Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Log/2005-10-29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 2005-10-29

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 Keep per nomination withdrawl. Xoloz 04:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portals in Wikispace

There are a lot of portal pages left in Wikipedia namespace. Since we now have a portal namespace, they should be moved there. See this link. Radiant_>|< 11:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn. Radiant_>|< 22:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose per the very top of Wikipedia:Wikiportal NOTE: There is now a formal Portal namespace - see WP:PORTAL. If your Wikiportal is designed as a reader-aid, please place it in the portal namespace. If it is an editor-aid, keep it at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Subject. The Portal namespace is for reader orientated portals, and not all portals should be there. There is discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal. Steve block talk 13:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose but not for the above reasons. I feel the distinction between reader-aid and editor-aid has lost all meaning and should be accordingly abandoned. At Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal we are currently discussing ideas for the establishment of new standards and guidelines for Portals. One point I think is generally agreed upon is the moving and restraing to Wikipedia namespace of sub-standard Portals. Thus, those under construction will naturally be found in Wikipedia namespace before being migrated to Portal namespace (provided they meet standards). Besides that, I don't quite understand this nomination. Radiant acknowledges that a Portal namespace has been created for Portals, but wants to delete those not already there? If it was a concern, a proposal should have been made to either Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal or Wikipedia talk:Portal to move them. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Entirely - everything that Cyberjunkie has said. Proposisng something for deletion without discussing it in the relevant talk page is just stupid, and there is absolutely no way that "sub-standard" (we are yet to confirm exactly what defines "sub-standard") portals should be allowed onto the Portals namespace. Current opinion is that a number of portals in the namespace should not be there due to lack of quality/substance/potential - proposing the addition of more Portals, all likely to be sub-standard, is sheer lunacy. Deano 18:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons given above and more. As the WPian probably most responsible for the concept of the creation of the portal namespace (although Tim Starling was, I believe, the one who did the work in the actual mechanical creation, for which I am very grateful), may I offer a few words on its purpose. The Portal namespace is a user namespace - that is, it is for the general public rather than editors, although, unlike the main namespace, advertisements to relevant WikiProjects and encouragements to contribute to Wikipedia, as long as they are discreet, are okay. But it is essentially for user-facing, good quality portals. Nascent portals and substandard portals should remain in the Wikipedia namespace until they are ready to go live. Coincidentally, as the WPians above have noted, there is currently a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal discussing the quality of what is in the Portal namespace, with a view to using it only for portals that meet a certain quality threshold. I think further discussion is better off carried on there, jguk 19:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't say I wanted them deleted (yes, yes, it's mfD, but several ?fD pages also deal with other kinds of maintenance at times). But thanks for the explanation. I hope that the portals here can get improved or removed on an individual basis. Radiant_>|< 22:31, 31 October 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 TRY AGAIN. I'm not happy moving anything or deleting anything on the basis of this, very small, debate. Additionally, the Wikispace pages haven't been tagged (nor have the subcats: are they for deletion, too?). I think a renomination, probably at CfD is the best course of action. -Splashtalk 21:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia image galleries and in particular its Wikispace subpages

This category lists literally dozens of image galleries (pages with no content other than pictures) within Wikipedia namespace. Now while I certainly won't endorse deleting all those images, this way of using them seems hardly productive. Some possibilities include 1) moving to Wikicommons; 2) merging such galleries with related articles; 3) moving all galleries to MAINspace rather than Wikispace; or 4) something else. Please give me your opinion. Radiant_>|< 09:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Any image found on a Wikipedia:List of images subpage should be moved to Commons, because it has a free license. Commons is indexing all of its pictures by topic, and it makes little sense to have two different indexes when there could be one big one.
  • Galleries of non-free pictures, such as Wikipedia:Pictures from snp.org, should be converted to subcategories of Category:Images by copyright status, to make it easy to deal with these groups in bulk as the need may arise to convert, replace, or re-license them. These should be categories, not gallery pages, so that the group tag will be added to the image description page.
  • All the pages associated with WikiProject Drugs should be kept, since they are just temporary scaffolding. They can be put into Category:WikiProject Drugs if the gallery category is being eliminated.
  • Galleries already in the main namespace should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis on WP:AFD, if anyone cares to do so. Some of them are quite well-annotated, and/or do a good job of picking representative photos that document a particular subject or topic, in a way which text alone wouldn't do very well. Some of them don't, and might be better indexed on Commons, if the licensing is compatible.
  • I think that should cover all the contents of this category; whether moving or keeping, care should be taken not to destroy any of the information represented by having these images grouped as they are. -- Beland 21:55, 30 October 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. Radiant_>|< 17:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Broken/ and subpages

