 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem-solution dynamic

Neologism - searches of Google and Yahoo turned up several instances of this term, but none with the definition referred to here. Most cite the concept that "any problem has an ultimate solution". Outlander 21:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Interesting point on the inverted definition; perhaps it's an intentional joke about marketdroid speech? --fuddlemark 21:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Also, the stated law of evolution makes no sense. ManoaChild 21:20, 17 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qicscript

Delete. advertising. "leading" seems exaggerated, it's mostly constrained to Ireland. --IByte 20:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, ad, no verifiable notability mentioned. Pavel Vozenilek 22:39, 17 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew T. Austin

vanity, non-notable, promotion Ben-w 20:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, per above. Sdedeo 20:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, distincly non notable. PubLife 21:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable vanity article--take it to the User pages.--Craigkbryant 21:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Jaxl | talk 23:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Had this not been nominated for deletion I would have speedied it for not even claiming notability. David | Talk 23:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Secretlondon 04:27, 18 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earthen mound

The picture is very nice, but unnecessary as an article. Anything non-trivial that can be said about earthen mounds should be said in Tell. UnHoly 17:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deserving of an article as Earthen mound is an actual physical formation. [2] --Randy 18:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Mound (which is a bad redirect to tumulus, which is a special kind of mound ) and expand. mikka (t) 18:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or move per mikka, Tells do not appear to be identical with these. Kappa 22:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep though an expert needs to do some nomenclature cleanup here. --zippedmartin 00:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - could become a nice article. Trollderella 01:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I feel bad now. I must admit that with the work mikkalai and Trollderella did on the article, it is now worth keeping. Good work! UnHoly 18:44, 18 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1984 (number)

Contains nothing that couldn't be said about ANY other number. Either needs something notable adding about this number (as a number), or a bot to create a couple of thousand other pages... 62.173.111.114 12:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If I'm not mistaken, I think the Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers want articles on all integers up to and including 256. This number is not particularily interesting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Seriously? Every integer up to 256? That's ridiculous. And why 256? Just because it's 2^8? I fear the 257 fans will be most upset. Oh, delete this. 1984 is notable as a year, and as the title of a book, but not in itself as a number. Proto t c 15:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect anything of interest back to 1000 (number), where this number is mentioned. — RJH 15:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
That'll be easy, since there's nothing of interest there to merge back. Delete, and fix 1984 (disambiguation) to point to 1000 (number) (or unlink). Hv 16:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I vaguely remember a story about Erdos (or was it someone else), who would never describe a number as uninteresting. Given any number he would immediately rattle off some bizarre (and unique) propery of the number. Unfortunately, I have nowhere near the powers of Erdos, and this number is utterly uninteresting, Delete. --stochata 16:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What the article has to relate about 1984 is not written in the Book. Pilatus 16:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not interesting enough. We have to draw the line somewhere. I agree with the sentiments expressed in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not infinite, mentioned above. — Paul August ☎ 16:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • delete I'm certain that most people who type "1984" are either looking for the book or the year. The Bearded One 17:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Uncle G. Oleg Alexandrov 17:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikiproject numbers has a pretty good, though not perfect, system, and this doesn't fall into it. I think the idea about no uninteresting numbers is "proved" false because some number would be interesting for being the smallest uninteresting number, making it interesting, and so on up the scale to infinity. Obviously wikipedia is going to cut off consecutive integers at some point and 256, as a power of 2, is as good as any, I guess. -R. fiend 17:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would vote "keep" for anything up to about 1980, but 1984 is just taking things too far. Dmharvey Image:User_dmharvey_sig.png Talk 18:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing interesting is said about 1984. Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unadulterated silliness. linas 22:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's all been said above. (1969 (film) should probably be removed from 1000 (number), as well, but that's a separate issue.) -- Arthur Rubin 23:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not interesting at all and doesn't contain info unique to the number. - Mgm|(talk) 07:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it. I invited it over for tea and all it wanted to do was watch television and eat Ding Dongs. It's a really boring number. --Kooky | Talk 19:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, who needs to know this obvious information?  Thorpe talk 11:28, 20 August 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 an undeletion request). 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 of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Redwolf24 23:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sensation

Contains neologisms and dubious reinterpretation of information already presented in Sense Manning 06:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and Delete - or else rewrite to match article title - Most of this article simply duplicates information presented in the article Sense, except that it provides non-standard interpretations, which are in many cases, just plain wrong. EG: the "cutaneous" sense - "cutaneous" refers to the skin, not to the sense of touch. The vestibule is a bony cavity and not a sense. There are a few useful things in it (such as noting the term kinesthesia is synonymous for proprioception) and these should be cut and transferred. If the article was rewritten to explore the neuropysiological subject of sensation, as opposed to providing an innaccurate overview of sensory physiology, then it should stay. Manning 06:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • If you want something merged merge it. Don't come to WP:VFD. If you want something rewritten, rewrite it. Don't come to WP:VFD. Neither of those tasks involve article deletion at any stage. Uncle G 16:01:10, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
      • Cut the self-righteous crowing. A simple - "This belongs somewhere else" would have been sufficient. Geez - you wonder why so many people leave the pedia - it's arrogant and demeaning conduct like yours that causes it. It was totally unnecessary and offensive. Listing this on VFD was the best I could come up with for what I saw was a problem page. Sure I'm sorry it was the wrong thing to do - and you can be damn sure I'll never do it again, as it appears I'll only get jumped on by arrogant jerks like you in future. Manning 04:42, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, or someone else may Merge. The article will stay as is. Redwolf24 22:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Retracted article on neurotoxicity of ecstasy

Non-encyclopedic article on a retraction made by the journal Science. The poor opening sentence: "This article concerns problems with a paper, 'Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA ("ecstasy")' that appeared in the leading journal Science, treated as a case study in scientific method." The article certainly presents a good "case study in scientific method," but its not encyclopedic, and studies an incident of marginal notability.

  • Delete, per my nomination. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article may be in bad shape, but that doesn't mean it has to be deleted. We can delete it only if the article can't be improved to encyclopedic standards. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think the topic is notable and informational and at the article can at the very least can be fixed. I would encourage more people to mark articles for cleanup that need improving. At least 10 users have taken the time to add to this article since its creation in May 2004. Thane Eichenauer 10:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, a shortend version would add to the ecstasy article.--nixie 10:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Petaholmes/nixie. And as tragically named as it is, no one will ever actually find it here. It'll do better in the ecstasy article. Nandesuka 12:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to E article. Sdedeo 12:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per above. --Several Times 14:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The incident is notorious enough, and this article doesn't fit in that well with Ecstasy (drug). Pilatus 16:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Quite a lot of the information in this article is already present within the Ecstacy (drug) article here, but the title of the sub-section doesn't emphasise this. Sliggy 20:49, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Trollderella 01:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Ecstasy (drug). Alphax τεχ 03:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge: The title is unsearchable. The material is worth keeping, but errors and retractions are just a reality of the scientific method - not notable in and of itself. Peter Grey 15:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment George Ricaurte, the author of the study had come under fire before for questionable research methodology. This entry (it's heading is clunky, anyone come up with a better title) is not merely a study of the scientific method but also a well-referenced article on scientific misconduct. Pilatus 15:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with George A. Ricaurte: I've done some work on scientific misconduct, and I believe the subject has a lot of potential. We have quite a few articles on scientists that are only notable for their link from scientific misconduct. Rl 17:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an interesting article about how the scientific method can ferret out incorrect results and it shows that even Science can publish bad research (that shouldn't come as much of a surpirse to anyone who has tried to repeat the experiments in an "old" Science paper (by old, I mean before supplementary materials were made available electronically). However, I do not see how it qualifies as scientific misconduct. Is there an NIH investigation going on? Did Ricaurte intentionally switch vials? Was he working for a pharma that would benefit from his article? It sounds like shoddy book keeping on the part of Ricaurte's lab and/or the MDMA supplier, but is there an accusation of intentionally falsifying results? Where is the misconduct? srlasky 18:28, August 18, 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 of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 05:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Surface Of The Sun

Personal theory, not encyclopedic. Can't verify information in article. Article is biased or has lots of POV. 68.218.17.9 04:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete OR, one guy's theory, NOT an interpretation supported by NASA, I believe. --Etacar11 01:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, violates WP:NOR. I thought I'd see this before... Alphax τεχ 03:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable pseudoscience. Sdedeo 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original unsubstantiated 'research'. Not notable RoboJesus 07:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possible hoax. Zeimusu | (Talk page) 04:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 08:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aftertaste

A dictdef that has been marked {{move to Wiktionary}} three times, was transwikied, and is now happily living in a totally rewritten form at wikt:aftertaste. I can't think of anywhere to usefully redirect this, and I'm tired of taking it back out of Category:Copy to Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • comment; I'm not entirely sure it can't be expanded beyond a dicdef - principally what chemically causes aftertaste? What foods are especially good at creating aftertaste? How does it vary between people? [3] [4]. Dunc|☺ 01:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the "Definition" heading is inviting the {{move to wiktionary}} tag. Perhaps it would be more helpful to remove it and turn it into a stub of some sort. Flowerparty talk 02:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:34
  • Delete. I cannot envision how this article could possibly be expanded into something beyond the simple dicdef it is now. I'll happily change my vote if proven wrong. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. Well look at that, I'm wrong. Nicely done, Christopher. Fernando Rizo T/C 06:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • possible keep aftertaste is another term for finish in winetasting and hence a category of evaluation. This might make it more than dictionary entry (?) Dottore So 03:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, expanded per above. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:17, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
    • well done (expanded the entry) Dottore So 05:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. Notable topic in... now what is the science of wine called...? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Oenology, I think (do we have a stub category for that?)--Doc (?) 11:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
We've got {{wine-stub}}. Aecis 18:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep nice start, I'll be glad to add the beer point of reference also. Allegrorondo 13:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid concept. Lots of foods have aftertastes also. And it's a recognised problem with certain medicines and tablets. Proto t c 14:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well done Christopher Parham. Capitalistroadster 15:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Aecis 18:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Encephalon | ζ 22:24:51, 2005-08-15 (UTC)
  • Split - merge alcohol section with beer, wine, and whiskey (the separate paragraphs, that is), and transwiki the rest to wikitionary. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Alex.tan 03:02, August 17, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of smokers

Unmaintainably huge list with little encyclopedic value. Something like one out of three people in North America smokes right now; a century ago probably virtually every historical figure smoked cigars or a pipe. Delete. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per TenOfAllTrades. This is an impossible list. --Apyule 02:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- unmaintainable list. People decide to smoke/not smoke on the whim of a moment. I do anyway :/ - Longhair | Talk 02:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Alan Au 02:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. -- BD2412 talk 03:02, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. Dottore So 04:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete—Vast and ephemeral. --Tysto 04:05, 2005 August 15 (UTC)
  • Delete, although I could see a use for something like List of iconic smokers (bad name, but hopefully someone can think of a better one), for people like Churchill, Castro, etc, for whom smoking is clearly a recognised part of their public image. Grutness...wha? 05:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Unmaintainable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete after moving iconic smokers to the new List of Iconic smokers. A very nice idea, nice title too, Grutness. It would be nice to have some peculiarities of their smoking habits there. Like Bill Clinton's. -- Zanaq 11:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even though it's inconsistent with List of Roman Catholics being kept. Martg76 22:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, after moving per Grutness' suggestion, altho Clinton wasn't exactly known for smoking those cigars. :) Caerwine 02:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Alex.tan 03:02, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 20:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, don't really see the point. NickBush24 08:10, August 19, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Van Ornum

Vanity entry. A PhD chemist who now works at a contract research company is even less notable than the average assiatant professor. Hey, I have got a dozen papers or so and won't be getting an article in here anytime soon. Pilatus 11:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Andrew pmk 18:31, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, thy name is CHEMIST! Sdedeo 19:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pilatus. ManoaChild 21:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless he discovered/invented something of note. --Howcheng 22:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is given. "Over 10" is nothing in scientific circles. --Etacar11 00:37, 16 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Massage. - Mailer Diablo 07:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Massage therapist

Does not expand or elucidate any more information than Massage so relatively pointless. Erwin Walsh

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atromeroptics

Self-invented branch of physics / original research with no supporting citations, other than the author's own website. Please note that author has other disputed entries re: original invention up for VfD (see Wehner blower, Atromeroptic Law), non-supportable medical facts that have been reverted(see melasma suprarenale). Hfwd 17:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Andrew pmk 18:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tonywalton 18:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Pjacobi 20:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not verifiable. ManoaChild 22:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OR. --Etacar11 00:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research Salsb 11:15, August 17, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aether Physics Model

Original research. Only seen on its own non notable website. --Pjacobi 20:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, original research / pseudoscience. Sandstein 21:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, yet more rotating magnetic fields! linas 21:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Pjacobi. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn Pseudoscience. ManoaChild 21:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn/OR. --Etacar11 01:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research (and also pseudoscience). XaosBits 01:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research and non-notable pseudoscience Salsb 01:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research, psuedoscience, and there's no actual theory here anyway. SCZenz 06:44, 16 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] APM Physical Dimensions

Original research. Only seen on its own non notable website. --Pjacobi 20:35, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, original research / pseudoscience. Sandstein 21:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. linas 21:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn Pseudoscience-cruft. ManoaChild 21:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn/OR. --Etacar11 01:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable and original research Salsb 01:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Jargon, no content. And nn/OR anyway, as above. -- SCZenz 15:17, 16 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aposthia

