Wikipedia:Votes for deletion archive September 2004
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you want to nominate an article for deletion read this carefully.
If the latest nominations appear to be missing from this page, please purge the cache.
Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait five days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:
- Kept
- Deleted per the deletion policy
- Sent to Cleanup
- Merged and/or redirected to an existing article
- Transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or Wiktionary)
Things to consider:
- It is important to read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page.
- Use the "what links here" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Wikipedia.
- Please familiarize yourself with some frequently cited guidelines, in particular WP:BIO, WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC and WP:COI.
AfD etiquette:
- Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment.
- Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~.
- If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.
- Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
- Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.
However, as a third way, you may choose to add each AFD subpage day to your watchlist by clicking this link: Add today's AFD to watchlist
Current votes - 20th 19th 18th 17th 16th 15th edit
Old votes - 14th 13th 12th 11th 10th 8th 7th 2nd 31st 30th 29th 25th 24th 23rd 22nd 12th
Template:VfD frontmatter VfD was archived on 28 May. If you need to look at old history please see the history of Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_May_2004. Note that listings more than five days old should now be moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old.
See also Category:Pages on votes for deletion
Decisions in progress
September 15
There is no spoon -- Add to this discussion
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
Not worthy of its own page. The Matrix article already has a link to a page on Wikiquote with many Matrix quotes including this one. --Chessphoon 02:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete; agree on all points. Kbh3rd 02:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. --Yath 06:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Clearly, here "there is no article". Dictdef. Redirect to The Matrix. --Slowking Man 06:45, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Why not just redirect this to The Matrix article? Redirects are cheap, and discourage re-creation of the article. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't see people searching this. It's not much of a quote, either; about the most obvious Zen borrowing in the film. Geogre 13:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This phrase has entered popular culture, or at least is common in some circles. There is an article on All your base are belong to us, so why not this? Obviously, it needs expansion, but I think it can stand. Keep. Darksun 17:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't know if phrases ever belong in Wikipedia unless they have some kind of legal meaning or similar, but if they do, they need to meet a higher standard. --Improv 20:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect. That will discourage someone else from coming along later and remaking it unless they have enough material to add. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Whoah. Delete. Lacrimosus 02:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Perhaps Wikiquote, but I expect it's there already. Andrewa 07:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You mean, I can vote to Delete articles? --Lysol 14:36, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Don't try to delete the article. That's impossible. Just try to realize that there is no article.
- Redirect to The Matrix to prevent recreation and impress newbies with Wikipedia's powers. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect... as long as the original one is deleted first. - Cymydog Naakka 10:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- May I ask what damage the (sub)substub will do in the page history? Are you concerned with the wasted server space? Redirect. — David Remahl 10:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:16, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
GroupX -- Add to this discussion
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was REDIRECT
Redirect to Group X. 67.168.34.86 04:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: You can do that yourself, doesn't need VfD. I've gone ahead and put a redirect in anyway. Ianb 06:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- comment: can this be removed from the VfD page, as it wasn't actually requesting deletion? — Gwalla | Talk 16:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- With an IP nominating, there is very little way for us to ask or expect the nominator to remove the nomination, so I'd agree with removing this early. Anyone can do it, especially since the redirect has taken place. (I must say, however, that Group X didn't exactly set my eyes ablaze with joy.) Geogre 17:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Pesmard Vandigor -- Add to this discussion
Pesmard Vandigor: original work of fiction. Claimed to be part of the Toejam Jawallaby Usenet hoax, but Googling for "Pesmard Vandigor" gets 1 web hit (WP vfd page) and 0 Usenet hits. Toejam Jawallaby seems to have a life of his own, but Pesmard Vandigor was invented solely for the benefit of Wikipedia. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ficticious. --Yath 06:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: More of the hoax. Geogre 13:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 18:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Natoli Brothers -- Add to this discussion
Natoli Brothers: original work of fiction. Claimed to be part of the Toejam Jawallaby Usenet hoax, but Googling for Natoli Jawallaby yields 0 web hits and 0 Usenet hits. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. --Yath 05:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: More of the saga of Toejam. Geogre 13:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 18:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Zil Banthrop -- Add to this discussion
Zil Banthrop: original work of fiction. Claimed to be part of the Toejam Jawallaby Usenet hoax, but the biography as stated in Zil Banthrop is not attested in Usenet. The sole mention of Zil Banthrop, on the web or in Usenet, is a one-liner in which Rich Rosen claimed that the greatest tambourinist of all time was Zil Banthrop [1]. No biographical details are given, much less any evidence that the meme has been picked up by other people. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete --Yath 05:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: another tentacle of the hoax. Geogre 13:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 18:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comparison of instant messengers -- Add to this discussion
Qwertian slip -- Add to this discussion
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
Google shows no use of the word "Qwertian" in this manner -- Chuq 06:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Neologism. Delete - TB 09:34, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. SWAdair | Talk 10:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Not popular neologism. Without verification of its wider use, delete. Average Earthman 10:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: More articles on neural patterning, original research. Geogre 13:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. — Gwalla | Talk 16:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Interesting neologism (it made me smile), but a non-notable neologist nonetheless. Delete. • Benc • 07:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redir to Proofreading - form of typo. Davodd 12:54, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 18:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
No-boo -- Add to this discussion
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
-
- Tally:
- Delete (20) — Gamaliel, SWAdair, Geogre, Triskaideka, Terrapin, DJ Clayworth, Jayjg, Hadal, Bkonrad, Bcorr, Neutrality, Bobdoe, RickK, Spatch, Dpbsmith, Lacrimosus, Wolfman, andrewa, Gwalla, Chriscf.
- Keep (2) — Fish-man, Rex071404 (conditional)
- Neutral (0)
Delete. POV, copyvio, etc. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-encyclopedic coverage of a non-story. SWAdair | Talk 10:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: More political campaigning in the pages of Wikipedia. Geogre 13:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Do not delete: Actual story, reference is given to AP, all verifiable, part of zeitgeist, no POV as is telegraphic. Perhaps remove word 'albeit'
- The above vote was cast by an anonymous user. Such votes are not likely to be counted; see Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus.
- Do not delete: What is wrong with catching the AP and Boston Globe publishing a false story? Eye witnesses and video tape prove there was no booing. Can't the liberals take the truth? Are they all mind numbed followers of Michael Moore?
- The above vote was cast by an anonymous user. Such votes are not likely to be counted; see Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus.
- Delete. This is either a neologism or a news story, and Wikipedia is not the right place for either of them. Whether or not the story is true, accurate, and/or well-referenced is irrelevant to the fact that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —Triskaideka 15:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Were they booing or just saying "boo-urns!!"? BOOING! ;-) Terrapin 15:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If we added an article for every mistake made by a news agency we'd have to start a whole new Wiki. Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: What Wikipedia is not: "A news report. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories. But of course creating encyclopedia articles on topics currently in the news is an excellent idea. See current events for some examples. (However, the Wiki process lends itself to collaborative, up-to-the-minute construction of current events of historical significance, as long as these are written as encyclopedia articles.)" -Seems like this is an item 'in the news'. It is a neologism in that it is a 'new word' - but that actually isn't listed in the 'what wikipedia is not' page, and it is certainly being referred to as the 'No-boo' affair on the web. And it does not simply document an error. It documents a clear falsification by AP, a 'trusted' news source. Fish-man (I am also one of the above anonymous-dudes, and the creator of the entry.)
- Would you care to note which one of the "anonymous-dudes" you were? -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 17:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The first one.
- VfD pages aren't the place for protracted arguing, so I've posted my lengthy response at User talk:Fish-man. Here I'll merely note that this vote by a brand-new username carries the same weight as an anonymous vote according to the page I linked above. —Triskaideka 18:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Would you care to note which one of the "anonymous-dudes" you were? -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 17:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Jayjg 17:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I hope against hope that this sort of partisan piffle will subside after the election. -- Hadal 18:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Nonencyclopedic. older≠wiser 18:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Nonencyclopedic. BCorr|Брайен 18:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Patent nonsense. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, based upon both the uselessness and incoherence of this article as well as the general tin hattery on the user's talk page. Also of note is the ridiculous title. "No-boo"? It sounds like one of those Japanese killer robots. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 21:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I am pleased to be cited by tinhattery by someone as <insert poper adjective here> as Bobdoe esp in a subject where there is clear evidence of a cabal. :) blessings to you Bob, and may you get everything you wish for in life in spades! :) --Fish-man 03:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- comment: I thought No-boo was the planet Jar Jar Binks came from. — Gwalla | Talk 16:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Nonsense, hasn't even made it to the national consciousness, not an encyclopedic article, POV. RickK 21:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Fold into Media Bias TDC 21:38, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Notable? Please. 10 years from now, and I'm being completely generous with that figure, nobody's going to care one whit about the reporting, mistaken or not, of booing at a single campaign rally.. Delete. Spatch 21:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, even if event is as described in the article it has no historical or even journalistic importance. By the way, I listened to the audio and my take on it is that I could not tell whether or not there was booing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. All news agencies make mistakes; nothing about this mistake suggests that it deserves a lengthy article, or indeed any article at all. —No-One Jones (m) 22:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep with better name or fold into media bias [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404
]] 22:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) - Delete, as above. Lacrimosus 02:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. a reporter mistook ooh's for boo's and corrected it when the mistake was pointed out; why is that noteworthy? if you feel this was a noteworthy example of bias or carelessness or whatever, then use it in a broader article as an example of that issue. Wolfman 02:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Electioneering. A summary could usefully be added to the media bias article as an example, but it's not worthy of a redirect. Andrewa 06:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable slip-up. — Gwalla | Talk 16:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- D Shit happens. Wikipedia is not Denis Norden. Delete. Chris 00:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Halaf period -- Add to this discussion
The article page is an exact copy of this. And it is about a little bit different topic. Jaan513 07:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Slowking Man 07:42, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Nigger6 -- Add to this discussion
- Why should this be deleted? It's perfectly legit. Nobody here has heard of Nigger6? 68.105.147.66 07:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No I haven't, check out my comments on talk:Nigger6. And please register, it makes conversations easier when you have a name rather than just an IP.--MaxMad 07:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Someone beat me to this page again. Anyway, sounds so much like a hoax. A Google Test fails (and no, SafeSearch isn't on). Two anons are edit warring over who can put more FreeIpods links into the article. Get rid of it. --Slowking Man 07:37, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 07:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Haha, that's not really a freeipods link. Check it out.(no-one wants to see that page. Link removed. —Rory ☺ 13:31, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC))
- One of the vandals put that link in there, not the original author.
- If we can't verify, delete. May qualift as patent nonsense speedy. Dunc_Harris|☺ 08:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, as long as we can get any verification. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Not quite patent nonsense. But definitely delete. — David Remahl 08:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Right on the edge of nonsense, definite hoaxing. Geogre 13:16, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Ridiculous, silly, and outright offensive nonsense! -- Crevaner 16:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg 17:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I happen to myself have a little knowledge of the Nigger6 program that I cannot speak about. Please do not delete the article. (Unsigned, by Special:Contributions/130.166.170.209)
- There are many articles on Wikipedia devoted to conspiracy theories, and dismissing this as not wiki worthy simply because the organization isn't well known or can be construed to have an offensive name (remember, this is a Norwegian organization, so Nigger may very well be a coincidence) is no grounds for deletion. Please consider this when voting. 68.105.147.66 03:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This is not a coincidence. "Nigger" means exactly the same in Norwegian. Actually it may be more offensive, since the number 6 is pronounced "sex". Delete as nonsense.--MaxMad 09:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, but it needs to be completed. There was a lot of Israeli involvement in the espionage that has gone undiscussed in the article SoulJuice 04:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Note: this vote is User:SoulJuice's second contribution (adding this to his userpage was his first.) --Ardonik.talk() 19:28, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- I've never heard of this but it certianly seems extremely well-researched...it's definately worth keeping in, if at least for "strange" information value - it's one of those things that is probably impossible to truly confirm or deny. (Unsigned, by Special:Contributions/70.240.80.252)
- While I cannot discuss it in depth, I would like to mention that this conspiracy is very real, and that those who are attempting to dispute its encyclopediac value ought to read the comprehensive sections in the corrospondance between Leib and "Nameless patriot" which I believe was published as a yellow staple-bound dossier. I'll have to look through my archives to see what company published these. (Unsigned, by Special:Contributions/68.209.144.61)
- Delete. Zero Google hits in English, only three altogether, all in German, and I'm not sure those are about this. Hoax. RickK 06:12, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe there are no Google results because Israelis working for Google censored them.
- Okay, this is honestly degenerating into insanity. Go push your anti-Israel POV somewhere else. --Slowking Man 06:25, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe there are no Google results because Israelis working for Google censored them.
- Delete. Tin-foil hat stuff. Andrewa 06:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 14:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ridiculous hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 16:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. —Rory ☺ 15:39, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I've heard of it before.--Lysol 21:18, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Definitely more to this story than meets the eye -- GNAA Popeye 21:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I think I heard about this before. Definately something worth keeping and exploring further. It can't hurt to keep it. --Dirtytroll 21:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- (The above user has only two edits - possible sock puppet) - Tεxτurε 21:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Nonsense. Antandrus 02:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Scam. - Nunh-huh 02:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete this patent nonsense with prejudice, possibly banning the sockpuppets that have come out in support of this article. A Google returns only Wikipedia and http://weblog.disgu.st/ (NOT WORK SAFE), proudly stating that it's an "official sponsor of Nigger6" and linking back here. We're being had by trolls that get their jollies by wasting our time instead of making positive contributions to our work. --Ardonik.talk() 19:21, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - patent nonsense only defended by vandalism and insults andy 19:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- DeleteGeni 20:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, for no reason other than that something sock puppets and trolls want to keep this badly can't be real. func(talk) 01:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Just because I want to see what all these sockpuppets will do to me ;). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete fiction, ban vandals. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
DELETED
Vadim Chernyak (speedily deleted)
- The consensus was for this article to be speedily deleted, which it was. The discussion is still available here until this VfD listing expires.