This allpages link shows a small number of pages marked as 'broken'. While they do contain some weird unicode chars, they don't look all that broken to me. They are, however, abandoned and mostly pointless. Does anybody know what this is about? Radiant_>|< 22:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless explanation forthcoming, as useless. Xoloz 00:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I seem to remember brion mention that this would happen; I thought we had gotten rid of all of these. I believe these were broken when we converted en's metadata to Unicode during the upgrade to 1.5. These should be converted to pages without the "Broken/", unless there's an existing page with duplicative content, in which case they can be deleted. Most of them are archival, and should not be deleted outright, it looks like. And they will need to have their character issues fixed; just slap them with a cleanup tag if neccessary. -- Beland 22:08, 30 October 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Google is fact

"If it can't be found using Google it therefore doesn't exist. Any POV backed up with a superiour number of hits automaticly becomes the new truth." - I'd BJAODN it if I found it at all funny. It's kind of pointless and WP:NOT a jokebook. Radiant_>|< 22:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Pointless, likely to confuse anyone who can't get the "joke." It is supposed to be humorous, right? Xoloz 00:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Rossami (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. It isn't funny, and it supports the supremacy of Google.co.uk over the more often-used Google.com. --Idont Havaname 03:33, 3 November 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 Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject JFK assassination

  • Delete - This Wikiproject was previously VFD'ed, but no consensus was reached. It's been several months with no activity, can we delete this already? Staxringold 14:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - The project was only really kept on the grounds thatit could be started. But this has still not happened, and it can easily get to this form from scratch should anyone actually decided to do anything on this subject later. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Inactive Prashanthns 17:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sonic Mew. Xoloz 00:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sonic --Rogerd 05:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no need for WikiProjects that look like ghost towns. --Idont Havaname 03:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Didn't even do the template right. Ashibaka (tock) 01:15, 4 November 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 NO CONSENSUS. It appears some like the historical value, and there is already a bot request, so I'll drop a {historical} on them. -Splashtalk 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles which are number one for one word Google searches, Wikipedia:Google first-page results, Wikipedia:What Google liked, Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, A-K and Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits, L-Z

Unless we get a bot to do it, this is unmaintainable. I appreciate the fact that Wikipedia is famous and gets a lot of google hits, but this is not a useful way of indicating that. Radiant_>|< 11:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete This list is ugly, of very low utility, and, as nom. says, unmaintainable. Xoloz 17:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete All Vote amended to included all listed pages. Xoloz 00:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Unmaintainable and not particularly useful. This is mere trivia. Rossami (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all Unmaintainable. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia:Articles which are number one for one word Google searches can be merged with Wikipedia:Top 10 Google hits etc. But I find this information interesting, even if it is out of date. If you want to tag it as {{historical}}, that's fine, but there's no need to delete it. There's already a request on Wikipedia:Bot requests to update this information. -- Beland 01:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and get a bot, or robot-like human, to maintain it. It's of eminent importance, I humbly submit, because it shows what people most use Wikipedia for—and thus indirectly shows where we should allocate our limited resources, where our quality is highest, etc. And it's a great gauge of success overall. --zenohockey 19:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - tag as historical, put a request on the bot page, and forget about it until some botmeister is kind enough to update it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I rarely vote on AfDs, but these pages are just stupid. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's not overload Google's servers keeping it updated, with a bot or otherwise. I'm all for pages like Wikipedia:Awareness statistics, but these pages are pretty pointless. --Idont Havaname 03:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • del, for all the reasons for deleting already stated. encephalon 22:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ashibaka (tock) 01:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep at least Wikipedia:Articles which are number one for one word Google searches. I sometimes put things in. How Jew got into the list is significant - many of the others are just curious. --Henrygb 15:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the Template:mfd tag on the first page pointed at an empty discussion until I just redirected it. So strictly the clock should restart. I have not bothered with the other pages. --Henrygb 15:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as historical interest and tagged appropriately--A Y Arktos 20:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just found out about this and it provides some interesting information, can you keep it? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:43, 24 November 2005
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 No consensus and therefore the effect is to keep (Counting the nom there were 4 deletes out of 7 explicit votes). However the arguemnts for a merge seem reasonable, and anyone who wishes to be bold and simply carry out a merge to an approperite place could do so. DES (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Contingency Page For When The Main Wikipedia Server Is Down