Dictionary definition, and an inaccurate one at that. Aposthia one end of a spectrum of foreskin length, and hardly a "defect". This article will never be more than a dictionary definition, and Foreskin describes it all better. No point in transkwiking, as a more accurate definition already exists at Wiktionary. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This could easily become an article. Mohammad was said to be born with it? Is this why muslims are circumcised? Let's try to find out. How common is it? Is it ever treated? Is it equally common among different races? Many articles stated as dic definitions Delete. I've been doing a web search and can't really find any info with which to expand the article further. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: If a user thinks an article inaccurate a user is welcome to enhance it. Inaccuracy is not a basis for deletion. I certainly do not think it makes sense to redirect this page to foreskin. It is quite clear that user:jayjg is intent on using wikipedia as soapbox by censoring all information on it that contravenes his ideas about circumcision, the foreskin, or even antisemitism. He is not open to even including information that others do not share his views. Take a look at his edits for proof. He chronically complains of other users not co-operating with him, yet shows little interest in co-operating with others. For example he did not bother to explain his reasons for redirecting the page on the discussion page when he did so. His edit summaries read as arrogant, demeaning and even threatening. This is the basis of the rfc that has been filed against him at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jayjg. Sirkumsize (talk • contribs).
    • You do know that this page is for discussing whether we should keep an article. Not a place for you to make personal attacks. Jayjg reasons for nominating the article are clearly stated. Now you may disagree with those reasons, but don't go spouting off about motives. They are immaterial. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a dictionary definition, which doesn't even reflect the source Sirkumsize used for it, and was created to support Sirkumsize's anti-circumcision activism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:17, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well then it seems I have a supporter. I did not create this article! Sirkumsize 02:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Also I will note that User:Theresa knott, like many others is notable silent when it comes to attacks against me! Sirkumsize 16:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
You are right. Slim Virgin shouldn't have said that. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 05:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This appears to be a dictionary definition with little room for growth (The condition is "very rare".[5]) The detail about Mohammad, if true, might be more logically placed in his article. -Willmcw 22:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the deleters mean Redirect to Foreskin, right? In any case...ZOMG!!! Not the anti-circumcision stuff again...I just can't take it!!! Func( t, c, e,  ) 23:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I tried re-directs at first; that's what led to me being called a "vandal" and having an RFC opened against me. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. --Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Should be merged with foreskin until the material about the condition in Jews and Muhammad is sourced, and then broken out. You could edit out the word "defect" without needing to eradicate the article to remove it.Grace Note 01:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a medical condition! If that wasn't enough, the article already gives some suggestion of its cultural significance. Can't imagine why you'd want to delete this. Soo 01:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge After doing a quick search, I found that there are only short definitions of this condition. Also, circumcision among Arabs was present before Muhammad's arrival, and that claim about him will be almost impossible to source.Heraclius 01:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
If that claim is false or unverifiable then remove it. That's not a reason to delete the article. I repeat, this is a genuine medical condition. On what account would we delete on of those? Lack of notability? Unencyclopaedic? I don't understand. Soo 01:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
All right, I've added the main reason for deleting.Heraclius 02:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect. "Very rare" is likely notable when extrapolated from the general population, howerver, this article is dictionary definition in scope. I would support recreation if more reliable sources were offered as the basis for expansion. I encourage this, since, at present, the reader needs to extract that dicdef. from the article its redirected into (or worse, mistake the word as a synonym for the article's title). Still, there's always wikitictionary, dictionary.com, etc., to draw out that sentence as pertaining to Aposthia. It stands to reason that there is more in the print literature on this condition, specifically. But if there isn't and the writings on it are limited mainly as asides, or until it is provided, it makes little sense to leave it as is, in the hopes of. This in contrast to other substabs, for ex., Bago (first version) versus now. El_C 02:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for that beautiful illustrate of an expanded stub, but given this, I don't understand why you want to delete an article that obviously has the ability to become encyclopedic. Only circumcision proponents seem to be coming up with this non-existance rule that a condition or opinion has to be common to belong in wikipedia. There is enough room on the server, there's nothing to worry about. Sirkumsize 03:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictionary definition. However, if anything meaningful can said, I would change that view. - Jakew 09:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Redirect and merge with Foreskin. The change is due to Soo's rewrite, and Antandrus's comments. - Jakew 20:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Foreskin and include a line about it there. You don't want to outright delete it because someone typing "aposthia" in the search box needs to get to the right place. Antandrus (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have now substantially rewritten this article, so hopefully many of the above criticisms do not apply. Please review carefully before voting! Soo 17:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep as re-written. It's now a worthwhile stub. --Carnildo 21:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. and redirect --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and include an accurate description of the disorder on the foreskin page.--nixie 03:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. -- Nahum 04:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The squabble between Sirkumsize and Jayjg should not be allowed to deprive us of an article which discusses a medical condition. --FOo 05:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Can easily be expanded into a full article. Kuratowski's Ghost 12:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Tomer TALK 19:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep' in present form. Might be a good idea to put it on some of our watchlists due to past issues with related topics. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Foreskin per Tomer. Nandesuka 21:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I haven't looked at what it was like before it was rewritten, but currently it's better than most stubs I've seen. Redirect without merge would be especially silly, because then a casual reader would interpret "I have aposthia" as "I have foreskin," which is precisely the opposite of the correct meaning.
  • Redirect gidonb 12:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks like a reasonable article to me. Agree with the unsigned comment two above that redirecting a condition meaning "no foreskin" to "foreskin" could quite easiy cause confusion unless it it mentioned right up in the first paragraph. I also think there is plenty of scope for expansion: Are other mammals born with this condition? Is it ever treated - perhaps with reconstructive surgery? Who are the "key people in Jewish history"? Which other notable people have had this condition? It seems from some comments above that I do not fully understand that this is used in discussions related to the relative merits of circumcision - in what way? MrWeeble 21:57, 22 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simplified list of effects from drunkness

Note: I can find no evidence that this was ever listed on VfD, and it isn't listed now, so I'm listing it for today, 15 August. Five more days. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


This article isn't remotely necessary. Alcoholic_beverage#Effects_on_the_human_body already covers this territory, and if it is lacking then it can be amended. Fernando Rizo 04:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Alcohol doesn't cause anybody to drink drive. They choose to do that themselves. This list is pointless. -- Longhair | Talk 04:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Things listed other than verifiable effects; blurred vision, effects, etc, are already mentioned in Drunkenness --Mysidia 04:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • del nonsense --MarSch 15:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a simplified list for people who want simplicity when reading about effects for this kind of problem. --SuperDude 15:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Every single item currently on that list of 6 is caused by idiot humans, not alcohol, leaving blurred vision as the only 'effect'. So we're left with a list of one. -- Longhair | Talk 15:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please note that it is considered polite and in line with Wikipedia policy to state that you are the article's author. --IByte 23:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Needless duplication Percy Snoodle 15:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vaguely amusing but not relevant for wikipedia, perhaps if it was modified and under a different name... --ColdFeet 12:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is ridiculous.--Differentdamage 18:13, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete after adding Adding superfluous nonsense to Wikipedia to the list. --IByte 22:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wish I was drunk. Proto t c 13:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete seems like whoever made this article was drunk--I-2-d2 19:50, 16 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives

unverifiable original research Ben-w 23:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, it is verifiable. All you have to do is go to a dictionary and look up "ontology" and see that that term means what the article says it means. Same with all the other terms. Is this a shoot first and ask questions later approach? maybe you could have put something on my talk page? Whatever. FuelWagon 23:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Since when is it a good idea to VFD-tag an article, when it's only 9 minutes old? The NPOV tag is what you were looking for, Ben-w. This article was started to fill a very real void. Let's wait an see .. -- Ec5618 00:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks to me like something that should be in four different articles - we don't have an article on Communist capitalist autocracy democracy comparing and contrasting the different combinations of these terms. -- BD2412 talk 00:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Except that this isn't an article for four separate topics that just got jammed together. It's an article that is intended to explain the differences in ontology and methods between the two different sides on the Creationism-Versus-Science, Intelligent-Design-versus-Evolution, camps. There are currently several different articles that discuss these different issues, adn all of them share this same difference of views. Rather than have multiple articles report the same chunk of text, the idea was to have one article cover the difference in views and have all teh Creationism, ID, Teach the controversy articles reference this article. The article title sucks, but that can be fixed. I just wanted to start piecing something together so teh editors on the Creationism/ID/teach the controversy articles could take a look. Man, you guys are brutal. FuelWagon 00:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The age of an article is IRRELEVANT. This is not an encylcopedic subject. Ben-w 00:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Whatever, man. It's verifiable, because I've shown you a bunch of links. It's not original research because I added a couple of links to URL's to some reliable sources. The only thing it's got against it right now is a sucky title. Maybe if I had a little more time than 9 minutes to deal with it, either I or some of the editors on the ID/CS/teachthecontroversy articles could have come up with a better title. FuelWagon 00:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it shouldn't be deleted (although I can hardly say it's a real void being filled) but it needs to be cleaned up not just for POV and style, but to assert the notability of the article in and of itself. The title of the article is confusing and i would agree that as it stands now it's original research, an essay rather than an article; i'm not sure wikipedia is the place for such an essay.Apollo58 00:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • On second thought, just deleteApollo58 00:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Just someone working things out in their head. Useless to the rest of us. No-one else is likely to spend time making sense of it. Osomec 01:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Work on a title thats not so Jabberwockian. While these philosophy articles seem dry to me, I have nothing against them. Dan Watts 01:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I think FuelWagon's intentions were good in creating this article, but I'm not sure that this article is about a legitimate subject. Joshuaschroeder 01:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep - this is interesting
  • Delete - this looks like little more than a series of dicdefs. Maybe send to wiktionary. Rd232 11:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is nothing here which is unique to this article. Anything of merit could be covered under methodological naturalism. A better article would be something like "Intelligent Design critiques of methodological naturalism" as a sub-article of Intelligence Designt. It would have to be NPOV, heavily sourced, and arranged around actual critiques (such as those put forward by Johnston) rather than your own pocket definitions of terms. --Fastfission 13:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I've renamed the article "Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives". I don't want to use a name like "one sides critique of the other side" because it's inherently POV. I did use the term "evolutionary" because that's the one term that all the debates have in common. evolution v creationism. evolution v intelligent design, and because "intelligent design" folks usually distance themselves from the term "creationism", and also some of the "teach the controversy" folks don't even argue that they are for intelligent design, but that they are simply arguing that evolution has methodological problems, so they wont even want to be associated with the term "ID". Therefore the word "alternatives" was intended to reflect (evolution, creationism, creation science, intelligent design, teach the controversy, etc). as for my "pocket" definitions, the current definitions of terms were taken from dictionaries. And I've started to add quotes to show how the different sides use the terms to defend their side and/or criticize the other side. FuelWagon 13:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The new title is better, it's nice to have a summary page of the four quadrants. Let's see how it develops. Redundancy with existing articles on the topic should be avoided. --Parker Whittle 13:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article is one-stop-shopping to explain the different views of ontology and methodology around the topic of how life began on earth. It can act as a reference for all the articles about the evolution debate, including creationism, intelligent design, and teach the controversy. And it is limited specifically to the topic of how life began on earth, so while a separate article may exist for ontological supernaturalism, that article isn't limited to how life began on earth. This article is. FuelWagon 14:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've moved the pieces that were relevant into teh methodological naturalism article. feel free to can this one. FuelWagon 20:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - FW, how about making it a user page for now. We'll put muscle on it there and then unleash this beast in the wild. Everyone else, how many people do you think are actually going to type in "Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives" and find this article. You are correct, zero. Right now, there is only one article that links to it. We can take down that link, beef this up, and then see if it meets wiki standards before linking it all over. David Bergan 14:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, if the choice is delete or push it into a user page, then I'd go for user page. I keep backing it up to my talk page because I'm not sure if I'll get any warning if someone makes the executive decision to delete it. I'm not sure how the VFD process works, so I'm backing it up. FuelWagon 14:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC) I've located the backup here User talk:FuelWagon/ontology. Though I'd prefer to keep editing the real article rather than the backup. FuelWagon 14:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: very real, encyclopedic topic which can be cited and sourced. FuelWagon is admirably interested in npov and primary sources. let it roll. Ungtss 15:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article consists of amateur philosophizing, is based on a false dichotomy, and propounds sheer untruths. Advaitins and some Buddhists, for example, do not subscribe to the distinction between ontological naturalism and supernaturalism on which the article depends. I believe that the same problem exists with methodological super/naturalism. It is possible to make the text neutral, but this will entail a complete rewrite. Article originator has many assumptions and opinions that he wants to put in the text, rendering this article basically flame bait. The problem is not only one of original research; it's that the research is from a particular point of view, and that the author denies that fact. Article is unsalvagable. --goethean ॐ 16:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that the article as it stands is incomplete and is grounded on a classic false-dichotomy, but it seems to me that those are not grounds to delete, but to edit and improve. Ungtss 17:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
goethean, as always, your neutral and unbiased and most humble opinion is revealing. Thank you for being a team player. FuelWagon 18:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and since buddhists and advaitins can be considered to be relatively uninvolved in the current evolution / creation / intelligentdesign / teachthecontroversy debate, their dispute of the entire world view isn't a problem. The creationists brought up the term "methodological naturalism" and evolutionists responded that the concept is separate from their "ontological supernaturalism". It is their debate that this article is reporting on. FuelWagon 18:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Your article implies that there are only two sides to "the evolution debate", when in fact there is a multiplicity of viewpoints, many of which reject the terminology that your article applies universally. --goethean ॐ 18:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
When creationists accuse evolutionists of "methodlogical naturalism", and when the reply says that is different than their "ontological supernaturalism", then this article applies exactly, and explains and represents both sides of those two points of view.If someoen is arguing for creation because "the bible says so", then this doesn't apply. That doesn't look like a problem to me. it applies universally to the topic about which it is titled: Ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives. FuelWagon 19:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Pissing contests aside, I think both FuelWagon and goethean have good points. If the terms FuelWagon is using are being used by people "out there" to describe a dichotomy, and that dichotomy exists for a number of parties involved in the debate, then it deserves description. If the "philosophizing" is amateurish, then "professionalize" it. If there are those who find the dichotomy to be meaningless, then present that view, as well. It's all too easy to just hit the delete button. It's much more challenging, and valuable, and constructive to roll your sleeves up, employ a bit of the old gray matter and cooperate with others to craft a good article. Unsalvageable, indeed; gimme a break. --Parker Whittle 19:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bunch of definitions plus some original research. Pilatus 20:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've been torn on this one, and have spent a lot of time reading the article, and reading the above arguments. In the end, though, I just don't see that the topic is suitable for a separate article. It would be suitable for a journal paper, but not and encyclopædia article. Aspects of it would certainly be relevant in various other articles, as pointed out by other editors. This isn't a matter of the specific content at the moment (though I agree that it's in need of a great deal of work); it's the very specific, somewhat oblique topic itself. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
    I'll just add, in response to one or two comments, that of course it exists; that isn't the issue. To say that it doesn't exist doesn't really make sense, in fact. There are lots of things that exist, however, which shouldn't have separate articles. For example, the ontology of possible istuations exists as a genuine topic, but it should be mentioned as part of a more general article on modality, or possible worlds. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't exist. Bensaccount 21:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. unencyclopedic. Alex.tan 03:10, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sourced research