Financial dynamics -- Add to this discussion
The article Financial dynamics seems to be pushing unexplained "proprietary econometric forecasting techniques". I don't find the term Financial Dynamics to be in common use. References in the article are only to two recent books by the same author, who seems to be the same person who placed the article here. Looks like an attempt at advertising the books. Jallan 14:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- seems alright to me, needs cleanup though. Did you speak with User:Westland? Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hmmmmmmmm. The publisher is as solid as can be, so I don't think this is silliness by any measure. Indeed, I suspect we're dealing with an expert, here. My concern is that the prose is as thick as a whale omlette right now and is not at all clear enough for an encyclopedia. Given the fact that this is expert writing, I'm not sure we can have anyone but an MBA clarify.
Clean up, yes,but it would be even better if we could find Business as a Wikipedian by interests and page that person. Geogre 14:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Comment: I'm not saying this is silliness or crank or bad. But "financial dynamics" as used in this article is just another individual jargon name for a system, one of thousands of such systems (many of them good) pushed by individuals in financial management books and career management books and so forth. At best grabbing a catch phrase to cover his "original research". And Google gets only 841 hits for "Financial Dynamics" Westland, almost all of them being mentions on book dealer websites or pages with an identical puff peace repeated as a review. No-one seems to be seriously reviewing the book. No-one is citing it or referring casually to Westland's revolutionary financial dynamics system. And probably no-one but Westland is using financial dynamics as he uses it and this article uses it. This is not an article on financial dynamics, but a marketdroid puff piece on "Westland's Financial Dynamics". If Westland and his ideas are notable, then they will get into Wikipedia eventually without him (or someone posing as him) placing them here. No cleanup of someone's advert! Jallan 15:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed 100% w/ Jallan's comments here. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I can be a little slow. I understood Jallan's original point only after voting. I suppose I have to say delete, but I wish that Westland could help us out on our paltry business coverage. At the same time, I think "dynamics of finance" is a big topic that we need material on, so "financial dynamics" seemed to be a logical lodge point for it. Geogre 17:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: advert. "Financial dynamics" gets a few web hits as a generic term for "dynamics of finance", and many more as the name of a company and as the title of User:Westland's book. Financial dynamics as described in the article is entirely Westland's particular approach. User:Westland also planted three promo links for financial dynamics in discounted cash flow. I guess he wanted to make sure readers got the hint. There's no point to try to contact User:Westland -- he posted his advert on June 1 and hasn't been back since. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It's been independently published by a reputable publisher so it's not original research. The content all holds together - you certainly could consider all those factors when calculating a valuation. I'm going to vote delete because this content is the unhelpful jargon that you'd read on the dust jacket of the text. There is not enough real material to successfully understand or evaluate his approach. Lastly, delete because I can find no significant evidence that this methodology is in use outside his own classroom. It's certainly not mentioned in either of my valuations texts, has not been discussed in Harvard Business Review and has not come up in any other journal I follow. Rossami 06:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertisement. --Viriditas 22:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Heroic Adventure! -- Add to this discussion
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
Game is at beta and is a derivative. Advertising/boosting for a freeware game. Geogre 14:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat. Ianb 14:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg 17:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable Rogue knockoff in beta. — Gwalla | Talk 16:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 18:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment - most likely created to satisfy inexistant internal link at Roguelike, in section List of Popular Roguelikes. If deleted, internal link should also be unlinked. — dhedlund 20:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The International Journal on Mathematical Convexity and its applications -- Add to this discussion
A mathematical journal that has been just created. No papers published yet and no google hits other than journal's website, either. I'm afraid this is not notable. Andris 15:07, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Don't be afraid, be bold ;-). Delete, possibly worthy but not yet noteworthy. The link provided doesn't seem to go anywhere either.Ianb 15:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It did when I just tried it -- it redirected to the journal page and opened a popup advert. An alternative to deletion would be to provide a link to the purported journal at the bottom of the article on convexity. This would also significantly increase its information content, since in its current form one will only find it if one already knows its name, in which case the article is very uninformative. On the other hand, people reading the article on convexity might be interested in it. ⇒ Move Fpahl 18:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It is decidedly dodgy. The editorial board consists of people who are not senior in the field. According to the main mathematical abstracts database (MathSciNet), Pinheiro has exactly one publication (in 2001) and Bastos has none at all. I think the article is intended as an ad. If it ever becomes a notable journal (impossible in my well-qualified opinion), we can create the article anew. --Zero 15:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: advert, bogus. An academic math journal hosted at geocities.com? Hmm. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Advert for non-notable, probably bogus "journal" that hasn't published yet. — Gwalla | Talk 16:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 18:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Anita no te rajes -- Add to this discussion
If all TV programmes deserve an article, then I suppose this one does. But it does seem exceptionally unworthy if this is all there is to say about it. Deb 17:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Plus telenovelas are so short-lived anyway. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 17:15, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: If it were expanded, it might have value. It's hard to see any notability from this stub, though. No vote at this point. -FZ 17:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep stub. Lack of familiarity in certain cultures is not evidence of non-notability in others. See [2]. - KeithTyler 18:32, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC) (edited 17:48, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC))
- Delete substub: Single run on foreign language television decreases notability twice. Geogre 18:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: no evidence of notability, not an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, send to cleanup. Any show on Telemundo is encyclopedia-worthy. -- Jmabel 00:48, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. When keep votes can only cite general lack of familiarity and claim that any show on a network is encylopedia-worthy, that's almost damming evidence it isn't notable. If there is something notable about this show, a new article that indicates its notablility could just easily be created from scratch. Jallan 15:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Prisionera -- Add to this discussion
from VfD:
As for Anita no te rajes above. Deb 17:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Soap operas are minor (sorry, Mike H), and then this is Spanish language. The notability for an anglophone encyclopedia is lowered by that. Geogre 18:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree that the fact that the EN-Wikipedia is in English should imply that topics should be in any way judged based on *their* language specificity. That said, this article is poorly written. I rewrote it as a better stub (poked around for basic info). Hopefully someone will fill in a lot more info, or can tell us if it's notable. Keep --Improv 20:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- And my point is that we serve the English speaking community. EN is not the master or the true Wikipedia. There should be a great deal of content on .SE or .CZ or .JA that isn't appropriate to .EN. That's not because it's not good information: it's because the items under description are not notable in the Anglophone world. It's not a value judgment. Do you think that the .DE folks are going to wonder about whether my new Peachoid is useful to them? I hope they don't. Geogre 01:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I always saw Wikipedia's different languages as being just a result of the fact that we don't all speak all languages fluently. Similarly, I think of EN as the "Wikipedia IN English", not "Wikipedia for the English". I don't see why one's language necessarily indicates what one will be interested in -- are Australians going to be interested in your Peachoid? Are Parisians likely to find towns in Quebec interesting? I do find this to be an interesting topic though, and am interested in further dialogue on it, in or outside this VFD. --Improv 17:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- And my point is that we serve the English speaking community. EN is not the master or the true Wikipedia. There should be a great deal of content on .SE or .CZ or .JA that isn't appropriate to .EN. That's not because it's not good information: it's because the items under description are not notable in the Anglophone world. It's not a value judgment. Do you think that the .DE folks are going to wonder about whether my new Peachoid is useful to them? I hope they don't. Geogre 01:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, send to cleanup. Any show on Telemundo is encyclopedia-worthy. -- Jmabel 00:49, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. -Sean Curtin 03:01, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not true that any show on any network or syndicate is necessarily encyclopedia-worthy of an article. If this show is either very popular or attains a cult popularity and a good article appears, then that good article would belong here. Jallan 19:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, send to clean-up. RMG 22:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion'
Burchett -- Add to this discussion
from VfD:
- Delete - This anon users name must be Burchett since every article he creates (many) are related to the last name "Burchett". He is creating this disambig page for every Burchett he can think of (maybe to include his own name and get it lost in the articles) and creating odd links back to the disambig page from within Burchett articles by linking from the last name even though it is being used to talk about the very article it is already in. - Tεxτurε 18:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep reasonable disambig page. If the user is vandalising other articles to link to it, fix that, and if he persists list on vandalism in progress remove all links to special:whatlinkshere/Burchett and make it an orphan only accessed by typing it in the go box. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I really think this is a family name tribute rather than a disambiguation. How many of the Burchetts listed are going to be searched for by their last name only? How many are known as Burchett? After all, the reason for a dab page is not to be a taxonomy, but to take multiple items with the same encyclopedia space and differentiate them -- thus Gone with the Wind (film) and Gone with the Wind. Geogre 19:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment- either of the two politicians might be searched under only their last name, since they will often appear that way in titles of legislation or documents. -FZ 19:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't want or need pages for every last name (or every first name). A simple search on Burchett (or any last name) within Wikipedia already works well enough and is more trustworthy than attempting to maintain pages for every single last name. Jallan 15:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as a valid disambig page. Although I'm normally eager to get rid of these vanity surname pages, this page is different in that it links to several articles with the last name. RickK 18:27, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. And how many surnames are there for which such pages can be created? And first names? Why Burchett, and not Kenyes, Holmes, Singh, MacDonald, Fong, Jones, Koch, Michaels, Chevalier, Van Dusen, Huxley, Jackson, Lewis, Johnson, Smith, da Silva, Chrétien, Bush, ... perhaps more surnames than Wikipedia currently has articles? Jallan 19:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, Keynes, Holmes, Singh, MacDonald, Jones, Koch, Huxley, Jackson, Lewis, Johnson, Smith, Chrétien, Bush do all exist either as entries for a place, group, or object of that name; disambiguation pages; or as redirects for people who are routinely referred to by only one name in many sources (many news articles will simply refer to "Chrétien" or "Bush" and assume you know who is meant, but someone reading from outside the home area of that publication, or in a later time, will not neccessarily know & will want to look it up). The disambiguation pages are made when there are more than one person who may routinely be referred to this way- Huxley is an excellent example, as both Aldous and T.H. Huxley, or their books, are frequently referred to by only their last name in their particular context. For cases like this, a disambig seems reasonable, and it looks like Burchett could reasonably be such a case, since there are two prominent political figures by that name who would have been referred to as such in news articles or legal act titles of their times. It seems worth keeping for this.-FZ 14:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Tactolark (speedily deleted)
- The consensus was for this article to be speedily deleted, which it was. The discussion is still available here until this VfD listing expires.
Solstice BBS -- Add to this discussion
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
Solstice BBS - see below
Yet Another Internet Forum. Guys - you have a listing here: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Bulletin_Board_Systems/Individual_Systems/ . Wikipedia is not the place to duplicate it. Unless you can measure yourselves with the likes of Slashdot. Ianb 19:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Is not just an advertisement, and is NPOV. --Merovingian✍Talk 12:14, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not an ad, it's not POV - it's just not notable. DJ Clayworth 16:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Oooh, 3000 users, woooow. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Better to have a page that talks about BBS's on a high level then links externally to maintained lists elsewhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is high-level the actual content (source documents) are elsewhere. Like, the entry for the Constitution does not contain the entire Constitution in Wikipedia, it links to it. Stbalbach 08:13, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Would it be better if I had an entry for every BBS? --Merovingian✍Talk 07:59, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Merovingian, but I have to vote delete on this. I do think, in fact, that we have had some years to separate us from the old BBS systems, and articles on those are interesting. However, an article on a current concern seems like boosterism, no matter how carefully written. To me, this seems like advertising, even though it attempts to be descriptive. The systems as opposed to a board, in other words, seem NPOV entities. Geogre 20:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This article has popped unexpectedly back onto my watchlist. It seems to have been deleted per above, although there is no note of the deletion taking place, and has now been recreated.