While I appreciate the idea of this page, the irony is that when the server is down, this page won't actually appear (and we have a few MediaWiki messages that do). So it's really a bit pointless. Radiant_>|< 11:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom. says, useless. My contingency plan usually involves weeping and alcohol. :) Xoloz 17:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Many times the site is not down, but simply very slow. And many people may come across this page when the site is up, and bookmark the other page for reference when it is down, as I have done. How else would people know that this page exists? -- Beland 20:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps we could merge it to some Help or FAQ page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into one of the FAQ's, and Delete as self-negating. We have MediaWiki messages for this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, already covered by MediaWiki error messages. --Idont Havaname 03:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for bookmarking purposes as described on the page in question and as described above by Beland. —msh210 18:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Contingency Page For When The Main Wikipedia Server Is Down -- Zondor 19:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Superseded by MediaWiki messages. Superm401 | Talk 18:42, 13 November 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 Keep. Radiant_>|< 16:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit

For prior discussions of this page, see Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/2005-08-25, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency.

Orphaned/Defunct project has not been updated in a long time and no longer serves any useful purpose (if it ever did). Clean up of WP namespace by deletion. Agriculture 03:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Agriculture 03:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I moved this deletion here, because it was at AfD, and it was incomplete at AfD. In the process of doing so, I gained a new level of respect for admins and all people who know what they are doing! Wow, such a small move, so complicated! Xoloz 05:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I think the project has basically been abandoned, after the big dispute in September anyway. Xoloz 05:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Since a member has come forward with the hope of enlivening the project, changed to Weak Keep. Xoloz 07:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this project is either an oxymoron or a euphemism for something we will WP:NOT do. Pointless either way around. Radiant_>|< 11:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason for deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Prolonged inactivity isn't a reason? Xoloz 00:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I can't see why it would be. If it's inactive stick a historical tag on there and move on. 100+ pages link here; the content should be preserved for future reference. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Although the project has been rather inactive lately, I noticed that two editors have joined the project recently, one of them an admin. I also vote keep per above. I would be interested in couple of weeks (very busy in real world) in contacting some of the other members of the project to see if any of them are still at all interested in getting it going again. If none of the members care about the project, then it should be deleted. Banes 06:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously, as per Banes and Christopher.Voice of All Talk|@|Esperanza 17:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I just joined and am interested in getting involved. How many more times do we have to go through this? Just leave it alone.Gator(talk) 18:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This wikiproject serves no purpose and has done nothing to better Wikipedia... DELETE. Gateman1997 00:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This wikiproject is at it's most useful when it is serving no purpose and should be deleted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep it has yet to develop into what it can be...which is a basis of thought over what constitutes content which will ensure Wikipedia is the most respected on-line source of reference material available.--MONGO 21:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Frivolous VfD. If some people disapprove of explicit images on Wikipedia and want to organize themselves, it is their own business. (In addition, this appears to be a bad faith nomination from a disgruntled former member of the project.) Strong keep. - Mike Rosoft 13:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Erwin
  • Keep, important footnote in the history of the Wikipedia community. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this page and its subpages. While the keep voters (in particular, grm_wnr) bring up good points, we do have a policy against censorship that should be followed. We shouldn't be encouraging people to go against WP:NOT, as it has been well-established in our community. --Idont Havaname 02:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Whatever. Edit it if it bothers you so much. Ashibaka (tock) 20:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason for deletion. The project may be inactive now, but does that mean it has to be forever? Also seems a good idea to keep for future reference. -R. fiend 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no reason for deletion --Rogerd 23:00, 14 November 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. Moved to BJAODN, to be precise, since several people suggested that, even if I didn't find it all that funny. Radiant_>|< 17:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject hot chicks