In case anyone is curious.

Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural (1997)

Justifying Methodological Naturalism (2002)

I would have eventually put these links in teh article. I just didnt' think I'd get nailed 9 minutes after I created it and put on the defensive. Suffice it to say, this is not original research. These terms and concepts exist out in the real world. I'm not making this up. This is not original research. FuelWagon 01:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Great idea, maybe not right for a single article. There's a disambiguation page for naturalism. Can varieties of naturalism identified in the article go there? There are already articles on methodological naturalism, and I think philosophical naturalism covers "ontological naturalism." The only articles seeking homes would be the supernaturalism topics. Maybe a template that links them all together? --Parker Whittle 05:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

This article was intended specifically to report the different philosophical/ontological/methodological views around evolution, creationism, intelligent design, and teach teh controversy topics. Yes, there is a methodological naturalism article, but that doesn't have to be limited to how life began on earth. and an article like Ontological supernaturalism really covers everythign from religious beliefs, mysticism, and transcendentalism. I'm specifically trying to limit this article to how these four views relate to the topic of how life began on earth. The term "methodological naturalism" has become an insult hurled by creationists against evolutionists. And evolutionists often respond that their methodology is separate from their ontology, i.e. that they can be natural scientists around evolution but still believe in god. So I want one article that explains ontology, that explains methodology, and how the different views show up in the debates around evolution, intelligent design, creationism, and the like. If a reader is going through an article on "Intelligent Design" and sees the term "methodological naturalism", for them to actually get all the different points of view around that term, they would have to go to four different articles. And those articles wouldn't neccessarily be limited to how life started on earth. FuelWagon 14:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I see your point. I'm willing to run with it. --Parker Whittle

[edit] new intro

I've rewritten the intro. enjoy. ignore. delete teh article. whatever. FuelWagon 22:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The ontology and methodology of evolutionary alternatives (evolution, creationism, intelligent design, etc) have been attacked and defended by both sided of the debates.

Creationists call evolutionist's subscription to methodological naturalism a "religion to be accepted on faith"[6] and claim that "methodological naturalism cannot be justified as a normative principle for all types of science--without doing violence to science"[7]

Evolutionists respond that "methodological naturalism is not a 'doctrine' but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe."[8] "Science must assume that everything can be investigated empirically, but this doesn't force the abandonment of the supernatural, for those who want it."[9] Evolutionists defend their methodlogical naturalism and argue it does not exclude holding a religious belief system or an ontological supernaturalism.

These differing views implies four distinct worldviews: Ontological supernaturalism(OS), Ontological naturalism(ON), Methodlogical supernaturalism(MS), and Methodological naturalism(MN) which separate the debate.

[edit] Still looks like Original Research

Comment: FuelWagon, as it is much of it still looks like original research. I am not saying that it isn't interesting, only that much of it isnt applicable to wikipedia. Sections 1 to 3 don't have any references at all, they are just presented as bare statements. Who wrote the book or authored the website or wrote the essay that first presented this schema? Who later then further popularised it? Who are its proponents, who are its critics? et cetera. You should describe how this classification came about, proposed by so and so in this book or that website etc etc. If you can't do that, delete the above three sections

OTOH the Introduction and section 4 (Science and Religion) are good and assuming they aren't already covered elsewhere and this article is deleted they can be inorporated together on one of the other pages on the Creation-Evolution debate.

But the overall article at present is not valid as an encyclopaedia article as it is, although it could be made encyclopaedic if you address the above concerns. Also Goethean makes a very valid point that this whole classification would be limited or meaningless to those who hold or represent other perspectives. If the article is retained, this also has to be specified.

so Delete as is, or Make encyclopeadic and acknowledge other points of view

M Alan Kazlev 10:03, 17 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no concensus. I was responsible for handling that VFD back then, and considering the cirumstances I rather give the benefit of the doubt. If you wish to re-delete the article due to reasons other than undeletion/Karl-VFD reasons, please feel free to resumbit a new VFD. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neat tiling

This article was previously VfD'd.

  • The result of that VFD was delete all

So why does the article still exist?

  • It was undeleted

What were the arguments for its undeletion

So shouldn't it be speedy re-deleted?

  • Yes, but certain admins keep removing the tag

Why was it VFD'd in the first place?

  • Artificial original research classification (a "neologism")
  • The correct mathematical term is "continuous tesselation"
  • It was created by a user known as "Karl Scherer" who has several user accounts, and had been inserting his original research into Wikipedia, as well as about 60 spam pages advertising games he had created
  • Google search for the term returns only 118 results
  • Google search for the term minus "wikipedia" (to discount obvious mirrors) returns only 35 results
  • Google search for the term minus "wikipedia" and "scherer" (to

discount obvious mirrors and karl scherer's use of it) returns only 20 results

  • Of those 20 results, most use the term as in "that tiling is really neat", i.e. "impressive", and not in the way the article suggests at all
  • The one that doesn't is a spam-list of words deriving from wikipedia mirrors.
  • Delete ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 00:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments:
  1. Delete log entry: 21:35, July 3, 2005 Mailer diablo deleted "Neat tiling" (content was: '{{User:-Ril-/Karl-Scherer-Spam}} A neat tiling is a type of tiling. A tiling {T} of a shape S is called neat if * each tile T is a poly...')
  2. Delete log entry: 19:59, August 7, 2005 Curps restored "Neat tiling"
  3. You may want to refer to User_talk:Curps#Neat_tiling and User_talk:-Ril-#Lock_puzzle.2C_etc.
  4. It seems clear that there is some sort of user conflict going on here, so I'm holding my vote until things are sorted out. -- FP <talk><edits> 01:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
then pages of type 1 above are obvious VfDs, pages of type 3 are not (generic term), while pages of type 2 are debatable: is "unsolved mystery novel" a generic term and subcategory of "mystery novel", or is it a neologism coined by the user? The point is, that's precisely the sort of thing a VfD is supposed to sort out: people research it and Google it and present their conclusions in a VfD vote. The current article in question Neat tiling seems to be of type 2 above: is it a neologism invented by Karl Scherer, or is it a generic term in general use among the puzzle-solving community? Such a VfD debate can now take place at last, on this page.

However, you presented your original Vfd in a careless way, or perhaps even a deceptive way if you had done it deliberately: you listed only pages of type 1 above in the VfD itself and buried the pages of type 2 and type 3 within a very long listing (200 articles!) on a completely separate page (never mentioning them on the VfD page itself) that most voters probably never looked at. It was just flat out wrong to lump pages of entirely different categories into one humungous VfD whose presentation incorrectly implied that all the pages to be deleted were of type 1 above (obvious deletion candidates).

This was a procedural error in the original VfD —it is questionable whether a page was duly deleted if it was never even mentioned on any VfD page. -- Curps 02:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment actually, that WAS discussed at the VFD, thus the word "all" as opposed to "only the games". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 02:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You would have claimed a mandate to delete Burr puzzle too... you only failed to do so because you accidentally didn't notice it the first time around. The subsequent separate VfD for that page (a "keep") clearly indicated that you overreached your mandate. -- Curps 02:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. When I click on your '"neat tiling" minus Wikipedia' link above, I get 61 results, not 35. Nevertheless, it is possible that you may have a point that this could be largely a neologism proposed by Karl Scherer. Perhaps other more neutral eyes could judge this. When I did a Google search I didn't do the "minus Wikipedia" refinement. I believe you are wrong in the other cases, however (the ones that are the subject of the other VfD). -- Curps 02:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I still get 35, I'm unsure why you would get 61 for clicking on the same link? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Google Is Not Science (tm), nor should it be the centre of VfD. 35/61 - either way, less than 100 is 'not much internet presence'/'usually has different name'. This is a very minor factor as to whether an article is worth keeping, unless we're talking an entirely web based topic (a particular message board etc). --zippedmartin 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that this is a valid mathematical concept, and I'm sure that this is not the true mathematical term for it. Merge/redir to tesselation. Radiant_>|< 08:18, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Why are we even discussing this? It was an article that went through VfD, and which was recreated without going through VfU. It should be speedied immediately. --Nandesuka 12:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There were procedural flaws in the VfD: this article was never mentioned by name in the VfD, so it is questionable whether it was ever properly VfD'd. -- Curps 15:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Curps, I read the VfD, and I think you're mistaken -- Neat tiling clearly appears on the list attached to the VfD, which was discussed at the time. Even if you are correct, though, the right thing to do would have been to list Neat Tiling on VfU and discuss the procedural flaws there. Instead, now we're caught in a twisty little maze of procedural violations, all different. Nandesuka 15:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes it was, everyone was pointed to the category in the 3rd of the 3 opening paragraphs, the issue of whether all the items in the category counted as well as those in listed in the list that was "includes but isnt limited to" was discussed at length in the VFD itself, and the result was delete ALL. And it didn't go through WP:VFU so re-creating it is an abuse of process, and it should be speedy re-deleted. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Nandesuka, appearing "on the list attached to the VfD" (actually, an entirely separate page) is not the same as actually appearing at the top of the VfD page itself. Many voters undoubtedly never even looked at that page, and took their cue from the writeup at the top of the VfD page itself, which, intentionally or not, only listed egregious spam pages and failed to explicitly mention pages like neat tiling or lock puzzle, etc. This was procedurally flawed: the process was biased in a way to delete pages that in many cases would have survived their own individual VfD (as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Burr puzzle and the ongoing Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Interlocking puzzle show). So as I've said I don't believe the original VfD validly applied to this page. But fair enough, to avoid procedural snafus I'll use VfU for such cases in the future. -- Curps 16:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If the nominator believes that The correct mathematical term is "continuous tesselation" then why the VfD - just move the page and change the nomenclature in the article. --zippedmartin 22:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Because the article contains totally original research - it is called "continuous tesselation" because it is "continuous" and a "tesselation", in the same way that a "red cow" is called that because it is "red" and a "cow", but that doesn't warrent the article [[red cow]] existing. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
You can't assert something has been made up on the spot, and has a 'correct mathematical term', that's patent nonsense. To continue your daft analogy, if you were to see one of these and go round telling people the 'correct biological term' is red cow, they'd all think you'd been having too much 'energy' drink. There might be correct names for things that don't exist, but there certainly aren't correct names for things that haven't been thought of. But seeing as people have been tessellating for thousands of years, I doubt very much whether this definition was first used by a C20 puzzler. Ask for deletion on grounds of notability by all means, but strike 'original research' and your speculation over the naming because you're misrepresenting the case. --zippedmartin 01:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
It's the artificial classification that is made up. In the same way that classifying cows by colour was made up on the spot. Ununhexium is just latin for 116, it's not a name, its a placeholding definition, and the correct biological term for this is more likely to be bos rufus [although it isn't that either]. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Then you agree that the sentence you meant to write at the top of the article was "Term is a neologism, the concept might be considered a form of continuous tesselation"? --zippedmartin 14:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I am disappointed that this article was restored without going through VfU. I would like to offer that it is essential at this juncture to seperate how one feels about the breaches in procedure from the merits of the article in question. I need to do some research before voting so for now I abstain. Tobycat (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:40
Would you supply your reasoning please. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've gone through most of the non-WP Google links in a bit of detail, and found no evidence that neat and nowhere-neat have been used in this sense by anyone but Mr Scherer. Hv 09:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
But is it an invented term for an existing concept, is the question... --zippedmartin 14:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The answer is "Yes". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
So you admit that this isn't original research, and want to change your delete vote to merge-with-tessilation or similar? --zippedmartin 16:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, and imediately list on VfU, if needed to take care of whether or not it should have been deleted, at which point it could be brought here instantly as well. Failing that, Delete as a non-notable term for a phenomena. --Icelight 00:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am disturbed that non-mathematicians are styling themselves as capable judges of mathematical articles. I'd much prefer to see "the usual crowd" debating the article; I don't recognize any of the people above as having ever contributed to a math or physics article; as far as I know, none have any "bona fides". Please, if you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, don't vote. And, by the way, using google for math research is a really really bad idea, since 99.999% of all math is not indexed in google. linas 23:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. I am sufficiently familiar with mathematics to make a knowledgable judgement. I choose not to contribute to mathematics articles because I have no interest, not because I have no competance. I could, for example, demonstrate proficiency in Conformal mappings, holomorphisms, klien bottles, christoffel tensors, laplace transformations, bernoulli numbers, contour integration, riemann surface, etc. but I don't find it interesting, so I don't bother. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to edge-to-edge tiling or merge into tessellation. Grünbaum and Shephard, Tilings and Patterns, W.H. Freeman and Company, 1987, which I consider the most authorative references on the mathematical theory of tilings, defines edge-to-edge tilings on page 18. This addresses Ril's concern that neat tiling is a neologism. I don't care that much about the other concern, that it was undeleted improperly: our goal is to write an encyclopeadia. I could not find neat tiling nor continuous tessellation in either MathSciNet or the book, so I'm curious where Ril got this term from. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Sometimes different groups use different jargon for the same thing. What most of the world calls GMT or UTC, the US military calls "Zulu time". It's possible that puzzle hobbyists use a different term than mathematicians, which could be solved by using redirects. "Edge-to-edge tiling" gets about 60 Google hits (none with "Scherer" or "Wikipedia" in them. -- Curps 15:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete -- The concept may deserve insertion into tessellation, but I doubt very much that the name is used by anyone other than the original poster. (And I am a mathematician.) -- Arthur Rubin 22:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for two reasons. Firstly, it was deleted in accordance with a vote on VfD. I'm as unhappy about the mass listing on VfD as other people are, but since it's clear that there's no clear consensus, we should follow policy and take it to VfU first. (In fact, it would be nice if some admin (Curps?) could go through Ril's list from the mass deletion—I'd like to acknowledge -Ril- for making the list available, since it's been helpful in the ensuing discussion—and look for other articles which aren't the Zillions spam they were accused of being, to list on VfU.)
Secondly, the article is no more than a definition and consensus seems to be that the most standard terminology is not neat tilings but edge-to-edge tilings for which we have a standard reference (Grünbaum and Shephard). (By consensus I mean both Jitse Niesen, above, and Joseph Myers in Talk:Tiling#Terminology.) It doesn't seem that we'd lose a great deal by deleting the article. When we have an article on edge-to-edge tilings, then we can put in a redirect—because I'm sure I have seen the term neat tilings in a recreational mathematics book, and besides, redirects are cheap. —Blotwell 11:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with rename/merge option, as per Jitse Niesen, and request that he includes his citation (with cleanup ideally! :) in the article in preparation for the event. --zippedmartin 16:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Radiant, and discuss on Talk:Tesselation. This is a waste of VfD's time. Septentrionalis 20:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jitse. And while it doesn't have anything to do with my vote, the original "VfD" was clearly flawed. Paul August ☎ 02:13, August 19, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 07:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Starquake_(star)