Alas, however nice / worthy the site may be, it still does not appear notable in any shape or form and I see no reason for its reappearance in this online encyclopedia. I also not it has no Alexa ranking. Ianb 16:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Can't this be speedied? Articles that suddenly show back up after being deleted like this usually are. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 21:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I thought I had rewritten it to make it less advertisement-like. I guess we are basing this on encyclopedic-ness? It's certainly more encyclopedic than some other things that have been accepted into Wikipedia. What are the Alexa ratings of the other BBS's in Category:Bulletin board systems? If just one of them is as low as Solstice's I think we should examine all of them on an all-or-nothing basis. --Merovingian
Talk 00:54, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- comment: SolsticeBBS shouldn't be in Category:Bulletin board systems anyway. It's not a true Bulletin board system, just another Internet forum, of which there are very, very many, and only the really notable (the kin of Slashdot) deserve an entry, IMHO. Otherwise Wikipedia is going to end up as a self-service DMOZ. Ianb 17:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, seems marginally notable. Rhymeless 02:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. 3000 users doesn't make it notable. I'd need evidence of some other form of notability. Average Earthman 08:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable BBS. — Gwalla | Talk 16:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - advert - no mention of any fame in the article even - Tεxτurε 18:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete with haste. --Golbez 08:15, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Rewriting adverts to make them less obviously adverts comes close to being sneaky vandalism. It is still an advert and still, as far as I can tell, no more notable than thousands of other internet forusm. Jallan 15:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Vuffespijder -- Add to this discussion
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
Um, what? A Dutch slang word, with no translation, which can't BE translated. Doesn't even belong on Wiktionary. RickK 21:14, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- oddly enough neither google nor nl.wikipedia.org seem to have heard of this "controversial" word. Delete.--Ianb 21:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'm Dutch myself, and I've never heard of this "epitome of Dutchness". Delete Eugene van der Pijll 21:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Being "shrouded in mystery" is not the same as being notable. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 21:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Joke, pretty nearly a speedy delete. Geogre 01:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: not a Dutch word, nonsense. Speedy candidate. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 11:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Patent nonsense, prank. — Gwalla | Talk 16:53, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - the epitome of nonsense - Tεxτurε 18:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:17, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Astrochicken -- Add to this discussion
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
- Delete. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic, nonsensical. (And mostly intended that way by Mr. Dyson.) --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 21:41, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
- Delete. I thought this page was going to talk about a mini-game from Space Quest, called "Astro Chicken". I was dead wrong. --G3pro 23:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I was ready for another recipe. At any rate, if the idea had spread, it would be worth reporting upon. As it hasn't, it's not. Geogre 01:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence that this idea has gotten any circulation. 77 Google hits for astrochicken Dyson; Wikipedia & clones rise to the top of that short list, not a good sign. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. BCorr|Брайен 15:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I have seen it referenced in several books (actual books on paper, so no Google hits)- I'd say merge & redirect to Freeman Dyson. -FZ 15:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 18:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Dyson sphere, OK. Dyson's astrochicken... please. func(talk) 02:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
- What G3pro said. Delete
Valeoism -- Add to this discussion
They sound like nice folks, but they say right up front that they don't have standing and are seeking to gather it via the Internet. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia at this point. Geogre 00:37, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Kbh3rd 01:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Their Internet membership drives seem to be lacking -- 1 Google hit for Valeoism. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Currently obscure, no guarantee that will change. Wikipedia should not be used for promotion. Average Earthman 08:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete', political advertising. Ianb 13:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Promotion for non-notable group. — Gwalla | Talk 16:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - it's not blatantly promotional, but it's still wholly obscure. Lacrimosus 22:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity/advert - Tεxτurε 18:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Only one Google hit - too obscure. --Ce garcon 02:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
List of What If? issues -- Add to this discussion
Value of article
Article was listed on WP:VFD Sep 15 to Sep 21 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:
Nonencyclopedic. No context. Horrible title. RickK 22:00, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I stuck a categorization on it- I'm pretty sure this is a list of comic books, or comic book sections, or somesuch. I agree, though- the title is unhelpful, the page is formatted badly, and the inormation is of dubious value without any context. Unless something changes it, I'd vote delete. -FZ 22:23, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It looks like quite some effort went into compiling this list, and it's no worse than most other specialized "List of..." pages. The page just needs to be moved to a useful title. Keep. RSpeer 23:40, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - a list of subjects of a fiction anthology series is a helpful complement to an article on the series itself. (Drinking game: reading this list, take a shot whenever you see the words "killed", "died", "lived" or "fought".) -Sean Curtin 00:45, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - improvements after vfD notice give it context and make it as encyclopedic as any other list here. Key45 01:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: fancruft. Another one for the fan sites. I was hoping to see What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly? & I was sorely disappointed. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks fine to me. It's an article on a long-running series. We're not talking an article on each issue, or a character who appeared in one panel of one issue here. — Gwalla | Talk 16:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Is it to be generally understood that an editor can produce a list of individual issues of any general circulated or scholarly publication with a few annotations and expect it to be accepted here: for example articles on Time Magazine by decade with short indication of lead stories, People Magazine, Biblical Archaeologist, Punch, Popular Mechanics, All-Story, Reader's Digest, Fantasy and Science Fiction and so forth? That such lists should exist is a very good thing. That they should be part of Wikipedia is more dubious. This perhaps should be hammered out in a standards discussion. If the answer is a strong yes, than List of What If? issues should probably stay. If it is a strong no, then it should probably be deleted. Such lists have generally not appeared in encyclopedias, but of course size constraints were reason enough to exclude such things. I wonder if such lists ought not be a separate Wiki project. Jallan 18:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. First of all, I'll admit my bias on this, since I started adding some information to the article. I didn't know there was this article, until the delete notice appeared. As one can see, it has improved greatly in the past day or so. Most of the issues now refer to the original comic that inspired them (something that might help those you read the comic but are unfamiliar with the background). However, if it is to be deleted, I can name several other articles on the Wikipedia that can be deleted also. Deletion because of it's "fan" material would elimate at least 90% of the articles that I see people add information to on Wiki everyday. Let's not forget the number of lists that appear on Wiki also. So if this article gets deleted, may I suggest deleting the following articles also. List of Friends episodes because it's just a "fan" related article and I didn't like the show while it aired and still don't now. List of episodes of The X-Files because it just repeats what can be found in The X-Files (season 1) through The X-Files (season 9); besides, it's just "fan" based information that never appears in encyclopedias. Mind Games because not only is it a bad album, it's not even well liked by most Lennon "fans". Makaveli: The Don Killuminati: 7 Day Theory is another useless album article that could easily be incorporated into Tupac's article. Lists of people is just another list article of other lists (and you know how much space the combination must be using). Famous women in history because it is essentially an infinite list, whereas List of What If? issues has a finite number of entries, even if it a new series begins. There were other albums, TV shows, lists that I could have picked. Heck, I could have listed the articles on characters from single season TV shows or almost everything pertaining to video games. Since there's alot of fluff on Wiki, let this article that's not somewhat annotated stay. --signed an Anon
- Keep. I suggest moving it to a more precise title, for example, List of What If? comic book issues. Andris 00:02, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep after possible renaming. This page is essentially a subpage of What If, which is perfectly encyclopedic. (If a little on the fancrufty side). • Benc • 07:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Rename - Tεxτurε 18:57, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, it's a great idea for a wiki-article. -- Old Right 22:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep! - Its a genuine article. -- Crevaner 23:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Could somebody explain why Old Right and Crevaner seem to be tag-teaming votes on VfD? It seems like every time Old Right votes (and every single one of his votes is Keep), Crevaner comes along just a few minutes later and also votes Keep. It's interesting that such a thing is happening on pages like this, which have been sitting there for a couple of days. RickK 19:33, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- And they've both got virtually identical user pages too... what a coincidence. -Sean Curtin 23:39, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, how can you say that... those are completely different American flag images, and completely different lists of right-leaning websites. And completely different... well, somewhat different... well, actually, very similar lists of articles which they have edited. And there are usually big fractions of an hour elapsing between Old Right and Crevaner's comments. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- We're getting off-topic here. Sockpuppeting issues like this should be discussed somewhere else, e.g. VFD talk, user talk pages, WP:VP, or WP:RFC. Besides, let's assume good faith. Perhaps they're friends that share a computer? This would explain the timing and the shared politics (though I fail to see how their politics have anything to do with this article being considered for deletion). • Benc • 20:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- And they've both got virtually identical user pages too... what a coincidence. -Sean Curtin 23:39, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Could somebody explain why Old Right and Crevaner seem to be tag-teaming votes on VfD? It seems like every time Old Right votes (and every single one of his votes is Keep), Crevaner comes along just a few minutes later and also votes Keep. It's interesting that such a thing is happening on pages like this, which have been sitting there for a couple of days. RickK 19:33, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Rename to something less confusing. I don't think it's any sillier than any of the other lists or almost-useless pages (O, Yeah! The Ultimate Aerosmith Hits, anyone?) which I know is not a good reason to keep but as far as useless lists go at least this one is somewhat interesting if you like comic books (I always thought What If? was a great idea for a series but the actual comic books bored me to death -- it was always better to imagine, "Gee, What if that had happened?" than it was to actually see it happen). --Fastfission 00:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- CommentShould we even bother listing the issue and volume number? I think it would help a lot, along with a farely brief descirption of what happened. Kidney Stone 12:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Backup stories?
Some issues of volume one had untold tales of the Marvel Universe (or a similar title). These showed events in the distant past, like the first Celestial Host and the origin of the Titanian Eternals. What issues did these appear in?--StAkAr Karnak 04:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a mistake on what if #24
Gwen Stacy's eyes are open but she was unconscious
Homeorhesis -- Add to this discussion
Homeorhesis was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. As of 17:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), this article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)
I'm putting this up for discussion, without prejudice. vfd boilerplate was added to this article on May 8, 2004 by user:66.245.31.69 with the summary "Delete. This is a dic-def". It does not appear the article was ever added to the vfd discussion page, so therefore no debate has yet been held, and it still has the vfd boiler. -Satori 22:08, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Move to wiktionary. Kbh3rd 23:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: It's false, so far as I can tell. First, I can't find any other dictionary to give the word. Second, the formation suggests "of the same blood," not equilibrium of evolution. Geogre 01:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Just for the record, I searched with Bartleby's collection of encyclopedias and with the Merriam Webster 11th edition (which is a new edition from 2003, and full editions are actually rare in the dictionary world), as I like to be conservative when it comes to adding words. Geogre 14:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. It's not in the online OED either, and the non-mirror google hits below actually hurt its credibility. Delete. CHL 14:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Updated. Definition previously was wrong. It's a newer concept than Homeostasis but the term has some currency and I think it can support a short article. If not, the updated content should be good for wiktionary.
- Move to wiktionary if they want it. Otherwise delete. Obscure term, but by eliminating Wikipedia mirrors I was able to find [3] [4] (tinfoil hattery?) [5] and [6] (this last one is most informative). This article seems to be a simplified version of what is no more than a dicdef to begin with in the source texts. SWAdair | Talk 05:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - The article will grow with time. -- Crevaner 23:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, no legitimate reason for deletion! -- Old Right 15:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Please see What Wikipedia is not #2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary and also What Wikipedia entries are not #2 Dictionary definitions. SWAdair | Talk 23:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keepin new version. I don't know the subject area, but this now reads like a useful article which I would be interested in following the links for. --Cje 17:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Ferrel cell -- Add to this discussion
 |
This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Meteorology. |
Vote for Deletion discussion
From VfD:
Incoherent nonsense, but too long for a SD. TPK 23:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Entertaining prattle. Kbh3rd 23:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The Ferrel cell is already described in the Atmospheric circulation article without the hysteria shown here. Moreover, even though the Ferrel cell may prove to be as useful a description of reality as phlogiston in the end, it is very much a component of current theory. Denni☯ 00:56, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)
Redirectto atmospheric circulation. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Merge w/ atmospheric circulation & redirect. On rereading, it looks like the part from In the Temperate latitudes, ground winds are ... through ... it flows outward over the ground as the Polar Easterlies might have some useful content. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect (and unlink "Ferrel cell" in the atmospheric circulation article). Rossami 07:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't know enough to judge intelligently, I'm utterly innocent of meteorology and atmospheric science. The article does not sound all that hysterical to me. It reads as a credible critique, although it certainly is pushing a point of view. Googling isn't much help. Forgive me for asking: are you guys in a better position to judge than I am? If it's not total bunk, it seems to me that maybe Atmospheric circulation needs something in it, anything from a one-sentence throwaway ("some challenge the existence of the Ferrell cell") to a complete merge (a section heading "Criticism of the Ferrell cell concept" or something). If I'm being overly credulous here, please forgive me. (I am old enough to remember when the continents didn't drift. I don't mean "scientists didn't know that the continents drifted," I mean "scientists did know that the continents didn't drift," continental drift being an intriguing but discredited theory in the 1950s). Maybe the current text of this article should be placed in Talk:Atmospheric circulation ? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Copying the current rev to a subpage of talk:atmospheric circulation makes sense. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- keep but revise. The article is essentially correct: the Ferrel cell doesn't really exist. Or, if that is being a bit too definite, its certainly a valid POV (William M. Connolley 17:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
- Got any easily-accessible (i.e. web) references that would enable a layperson (i.e. me) to make a judgement about the balance of current professional opinion? Googling on "Ferrel cell" mostly turns up references that assume that there's no question about its existence. Melissa Strausberg, whomever she may be, is on record as saying that "In many ways, the Ferrel cell is a fictitious circulation" but there are an awful lot of articles saying something to the effect that El Niño is caused by titanic battles between the great gods Hadley and Ferrel (That's a joke folks. Insert smiley here). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 19:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Well, by its very nature, pages about the existence of X are rather more common than the non-existence of X. The atmos circ page does hint about lesser status of the Ferrel cell but doesn't make it explicit. But I can't find owt on the web.
- (William M. Connolley 20:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)) But try: Image:Atmos-circ-jja.png (original research of course... :-)
- Got any easily-accessible (i.e. web) references that would enable a layperson (i.e. me) to make a judgement about the balance of current professional opinion? Googling on "Ferrel cell" mostly turns up references that assume that there's no question about its existence. Melissa Strausberg, whomever she may be, is on record as saying that "In many ways, the Ferrel cell is a fictitious circulation" but there are an awful lot of articles saying something to the effect that El Niño is caused by titanic battles between the great gods Hadley and Ferrel (That's a joke folks. Insert smiley here). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- As the author of "the Ferrel Cell does not exist" when I chanced to find the Department of Meteorology Lyndon State College website (as in the folowing links), I emailed the following on Sun 9/19/2004:
Sir,
I am wondering how you can reconcile your diagram on
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter11/three_cell.html
with that on
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter11/jet_streams.html
(the little red backflow at the top of the polar front cloud is surely stylistics rather than a part of a sustained major-return-flow to the Horse latitudes)
in view of
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter11/polar_jet_form.html
I would appreciate an answer in view of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrel_cell
Regards, Hugh Rance
The response I got September 20, 2004, was:
Yes, you are correct, the circulation depicted in the vertical cross section is not quite correct.