This project is a sexist, mysognist disgrace to Wikipedia. It serves absolutely no purpose and is utterly offensive. Ambi 12:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; Bananas, this **** is. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 12:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yay! No more template signature for Merovingian! Delete in support fo that fact. Alphax τεχ 13:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • BJAODN This seems like a joke, and should be treated as such. Still, it seems weird to not have Merovingian's sig though. Karmafist 13:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm going to make it all one color, so I can see it better when I scroll down. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 15:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's not causing any disruption and it has a single well defined goal which goes hand in hand with the general goal of Wikipedia, to improve articles (see the Towel article for instance). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Isn't it possible to illustrate articles without being sexist? Ambi 12:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You know, you can start Wikipedia:Wikiproject hot males, if you want. :-) bogdan | Talk 13:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I think you dislike this project because you define hot chick too narrowly. A hot chick could be anything: a girl, a woman, a chicken, even obese men (see the project page). —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • What? You mean the page isn't just for humor? — Matt Crypto 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless they agree to include fat chicks as well. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Karynn, apparently weight isn't a problem as long as they're not cold -- that'd go in Wikipedia:Wikiproject cold chicks Karmafist 13:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In anatomy or other refernce books, when they show you the female body you won't see any drawings of fat women! bogdan | Talk 13:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course fat chicks are included (they're hot too!) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless we include fried chicks and chick nuggets as well. --Cool Cat Talk 13:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Remember that KFC doesn't fit in this. Contrary to popular belief, KFC products are not made out of chicken. bogdan | Talk 13:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll grant you that stuff like chicken nuggets might not be (haven't tried those), but the last time I went go KFC I ate some chicken wings that definitely had the bonestructure and meat of a chicken. How do you explain that? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Genetically engineered pigeons. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Amazing what the petrochemical industry can do these days, isn't it? :-) bogdan | Talk 13:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Chicken nuggets and fried chicks are hot chicks too;) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --HappyCamper 13:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This isn't sexist, how on earth is this sexist? In my opinion, this is just silly. --Friðrik Bragi Dýrfjörð 13:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Inherently POV - they havn't mentioned user page photos - and some of our editors look hot to me :-) --Doc (?) 13:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Try to keep Wikiprojects a bit serious OK? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy *fap* *fap* *fap* *fap* --Ryan Delaney talk 13:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN --Phroziac(talk) 13:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't support something as sexist as this. I know from first-hand experience of the KDE project that this is likely to push a lot of female editors away. chowells 13:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not due to sexism. It is just a load of nonsense. Xtra 14:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Where is the humour, people :(. Don't delete it, BJAODN it rather. -- SoothingR 14:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not especially funny, certainly no other merit. Xoloz 17:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. --Carnildo 03:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rossami (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. -- Beland 01:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think Ambi should chill out a bit as this clearly is just a bit of a joke, and a harmless one at that, but we don't need it, so delete, jguk 19:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep what a noble goal!  Grue  21:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I like it a lot. BJAODN. — Matt Crypto 22:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Making articles more visially appealing is an objective improvement to Wikipedia. Potential editors who are so sensitive as to be offended by this would certainly be reduced to quivering tears on encountering an actual controversy at some article like George W. Bush. Vonspringer 03:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Get a clue. Arguments over articles are necessary, and I'm as much a veteran of difficult areas as anyone. Sexist crap like this, on the other hand, is not necessary. Ambi 05:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I am admittedly not entirely serious with my vote. "Hot chicks" is a pretty ridiculous category. However, I do not think it's sexist, as I would certainly not be offended by a "hot guys" category. In fact, both could well serve as a rather harmless diversion from the occasionally intense battles elsewhere on Wikipedia. Regardless, I believe my point stands. The entire raison d'etre of this category is simply that attractive people are visually appealing in an encyclopedia, and I do not see how those who are offended to the point of leaving by this can function in an atmosphere of heated controversy. Sorry if I caused offense to you however, you were not the target. I was referring to the people chowells referred to above, those who would leave over something like this.Vonspringer 05:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Ambi, there is no place for this kind of objectifation on Wikipedia. We should be aiming for a factual, useful encyclopedia, not this Fark.com-esque nonsense. Cnwb 06:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete on the opinion that "hot chicks" is a broad, abstract, POV title that makes this WikiProject's focus unclear. Perhaps you should start a WikiProject on something like supermodels or Playboy Playmates instead. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN I can live with losing this from the WikiProjects, but if it doesn't at least stay in BJAODN, there's no justice in the world. Speaking of hot chicks, I've got a picture of a white bitch in nothing but her knickers. Chris talk back 05:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete silly --rob 05:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I added this to my watchlist earlier and think it's nice. Right now I'm leaning towards keep. If there's any evidence of this project leading to a real improvement in some articles, I'll agree more, but right now it does seem sort of unnecessary. Cookiecaper 06:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN and Delete silly --JAranda | watz sup 06:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN current version; I love it! Before that, it should have been deleted, no questions asked. --Idont Havaname 03:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but copy to BJAODN first - sure, it's funny, but WikiProjects should only be used for serious subjects. --Ixfd64 04:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- No censorship -- Test-tools 10:52, 4 November 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/s/Wikipedia%7EMiscellaneous_deletion_Log_2005-10-29_0c3b.html"