This page is wrong; glitches are not thought to be starquakes 63.13.130.200 19:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep. If the info is wrong, fix it. Fascinating phenomenon; page needs to be expanded. ArcTheLad 20:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely keep. Tag with {{{attention}}}. Expand if you have knowledge in this field.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:19:48, 2005-08-14 (UTC) NB. Please strongly consider removing this from VfD, 63.13.130.200. This is not a candidate for the VfD page. See WP:DEL for VFD criteria. We can't remove the tag of a VfD we didn't initiate, but I believe as initiator you can. The reason I'm asking is that with ~100 pages on VfD/day, the VfD system is already way overloaded. Regards,—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:25:57, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep no reason to delete this. --Etacar11 22:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And as far as I know, astronomers still believe oscillations in emissions from a neutron star are due to starquakes: [10]
  • The nominator is correct, pulsar timing glitches are not starquakes, but something more complicated. Starquakes do happen, though, it's a separate phenom. But the nominator went about this the wrong way; she should have simply updated the information with greater clarity. Speedy keep. Sdedeo 13:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep.--Kross 09:08, August 18, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ORMEs

Original research and/or vanity and/or unverifiable. Sandstein 21:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete Worse than that, from the Library of Halexandria [sic]: The ORME -- related to Star Fire, and also known as The Philosopher’s Stone, the Elixir of Life, the White Powder of Gold, Ma-na or Manna... Pseudo-science bull. --Lomedae 21:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity about original pseudoscience. Andrew pmk 21:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, etc. ral315 21:59, August 14, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 03:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atromeroptic Law

No such physics law. This is a made up fact. Hfwd 00:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - I see no evidence that such a law exists. Google yields nine results - 7 from Wikipedia and its mirrors, and 2 from this bizarre website the article sites. Looks like original research to me. --JJLeahy 04:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. -- BD2412 talk 03:24, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator.Dottore So 03:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't verify, possibly original research. A search on atromeroptic yielded essentially the same results as the above mentioned search, so atromeroptic appears to be a neologism, which, to me, says that this alleged law is not encyclopedic. ManoaChild 11:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above, along with Atromeroptics Tonywalton 18:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, of course. --Pjacobi 20:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research Salsb 11:14, August 17, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 06:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don Lemmon

Seems non-notable, but not quite a speedy. Makes clains of notability, but they seem implausible. Does have a number of google hits, but the first few look like advertising. Delete unless evidence to teh contrary is prsented. DES (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • He does seem to be married to Asia Carrera, FWIW. Redirect there, if nothing else. tregoweth 00:39, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Comment http://imdb.com/name/nm0006562/bio states that she is married to him Tonywalton
  • Keep. Call me an inclusionist, but this guy's got over 13000 hits on google, all related to him and his profession. Themindset 01:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes the Google test. --Titoxd 01:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but Wikify. It reads like an ad, not an encyclopedia. JDoorjam 01:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I saw this earlier today and did some Googling and decided it was worth keeping. Zoe 05:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)All right, DavidConrad convinced me to vote delete. Zoe 18:20, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Delete—Wrote some books, markets his own diet supplements, and married a porn star; it's not curing cancer, but it's good enough to be Wikified. I'm convinced by the comments below. --Tysto 05:52, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable published author is the only thing keeping him from being a redirect to Asia Carrera, IMHO, but as it stands he merits his own article. Needs a good tone cleanup and a fact-check, though. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Asia Carrera in light of R. fiend's research. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete What evidence is there that he is a notable published author? The article states that his books are self-published. Markets supplements? Lots of hits? Try this: in the first ten Google results, planetofthegods.com is registered to the same person as donlemmon.com and donlemmonknowhow.com, and donlemmonproductions.com, donlemmonsoil.com, and secretstoaperfectbody.com are all registered to Don himself. Only trulyhuge.com, bodybuilding.com, and martingroupdesign.com are independent of him, and the last one doesn't actually make any mention of him. The only thing I can see him being notable for is being a ruthless self-promoter. OK, well, he already has at least half a dozen web sites devoted to his cult of personality, why does WP need to promote him, too? The only thing remotely notable about him is Asia Carrera, and he's already mentioned in her article. Delete without so much as a redirect. --DavidConrad 08:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Google test can be rather distorted by self-propagandists, and I'm sure there are plenty of peddlers of dubious diet suplements (diet supplements don't work, so they're all dubious). 13,000 google hits aren't impressive if they're all crap. Average Earthman 10:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not a Redirect to Ms Carrera? --Marcus22 14:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, assuming he is self-published. I found one book on amazon with a sales rank of over 650,000. -R. fiend 16:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not seem to be notable. --KFP 16:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity backed by vanity press. -Splash 17:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. One sentence on Asia Carrera is enough. Flowerparty talk 18:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't seem very important. GregAsche 22:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per David's points. Dottore So 22:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per DavidConrad. -- DS1953 20:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per DavidConrad. Usrnme h8er 11:00, 18 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (and merge or redirect). Eugene van der Pijll 02:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SUPERLASIK

The original version of this article was outright spam [11] and I cut a few corners and speedied it. It should have been nominated for VfD instead. A later version by the same anon author was substantially shorter, much more to the point, and not really spammy. It was nevertheless speedied by another admin on the grounds that it was a recreation of a previously speedied article. Since the original speedy wasn't strictly justified, I have restored it and am nominating it for VfD. -- Curps 00:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • NeutralChanged vote, see below. Google shows hits for this term... I am not sure if it is a widely used term and a widely used procedure or just one surgeon's procedure and trademark. -- Curps 00:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've had regular LASIK surgery. Good stuff. This, on the other hand, is advertising spam. If it can withstand a POV-ectomy, I'm for keep. As it is, I vote delete. - Lucky 6.9 01:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to LASIK or the list of procedures in eye surgery Tonywalton 01:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to LASIK. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC) Changed vote, see below Dpbsmith (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Jaxl | talk 01:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Changing to merge. - Lucky 6.9 01:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Weird: googling on SuperLASIK without language restrictions yields 1,430 hits, and the first pageful, at least, are mostly in non-Latin-character alphabets: Russian and some Asian pictographic language I can't identify. Restricting the language to English yields only 48 hits (of which Google shows only 9 because "we have omitted some entries very similar to the 9 already displayed.") It suggests searching on "Super LASIK," with a space, which, when searched in quotes for exact phrase, displays a similar phenomenon. It yields 598 hits in all languages and only 145 in English. I don't really know that that means but I don't recall seeing anything like that before and it seems odd. I suggest that if the article is made a redirect to LASIK, Super LASIK should also redirect to LASIK. If the article is not made into a redirect, it should be moved to Super LASIK. I think. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment A search in "Proquest Research Library," which indexes 2000 journals including Science, Nature, Archives of Ophthalmology, etc. yields 475 articles on "LASIK", none on "SuperLASIK", none on exact phrase "Super LASIK", none on "EpiLASIK," and none on exact phrase "Epi LASIK". Search is case-insensitive BTW, so it's not that. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes there are a lot of hits for "SuperLasik" or "Super Lasik" or whatever. But is there actually such a thing as a "super lasik" procedure distinct from the regular Lasik procedure, or are these just trademarked names used by individual surgeons for their own regular-Lasik services? Is the Russian "super lasik" the same thing as the Austrian "super lasik"? Does SuperLASIK really stand for "superficial Lasik"? According to the Austrian guy [12], it stands for "Laser in situ Keratomileusis"... but our LASIK article says that's what ordinary LASIK stands for. So it seems that "SuperLASIK" is just a fancy trade name for LASIK, as far as I can tell. -- Curps 01:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Something is definitely odd here. I did some Google site searches on the site http://www.lasikinstitute.org/ which is the big promotional educational resource on LASIK sponsored by surgeons who perform it. Or something like that. Searches on "SuperLASIK", exact phrase "Super LASIK", "EpiLASIK", and exact phrase "Epi LASIK" yield no hits on this site. Not only should SUPERLASIK and Super LASIK redirect to LASIK, but we ought to be very damn careful what we actually say about "SuperLASIK" in the LASIK article because something about this just doesn't feel right to me. I am not convinced it is a recognized term in U. S. eye surgery. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with Dpbsmith that something's wrong here. Given unverifiability of just what exactly it is, this should not be here. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to LASIK, no merge until/unless someone comes up with better evidence that "SUPERLASIK" or "Super LASIK" is an established, accepted term for a form of eye surgery in English-speaking countries. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to LASIK, no merge until/unless verified (as per above). - Mike Rosoft 13:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, no merge. -- Curps 13:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, no merge. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Dpbsmith's findings -- Presnell 18:38, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and even the redirect seems questionable if it cannot be determined if this is a real medical term. --DavidConrad 23:47, 13 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was USERFY

[edit] Dr.d.karthikeyan

  • Delete non-notable, vanity, and POV (though that's not a deletion criterion) Soltak 21:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks a bit like a possible userfy. Might be a copyvio, too. Love dem doctors.  :) - Lucky 6.9 21:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • To clarify, what's your vote, Lucky? I assume delete, but you didn't specifically enter one. Soltak 00:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Soltak. --IByte 22:03, 13 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE

[edit] Typodyslexia

Delete, non-notable neologism --IByte 23:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article itself says "search google with keyword "typodyslexia" at least 4-5 links will appear with some witheld by google for being under same TLD". In other words, this is a neologism. ManoaChild 00:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Jaxl | talk 00:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hujjat 09:10, 15 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 05:19, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1098 (number)