Dr. Nolan T. Atkins Associate Professor of Meteorology Phone: 802-626-6238 Department of Meteorology FAX: 802-626-9770 Lyndon State College email: nolan.atkins@lyndonstate.edu 1001 College Road Lyndonville, VT 05851
end moved discussion
Merge
Unless there is more material, examine merging into atmospheric circulation. (SEWilco 1 July 2005 03:13 (UTC))
T3S R2W, Michigan -- Add to this discussion
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
We don't need a page for every single township defined by the Public Land Survey System. These are geographic grids that are laid out algorithmically and therefore are entirely unremarkable and non-unique. (Should this have gone to SD?) - Kbh3rd 23:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, not much can be said about these in Michigan. Rmhermen 23:34, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, survey townships were given a names for a reason. This is of no use in a general encyclopedia. older≠wiser 00:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I thought at first that this was a Leet town. Unsearchable geographical entity. Geogre 01:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as redirect - who knows what someone may google for... The content is already merged to the related article. -- Netoholic @ 02:53, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)
-
- I see you've redirected it. Apparently this one coincides with a civil township, which is a different beast altogether from a survey township, and which probably rates an entry. The Township article says that there is a one-to-one correspondence of civil and survey townships in some states, but they're still separate entities. IMHO (though I won't argue beyond this paragraph) there is not a need even for the redirect here; that the political unit exists doesn't mean that we need an article or redirect for every 36 square miles of the whole state of Michigan, up to 2,691 entries of T1S/R1W, T1S/R2W, T1S/R3W, &c! Then start on the other 49 states...166,241 for the whole country if it were evenly divided into 36 mi2 survey townships. Let the civil township articles, where they exist, mention which survey townships they correspond to, if any, but leave it at that. - Kbh3rd 04:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't want to think about how many more of these there are. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 08:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, do not redirect. BTW, the redirect isn't working (did the page move again?). SWAdair | Talk 11:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Revolutionary strategy and the role of the avant-garde -- Add to this discussion
POV, not encyclopedic. English translation of a French "secret letter" about revolution-fomenting in Quebec. Joyous 01:27, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: POV source text. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If this letter has any notability, transwiki to WikiSource. Delete. Original source text. — Gwalla | Talk 17:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This is a translation of a French text at [7]. Very literal. Unfortunately I don't exactly understand how translation affects copyvio issues, but perhaps someone can explain. Surely you can't rip off a web source just because it's in a different language? Bishonen 01:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, a translation is a derived work of the original, and the copyright of a derived work remains with the original copyright holder. But perhaps someone better informed than me will weigh in. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep if converted from source text to article about source text. Quite notable. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - At any time anyone is welcome to create a new article about the source text. Even you. Even now. - Tεxτurε 18:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- OK, please see my copyvio comment above. I've found a statement from Morven on Talk:Copyright problems, supporting what Wile E. said (not that I ever supposed he was mistaken), so presumably the next thing is I slap a copyvio tag on the page, delete the text, and list it on Copyright problems? And if the poster is the copyright owner, or authorized by the copyright owner to translate the text and put it on Wikipedia, s/he will need to get in touch and prove it? Right? Please confirm here, and I'll do it. Bishonen 23:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- That's how it works. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you. Done. The article is now on Copyright problems, and I think it should be removed from VfD. That's a sysop decision, I suppose. Bishonen 13:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- That's how it works. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Lila Amrit -- Add to this discussion
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
Dedication page. With all due respect, this is not an appropriate page. Denni☯ 01:39, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)
- Delete: You're right: it's actually the dedication to a book. I hope the rest of the book doesn't follow. Geogre 03:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, obviously. JamesMLane 08:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not an encyclopedia article, probably copyvio. — Gwalla | Talk 17:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 18:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Cơ điện Việt-Hung -- Add to this discussion
<discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English>
Vietnamese I think.--Jondel 10:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Definitely Vietnamese, probably junk. -- Jmabel 16:25, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
<end moved discussion>
- It's had 2 weeks on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English and no one has translated it. Since it doesn't look promising, I say delete -- Jmabel 06:30, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Yup, delete - TB 08:37, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Thue | talk 09:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I added a speedy flag on this because it didn't actually seem to be on VfD, but Thue says "rm delete while on VfD". So I figured, lets actually put this on VfD! Contents of entry are:
- Cơ điện Việt-Hung là nhà máy sản xuất động cơ điện do Hungary và Việt nam hợp tác xây dựng.
- Delete CHL 01:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Screen font breaking and untranslated. Geogre 03:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Untranslated substub. — Gwalla | Talk 17:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 19:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
September 16
Vadim Chernyak (speedily deleted)
- The consensus was for this article to be speedily deleted, which it was. The discussion is still available here until this VfD listing expires.
Spy Sweeper -- Add to this discussion
from VfD:
Advertisement stub for a software product. --Chessphoon 02:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Notable program. Marginal keep; truly needs cleanup to legitimately be kept. Rhymeless 02:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Because if there were a proper page here, the description would be nearly as notable as Microsoft Windows and there would be no more advertising than on the Microsoft Windows page. The problem that the software product addresses would itself provide an interesting, noteworthy, and useful encyclopedia page. But I object to anyone creating a stub on any subject with so little information on it. If a reader found this page, they would expect to find something more than what is here. ---Rednblu 02:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete unless improved by the end of VfD. I say that because, whether it's Ad-Aware or Spam Assassin or Warez4U, this article fails the deletion guidelines by being a straight ahead ad. One line and then straight to the "download here." I used to have more confidence in Clean Up than I do these days, so I don't think we can put it out of sight and mind there. Geogre 03:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete unless improved by the end of VfD. I have to agree with Geogre. This is nothing more than an advertisement and items tend to languish untouched on cleanup. No need to keep an advert placeholder for what could be a legitimate article. If anyone wants to write an actual article, they can do it without this advert placeholder. SWAdair | Talk 04:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete as it stands. The product is good and quite worthy of mention in Wikipedia, whether alone or as part of an article on anti-spyware products. But nothing here should be an advertisment. Jallan 18:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep but add a cleanup tag. PeteBegin 11:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Skeptical
I am extremely skeptical of the claims that the software is "recepient of many awards, such as a Best Buy award from PC World, an Editor's Choice from PC Magazine, and the TopTenREVIEWS Gold Award." I would like to see a source - I have heard similar claims from Spysheriff. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- A Google search validates Spy Sweeper's Best Buy Award. I'm working on verifying other parts of the article. --BWD 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I also validated the TopTenREVIEWS award. The only one I couldn't validate was the PC Magazine award. Also, can you please review the NPOV tag? Does that still apply? --BWD 22:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I get PC Magazine monthly, and yes Webroot Spysweeper is its current editor's choice for spyware detection and removal.
I got the demo of this and it actually put crap on my computer and said it found it. Then it demanded I buy the program to remove it. I'd never give 'em money after a scam like that. --DanielCD 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- You should probably add a criticisms section. --BWD 22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I would, but it would just be my word. However, if I find a credible source that I can cite regarding this issue, I'll be back. --DanielCD 22:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm DanielCD. Either you are lying or refering to another program. Many programs have similar names, I think you got em confused. The Demo version removes everything it finds, only limit is expiration of update service. And what does crap mean, be more specific please. A human 01:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- DanielCD, what the hell are you talking about?
-
- I can confirm some of DanielCD's frustrations with Spy Sweeper. While I'm not sure of its insertion of false positives, I can confirm that it runs processes that CANNOT be terminated in Task Manager unless manually done so in the actual program. [[User:Taospark|Taospark] 04:03, 09 August 2006 (EST)
2006 version
Besides the advertisement-like quality of this entry, which I, like other Wikipedians, strongly object to, there is also the question of relevancy to the year 2006. When would Webroot be planning on releasing a new version beyond 4.5.x? For a while they were keeping the program up to date, but they've languished in recent months, and it's already February 2006 as of this posting. Eventually, if it doesn't shape itself up, Webroot is going to very quickly fall behind in the anti-spyware business. 71.255.208.178 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Though this program comes recommended by many netizens, I found it has an interesting quirk when running. The 2 Spy Sweeper processes cannot be terminated in Task Manager unless you manually shut down the scan in the program. Not even Windows Defender, Microsoft's own program, does this. This is both a minor nuisance and potential backdoor vulnerability. If anyone plans to expand this article, they should link to the "unbiased" reviews which gave the software its award. (Anonymous User) 6:31, 11 July 2006 (EST)
When I bought Spysweeper 2 years ago, it installed a bunch of crap during the install. My computer was beyond repair, and I had to buy a new one. This program should be researched and problems noted in article. I agree that the article reads like a advertisment (Chris Smith)
I have been seeing a number of computers come in to be repaired in the IT department with this version of this software installed on it, and many of them are indeed suffering from dramatic performance slowdowns. In addition, not a single one of the computer owners can remember actually downloading and installing it. I'd really like to back up the section saying that this version causes dramatic slowdowns and has suspicious behavior associated with the software, but short of citing myself (which the wiki-gestapo doesnt like), all I can do is back this up in the discussion. (Comrade Adam)
Not free, unlike many leading spyware programs??
IMHO, very few antispyware programs are free. There's Ad-Aware Personal and Spybot S&D (which sucks). That's it. For instance Spyware Doctor isn't free either. The correct statement would be: "Just like many leading spyware programs, Spy Sweeper is not free." Jancikotuc 06:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Category:Olympians at the 2000 Summer Olympics -- Add to this discussion
The category Olympians at the 2000 Summer Olympics does not follow the naming scheme of the other years, furthermore there is already an Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics category. It should be deleted because it is redundant.
- DELETE - This category is replicated with Category:Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics 132.205.15.4 03:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This belongs on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. RickK 05:56, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
Tom Smith (QIM) -- Add to this discussion
Vanity page - delete. -- Chuq 05:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gone. The author removed the VfD message, and the article was subsequently (and validly IMO) speedy deleted. History:
- 06:31, 16 Sep 2004 Jimfbleak deleted "Tom Smith (QIM)" (content was: 'Template:DeeteQIM')
- 16:30, 16 Sep 2004 . . Slowking Man (delete)
- 16:29, 16 Sep 2004 . . 4.27.215.78 ()
- 15:26, 16 Sep 2004 . . Chuq (subst:vfd)
- 15:18, 16 Sep 2004 . . 4.27.215.78 ()
Original content: Tom Smith QIM is the way I identified myself on the internet since 1996 in my extensive men's and autism advocacies. A full description is at QIM. The second version was just a link to QIM, and a valid speedy. Andrewa 16:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Pensionstate -- Add to this discussion
Non notable local band. RickK 05:55, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Band and/or fan vanity. Delete. --Slowking Man 06:11, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Band vanity, non-notable. SWAdair | Talk 11:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: A band on the local scene. I.e. not notable for our readers. Geogre 13:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable band. — Gwalla | Talk 17:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Vagueware -- Add to this discussion
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
Vagueware
Vanity neologism, this term in a Google the term shows up mostly on mirrors, and ads on kuro5hin for the website Vagueware. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 08:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. Eliminating Wikipedia mirrors leaves less than 400 hits, most of which are as described by Cohesion. SWAdair | Talk 11:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, promotion for the website, not in significant use. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: More from the kuro5shin, neologism. Geogre 13:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. – Quadell (talk) (quiz)[[]] 15:57, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Unverifiable neologism. — Gwalla | Talk 17:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - unstable neologism. I was a member of the wiki site, but it's now dead. ··gracefool |☺ 22:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 19:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Might be worth a footnote on vaporware- two refs found on Usenet via Google predating vaporware.com wiki. I'll throw down a very weak merge. --Rossumcapek 04:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
International Surrealists Against the RNC -- Add to this discussion
Non-encyclopedic, original research, inherently biased. Even if a real article could be made about this organization it would have to be a total rewrite, this essay would not make a good starting point. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 09:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I don't agree that it is "inherently biased"; why couldn't the article include views of proponents and opponents? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I sort of agree with you now, I don't think it's inherently biased anymore, but I don't think any of the existing material would be a good start for an article about this topic, although I do think an article about this topic could be created that would be neutral. Unsure about notability though. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 18:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I am 100% agreed. I think the main problem was the content, though there is perhaps an argument to be made for non-notability of "Surrealists International." --Daniel C. Boyer 23:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I sort of agree with you now, I don't think it's inherently biased anymore, but I don't think any of the existing material would be a good start for an article about this topic, although I do think an article about this topic could be created that would be neutral. Unsure about notability though. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 18:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I vote for its deletion too. Katherine Shaw 09:10, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons given above. Oh, and for being source text, as well. SWAdair | Talk 11:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Original research, propagation of an online political activity (amounting to political advertising), and source. Geogre 13:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete for good reasons given by others. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: source text, agenda promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Remove source text, move other material to Surrealists International. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. I posted this article hoping it could be accepted to provide historical context for the 2004 RNC, as a record of surrealist opposition to it. I must admit I had a feeling it might not withstand VfD, and it looks like the consensus here is pretty solidly delete... Oh well. Are there objections to having a Surrealists International article that doesn't repro the text of the statement but still links to it?~leif @ 23:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I think this is the best way to proceed. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Are there objections to having a Surrealists International article ...? Yes. There's no evidence that the group that posted the statement is notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. I posted this article hoping it could be accepted to provide historical context for the 2004 RNC, as a record of surrealist opposition to it. I must admit I had a feeling it might not withstand VfD, and it looks like the consensus here is pretty solidly delete... Oh well. Are there objections to having a Surrealists International article that doesn't repro the text of the statement but still links to it?~leif @ 23:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Electioneering, no useful content. Andrewa 15:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: there is a giraffe in my toaster. And the other reasons above. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 15:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable political screed. It'd be WikiSource anyway if it was notable, but it's not; it's just an obscure (and incoherent) rant. — Gwalla | Talk 17:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It's interesting how people describe as "incoherent" something that is perfectly coherent, just with which they strongly disagree. This says more about the reader. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- comment: If you think I "strongly disagree" with what they're saying (at least, what I'm pretty sure they're saying), you obviously don't know me very well. I'm no fan of Bush and strongly oppose the Iraq invasion. But this pamphlet frequently descends into near-gibberish: "Yet, in the 1947 tract Freedom is a Vietnamese Word (later republished in the pages of the anarchist newspaper Le Libertaire), surrealists in Paris singled out a specific French governmental cabinet’s newly-minted colonial war in southeast Asia: 'Surrealism can only be against a regime whose members stand together behind a blood-stained disgrace as though it represents a joyful awakening.'" Wha...? — Gwalla | Talk 16:44, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It's plain as day. The "colonial war" that the cabinet "newly minted" was that in Vietnam, as the proximity of "Freedom is a Vietnamese Word" and Southeast Asia and the history at that time should make abundantly clear. Understanding the surrealist criticism that the cabinet presented that war, a "blood-stained disgrace," as if it were a "joyful awakening" is a no-brainer. The comparison drawn with the Iraq war, a "blood-stained disgrace," as if it were a triumph and a liberation, is a no-brainer to understand. To describe this very clear passage as "near-gibberish" is mystifying to me. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- comment: If you think I "strongly disagree" with what they're saying (at least, what I'm pretty sure they're saying), you obviously don't know me very well. I'm no fan of Bush and strongly oppose the Iraq invasion. But this pamphlet frequently descends into near-gibberish: "Yet, in the 1947 tract Freedom is a Vietnamese Word (later republished in the pages of the anarchist newspaper Le Libertaire), surrealists in Paris singled out a specific French governmental cabinet’s newly-minted colonial war in southeast Asia: 'Surrealism can only be against a regime whose members stand together behind a blood-stained disgrace as though it represents a joyful awakening.'" Wha...? — Gwalla | Talk 16:44, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It's interesting how people describe as "incoherent" something that is perfectly coherent, just with which they strongly disagree. This says more about the reader. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. What in the world is a Torturocracy? -Vina 20:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- A regime that frequently or pervasively employs torture as a means for achieving its ends. This is pretty self-evident. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- err, no. an XYZcracy is a government by people belonging to the class XYZ. Unless you are positing that Torturocracy is a government by torturers, I'm not sure what you are talking about here.