Says nothing other than how it is represented in different bases and what its factors are; no reason why this number should have its own page. Should be speediable under any number of criteria, but what the hell. sjorford →•← 11:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - otherwise this sets a precident for clogged up wikipedia with a infinite number of similiar articles. Markb 11:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, numbercruft. — JIP | Talk 11:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Articles listing a number, its divisors, and the numbers before and after it can be generated by the thousands (well, theoretically, they can be infinitely many). Not a notable number. Oleg Alexandrov 11:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not infinite. This number does not satisfy the notability and inclusion criteria for numbers. Delete. Uncle G 12:26:27, 2005-08-12 (UTC)
  • Delete, but Comment: I would really love to know why 1098 made the grade. Dmharvey Image:User_dmharvey_sig.png Talk 12:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - little or no context, and no information that isn't obvious from its title. Radiant_>|< 13:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Uncle G and Markb. Carbonite | Talk 13:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with compliments to Uncle G for his well-written and referenced userspace page on "Wikipedia is not infinite". -Satori 17:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 1000 (number) where the interesting aspects of this number are already mentioned. — RJH 19:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you're confusing it with 1089, which does warrant its own page. sjorford →•← 08:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • With respect, redirect 1098 to 1000 is much like redirecting the US to the UK, they have no relation to one another! -Splash 15:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per Oleg Alexandrov. --Tim Pope 19:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete there is nothing here to keep! -Splash 00:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete lol. I added it to the 1000 page, though. --Matt Yeager 04:27, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Silliness. linas 23:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Oleg Alexandrov -- Arthur Rubin 22:25, 17 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I decline to include it in BJODADN (because it's just not funny) but won't object if someone else does so. Rossami (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black Women with Large Rumps

Offensive article, with offensive title. Provides no useful content. UkPaolo 12:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Steatopygia. Known "disorder": "Steatopygia is an unusual accumulation of fat in and around the buttocks. The deposit of fat is not confined to the gluteal regions, but extends to the outside and front of the thighs, forming a thick layer reaching sometimes to the knee." --Cool Cat My Talk 12:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. As a black woman, I am proud of my body. You think my beautiful black body is offensive? You are racist. We should celebrate diversity, not censor it. 68.97.208.123 15:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hahaha... Delete and transfer to BJAODN Themindset 15:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Transfer to BJADON. --Jpbrenna 17:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As above Anshu 17:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup offensive elements and then merge (particularly the songs) with Steatopygia. Like it or not there is a cultural element to this. :) — RJH 19:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Crap article, bad taste. Redirect to Bootylicious, or preferably something more encyclopedic about how yummy black women's bottoms are. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who on earth would search for this? Peter Isotalo 01:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Someone who is pervy for booty, of course! --Tony SidawayTalk 02:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Steatopygia. The fact that it is offensive should not be grounds to delete, much of the world is offensive. However, it doesn't seem to add much, what it does could be put into Steatopygia. Avalon 04:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be racist to merge. This article presents a phenomenon genetically and culturally distinct from the steatopygic Khoikhoi. To merge on the basis of a superficial similarity would be racist. This article should be retitled and developed. Eyeon 05:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • So why didn't you "retitle" it when you created it? More evidence of bad faith: the author and creator of the article is here posing as a neutral and impartial voter. -- Curps 15:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The utterly unencyclopedic title is a strong indication of bad faith. -- Curps 15:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. --Kiand 15:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with suggested article and put current version in BJAODN. --Merovingian (t) (c) 19:20, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is coolness. -- This vote by User:70.92.105.107 -- Curps 20:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no useful content. 19:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC) -- This vote by User:Drini -- Curps 20:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment For the folks voting merge, can you clarify whether you want a redir to remain? -- Curps 20:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it quietly and without much fuss. User:Eyeon, the creator of this article, is a sockpuppet-wielding troll whose chief contributions include blessing the Wikipedia with this wonderful image. Most of his time was generally spent ruining any articles he could find that were related to his scat fetish. We're being tested again; let's not fail this time. --Ardonik.talk()* 09:30, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ridiculous. Punkmorten 21:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this adds no new knowledge to Wikipedia. It would be a disservice to the readers of steatopygia, since that is clearly a disease. The social commentart is already covered under the topic buttock, another Wiki-nusance. User:kryzadmz,20:20, August 18, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 21:26, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mohmed Hussien El Chimy

  • Delete. NN vanity bio. Google gets 6 hits, only one which isn't a Wikimirror, and it's his own web page. --Howcheng 23:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable vanity; however, I think it could be a copyright violation from here Sliggy 18:06, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I believe the copy-paste job was done by Dr Chimy himself. The IP address of the article creator (81.10.37.69) is in Cairo, Egypt, where the good doctor lives.--Howcheng 18:45, 12 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 04:02, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HIV mitigation strategy

This article appears to be a well-intentioned application of the exponential function towards HIV control. It also appears to be a gross simplification of an equation used for predicting the spread of disease in general, which has been published here and here. As an application, however, it is nonetheless original research.

A quick search through NCBI's PubMed and Google reveals no specific academic journals or websites related to "HIV mitigation strategy" that makes use of the formula. -D. Wu 18:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as original research. --Several Times 19:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for being original research and not having any cites, but I would recommend forwarding this to the local content rescue squad-- it's worth worth writing an entry on this subject, just... not this entry. 71.98.81.176 00:39, 14 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Language as an Instance of Left Hemispheric Specialization for Temporal Processing

This is an article on a single journal-paper; it lacks sufficient notability for a separate article (and if we have an article on every paper published, we'll need storage the size of a planet). The best that could be said is that it might be included in the bibliography section of a relevant article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Just to make things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem worthy of it's own article...delete. AlbertR 20:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I do not even see this paper on PubMed. Sounds interesting, but not encyclopoedic. Eldereft 21:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per M.E. Pavel Vozenilek 22:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, part of the sum of human knowledge. Incidentally things having their "own article" has pratically no impact on storage. Kappa 00:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    Do you know how many papers are published every year? Just take a look at one of the indices or sets of abstracts for a single subject-area. There are hundreds of thousands of them (probably millions if we look at world-wide publications; a paper from the "Institute of Science in Society" quotes a rough estimate of millions a year, and a paper on Physics Web reveals that "the number of papers published every year in the natural sciences has increased by a factor of between two and four since 1974"). There might not be much difference between an individual separate article and a bibliographic listing (though in fact I'm pretty certain that there would be at the numbers involved here), but 99% of papers wouldn't be mentioned in any bibliography on Wikipedia (or anywhere else). (Research done a few years ago, using a couple of prestigious Physics journals as its subjects, showed that individual papers were read by an average of one and a half people.)
    In any case, that's not my main reason for the nomination. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everything is the part of the sum of human knowledge, yet we're not supposed to keep everything. / Peter Isotalo 02:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • A research paper published in a journal is part of the "sum of human knowledge" in a different way than "what I had for breakfast" is. Kappa 09:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Indeed, but both are certainly not encyclopedic. / Peter Isotalo 10:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am the contributor of this page and I just cannot understand why fiction books and comics have their own article while a scientific paper can't. If you delete it, you should move the information in an article about language learning. Www.wikinerds.org 11:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • What can I say? We have a quite extreme bias towards popular culture, especially the kind enjoyed by young, white (, male) Americans and Europeans. The most obvious examples are Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Pokémon and Lord of the Rings. I'm definetly a defender of the academic myself, but fiction still tends to be more notable than scientific papers, and going overboard with the inclusion of very obscure material is hardly a good way to counter this problem. It's hard to be consistent all the time... :-/ / Peter Isotalo 11:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • While agreeing with Peter, I should also add that the W.w.o's analogy fails; we have few articles on individual short stories, unless they're very notable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOR. Also, that title is ludicrous; any material on the issue should be inserted into Left hemisphere instead. Radiant_>|< 18:30, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - another advert/spam masquerading as a really bad article - Tεxτurε 17:50, 15 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MathPlayer

No place in wikipedia. Perhaps move to geekpedia. Erwin Walsh

  • Keep obviously. Several times I've come to a mathematical website and my browser (usually Firefox but sometimes Internet Explorer) has suggested I install MathPlayer. Gets 51,000 Googles. -Splash 23:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be a fairly well-known program. 51,100 hits on google. First few pages showed no false hits. ManoaChild 23:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; notable program. Jaxl | talk 00:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful free software from reputable publisher. Fg2 03:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notability well established Soltak 23:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Stong Keep. If everything works out, in a few months, you'll need this to view page with math on Wikipedia in Internet Explorer (see meta:Blahtex). --R.Koot 00:12, 22 August 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 an undeletion request). 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 of the debate was delete. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lovondatr

Non-notable pseudoscience experiment, so far it's got only a couple of mentions like this [14] –Gnomz007(?) 02:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I have travelled forward in time using this vehicle and can tell you that it's non-notable 5000 years from now. Sdedeo 02:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Insane, hoax. --Apyule 03:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article may need expansion but it reports on extremely important device with promise to improve human life immeasurably. Moreover, results were achieved! Experiments that have achieved results are ipso facto notable. Votes to delete are narrow-minded and POV. -EDM 03:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google gives only 29 hits, I can't verify any of this information and it's not sourced. ESkog 04:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, not verifiable, no useful details. ManoaChild 04:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Purificare and conservare(?); there is plenty of information for even a stub, and it seems to have worked. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
What information? I can't find any mention of this that hasn't come from that article (at least in English). Claims like that need some pretty outstanding proof. Do you have any references?--Apyule 06:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Proto t c 11:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Experiments with Edit Page achieved results with VfD, still not noteable. Delete. Lomn 13:34:01, 2005-08-11 (UTC)
  • It's interesting that a successful time-travel experiment, which isn't too secretive to be on Wikipedia, doesn't have more than 16 google hits, with many unapplicable, and hasn't been covered by any major new agency. Something smells very wrong, and when things smell very wrong you delete as unverifiable. --Scimitar parley 14:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment actually there is a bigger problem with Kosmopoisk and Vadim Chernobrov articles, there are 5330 google hits for Kosmopisk and one of Chernobrov hits is [15]. I guess they are next in queue for nomination, but 5400 hits may hit the notability for pseudoscience or at least notable self-promotion threshold. –Gnomz007(?) 14:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh? Delete. Not even an article. -R. fiend 15:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I second that huh. Someone achieves time travel and it is ignored by the news media? Smells like a hoax to me. And I don't think I'm narrow-minded for saying Delete. If true, this would be the biggest news in the field of physics EVER. I don't believe in time travel, but hey, I'd love to be proved wrong. --Etacar11 16:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Guess why there's no coverage in the news media and very few Google hits? A simple hop into the Lovondatron, quick trip to February 2014, and wipe 'em out! Results achieved, I tell ya. -EDM 16:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Plus, who knew you could time-travel in a yurt? -EDM 17:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand to elucidate and record the hoax / conspiracy theory. Eldereft 23:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I can fulfill this suggestion for the rest of Kosmoposk articles. This device may be as arguable as E-Meter which has an article, but scientologists are much more popular, it would be bothersome to repeat hoax theory on so many articles. But its true that the most fraud accusations againt Chernobrov mention Lovondatr. I've been pointed to Harley "SwiftDeer" Reagan with similar problems, but I see that the "Quodoushka sex therapy" has got no article of its own–Gnomz007(?) 23:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article does not establish notability. Martg76 21:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete patent nonsense.  Grue  05:29, 18 August 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.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of notable people who have suffered from pneumonia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 00:48, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mater Private Hospital

  • Delete, unless this hospital is notable in some way. Right now, it's just a phonebook entry. --Howcheng 00:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Revised: Keep. Did not know that it was featured on money (it's certainly not mentioned in the article itself). --Howcheng 15:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, any hospital which provides "Cardiac Surgery, Dermatology, Dietetics, Gynaecology, Sleep Laboratory, Opthamology, Intensive Care Medicine and Neurosurgery" is notable. Kappa 00:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and well-known Dublin hospital -- the Mater was on the five pound note.
    • Last vote by 67.116.29.1 CanadianCaesar 00:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, that vote was by an unsigned-in Ben-w 00:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC).
        • That's exactly what I meant. CanadianCaesar 01:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason that an existing full service hospital in a major city does not warrant an article. Gblaz 02:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article needs work but it should stay. --Apyule 02:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Conservare (?), --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hospitals are far more notable than schools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Places such as hospitals, schools etc. deserve articles, and should only be deleted if the article itself meets deletion criteria (poor quality etc.). Arbitrary notability standards break NPOV anyway. Cynical 09:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, hospitals are indeed far more notable than schools. Proto t c 11:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, especially Ben-w --Several Times 14:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, More notable then half the schools we keep. Gateman1997 14:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all sizable hospitals. the wub "?/!" 15:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please it is notable enough too Yuckfoo 18:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a major hospital in the Republic of Ireland. Notable. - Pete C ✍ 18:35, 15 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 01:39, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Ethel (1960)

Delete Non-notable hurricane causing no documented deaths or damages. It's gets just under 2000 Google hits [16] almost all of which are from meteorological sites. The only thing even remotely notable about it is the fact that it's one of only 25 Atlantic Hurricanes to reach Category 5, and that doesn't warrant an article. Soltak 19:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. One of just 25 in 150 years sounds notable to me. Pilatus 19:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge as appropriate with hurricane JDoorjam 19:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Category 5 hurricanes are unique events that are notable enough for entry.Gateman1997 21:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, hurricanes are plenty notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:03, 2005 August 11 (UTC)
  • Comment I would remind everyone that this hurricane resulted in no documented deaths or damages. It's no more notable than a bad rain storm. If the delete vote fails I plan to redirect the article to List of notable tropical cyclones where Ethel is mentioned. Soltak 21:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • We're all very aware of this.Gateman1997 21:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Then might I inquire as to why you wish to keep the article? Soltak 21:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Not that I should have to explain further then I already did, but the fact that it's a Category 5 hurricane deems it pretty worthy of an article in my book. There have only been 25 in the last 100 years. It's not like this is some obsure Tropical Depression. Gateman1997 22:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Kappa 22:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Gateman1997's rationale. Plus IMO any named hurricane is notable enough for article, even a stub for a non-damaging event. 23skidoo 23:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Any Category 5 hurricane should get its own article, damage or not. It simply doesn't happen all that often. Mike H (Talking is hot) 23:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Ten minutes of actually reading some of the 62,000+ Google hits results in learning that Ethel ('60) was the only hurricane to make originall landfall in the region between MS and the FL panhandle, that it is unusual for hurricanes to form in the Gulf of Mexico, that there were only 2 Cat 5 storms that year, and that the name Ethel was not retired as a result of this storm. All of this seems notable enough to mention. The fact that WP is not paper means that we can be expansive on what articles appear, provided that smaller articles are well-linked to more substantive articles that will round out the topic for the casual reader (who is the only person using this resource). --Mddake 00:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment This article was 2 minutes old when Soltak tagged it for deletion. The anonymous editor (beware the urge to denigrate anonymity) who created this article made a number of contributions in the field of hurricanes in a short period of time. Let's give this article a chance to develop in the normal course of things. --Mddake 00:22, 12 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE

[edit] Rotundant Height Disorder

  • Tagged for speedy with "can't verify, appears to be original research" as the reason. No vote from me. Kappa 22:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No google hits, it does appear to be OR Soltak 22:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no google hits. What an imagination some submitors have... feydey 23:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm maybe we should check the rest of their contributions too... Kappa 23:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Crass and insulting. Thanks, fellow editior. --AStanhope 14:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete apparent hoax. --Etacar11 00:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't verify as a real diagnosis. ManoaChild 03:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I find 18 Google hits for the word "rotundant" on its own; nothing in Merriam-Webster or Chambers dictionaries. This might be a recognised disroder in body image perception, but I'd hazard that name is OR Tonywalton 12:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is indeed very rare. What you people fail to understand is that just because something isn't in Google doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. One of the very reasons behind us writing for the Wikipedia is to supplement the existing record with new information - not merely to create an echo chamber for what already appears in Google. Think about it. --AStanhope 14:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Nothing in MedlinePlus or MedicineNet.com. I would think that a recognized disorder would show up there. --Etacar11 14:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • When did Wikipedia get to be so Ameri-Centric? Contact: Societé DHR, No 118, 3e, rue du Faubourg du Temple, 75010, Paris, France
        • It appears that you know something more about this than you're putting in the article, ASH. (For instance: what does DHR stand for?) Information about who identified the disorder, who treats it, who the Societé is... Eliot 16:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • No vote. I agree very strongly about not just mirroring Google, AStanhope, but the fact that we can't even find evidence that a disorder with this name exists is near-certain proof that there's some highly important fact being left out of the article. (Maybe the name is just being poorly translated?) Just add any reference that will allow us to put the article in proper context. I will vote to keep if that shows up. Eliot 15:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I would need more than an address in Paris for verification. --Etacar11 15:15, 12 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BioRad

Promotional article on NN company. Article consists of a single line.

  • Delete: NN/empty article. --Ragib 07:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete – not sufficiently encyclopedic in its present form to be here. --Bhadani 14:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • CSD spam --Apyule 06:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, SPAM. ral315 14:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Seems to be a large company with a multinational presence in the field. -- Visviva 14:58, 11 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian and American health care systems compared

This falls under the category of "what wikipedia is not" because it is essentially "Opinions on current affairs". I have never seen one encyclopedia article anywhere that attempts to compare any two subjects. Any page that attempts to compare the merits of two things or two systems in inherently unencyclopedic. Barneygumble

  • Keep. Comparative politics is a large and well studied field, and we have many such articles Canadian and Australian politics compared, Canadian and American politics compared, Canadian and American economies compared, British and U.S. military ranks compared, Chinese and English compared, Judaism and Christianity compared, and others. - SimonP 01:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup. - Jersyko talk 01:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - SimonP makes an excellent point. Explodicle 01:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, might need a little cleanup but otherwise it's worth keeping.Gateman1997 01:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Healthcare system. Edwardian 01:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Definitely do not merge into healthcare. That would totally muddle the healthcare article. 132.205.95.43 23:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • If there is any place where healthcare systems should be discussed and compared, it is in Healthcare system... which is an entirely different article than Health care. There are currently NO health care systems discussed or compared in Healthcare system, yet this one exists. Edwardian 00:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per SimonP. Article in question is actually quite NPOV given the subject matter. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Obviously needs cleaning up and has POV but is beneficial for outsiders to understand the views and beliefs.rasblue 02:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment although I don't think articles that compare and contrast various entities is strictly speaking "encyclopedic", there is alot of good work involved in this one. It will be interesting to come back to it in a couple days and see if any edits are applied that improve the current content. Hamster Sandwich 03:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful + true = encyclopedic, this seems to meet these standards, and is NPOV. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 03:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neither "usefulness" nor the existance of other overly detailed articles are criteria for inclusion. The level of detail of subarticles is almost bordering that of scholarly papers by now. This does not add to our credibility. / Peter Isotalo 11:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. How can an abundance of information affect an encyclopedia's credibility? Collecting and disseminating information is the whole point of this thing. 23skidoo 13:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
      • There is an extremely fine line between "abundance of information" and "excess of information" and every new article adds to the burden of those who have to verify it. That these kinds of nearly essay-like articles keep getting added at an ever increasing pace is going to make that burden so much harder to cope with. / Peter Isotalo 15:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. If we're going to worry about "excess of information" than we might as well stop contributing to Wikipedia now and consider it done. Zhatt 16:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep per User:SimonP, but add footnotes CanadianCaesar 21:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:SimonP. --Apyule 05:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. — J3ff 05:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The person who nominated this article is essentially a vandal/flamer, there's no reason to just let him go around deleting things he doesn't like, or can't successfully vandalize--172.154.221.179 14:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The points are well made. Has POV but with attention could be a useful article. zaw061 14:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The comparison is intrinsically political and seems designed to cheerlead Canada's health care system instead of offering even-handed analysis. Dottore So 20:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Dottoreso
    • So fix it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
      • If fixing it is possible. It's hard not for any article comparing the two systems to "appear" to "cheer" Canadian healthcare over the U.S. Even handed analysis of the two systems invariably will look like cheering since Canadian healthcare is virtually free. Gateman1997 01:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
        • If a NPOV, verifiable, even-handed analysis seems to favour the Canadian system, then why shouldn't it? If it would be POV and biased to try and make the analysis a draw, don't delete the article, admit that one side comes out smelling sweeter. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The 'politics' of the article is through omission. What is the rate of MRIs/patient in the US v. Canada (or Great Britain, France or India for that matter). What are the specialists/patient ratios, the number of teaching hospitals per capita, the number of GPs per capita? More to the point, why do we need such a comparison. Shall we compare Togo's health care system to that of Fiji? Or Myanmar's to Bangladesh? Or Spain's to Portugal? What useful information is here (mortality rates, for example) could be merged into the existing articles on Medicare (Canada), or the Canada Health Act. But this comparison, in my view, is flawed in its very premise. (I do not doubt, however, the sincerity and good intentions of the author.)Dottore So 16:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keepuseful information well presented--AYArktos 01:32, 11 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 07:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "the jennings effect"

A non-notable meme first uttered less than an hour prior to the creation of the article. Zoe 23:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If that doesn't classify as a neologism, I don't know what does. --IByte 23:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A massive thousand people movement within a day?, and how would you even know if a person (neverless 1000 people) quit smoking in that time? →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 23:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious neologism Soltak 23:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wishful thinking. -- BD2412 talk 01:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Osomec 06:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as day-old neologism. ral315 14:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Peter Jennings. Many people indeed have quit smoking following the death of Peter Jennings (for example, this news article [17]), but I'm not sure this needs its own article. --Revolución (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Another page created two days later [Jennings Effect] attracted no such discussion. Interesting ...

    • This page did not assert that thousands of people quits smoking, it simply said discussion of quitting was higher. Also, this page clearly makes the page in question obsolete, as it is better written and less presumptuos. Before someone suggests it, no redirect, because who is going to type in "The Jennings Effect", before Jennings Effect. →ubεr nεmo→ lóquï 15:58, August 12, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 18:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Occult Diseases

Opinion essay about insufficient attention to scurvy. FreplySpang (talk) 19:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Original Research. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Occult Scurvy Tonywalton 20:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Concur --Doc (?) 23:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Personal essay --malathion talk 00:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OR, some guy with an ax to grind. --Etacar11 00:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree, Delete, but a real article on occult diseases might be pretty interesting. Wegsjac 18:14, 11 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stem Cell Surgery

A typical example of how news reports become Wikipedia articles without much thinking. It advertises the unbelievable achievements of one person who has done something but only ten patients have been treated (PMID 15745776) without significant follow-up and this treatment is still in its very earliest stages. If this should be on Wikipedia at all, it should not be its own article. Delete. JFW | T@lk 16:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and there must be a way to perform Stem Cell Surgery in all sorts of organs. The content therefore does not reflect that title. JFW | T@lk
  • Keep after POV removal and rewrite. The tone is indeed too strong and balanced toward one specific treatment for a decent article, but the topic is both notable and relevant. --Several Times 18:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, I'll later strip it of its POV and merge it to stem cell. If you'll read the talk page, I've written just yesterday that the information in the article will go nicely in the stem cell article under potential uses, which already contains discussion of stem cell transplantion on the heart, spinal cord, etc. There is no need to delete this; the term is notable and useful. -D. Wu 18:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note chunks, if not 100%, of this article is copy and pasted from [18]. Sdedeo 18:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Revolución (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with regular stem cell page. It hasn't been developed enough to warrant it's own page, nor does it pertain to surgery in general. The only press it has received is on article on the Beeb [[19]] Barneygumble 18:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to stem cell. No original research. Alex.tan 05:15, August 11, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 00:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Character displacement

I'm not sure what to make of this - it appears to be either original research or spam. Alphax τεχ 10:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • merge to article on evolution. This appears to have some validity, but there is little content here. The links don't work, by the way. ManoaChild 12:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup/Expand or Merge with Evolution. Google search for "Character displacement" +evolution has over 10,000 hits. Eclipsed 12:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I change my vote to STRONG KEEP. It's a fine stub. Eclipsed 16:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic evolution. Kappa 12:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Owwwww! (grin) Weak keep based mainly on Duncharris' comment below. Barno 01:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - leave room for expansion. We have too few science articles and too many on TV shows and primary schools as it is. Google scholar has plenty of hits. The concept makes sense to this trained biologist at least. Whatever you do, Do not merge with evolution - it's far too specific for that. Dunc|☺ 16:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete its a lecture! Yes, there are problems with other articles being kept, but that should not be an excuse to drag down the quality of all of wikipedia. Probably falls under origional research based on the reference. If kept it really, really needs a rewrite. Vegaswikian 05:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The link to Duke University lecture you mean? I added that in after the article was created, as an example of the 10,000+ pages I found on the topic. I leave it to others to find better links. Eclipsed 17:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Eh? This is a fine stub. Keep. Sdedeo 07:44, 9 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Occult Scurvy

It appears to be original research. The list of references at the end of the article states that "Of the 15,000,000 research papers on the National Library Medicine electronic database...None mentions or hypothesises occult scurvy, or connects occult with scurvy." Joyous (talk) 23:41, August 7, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 12:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rivulet

dicdef. DS 16:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - dicdef already in Wiktionary. Tobycat 17:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Kushboy 21:28, August 7, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics and God