-
- Obviously a torturocracy is a government by torturers, and I apologise for my lack of precision, but I think between that and my defintion is a distinction without a difference. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- A regime that frequently or pervasively employs torture as a means for achieving its ends. This is pretty self-evident. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence that there even is such an organization, much less that it is notable.--Samuel J. Howard 00:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- and badger lettuce hair.--Samuel J. Howard 00:53, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a message board for partisan manifestos with no historical importance. Especially ones as puerile as this. Palladian 05:57, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This article is obviously biased against parochial surrealists. Fire Star 06:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Nothing more than bias vandalism. -- Crevaner 23:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This article isn't vandalism, and where is the bias? There is bias shown in the statement, but is there bias in the article itself? At any rate this is an argument for editing rather than deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, the group isn't remotely notable. -- Old Right 16:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There is no God (list of works with phrase) -- Add to this discussion
There is no God (list of works with phrase)
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
I abstain from voting but list this article here because I'm not sure whether it should really be here. I don't have anything against this article myself, I was just wondering if we really need it. - Cymydog Naakka 11:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Not encyclopedic. Geogre 13:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- A list of occurrences of a particular phrase does not seem useful- a list of works with this as a major theme would be encyclopedic, but listing every time someone in literature has ever said this? Delete. -FZ 14:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Unsure. Perhaps Wikiquote would be a better place for this? No vote at this stage. Andrewa 15:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not just that this is a very common phrase in fiction, and maintaining this list would be a monumental task. It's also that the appearance of this phrase in a work of fiction provides no real or applicable information about that work of fiction, and therefore the usefulness of such a list as a reference source is extremely doubtful. You might as well write List of works in which the word "flower" appears seven times or List of works featuring characters named Bob. Wikiquote is welcome to it if they want it, but I didn't think this was the sort of quote they collected. —Triskaideka 16:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not encyclopedic. Not well done. NFUTMNB. GWO 16:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It would be encyclopedic to discuss views of God in literature, but this is just an incomplete concordance. AlexG 19:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Transwiki. -Sean Curtin 20:02, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - This page is completely pointless! -- Crevaner 21:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Poor design; just the phrase will not capture what might be useful. Hence, the useful references are missing -- like the Time Magazine cover--all black--that proclaimed in red "God Is Dead!" The non-usefulness of the design is illustrated by the worthlessness of what is listed on the page. ---Rednblu 00:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The number of useless lists we have on Wikipedia is ample evidence for the truth of the phrase, but still no justification for another addition to the same. Not encyclopedic. Lists almost never are. --Improv 17:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - requires additional context to make a good article but I would find such a list interesting and can imagine such a thing in an encyclopedia. - Tεxτurε 19:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, it serves no purpose. -- Old Right 22:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Interesting indeed. bbx 23:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-encyclopedic. --G Rutter 20:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm a sucker for lists. -Litefantastic 12:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This seems like it would be of interest and useful in research. BTW, shouldn't the nominator be sure before listing on VfD?[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]]
- Move to wiki-quote or wiki-books where it would be more appropriate--Plato 09:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Lists are fine--even trivial lists--but this is a little too arbitrary. -- WOT 18:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. We are not going to have an article for every common phrase or saying used in fiction. --Lowellian 19:36, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. If we have TINC, we can have TING. Gzornenplatz 19:49, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: There's an important difference between There is no Cabal and There is no God (list of works with phrase). One has actual background and explanation, and the other is a list of works with nothing significant in common and no background or explanation. If somebody wants to write an article called There is no god on the meaning or usage of the phrase in religion, philosophy, popular culture, etc., I won't vote to delete it.
- Delete. This list is useless, and has no place on an encyclopedia. Nadavspi 20:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Useless. I'm hoping though for Are you sure? (list of works with phrase), I think it could be really useful and interesting. --Fastfission 23:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Hwfaq -- Add to this discussion
In l33t-speak, concerns a particular web page derived from gamer forums. Geogre 13:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not encyclopedic. Nothing salvagable here. Re cleanup: Arlo Guthrie tells a story about some old things he had cluttering the basement. One day he couldn't find them, so he asked his wife, and she said, "oh, I cleaned them up last month." Arlo protested, "They're not clean, they're gone." His wife replied, "Well, you can't get much cleaner than gone." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete – Quadell (talk) (quiz)[[]] 15:58, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable: history of a FAQ page on some sitewhere. — Gwalla | Talk 17:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, POV, cleanup would most likely reduce mention of such a webpage to a stub anyway. Spatch 17:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. At first, I thought someone had just mistyped a Welsh village... -FZ 18:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, the sooner the better. But there's no 'q' in Welsh. Deb 19:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Unreadable. Only its companion Madshrimps can be kept. — Joe Kress 21:39, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, advertising, possibly vanity. Adds nothing to Wikipedia. Aecis 22:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The sanity of the article (and its author) is disputed.
Masculist_Trinity -- Add to this discussion
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
Masculist Trinity
One in a series of vanity pages (most Google hits are Wikipedia clones) by User:QIM who also has QIM redirecting to User:QIM. -- Solitude 15:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Private use of Wikipedia. Geogre 17:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Let's see: Neologism, Non-encyclopedic, Patent nonsense, Original research, Promotional advertisement, Vanity page, Wrong namespace. My! My! ---Rednblu 00:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: self-promo, agenda promo, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 08:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, very informative! -- Old Right 15:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - For same reason Old Right gave. -- Crevaner 16:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, promotional/vanity. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP, I put the article up a few years ago as "info" and a few of us did some work on it then. I've been busy and didn't get back to it until a few days ago to do some more work on it. The organization was copyrighted in 1986 and has been in the Encyclopedia of Associations since 1991. It now hosts one of the largest discussion groups of men's issues on the net and has a respected international reputation for developing strategies, agendas and coalitions in the men's movement. The respected and newly successsful international movement "Father's 4 Justice" have utilized some of the products of our brain storming and we are associated with them. User:QIM
- Comment: I did not add the vote immediately above this comment. It was here before I started my edit. There is an apparent glitch in the edit history, though, which causes it to look like it was my edit. I can not attribute this comment. Rossami
- Keep: The Masculist Trinity, like many other books and documents, has helped the men's movement define itself and develop it's momentum. While it may be a work in progress, this is no reason to delete it. One wouldn't delete the Constitution just because it had been modified by many Amendments. [Note: I would add the terms "men's advocacy" and "men's rights activist" as synonyms for masculism]. (anon comment added by User:Mens issues whose only edit so far is to this discussion. see contribs)
- Delete. nonnotable vanity.ElBenevolente 09:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. -- WOT 18:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable... the external link is a geocities page. Nadavspi 20:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
- KEEP, I put the article up a few years ago as "info" and a few of us did some work on it then. I've been busy and didn't get back to it until a few days ago to do some more work on it. The organization was copyrighted in 1986 and has been in the Encyclopedia of Associations since 1991. It now hosts one of the largest discussion groups of men's issues on the net and has a respected international reputation for developing strategies, agendas and coalitions in the men's movement. The respected and newly successsful international movement "Father's 4 Justice" have utilized some of the products of our brain storming and we are associated with them. User: QIM
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/American_Union_of_Men"
List of activists -- Add to this discussion
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
List of activists
The scope of this title is far too large for a single article. And it's only got one entry in it. --Ianb 17:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- and how do you define an activist anyway? --Ianb 20:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The way our activism article defines it. "Involvement in action to bring about change, be it social, political, environmental, or other change. This action is in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial argument." Straightforward and objective, if you ask me. • Benc • 18:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Double dog dare delete: Everyone in politics is an activist, so the list would be, oh, a few million big? Geogre 17:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete.Geni 17:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Too general for an easily maintainable list. Spatch 20:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of scope. This is a bad rocket design. Ground at once! It will take the whole continent of North America with it. ---Rednblu 23:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Much too broad. OK as a category for those activists on whom we have articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Del Indeed suitable for Category:Activists, but not for list, and when the only bio listed on it is fleshed out, it will move down into subcategories of that cat. --Jerzy(t) 01:14, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
- In the interest of equal time I demand List of Couch Potatoes or List of Lazy Asses be written forthwith (by someone else, naturally). If not, delete. Fire Star 06:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'm still holding out for List of people who have never been in my kitchen. Spatch 14:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This would be useful as a general "list of lists" page, linking to lists of activists in relevant areas. Send to Cleanup. Please, no more of the kill-the-index-phenomenon. Ambi 08:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Move/redirect, and cleanup. I second Ambi's vote. This list would be more appropriate at Lists of activists by issue, which would link to other lists (e.g. List of gun rights activists) containing both pro, con, and third-party-opinion activists. (← you can't do this as efficiently with categories, which is why we need a "List of" articles for the time being.) • Benc • 18:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I do not mind lists, but this one consists of one name only and is hardly of any use. If anyone is interested in Lists of activists by issue, please dcreate them. Andris 18:29, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not live up to its potential. I could see angles where it could be an encyclopedic article but this doesn't. - Tεxτurε 19:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Yet another open-ended, non-encyclopedic list. When will the madness end? --Improv 16:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Move/redirect, and cleanup I second Ambi's and Benc's vote. Fpahl 18:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete An article with this topic's particluar combination of large breadth of scope and "political presence" is just begging to be a POV/edit war. I predict that if it ever becomes a real article, it will be a moderator's nightmare. ClockworkTroll 06:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - too broad of a topic. Nadavspi 20:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Juanes -- Add to this discussion
Bone Gnawers (Werewolf: the Apocalypse) -- Add to this discussion
from VfD: As with the Warhammer 4000 stuff, the master article redlinks every single tribe, creature, and device, so the anon who created this article can't be blamed. Trivial game material. If you have the manual, you have this. If you don't have the manual, go to GameFAQs. Geogre 17:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Merge the tribe articles into Werewolf: The Apocalypse tribes. Incidentally, GameFAQs wouldn't have this sort of material. -Sean Curtin 20:00, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete w/out merging: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 08:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Of no relevence seperate from the game. Average Earthman 11:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. All the tribes are reldinked. The Shadow Lords, Black Furies and Fianna aren't under deletion. If you have the manual you can read all the stuff in article, so we can delete all the articles about all RpGs. It would be as delete an article on the Battle of Monte Cassaino as a trivial stuff in the World War. You can take a book and read about it. Gilmor 17:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Only edits by User:Gilmor are to this vfd discussion [8]. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hmmm, and how many people's lives have been affected by World War II vs. Werewolf: the Apocalypse? And was World War II a game? You'll note that any other articles spun off from the game will also end up on VfD, if this one fails, and in my nomination I recommended that the minor stuff get unlinked. Geogre 18:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: we have lots of multi-article games, as we should. (Chess, Go, Bridge, ect), even new games (Magic: The Gathering, D&D). I surely hope you don't want to delete those articles. However, I essentually agree with you that there should be a standard of notability This game surely isn't notable enough to merit articles for all of those red links. Possibly not notable enough to deserve this article, but I hope you don't use this as a precedent against games. CHL 23:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: FWIW, I'm not against game coverage per se, but I'm against breakouts of items from games. To me, a new and separate article is justified only when a thing is sufficiently different from its master subject as to need separate discussion, sufficiently notable as to be sought outside of its master context, or sufficiently involved as to need the space. That's why it looks like I'm "against" Big metal box and other game items: they should be discussed in their natural context. I usually vote merge and redirect, if it is substantial, but something like the 2 paragraphs of player races found in the manuals just isn't encyclopedic content. Geogre 00:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- Keep, it seems worthy of a page to me. -- Old Right 22:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, there's plenty of material in the Whitewolf world to write a decent article about each tribe. -- Creidieki 07:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP - Information from other fantasy games are in wikipedia. Therefore this should stay. -- Crevaner 16:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Merge, no redirect back into parent. Remove parent's redlinks --Improv 16:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Failing that, merge into the main article. This stub can not be understood outside the context of the main article and has no possibility of expansion. Main article is not so large or complex that this content can not be added. Rossami 03:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The amount of published info from White Wolf is large enough that articles can actually be written about all the tribes. --Lowellian 19:40, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- However, the article should be moved to simply Bone Gnawers and then rewritten to make clear that this is a fictional tribe in a game world. --Lowellian 19:41, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
DIMES -- Add to this discussion
Distributing computing software that has just been released. Advertising. Geogre 17:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Possibly worthy, not yet notable. Delete, post to Slashdot.--Ianb 18:37, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 08:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, not yet notable, purpose of entry may well be promotional. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
LUSAS -- Add to the discusson
Continuing with Alphabet Soup Thursday, this is an ad. Geogre 17:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- looks like it might be a biggish player in the world of civil engineering finite element analysis software, on the other hand it's not the only one. Delete this, and include a link to the manufacture on Finite element analysis. --Ianb 18:53, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, do not redirect. It's much easier to get an on-topic external link than to post what is essentially an ad (which is probably copyvio too, cuz it reads like a marketing brochure.) -Vina 03:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: copyvio (text copied from lusas.com), advert. Put an extlink in finite element analysis. I'm sympathetic -- the finite element method is way cool -- but this article has to go. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 08:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
SORCE -- Add to the discussion
Finally, a political ad for an emergent group. Geogre 17:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, ad ad ad = kill kill kill - Vina 03:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. A Painfully contrived acronym for a grouping with no evidence of notability. Average Earthman 11:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Equinym -- Add to this discussion
Not a real term - only 7 Google hits. Evercat 18:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete neologism, dicdef even if it was a real word. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 18:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Bad idea to apply space to words, you know. Neologistic dictdef, go. Geogre 18:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, word doesn't exist. --Fenice 20:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, interesting coinage but don't do it in Wikipedia. --Ianb 21:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete cromulently. Spatch 21:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. — Gwalla | Talk 22:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. No such word in general usage as yet, dicdef even if it was. Average Earthman 11:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete with equanimity. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
KGB Suspect -- Add to this discussion
A year-old band with no recordings advertizing on Wikipedia. Kbh3rd 18:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I have no idea why a band would think that we're any good for their career. It makes no sense. Up-and-coming band, not yet notable. Geogre 18:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with above. Andris 18:53, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Band with no non-demo recordings = not notable. — Gwalla | Talk 22:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. No widely available releases, so no article. Average Earthman 11:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fair Market (speedily deleted)
- The consensus was for this article to be speedily deleted, as it was a recreation of a previously deleted article. It has been speedily deleted. The discussion is still available here until this VfD listing expires.
Rachel Buck -- Add to this discussion
Added to VfD by Acegikmo1. I think this is probably a speedy candidate. Darksun 22:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think it quite fits the speedy criteria, but it's an obvious delete. —Triskaideka 22:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Definitely deletable regardless of speed. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 22:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- First, thank you Darksun. My fire alarm went off an thus I wasn't able to start this page. *sigh*. In any case, I wanted to use a speedy deletion tag, but the article didn't fit any of the criterion (in a strict interpretation). I vote delete, of course. I left a message with the author suggesting a more appropriate place for the contents. Acegikmo1 22:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 22:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Unspeakably deletable and a candidate for the proposed (soon to be proposed) Managed Deletion. Many admins delete this kind of thing as a speedy, even though, technically, they shouldn't. Geogre 23:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, either vanity or non-notable. I am curious to know whether the article was written by Rachel Buck herself or by an admirer. I have to admit to rather liking this page. If it is by Ms. Buck she could do worse than register and put this on her user page. After reading the last sentence three times, carefully, I have concluded that it is grammatically correct and logically impeccable. It reminds me of the old puzzle that asks you to add punctuation to the following sequence of words so as to turn it into a meaningful sentence: "If but and and were but and and but but would be and and and would be but." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- In Transformational Grammar, we were asked to parse "That that that that is is not that that that that is." (shudder of flashback follows) I think it's by an admirer. Geogre 01:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm... That "that" that that "that" is, is not that "that" that that "that" is? Or isn't that it? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Sure. Now, name the syntactic value of each word. That's where the hair started falling out in clumps. (I decided Anglo-Saxon was much more fun, and it was.) Geogre 18:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- In Transformational Grammar, we were asked to parse "That that that that is is not that that that that is." (shudder of flashback follows) I think it's by an admirer. Geogre 01:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I can only think that her dietary and political habits are deadly in combination only if the room she may happen to be caucasing in doesn't have proper ventilation... Fire Star 06:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Nothing is even alleged in the article that is a colorable basis for inclusion, and unless and until that happens, I vote to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I just had to do a double take because Rachel Buck was the name of a distant ancestor of mine, but she wasn't born in 1987. Delete anyhoo. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Are we related? This is true of me too. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete- vanity - Tεxτurε 19:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, as vanity. This author has made a number of...questionable edits. Joyous 17:54, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, for sure. --Viki 15:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
List of weblogs -- Add to this discussion
List of weblogs
Wikipedia is not a web directory. Besides, List of notable weblogs just went through VfD, where the overwhelming decision was to Delete. However, the action taken was to redirect to this equally lame article. This action went against the Wikicracy.
- What? This has been through VfD. Why put it back so soon? I like the structure now (though the formatting may leave something to be desired.) I'm not going to remove this from VfD, but I feel as though the community has already decided on keeping this and our efforts would be better spent copyediting the article. Keep. --Ardonik.talk() 22:26, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. We have List of search engines, list of web comics, list of news web sites, and list of wikis. Why are blogs somehow less worthy? - SimonP 22:28, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Because there are possibly millions of weblogs and it's difficult to draw the line at which ones are notable enough to be in the wikipedia. A page like this would need daily babysitting from people wanting to advertise their sites. ~leif @ 22:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: at the risk of repeating my words from prior discussions, there is a simple solution for this: disallow both red links and external links from the article. The article would still need babysitting to keep the linkspammers out, but at least it would be clear what to take out and what to keep in. --Ardonik.talk() 23:12, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- List of people is not open to all six billion of us, and similarly list of weblogs should not contain all blogs. All Wikipedia lists are limited to items that deserve encyclopedia articles. - SimonP 23:26, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
-
- Comment. There is no such rule. Because someone or something appears in a list in Wikipedia does not mean that a list item must either be acceptable for a full article or must be dropped from the list. Imagine: unable to list particular kings in a list on Wikipedia because we don't know anything about them except that they appear on ancient lists. Demanding removal of every number in List of prime numbers that doesn't deserve an encyclopedia article. Jallan 16:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I suppose if the list was limited as Ardonik suggests above, there isn't anything wrong with it, but I don't see how such a list is any better than just using the Category system. I mostly am opposed to this list based on the fact that a good deal of wikipedia lists are full of red links and external links. I'll change my vote to Keep-with-restrictions. ~leif @ 23:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- I would support deleting list of wiki and the other lists you profile for similar reasons. These lists can easily get out of control with promotions. And again, this is what web directories are for. -- Stevietheman 05:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Because there are possibly millions of weblogs and it's difficult to draw the line at which ones are notable enough to be in the wikipedia. A page like this would need daily babysitting from people wanting to advertise their sites. ~leif @ 22:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, or redirect to Category:Weblogs, or keep with note disallowing red-or-external links. If a weblog is notable enough to be on wikipedia, it should have an article, and it will show up in the category view. Incidentally, a few days ago I edited List of weblogs to redirect to Category:Weblogs (instead of a nonexistant section on Weblogs which it had been redirecting to for quite some time before). Now I can't find any record of my making that edit... Did someone move another page on top of List of weblogs and obliterate the previous history somehow? Just wondering, because I know I made that edit. Anyhow, delete or redirect-to-category is fine with me.~leif @ 22:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- adding to my confusion, I noticed that I appear to have edits listed on Talk:List of weblogs that I actually posted to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of notable weblogs. I now see that User:SimonP moved moved that VfD discussion on top of this article. My comments refered to List of weblogs in the context of being on the VfD page for List of notable weblogs, and are out of place now. Why was that page moved?~leif @ 22:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- delete this is just asking for a list of sveral thoudsand weblogsGeni 22:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: those who are voting on this topic anew should look at the recently closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of notable weblogs (it was, in fact, delisted from VfD just this morning), the presence of which is the basis for my vote to keep. --Ardonik.talk() 23:08, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. This is the sort of thing that can be done far better by the "outside" web. And it's just asking for abuse from bloggers anxious to boost their Google pageranks. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, replace with/redirect to category. List of notable weblogs should have also been deleted. -Sean Curtin 03:02, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I believe it is nessesary to have a list of more notable blogs so people could see what a blog is really all about, or to see what's popular in the blogging community. The page would have to be watched so as to exclude non-famous ones, but that's really true with any web-oriented list. And the fact this has already been through VfD (and survived, obviously) adds to the fact that it should be kept. It's double jeopardy, and I know that surviving VfD once does not guarentee immunity, this was rather quick. But, the suggestion to make sure the blog has an article isn't too bad of a second place.-- KneeLess 04:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Delete, only on the condition that the Weblogs category stays. -- KneeLess 04:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment - what was wrong with List of notable weblogs as a title? Better than this, anyway. If the rule is, no redlinks, no external links, then this would be justifiable, but I suspect it is too open to abuse, and would require round-the-clock monitoring. Unconvinced either way. Average Earthman 11:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. People can use links from the Weblog article for more information. There would be nothing wrong with more links in that article pointing to sites that contain their own individually maintained lists of notable blogs. But keep such things at arms length from Wikipedia. Because things change so quickly, maintaining a list of up-to-date weblogs which are currently notable would be "original research", similar to maintaining a unique list of currently popular songs within Wikipedia (instead of links here and there to external lists or reproducing data from such lists). And exactly who is going to "own" this article if it continues to exist? Who is going to do the original research to determine notability month by month? Jallan 16:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory - Tεxτurε 19:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep
with extreme prejudice. If this survives again I hope we wait at least another month. This page has no direct links, and the topic doesn't seem inherently unencyclopedia. Significant weblogs could and should be discussed for their impact. At best, move to "list of notable web logs" and cleanup.CHL 23:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)- "Survives again?" When did it survive before? The result of the only previous VfD I know of was to delete List of notable weblogs. But before that article was actually deleted, someone moved it's VfD page to this (List of weblogs) article's talk page, and moved some of the content to the article under the heading Notable weblogs. Note also that prior to that VfD the List of weblogs article was just a broken redirect, not a list. So as far as I'm concerned, this is an edit of the same list we already voted on. And it didn't survive the first time, so the article should have already been deleted. ~leif 19:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- You're right. SimonP. Interesting. That does seem to go against wikicracy. Nonetheless still keep. There are no external links in the article now. CHL 02:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- Delete. It's an open-ended, non-encyclopedic list. It's gotta go. --Improv 16:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It is inherently incomplete and hence biased. There are zillions of them.Mikkalai 05:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, send to cleanup. Maybe it just needs to be organised better. OK, maybe it seems "open ended" but if it was organised, it could be a useful resource. There's a list of everything else on this wiki, why not a list of weblogs? --Ce garcon 02:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The problem is how do you determine whether a weblog is notable or not? --Lowellian 19:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Little Mac -- Add to this discussion
0 google hit movie director. TPK Talk 23:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Someone who saw his film might google him and come across this article. But it wouldn't tell them any more than they already know. Either stub or delete. - Kbh3rd 23:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: If it's not a hoax, it's useless. If it is a hoax, it's useless. Geogre 23:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!? -- Cyrius|✎ 07:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 08:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This is likely a hoax. Andris 15:28, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 19:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
George Washington Glasscock -- Add to this discussion
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/George Washington Glasscock
Baith -- Add to this discussion
Non-notable. Although the word is supposedly used "on the internet," I can find no mention of it within this context Joyous 00:01, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Neologism. A Google Test turns up something in Arabic and a bunch of people with "Baith" as a last name. Delete. --Slowking Man 00:29, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: dumb, dumb joke. Geogre 01:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree. Andrewa 07:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for boring private jokes. Average Earthman 11:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism, in-joke. — Gwalla | Talk 17:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sir George Cayley's coachman -- Add to this discussion
from VfD:
absurdly minor character to an important, however not stunningly famous figure in the history of flight. or perhaps we should create pages for the assistants of all other scientists? ✈ James C. 02:45, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
- Delete: Ok, so there's this guy, see, and we don't know his name, but we're going to write an article about him. Merge and redirect to the inventor's article. Geogre 03:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 08:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the first man to perform a recorded successful flight in a heavier than air machine, so not absurdly minor, but not enough info for an article either - merge and redirect.