A hopelessly POV list of quotes where mathematicians proclaim their belief in God. Not encyclopedic. I've done the transwiki just now. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 08:33, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Pages like this shall not be left undeleted!--Exir KamalabadiCriticism is welcomed! 09:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, very one-sided. Yes, I believe in God, but I don't believe in POV quote lists. =P Xaa 09:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above. I don't see how such a list could be useful to anyone. Mistercow 10:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Emphatic Delete, a list of quotes by delusional superstitious mathematicians is no use to anyone jamesgibbon 14:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Any list of quotes is unencyclopedic, unless it has been redefined recently. Pavel Vozenilek 16:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, transwiki to wikiquote - I do think by mathemeticians about God are interesting, but it is a... collection of quotes... Sirmob 18:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Perhaps the author might elaborate on how 1 = 3 ? Dunc|☺ 18:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV. Possible for wikiquote, though. Eclipsed 22:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. Interesting but POV nevertheless --Dysepsion 23:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV. Very one-sided and not informative in any way. 22:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.177.98.109 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep. I fail to be persuaded by any of the arguments above. It is not just a list of quotes; quotes are given for about half of the people mentioned. It is indeed POV, but that is not a valid ground for deletion in my reading of WP:DP. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • … and rename per CSTAR below. Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. The name itself is POV. Mathematics and deities or Mathematics and religion would be more appropriate, I think. --CSTAR 15:18, 8 August 2005
  • Keep but Improve. I agree with CSTAR that the title is POV, as is most of the article. However, I believe that with an overhaul, it could be a valuable article. I suggest the moving of this to Wikiquote and the construction of an article dealing specifically between spiritual beliefs of mathematicians and ideas relating math and religion. The Swami 09:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but Improve. There is a long history of mathematicians speculating on the nature of god - speculation is their job - and the idea of god is entangled with the idea of infinity which mathematicians can be said to have a particular viewpoint on. Care needs to be taken with deciding whether the quoted mathematicians are truly talking about a deity which they believe in or whether they are using the term 'god' as a shorthand for a non-religious concept. -- Spondoolicks 10:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but move to something like "Mathematicians and God" --Henrygb 15:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like an interesting topic to me, and could be expanded upon. For example I think I might add Paul Erdos's quote about God's book of theorems, perhaps Einstein's quote that God doesn't play dice. Would perhaps be better as a list, and could stand a bit of cleanup. I see no valid reason for deleting this article. Certainly POV is not a valid reason, POV is fixable, only articles which can't be fixed are to be deleted. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy. At any event, the content should definitely be preserved somewhere. Paul August ☎ 19:17, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Georg Cantor made great contributions to mathematics, which he himself related to GOd in an interesting way, which could definitly be described in an encyclopaedic style. (Article could use some improvement, though.) --R.Koot 19:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after some cleanup. Oleg Alexandrov 23:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Mathematical beauty, which already has some God-related stuff along with more general content. SpuriousQ 01:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but Rename. It's interesting and recurring topic (I don't get how a collection of opinions can be POV). By the way, where does the quote "natural numbers are from god, everything else is by man" come from? Samohyl Jan 05:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe it's due to Leopold Kronecker. Dmharvey Image:User_dmharvey_sig.png Talk 12:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cleanup issue. Pcb21| Pete 11:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps rename and/or merge, and adjust for POV. I am speaking as a completely unreligious (even anti-religious) mathematician. It's a very interesting start for a very interesting historical topic and should be expanded. Dmharvey Image:User_dmharvey_sig.png Talk 12:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A collection of quotes belongs into an encyclopedia exactly why?
    • As the data for an article. Keep. Septentrionalis 19:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Not an article. NPOV. Quotation collection. Positive: mathematicians, history. Negative: no context, unverified (?) quotations, missing Taoists (and Muslims, etc.), no finite bounds, potentially highly offensive to followers of IPU. Consider this quotation about Newton's occultism: "Newton was not the first of the age of reason, he was the last of the magicians." — John Maynard Keynes. But the page not only assumes existence of a "God", it lumps the "God" of Newton with the "God" of Erdös, which is absurd. KSmrq 11:01, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
  • Comment: What I seem to be seeing generally here is delete votes because the article is just a collection of quotes and is POV, and keep votes because the history of mathematics in relation to religion is a valid history subject. What I propose is move this article to something like Mathematics and Religion or Mathematics and Spirituality and turn it into an article on the historical relation between the two. Or just start a new article at one of these places and remove this one. How does that strike y'all? The Swami 17:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Could someone explain exactly why they believe that the title "Mathematics and God" is POV? Would it be better if we put quotes around the word "God"? The title "Mathematics and deities" sounds wrong to me. It is not clear to me that the article is talking about several gods. I would guess that with the possible exception of Plato, all the quotes here are talking about a monotheistic notion of "God". "Mathematics and religion" also sounds wrong to me, it is not about religion (or spirituality) per se. It seems to me that this article is about an idea. An idea, as expressed by several famous mathematics, about the relationship between mathematics and the notion of a supreme being they called "God" — perhaps seriously, perhaps metaphorically, perhaps jokingly. And in so doing, I would guess, they were also trying to say something important, about mathematics and its relationship to the world we live in. I think, the fact that these mathematicians thought this idea was important, means it is important, if only for the reason that they thought so. Their idea is certainly POV, our writing about their idea is not. Paul August ☎ 19:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
It's not the title by itself that causes the problem. The POV is caused more by title plus current first paragraph:
A number of famous mathematicians have made connections between mathematics and God, often likening God to a mathematician.
Taken together, these could be read to imply a POV that a God exists. Now, I don't actually read it this way, rather I see this use of the word "God" as a literary device to denote a concept that the average reader will be familiar with, regardless of the beliefs about God that the reader holds. Nevertheless, I think the first reading is quite plausible for many of our readers, and the paragraph is therefore unacceptable as it stands. I would support keeping the current title if the first paragraph was changed so that the overall POV effect was eliminated. Dmharvey Image:User_dmharvey_sig.png Talk 20:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I've made a few changes along these lines. Dmharvey Image:User_dmharvey_sig.png Talk 20:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it would certainly be POV for Wikipedia to be asserting the existence of "God". And I can see given what Dmharvey has said above that the article and title could be read as doing that. David, has now changed the first paragraph to read:
A number of famous mathematicians have made connections between mathematics and various notions of God.
I hope this has eliminated that particular POV concern. Paul August ☎ 20:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
If this is about Mathematics, not mathematicians, where is the formal definition of God? What is the status of the "proofs" mentioned? Are the proofs Constructive? A serious mathematician might view these questions differently from a pulpit preacher or a lay member of the congregation. When Intelligent Design advocates are trying to revise one's science curriculum, one can get twitchy about such sloppiness; it's no longer harmless fun. We (mathematicians) know the proofs are nonsense; they don't. Is there something about the word "God" that causes us to abandon encyclopedia standards? Try this: Substitute Satan or Invisible Pink Unicorn for God and decide if you would still keep the article. Wouldn't you want more confirmation, more context, more discussion, more balanced views? --KSmrq 05:12, 2005 August 19 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some of the items are quotes, but the pseudo-quote attributed to Paul Erdös is not exactly a quote. It could be made more encyclopedic, but I see no reason to delete. The article does not (at the present time) seem to be non-NPOV. Arthur Rubin 22:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with comments from User:Paul August. This is a topic that is distinct from any questions about sacred geometry or any other topics in the Category:Philosophy of mathematics. As with certain other VfD's, I am deeply concerned that people who never contribute to math or physics articles (and presumably also don't think much about God in particular or philosophy in general) feel competent to pass judgement on an article outside of thier expertise. linas 23:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and there certainly should be quotes from Cantor and Russell; the second should help the PoV concern ;-> Septentrionalis 20:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment whatever happens, the content from the "Beauty and mysticism" section of Mathematical beauty needs to move here or the content here should be moved there. Personally I think it would work well to have all this content under the Mathematical beauty article (I already voted merge to there above). SpuriousQ 21:59, 18 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zheng Ji

  • Delete- I couldn't find anything at the Nanjing University site in English (my Mandarin is shaky), and there was nothing definitive on him in Google(is he Li Zheng-Ji?) Please expand and explain why he's notable, or this isn't worth an article.Karmafist 14:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, he's 105 years old, must know something about nutrition. Did you look at his article in the Chinese wikipedia? Kappa 15:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Nope, I'll check it out now. Questionable notability is always a grey area, but questionable notability and stub-ness are grounds for deletion in my book. I just hope my Chinese Lessons last year don't fail me now...Karmafist 03:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I consider anyone who is over 100 years old to be notable.Gateman1997 16:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I hope you're not serious... there's over 56,000 centenarians in the USA alone, and they're the fastest-growing segment of the population. It's certainly a cool life achievement, but not an encyclopedic one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually I was serious. Living to 100 years old makes you notable enough for NBC news. Wikipedia shouldn't be any different with regard to people who live that long.Gateman1997 17:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Please provide any indication that NBC news reports on 100 year birthdays of non-famous people. And don't count local affiliates. -R. fiend 17:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Well besides the fact he is notable per below, the Today show has reported 100 year birthdays for years.Gateman1997 23:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Al Roker reports on 100 year birthdays less for notability than for color.Karmafist 03:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless anyone can explain/verify notability (and "he's over 100!" is the most patheic excuse for notability ever). -R. fiend 17:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • *Sigh* "He is considered the founder of modern nutrition science in China" makes him notable, did you look at his article in the Chinese wikipedia? Kappa 19:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I Just read the Chinese article(at least most of it and translated the rest in Babel Fish), and in 'that' article, I think he's notable. Centenarians alone aren't, but Centenarians who are active college professors and founded the first biochemistry graduate program in China among some other things are. The English article stub should be deleted in my opinion and the Mandarin article should be translated directly to replace the stub(I forgot to put in signature, Karmafist 22:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete', per Karmafist's reasoning. There are so many people over 100 that they are not notable. Supercentenarians on the other hand may be rare enough to be notable :). Thue | talk 18:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He is considered the founder of modern nutrition science in China by whom? Cite a reference, please. Kappa, if you're able to read and understand his entry in the Chinese Wikipedia, perhaps you can help with this. As mentioned above by Andrew Lenahan, being a centenarian alone is not enough. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete notability not established, --Tim Pope 20:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, adequately notable jamesgibbon 22:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. Pburka 00:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewritten article, Abstain. I translated the Chinese article and put the result in the English one. He had a long career as a professor and an administrator but I'd more likely vote Keep if he had made some scientific discoveries. Translating the article was a good exercise for me so I won't mind if it gets deleted. I also won't mind if someone wants to touch it up. --Beirne 03:39, August 15, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Barnes (recreation of A. Barnes)

Delete. No more notable than your average college professor, fails WP:PROF. In fact, the Uni's website lists no course in Physics, so I wonder what's going on here. Clearly he's not employed there for his prowess in relativity and Google finds about 50 hits for "Alan Barnes" physicist. -Splash 01:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

NOTE:The two articles here are identical and for the time being I've redirected the abbreviated one to the full one.-Splash 01:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone comes up with a list of his published work. Hamster Sandwich 01:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, maybe I found the wrong A. Barnes on the web? The one I have in mind has 13 entries in the exact solutions book. (See the citations for the exact solutions article.) Any information appreciated. Also, please compare List of contributors to general relativity with the bibliography of MTW or the exact solutions book to assure yourself that I plan to discuss only some of the LEADERS in this field over the past 80 odd years.---CH (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too sure where you're pointing here. Exact solutions is a redirect to an evidently relevant article that doesn't mention Barnes, and List of contributors to general relativity was only created today (with this particular gent added by you). Why is he teaching at a new university (mind my POV there) that appears to offer no courses in the numerate sciences, let alone physics? -Splash 02:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Not notable, I have tens of thousands of Google hits and over twenty novels to my credit and I damn well don't see my bio on Wikipedia yet. ;-) Xaa 01:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Bang goes your pseudonymity (and don't forget to put quotes around your name when Googling...) -Splash 04:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • LOL! Wasn't trying to hide to begin with, I *always* use 'Xaa' as an online pen-name. It's even in my e-mail addy.
         ;-) Xaa 04:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn professor cv cruft. --Etacar11 04:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Splash and all, please bear with me. First, I emphasize again that I did have high standards for the persons I included in my list (others have added some other people I am trying to have moved to more appropriate lists). "The exact solutions book" is the monograph by Stephani et al. cited in Exact solutions in general relativity; this monograph is widely regarded as a standard reference in this field.
If you have an account on the arXiv you can check that Alan Barnes of Acton University has quite a few papers there, so the Barnes I described certainly does publish research papers on gtr. I'd caution you against assuming that someone employed at a university which doesn't offer physics courses cannot have an active research career in physics, since this Alan Barnes is obviously a counterexample! Academic jobs are hard to come by (especially in Britain, or so I am told), so some talented persons may choose to accept a seemingly inappropriate teaching job in order to remain in the profession in which they have been highly trained. Also, on occasion, quite distinguished retired professors have been known appointments with small colleges, simply so that they can teach from time to time.
Nonetheless, I now guess the A. Barnes I had in mind is an older person by the same name, and yes, I should have checked more carefully that I had the right A. Barnes. I have tried to contact by email Alan Barnes from Acton University to see if I can clarify this situation. I may may not have made a mistake, but if so, it was an honest mistake. (What does "cruft" mean?)
I think the best fix would be to let me correct the page once I have information about the A. Barnes cited in the monograph (some of these papers are widely regarded as important), rather than simply deleting it.---CH (talk) 22:33, 7 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP as a redirect. -Splash 22:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear_pollution

Very POV. A commentary. Not enough to salvage and merge with anything. Kushboy 07:35, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as original research/essay. Terminally POV. There wouldn't be anything left once it was excised. - Lucky 6.9 07:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Purificare and mergere with radioactive waste. --Merovingian (t) (c) 08:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a redirect. User Alex Bakharev has now turned it into a redirect to Nuclear waste which is a logical destination should anyone search on this term. Tobycat 20:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a redirect. Xaa 22:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a redirect. Punkmorten 23:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I support the redirect, but that should not have been done until the VfD was closed. -- Visviva 10:24, 8 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 06:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperdynamics

This page has been made for advertising purposes and is disguised as an article. Check the pages history. cheese-cube 13:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete clever attempt at hiding advertising...though difficult to see what good it would have done for the company. Tobycat 21:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising! Salsb 02:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious delete.→Encephalon | ζ | ∑ 12:51:44, 2005-08-07 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Cleo (1958)