- The above vote was by User:Average Earthman
- Keep. First airplane pilot. Should be linked from Sir George Cayley and other places though. — Gwalla | Talk 17:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to Sir George Cayley and include this small paragraph there. It will never grow to an article. If not, Delete.- Tεxτurε 19:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - IMHO the fact that we don't know his name isn't enough reason to delete. "Cayley's coachman" returns 734 hits on Google when wikipedia mirrors are filtered out. Where's the harm in allowing this to stand as a short article? --Rlandmann 04:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. If the article is correct that "nothing more is known about him" then the article is never going to grow. There is plenty of room for this paragraph in the article on Sir George Cayley. What is the point of having it be an article of its own? This individual is notable and known only in relation to Cayley. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect.. Reasons as above. The first human being to create fire, the first human being to shave, the inventor of the first sailboat, and so forth are surely more notable. But we don't know their names either, hence no article on them. Jallan 16:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. Being the first heavier-than-air flier is notable. But it's impossible for the article to grow beyond that fact. Shimmin 17:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
September 17
Kathryn Blair -- Add to this discussion
VfD debate
The content is highly contentious - whilst something certainly happened in May, and has been hushed up, this account comes from a single source not known for his reliability. I'd think it's also potentially libellous and certainly likely to cause distress. -- Gregg 03:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, we should have an article on her. We should also have a neutral account of whatever happened in May, including speculation as to what it is. I have no idea if it is what the article says it is, but there should be some mention of it, assuming it's a notable fact about her, as it seems to be. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:40, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Why should we have an article on an a sixteen year-old school girl? She's not a public figure, she hasn't done anything notable. Even if this story does turn out to be true, it could (and IMO should) then be covered by a few lines on Tony Blair. -- Gregg 11:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think we should be detailing private lives except where they become a prominent public story. Indulging in gossip would be wrong. This is not a public story so I vote to delete. Timrollpickering 07:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- From what's in the page it seems to be a public story, or at least a public item of speculation, and should be reported as such. People are talking about it; how is it not a public story? Honestly confused, not trying to pick a fight. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 08:35, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- No, we should not cover it. WP doesn't do rumours, it does verifiable, significant material, and the supposed info is neither. --Jerzy(t) 09:27, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
- I disagree, I say we delete it. It's not whether or not it's verifiable. It's whether or not it's good for society for a person who has not chosen to live in the public sphere to have their life documented. I love WikiPedia but I am deeply ashamed of this article. Brian Attard
- No, we should not cover it. WP doesn't do rumours, it does verifiable, significant material, and the supposed info is neither. --Jerzy(t) 09:27, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
- From what's in the page it seems to be a public story, or at least a public item of speculation, and should be reported as such. People are talking about it; how is it not a public story? Honestly confused, not trying to pick a fight. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 08:35, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Del Unverifiable, non-notable, and she is adequately covered in the article on the only newsworthy family-member's article. --Jerzy(t) 09:27, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
- Delete. Verifiability is the requirement, and anything that cannot be verified should not be included. The remainder is not significant enough for an article. Anything relating to whether or not Blair considered retirement should be in the article on Tony Blair. Average Earthman 11:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Not notable in her won right, merge speculaton about suicide bid with Tony Blair if verified as reported by a credible source. - TB 11:51, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Jerzy is right: verification is impossible, and that makes this a deletion candidate. Geogre 13:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable in her own right. I have tried to check the story and it doesn't stand up: on May 13, 2004, Tony Blair was in Coventry and on May 14 he went to Newcastle-upon-Tyne as part of the local and European election campaign. There are no reports that he cancelled engagements and returned to London, which would have happened if the story had any basis in fact. Dbiv 14:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable kid, Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer. — Gwalla | Talk 17:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Adequately covered at Tony Blair#Private_life. Controversy about Blair's other children does appear in that section, but those at least are incidents that might in some way relate to politics, and this story about his daughter, true or not, really isn't. —Triskaideka 18:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Undecided - There is not mention at Tony Blair#Private_life about the May incident. Are we voting to delete because the suicide attept is illegal to report in U.K.? (I assume that is why the content was removed from the article.) The information is notable since it shows the pressures on his family related to the Iraq war. Perhaps it can be restored after she turns 18? - Tεxτurε 19:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Query: What about verification? Articles that are unverifiable cannot stay. Since this episode, if it happened, cannot be confirmed, we're not much of an encyclopedia if we report it. Geogre 00:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If the article had been the rant it was at first, I would have voted for speedy deletion. Now I vote for expand or delete Aecis 23:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Unverifiable and a non-notable person in her own right. --G Rutter 20:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please Delete. If it's not true, then it's not true. If it is true... then it's no one's business. Her father ran for office, not her. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. func(talk) 02:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Delete. So long as she's listed in her father's article, there's no reason to have this as she's never done anything worth noting. PedanticallySpeaking 18:15, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Whether a person has done something "worth noting" is subjective. I'm reasonably certain that there are Wikipedia entries for children of other prominent historical figures. Adraeus 03:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - deleting this would be like bowing to the Chinese censorship of Wikipedia. If article is deleted, the information should be inserted into the Tony Blair article. Kathryn Blair's suicide attempt is clearly related to the medias interest in Melvyn Braggs recent pronouncements about Blair--Xed 20:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Um... what you've said might make sense, if the people who voted delete did so out of concern for British censorship rules... which they didn't, and if my google search for: "Melvyn Braggs" Blair had turned up more than 2 unrelated hits. Who is Melvyn Braggs, and why is a guy that the media is interested in have so few hits? func(talk) 21:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep; re-work to avoid libel, though. James F. (talk) 22:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to Tony Blair - not notable on her own. Andris 06:33, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. --Viriditas 11:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable (or at least not enough for her own article). Why are we talking about her anyway? What good is this going to do any of us? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. It's a completely unverified theory, but that it gained some credibility temporarily is worth noting. Johnleemk | Talk 15:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep/Redirect Do something (there is a problem with the current situation). Not delete. Again with the US-centricism, some major US politician's kids (not just President) would not be deleted. zoney ♣ talk 15:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, if Euan Blair and Bushs kids have articles, why not she? Especially when one considers her suicide attempt almost caused the resignation of one of the most powerful men in the world. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 15:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, or Merge and Redirect. My delete vote was predicated by my concern that the article was going to contribute to a tabloid-like smear campaign against a child who just happens to have a famous father, but if the consensus is that this is truly notable in a political sense, and if we are getting to the point where the charge of US-centrism is being bandied about, then I guess it's a keeper. func(talk) 16:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - mention daughter on Tony Blair's page. Chuck 19:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment - whatever happens to Kathryn Blair's article, it would be only fair and consistent to equally treat Leo Blair's article. But... merge and redirect to Tony Blair's page. --Edcolins 21:16, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable in herself. It's of dubious legality to report the private issues of a child in the UK. Also, it's irrelevant who her father is or its effect on him or people's opinion of him. Sc147 22:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep She's notable because she's Blair's daughter, she's notable because her attempted suicide highlights some of the complexities in the relationship between the government and the British press, and she's notable because she nearly caused Blair to step down. Acegikmo1 23:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- - SimonP 16:29, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Unified Knowledge Management -- Add to this discussion
Unified Knowledge Management
Manager/marketroid jargon. Pyrop 03:27, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Can we say "jargon"? Delete. --Slowking Man 05:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Transfer this information object synergetically to the circular under-desk document repository. Ianb 07:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 19:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. (If not keep, then merge or redirect to Knowledge management). Its a real thing. It could definately use a little translation to english (from consultant-speak) though. Needs Cleanup! Kim Bruning 10:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep if the article becomes less general and theoretical, therefore useless, it needs precise explanations and exemples. --Pgreenfinch 13:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- ie. you're saying that potentially the article will be good? In that case, I think you can just vote keep. :-) Kim Bruning 15:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- By coincidence, I am currently consulting on an integrated IT solution combining Content management, Document management, Collaboration management and intelligent Search engines. We're not calling it "Unified Knowledge Management". None of the articles I'm reading use that specific term. It's either "Knowledge Management" or "Content Management" (or more often "Electronic Content Management" because TLAs sell better). Excluding the wikipedia clones and the non-specific uses of the phrase (i.e. "wouldn't it be nice if we had a unified KM system..."), I find very few uses of that specific phrase and none outside of the marketing pages of consulting websites. Either delete as a neologism or redirect to content management system until the market settles on a standard term. Rossami 03:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect, according to User:Rossami's reasoning. Neologism. Andris 20:50, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: neologism with no currency. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nebo School District -- Add to this discussion
Nebo School District
No evidence of notability. Little more than a substub. Not necessary. --Slowking Man 05:34, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
This page is in the process of being written, but I guess if there is no desire to have these pages, then why even try. Oh, well.
- Anonymous Utahn
- Merge and redirect to a section of the county/city in Utah. Geogre 11:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable school district. — Gwalla | Talk 17:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 19:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, it's a real school district. Therefore it should stay. -- Old Right 23:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - Since its real! -- Crevaner 23:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. SWAdair | Talk 02:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete no redirect. Not notable. --Improv 16:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The article makes no claim for notability (merely being a school district isn't notable), so delete unless there is note which no-one has bothered adding yet. 24 hours is long enough to make an article more than a sub-stub. Average Earthman 18:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- I don't think 24 hours is enough time. However, unlike Springville High School (below), I'm not aware of any reason the school district is notable at all. All "content" here could be incorporated into Springville, Utah without being off-topic. Delete. CHL 13:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete I hate non-notable School district articles.--Plato 09:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. School districts should not have articles unless notable. --Lowellian 19:47, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. If Point_of_Rocks,_Wyoming, total population: 3 can be in Wikipedia then so can this--Xed 22:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Deleted, 9 votes delete, 1 vote redirect, 3 keep — David Remahl 22:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Springville High School -- Add to this discussion
2004 deletion debate
from VfD:
Added by the same anon as Nebo School District. Again, no evidence of notability or interest to people not intimately involved with the school. --Slowking Man 05:35, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- This page is in the process of being written, but I guess if there is no desire to have these pages, then why even try. Oh, well.
- Anonymous Utahn
- Delete if notability is not established by the end of VfD: Notable schools should be in, "normal" high schools should not. Just think about whether it would be appropriate for a print encyclopedia. Would Encyclopedia Americana want an article on this? Geogre 11:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Um. No. Wikipedia is not paper. If something is slightly notable and interesting it should be in. I believe wikipedia will be much more comprehensive than any other encyclopedia. CHL 00:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- Comments to the contributor: there is no consensus and no policy about whether high schools should be included. What happens in practice is that posting an article on a high school in such a short and incomplete state is just asking for trouble.
- Posting articles on high schools is never a sure thing, but the chance of acceptance depends a lot on how good the article is. Wikipedia:Your first article notes that: "Local-interest articles are articles about places like schools, or streets that are of interest to a relatively small number of people such as alumni or people who live nearby. There is no consensus about such articles, but some will challenge them if they include nothing that shows how the place is special and different from tens of thousands of similar places. Photographs add interest. Try to give local-interest articles local color."
- For examples of very good articles about high schools that survived VfD, see Moanalua High School and Montgomery Bell Academy.
- The VfD discussion runs for several days before any decision is made, and the article can be improved during that period. If you think you can beef up your article by mentioning a notable alum or two, and something special, almost anything, about the school, go for it. Pretend that your audience is a fellow alumnus. When they look up the high school in Wikipedia, you want them to get a warm fuzzy and have the feeling that the article is really about their school.
- Do you, by any chance, have a photograph that you took yourself (and hence can give permission to release under the GFDL) that shows that nifty bell-tower-thingy? Not every high school has one of those. Someone from Springville won something-or-other in the 2001 Utah Multimedia Arts Festival; does this mean the school has a particularly good communications arts department?