This article is improperly designated and is a direct duplicate of a section of another article. The article duplicated is here: Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1961-present.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • What article? Punkmorten 23:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is an article on another Hurricane Cleo, but this appears to be a different storm. Since nominator didn't specify what article this allegedly copies, I'm voting keep, though it does need to be wikified. Changing vote to delete as duplicate. For some reason I had the impression the two articles were on different events. My original point remains that improperly formatted articles are not a criteria for deletion, however. Be bold. 23skidoo 23:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Kappa 00:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Did anyone actually read the article instead of just looking at the title? The article on Hurricane Cleo and the article up for deletion are, as the nominator said, on the exact same subject. Delete the dupe. FCYTravis 01:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Hurricane Cleo and redirect. This has different information. There's no reason to bring this to VFD; a merge and redirect will solve the problems fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:54, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
  • Delete. No merging or redirecting from this article should be performed because it is a copy/paste job from "Catastrophic" etc article mentioned in the VFD header. Delete it for being a duplication of data, and merge info into the real article. It's also incorrectly named (it's about the 1964 storm, not 1958). I would speedy it if I had caught it before E. Brown did, it has no business existing. --Golbez 04:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete information and redirect. Keep link if a proper page can be made with sufficient information, but this is the wrong storm!!! CrazyC83 19:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no reason at all to keep the link. Hurricane Cleo in 1958 was an extremely powerful storm - but never came close to land. See so for yourself: [20]. The article should be purged with prejudice and the creator should be chided. --Golbez 20:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Am I allowed to vote, be it that I am the accuser?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:19, 14 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 21:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Life-threatening

Dicdef. JFW | T@lk 15:53, 4 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Material classification

The informative content of any potential article is covered elsewhere (excepting Chlorinated, Oxidized, and Cyclized rubber; if they are in my Inorganic text, I can create at least stubs for those articles), so nothing is gained by aggregating here. Also, the pagetitle is misleading - a systematic list of every characterization and classification technique for every possible material would be completely untenable and not even all that useful. Also also, this reads like something jotted on a large palm before a test. Eldereft 22:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this steaming pile of gobbledy-goop. It is virtually incomprehensible and it would take a materials scientist to make some sense of it. Better just to start over. — RJH 15:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. There's nothing here worth saving. Delete. --Polynova 19:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Eldereft. --Howcheng 19:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - DavidWBrooks 14:03, 8 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lego-Prosthesis

Very close to patent nonsense, but perhaps not quite there yet. Tupsharru 21:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Does not seem to be verifiable. I have found some references to working models of human hands made out of Lego, but no indication that they are seriously considered as prosthesis. ManoaChild 23:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but BJADON the talk page "These facts are facts about actual facts." Robert A West 23:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax, there is no such thing as a prosthesis made out of legos and certainly Vietnam Vets aren't getting ones that say "What are you looking at? Wanna fight?" Xaa 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Trying to think of a reason this can be speedied, as it's downright stupid to keep stuff like this for 5 days, but alas, I fear we must. Delete. -R. fiend 23:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and before anyone votes to BJAODN this, please keep in mind that at least one admin does not count such votes as deletes, so if even 25% of the votes are BJAODN, the article could fail to meet consensus and be kept. -R. fiend 00:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. --Etacar11 01:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's nowhere near funny. -Splash 01:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a veteran of both Franco-Prussian wars, who relies on his Lego knees, I encourage this page's continuation. -FranzJoseph 01:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC) (Vote actually by 68.48.216.25 (talk • contribs))
  • Keep. It's a keeper. BJADON!!! (Unsigned vote by 207.237.204.113 (talk • contribs), first edit)
  • Keep.First off how would someone from the University of Bristol even know what funny is? I vote we speedily delete Senior Splahes Vote For Deletion. Plese see article---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splash%27s_Vote_for_Deletion_on_the_Article_Lego-Prosthesis (Unsigned vote by 151.201.136.93 (talk • contribs))
  • BAJDON this except for the Lego hand bit at the end which appears legitimate so Merge that with the main Lego article. 23skidoo 04:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You understand that such a move will result in keeping this article as a redirect, per the rules of the GFDL? Also, if you plan to vote BJAODN, we have recently learnt that it is necessary to be explicit and indicate whether you mean "keep and copy to BJAODN" or "delete and copy to BJAODN". -Splash 04:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete and immediately not really funny. The fact that someone involved has been deleting votes on this page and adding anonymous votes pretty much proves that it isn't legitimate. should have a wikipedia page Don't Feed the Trolls. delete quick.--Darkfred 14:37, 5 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 07:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nutrient premix

  • You've got to be kidding me... Actually the way it is right now is fine. I can live without the link. Nutrient premixes are a billion dollar industry world-wide.

This was posted by User:Markfanion, who has created a row of articles which look like ads for the company Fortitech. In the case of this article the link to fortitech has already been removed, but I still think the rest of the article sound like an ad, saying how difficult premixes are to make. Thue | talk 20:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this because, apart from the nominator, all those who voted are relatively new accounts. Another five days discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed the link in an attempt to un-commercialize it, but the overall content is still lacking. I'll go with the Delete. --Several Times 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • weak Keep. I would prefer a revise-and-expand since there is a flourishing industry of premade crud. Not my area of expertise, though. Eldereft 22:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Informational tool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CompanyProfiler2002 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:59
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 12:51, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NILU

  • Our staff? We have specialized? Sounds like advertising to me. The extra hy-phens indicate a cut-and-paste job, so it might even be a copyvio. Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 11:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep : National level research lab. Needs cleanup though. Manik Raina 14:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but hideously written. I can't find the copyvio I feel it must be on their website, however (though some sentences are copy-pastes, others are not). -Splash 23:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. As a national reseach institution it is notable but needs wikifying and cleanup of POV. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but needs major help. --Etacar11 01:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepMay still need some wikifying, though I have given it a hand, also I think I can make a Norwegian version of it. --Finn Bjørklid 8 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:42, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eyal Tarazi

Dentistry instructor. 3 Google hits. Possible vanity.

lots of issues | leave me a message 15:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Noble work no doubt, but not notable on a global scale. Agentsoo 17:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Whether a doctor, basketball player, photographer, or janitor, you've got to be notable or at the top of your field to merit a biographical article. Notability not established here. Tobycat 21:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -Splash 23:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 01:49, 6 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Science today

POV essay. No factual content to be salvaged. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. POV rant. ManoaChild 04:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I also suspect copyvio, but I guess it's from some page too new to be indexed by google. <drini ☎> 05:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No original research, though I wonder if it's just nonsense. Alex.tan 05:12, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, reeks of Time Cube. --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you all mad? copyright violation? too new to be indexed by google? no original research? "I guess..." - "..just nonsense.." It is clear that none of you have any idea what you are talking about; sadly --peter 06:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC) -- unsigned comment by Verbewarp (talk • contribs), author of the article. Verbewarp's nine edits are all to the article, the article's talk page, or this VfD.
    • Verbewarp, from your comments here and at Talk:Science today, it seems you're misunderstanding at least some of the comments that recommend deletion. In particular, your essay is not being criticized for containing "no original research"; it is being criticized because it violates Wikipedia's principle of no original research. Your article is a very detailed explanation of what your opinion is and why you hold it; there is absolutely nothing wrong with you holding that opinion, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with you sharing that opinion. However, there is a problem with you using Wikipedia's resources to try and share and promote that opinion, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and sharing your opinion is not the purpose for which Wikipedia allowed you the use of its resources. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus Feldspar - Your comments are accepted - But, please explain "I also suspect copyvio" Please explain "No original research, though I wonder if it's just nonsense. " Please explain "reeks of Time Cube." etc., etc.

Your comments are not consistent with the deeds in evidence and you are misunderstanding the nature of your own judgemental issues. Let me explain to you that this submission under Verbewarp has been a test of the intgerity of the Wikipedia process - not an intention to publish, although cloaked in that guise. This article was taken from my blog to be found at http://verbewarp.blogspot.com/ as purely a test case. This test case has arisen due to a number of other rejections and judgements posted by your colleagues - upon other matters. The result is that your active judges are mostly and clearly unqualified and inexperienced individuals inflated to egoistic status embedded in a high level of arrogance and misunderstanding of their own abilities and the issues at stake.

Science can never be consensual - that idea is ludicrous - and this type of "peer" review appears to be derived from the "lowest common denominator" of social attainment; the beginning of life processes rather than from lives hoary with sagecity and experience. As a consequence of this test, my students and colleagues are to be issued with a warning notice as to the integrity of Wikipedia - or lack of it - that is not to say that Wikipedia will be black listed but more framed in an aspect of suspected oversight that needs strong referencing for support. Or, use only as a last resort but only if supporting evidence can be established from other more reliable sources.

Nothing personal about your intentions to create something useful, but before embarking on such adventures that have such huge and serious social implications, particularly for the unsuspecting youth, and in light of this site becoming a social point of reference and therefore a possible milestone for intellectual reference, I would strongly recommend that you all review the implications and possible damage that this effort, built in flawed and thoughtless conception, will bring upon our civilization. Wikipedia is a technology which is posing as a vault of intellectual knowledge and far better that there should be warning to your Users that the information contained within comes from a self appointed group of unqualified and inexperienced individuals acting out judgemental roles in some sort of immatured order. Far better that you train those that judge. far better that Wikipedia clearly declare itself a purely a store for societal storage or warehouse for trivia.

My article 'Science today' should have given you some clue as to where this was taking you as it sketches the basics of what and why general mainstream science today has no integrity and no future. You missed the point due to the fact that you didn't take time to consider the article, finding the construction thereo, uncomfortable and painful to your delicate and spoiled minds. This is no insult. Aristotle wrote of this over 2000 years ago, quite clearly and yet it persists today - rote, imitation and practise. You failed to adjudicate correct and according to your own rules. You took delite with insult. You alleged slander knowing that you couldn't be held responsible. You failed.

Your efforts will build more "dogma" in this world already overflowing with the emotional sewage of the wanabees and false pretenders and as a consequence will Wikipedia only assists in furthering the destruction or devolution of human achievement - dogma and practised thinking together with immatured opinion represents a danger to civilization more horific in its footprint than war; atomic war.

To teach would be more worthy of your time than to record.

I wish you all well but I would strongly suggest that you reconsider your future and priorities. This effort that si Wikipedia - just ain't worth wasting your lives on! Verbewarp --peter 06:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. silly rave Mccready 06:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT Sec. 1.3, in its entirety, but particularly 1.3.3 and 1.3.4, applies here. The Literate Engineer 06:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as dull rant. Oooh, I wonder whether my vote will be accepted! Agentsoo 13:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a messy, convoluted rant which has no place here. --Several Times 13:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A 1373-word article that literally tells the reader nothing and is so dull it's actually painful to read. Xaa 17:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per astute observations above. Hamster Sandwich 17:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Merovingian, the first thing I thought of was Time Cube, and then a small portion of my brain exploded. Jason 18:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research--BirgitteSB 18:22, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete D. J. Bracey (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV/O.R. --Etacar11 01:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • "And the meek shall inherit the Earth" - They did and they guard their dogma well. Thank you all for your contributions, Verbewarp --peter 22:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC) -- unsigned comment by Verbewarp (talk • contribs), author of the article. Ten of Verbewarp's twelve edits are to the article, the article's talk page, or this VfD.
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 19:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional physicians

Does a list of fictional physicians have any relevance to anything? No. Delete now. It does not belong on wikipedia. --Differentgravy 12:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep It gets 165 google hits. 'nuf said 212.101.64.4 16:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • So what? "Pink Fluffy Bunnies" gets over 3700 hits on Google, and I made that phrase up just now. Delete, the list verges on pointlessness. Xaa 18:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - relevance. A good score of people have added to this, but the only link:to on Google appears to be someone else's copy of the same list.
    • Sorry, new. Eldereft 17:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems odd to be accept the relevance of a list of fictional military people, a list of fictional postal employees, a list of fictional alcoholics, a list of fictional computers, and even a list of fictional characters with one eye but say that a list of fictional physicians is irrelevant. Jason 18:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment You're right - if someone nominates a list of fictional characters with one eye, I'll probably vote it off the island, too. ;-) Xaa 18:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • One-eyed characters are very important in fiction, and have been so since the times of ancient Greece. CanadianCaesar 21:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Jason. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 18:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The deletion of this article shouldn't even be up for discussion. D. J. Bracey (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy keep; this nomination doesn't appear to contend that the article satisfies Wikipedia's deletion policy. Brighterorange 19:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The nomination is according to policy, and the given criteria aren't all-inclusive. WP:FAITH. Also, keep but convert to category. Radiant_>|< 13:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep keepy keep. Splendid wiki list article Robinh 19:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its purpose is clearly defined in the title. It's interesting, if a little long and cluttered up with General Hospital characters. Just needs a bit of a tidy-up. Flowerparty talk 20:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as fitting WP:DEL criterion of "Completely idiosyncratic non-topic". The Literate Engineer 20:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree it can be cut down a little and defined a little better, but it works and can be of some use. Notable characters included. CanadianCaesar 21:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep some lists about fictional ... (fill in) may be irrelevant, but this one isn't and neither are the others mentioned in this VFD. - Mgm|(talk) 23:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep take an aspirin and lie down. JamesBurns 05:33, 7 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Deletion_sorting_Science_and_medicine_Closed_d051.html"