- Please, show us, what's special about Springville High School? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- I know of one thing Springville High is famous for, so I put it on the article. Do have a look. Is that enough? - Non-anonymous Utahn CHL 23:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Note: I'm putting these comments on the contributor's talk page as well. If he responds, showing that he reads his talk page, I'll remove them from here. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, decent stub - SimonP 15:40, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable school.— Gwalla | Talk 17:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Delete - Tεxτurε 19:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't a decent stub. If you google on "Springville High School" now you get a reasonable school website. If Wikipedia kept this, browsers would have to wade through Wikipedia mirror after Wikipedia mirror showing this single uninformative sentence to get to that website and some real information. A short article that summarized some interesting things about the high school and its history and included a direct link to that high school's website would be fine. It would only take me a few minutes to add a little information and add the link. But why should I do it for this particular high school rather than for any one of the thousands of other high schools? Let the inclusionists who think high schools are so important do the work for this and all the others if they care so much. Or let those involved with these schools do the work. Some good articles have appeared. I'll vote keep on a good article, but not on any article so short and uniformative that starting a new article from scratch would be just as easy from information already easily available. Jallan 21:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Keep, since it is a real school it must stay. -- Old Right 23:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - Nothing with having high schools on wikipedia. -- Crevaner 23:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - I added content to the article which makes it notable enough in my opinion. (I don't think all HS articles should be kept, just ones that establish some sort of note, and I think this does now.) CHL 23:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable school even with the mascot issue. RedWolf 00:28, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. SWAdair | Talk 02:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, reasonable high school. Even if the article isn't great now, people who go to the school will eventually look at the page and add things. -- Creidieki 07:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. They can set up a webpage if they want. Wikipedia isn't here for their free publicity. Not-notable. Most high-schools are not, even if you can dig enough and find something mildly interesting about them. --Improv 16:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as improved by CHL. The section on the mascot controversy meets my objection. I don't think the article is great, I hope improvement will not stop here, and I flatly disagree with the inclusionists such as Old Right. But I set the bar pretty low on notability, and a mention in ABC News (under "US," meaning they consider it a national story) seems like plenty. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- D I don't think that alone qualifies it for inclusion. After all, it is just one article, not a whole series. I would guess they mean "US" vs. "World" as opposed to "US" vs. "Utah". Grand total Google hits for "Parents for Mascot Review" is 2. Not notable enough, I'm afraid. In fact, not even slightly notable. Chris 17:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- I followed this issue, and it was covered on national television. A high school mascot isn't terribly significant, but they covered it for the same reason I still remember it: it's interesting. I couldn't find an online record of how many people attended the non-binding vote of the mascot, but I believe was in the thousands--their largest ever school board meeting, in fact. In a community of 20,000, that's mildly amusing. I think I might look it up. CHL 01:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep now. Vote changed. Though I wonder if the article should not be retitled Springfield High School Red Devil or something similar. Jallan 15:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, to counter votes to keep because "it's a real school." Wikipedia might reach the point where articles of this scale are appropriate, but I don't think we're there yet. Incidentally, the mascot issue seems to be little more than a blip on the radar of a small town, and less significant than the existence of the school itself. Inclusion as a short public interest segment on national television doesn't make it notable, either; we don't want to see articles on every cat stuck up in a tree. -- WOT 18:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. If Point_of_Rocks,_Wyoming, total population: 3 can be in Wikipedia then so can this--Xed 22:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Missing Schools
The article currently says that there are only 3 HS in the district, but it is missing a the currently operating fourth, Landmark High School[9] located in Spanish Fork. Likewise there are two new HS's currently under construction. Should these be added? Thanks -- 63.226.38.165 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Kenji Shimizu -- Add to this discussion
The Casanovas -- Add to this discussion
from VfD:
Non-notable local band that the original poster couldn't even bother to write anything about except their name and where they're from. RickK 06:29, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. non-notable [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 06:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed, delete. Fire Star 06:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable - they are played on Triple J and Rage, and have toured nationally. The stub just needs expanding. -- Chuq 06:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, notable Australian band. They're touring Japan at the moment, Chuq. I'll see what I can do to improve the article. —Stormie 06:46, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- I've had a little go myself! -- Chuq 08:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This ain't no garage band. Ambi 08:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Now a decent article, evidence of international tours and a recording contract. Average Earthman 11:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I believe there was also a circa 1970 Seattle-based soul band by this name, quite a good band, as I recall. Can't find anything quickly on the web, but there was actually quite a soul/jazz fusion scene in Seattle at that time, bet we have not a word about it. -- Jmabel 12:05, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Decent article. — Gwalla | Talk 17:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I was was going to return to add more stuff before someone else did it - thanks. It's a good article now. Vhadiant
- Keep. Notable band. --Viriditas 11:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
American Union of Men -- Add to this discussion
Tally: I count 13 delete votes and 4 keep votes. I ignored troll/sockpuppet votes from User:Crevaner, User:Old Right, and User:Bigbadsteve. I did count User:QIM as a keep vote. I'll delete American Union of Men now. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
American Union of Men
See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#Masculist_Trinity. -- Solitude 07:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Very odd political argument, non-significant. Geogre 11:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep; article may need extensive work, but this is not a reason to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - this is more Tom Smith vanity nonsense - Tεxτurε 19:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - Seems significant to me. -- Crevaner 23:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. RickK 00:08, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP, I don't think its vanity at all, just info. -- Old Right 15:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if the organization in question were notable, a reader of that article still comes out with no idea what it is that the organization does, if anything. Livajo 16:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP, I put the article up a few years ago as "info" and a few of us did some work on it then. I've been busy and didn't get back to it until a few days ago to do some more work on it. The organization was copyrighted in 1986 and has been in the Encyclopedia of Associations since 1991. It now hosts one of the largest discussion groups of men's issues on the net and has a respected international reputation for developing strategies, agendas and coalitions in the men's movement. The respected and newly successsful international movement "Father's 4 Justice" have utilized some of the products of our brain storming and we are associated with them. User:QIM
- KEEP - I am a masculist rights activist and writer from Melbourne, Australia. I have used Tom Smith's AUM as an important source of gender rights information and debate for some years. The attempt to delete information about it is probably the work of radical feminists and their fellow travelers, many of whom will use any means possible no matter how immoral and totalitarian to try and stifle debate about their outmoded beliefs which lamentably are practiced by many Western governments partly via sexist Womens' Departments funded to the tune of millions of dollars a year. In Canada, for instance, there is a govt-funded Women's department campaign for feminists to 'take control' of the internet. Recently the department was named in the Canadian Parliament for trying to make male-positive reporting illegal, monitor pro-male journalists and activists, and jail them. This is typical of tactics used worldwide, since logic and fact alone are not enough to allow the outdated and exaggerated lies of radical feminism to prosper. To give in to their demands by pulling Tom Smith's article would be the digital equivalent of book burning on the grounds of 'political incorrectness.' The fact that AUM expresses what are often presently minority points of view no more justifies censorship than would an article by an author expressing opinions common amongst his or her minority race or minority sexual preference. To do so would be discrimination, pure and simple.- Steven Stevenson Bigbadsteve
- Delete. Google knows about Mr. Smith's organization, but offers no hint of him or it having any particular notability beyond aggressive self-promotion on the internet. According to the above, however, I am probably a tool of a vast international radical feminist conspiracy, so my vote should probably be ignored. RadicalSubversiv E 07:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Nonnotable vanity. ElBenevolente 09:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete in the interest of National Security(tm)--MaxMad 12:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Jallan 19:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity, non-notable, pseudo-personal attack on women and feminism under the guise of empty, politically-motivated "criticism", aka propaganda. --Viriditas 02:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete... sorry, but the feminists who control me have made it quite clear how I am to vote. func(talk) 01:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: agenda promo, personal promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP This article is currently thin but gives insights into an aspect of the debate on the role of men and women in society. If this is deleted where do you draw the line on other pressure and advocacy groups? JPF 10:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, this seems a sufficiently noteworthy topic and I don't believe that Wikipedia should succumb to such censorship. StuartH 12:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. The line is drawn on notability. Positions put forward by advocacy groups should be given in articles about that position, where people would expect to find them, probably listing the more prominent groups supporting that position. A prominent advocacy group is likely to get its own article. Small advocacy groups themselves are not especially notable. Ideas are not being censored. But non-encyclopedic articles are dropped according to policy. Edge cases are mostly argued here on this forum. Generally articles that appear from their manner of presentation to be progaganda are dropped, whether feminist, masculinist, pro-Christian, anti-Christian, pro-Bush, anti-Bush and so forth. In theory, articles on minor organizations are dropped, no matter what their purpose. If you want to call it censorship, then Wikipedia does attempt to censor obviously POV articles and non-notable information. I presume American Union of Men also "censors" on its website, including only material that is generally relevant to its purposes. Most people voting here so far do not feel this article fits Wikipedia's purposes. Jallan 15:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I note that during the voting period, none of the "keep" voters have improved the article. If the subject is encyclopedic and notable, surely there are some newspaper articles that would provide the basis for an acceptable article. The page seems to be no more than a self-promotion, poorly conceived, non-encyclopedic, non-salvageable. ---Rednblu 17:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry that the vote has gone this way, but considering the group think of the times and the enormous power of feminism, it's a hopeful sign of Wikipedia's NPOV that my page got the "Keep" votes it did. Many thanks to those who voted to "Keep". User:QIM
User:QIM/American_Union_of_Men -- Add to this discussion
- REDIRECT User talk:QIM/American Union of Men
Ellen paulsson -- Add to this discussion
Ellen paulsson
A "Swedish female" who "has yet to become famous" and other nonsense. Ianb 07:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Joke article. Average Earthman 11:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: More humor from Sweden. A new IP in this game, I think. Geogre 11:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Sub-BJAODN. Delete - TB 11:45, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- This article has yet to become deleted but is stated by the "Wikipedians" to be more than 97,6% likely to do so. Livajo 16:44, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Prank. — Gwalla | Talk 17:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Guys, get a sense of emotion or sympathy will you? Of course it will be deleted, don't worry your hyperserious minds over it. I was just trying to do something nice, so don't worry, it will be deleted and your order will be back.
- User:62.163.6.253: we feel your pain and would like to express our deepest vuffespijder to you in your Dutch exile. --Ianb 20:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 19:33, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - worthless content. RedWolf 00:30, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Sooner rather than later. Wikipedia is not a place for score-settling in RL. The more we allow it to fill this role, the more junk like this will happen. --Improv 16:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, bad joke. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The article or vuffespijder can now be legally speedied. I e-mailed the original author — found his address on the web — with non-threatening auntish reproof, and got a very nice message back, stating that he knows his page is not encyclopedic, that Ellen has now read and enjoyed it, and that he'll therefore be fine with its being deleted. We have documentary evidence of original author voting delete — do we have any trigger-happy admin out there? Bishonen 08:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- I appear to have caught a flu-like illness, so nothing makes me happy except the trigger. Speedy deleted per author's request Geogre 14:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Tom Smith (filker) -- Add to this discussion
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
from VfD:
This nomination is no longer an implicit Del vote. -Jerzy(t) 02:41, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC) Vanity stub on a guy apparently acknowledged for one joke filk music performance at a Sci-Fi convention. Deletion will enable demolition of dab structure built to accommodate this article. --Jerzy(t) 08:33, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not convinced this, or the related pages, are notable. Average Earthman 11:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete:Ad for a non-notable individual. Notice that it's one sentence and then "go to his page." And then there's the subject of filk that we shall not breach here. Geogre 11:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Keep rewrite. Geogre 13:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. In my opinion, the pattern that we see here of 1) a one-sentence statement and an 2) external link with 3) nothing else on the page should qualify generally for a "speedy delete." ---Rednblu 15:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I hate newly-created stubs with nothing but an external link. However, I know that Tom Smith is the most notable filker among those who sit around finding rhymes for 'Saruman'. He's had national radio play and albums and such. I don't even care for the genre but I know his name. I'd suggest a trip to cleanup for this entry in the hopes that it can actually be expanded into a useful article. Spatch 16:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Notable in filking circles. Current substub is pretty dire, though. — Gwalla | Talk 17:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I created the stub, hoping that other people who were more in the filk community would fill it in a bit more. Definitely not a vanity stub, though: I created it because of the "Boy and his Frog" reference in the Jim Henson article, and this led to the creation of the Pegasus Awards article. He is hardly known for "one joke performance", as Jerzy seems to think -- he's a multiple-time Pegasus winner.--SarekOfVulcan 19:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- Please flesh it out some, if you can, during VfD. Some of us take pleasure in changing our votes, and mine was based as much on the one line -> link format as anything (advertising). Also, it would help if some of the non-filk stuff were there, at least for me. Geogre 00:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - more Tom Smith vanity nonsense - Tεxτurε 19:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not the User:QIM Tom Smith, by pure coincidence this Tom came up here at the same time. -- Solitude 07:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ummm... how is it vanity if it was created by someone (not the subject)as a reference for another entry?--SarekOfVulcan 20:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Please read: Wikipedia:Vanity page. - Tεxτurε 20:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Got it. Well, we'll see if I can get other people to come edit it with more interesting information, so it's not a single-editor stub anymore. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 21:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Please read: Wikipedia:Vanity page. - Tεxτurε 20:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- We interrupt this process for an important Howdy.
Hi! This is Tom Smith. For what it's worth, I didn't create the page, and barely knew of its existence, and wouldn't know it was up for deletion except that someone told me. My only reason for posting this now is a little bit of good-natured self defense.
I've been writing music and performing (and filking) for about twenty years. I've got seven albums, including a brand-new one just off to the duplicator this week. Larry Niven has compared me with Tom Lehrer; Dr. Demento has featured me on the Funny Five; I wrote the official song for Talk Like A Pirate Day. I've been a guest at about a hundred conventions in the U.S., Canada, and Britain, and have (to my surprise and delight) fans around the world.
And I genuinely don't know what is meant by "more Tom Smith vanity nonsense". I have one web page to sell my albums, and another for my LiveJournal (note that I am not putting those links here); I don't spam, don't overload rec.music.filk, and don't advertise myself all over other message boards and comment sections.
If this page goes, it goes. If it stays, it stays. But I did not put it here. I don't need a vanity page. Is all I'm sayin'.
Thanks,
Tom
- I just cleaned up the article. What do you think now? --SarekOfVulcan 00:35, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Notable within the filk genre. Keep. Rhymeless 00:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: notable in a widespread, if silly, genre. It appears that this Tom Smith is a different person from the one posting the "QIM" stuff. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Seems pretty darn notable to me. I, for one, am glad to see performers like Tom Smith bringing the songs from my favourite books to life. Welcome to the Wikipedia Tom!. The Steve 08:46, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. After another Tom Smith added his vanity link to the Tom Smith disambig page, some guy thought the other Tom Smith articles should be deleted as well!! Don't know if that has anything to do with this VfD nomination though. -- Chuq 11:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP, there is absolutely no good reason to delete this page. -- Old Right 16:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - The page informs us who Tom Smith the filker is. Informing is what wikipedia is suppose to do! -- Crevaner 16:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep in present form. Official song of "talk like a pirate day," Christine Lavin's blessing, testimony of Wikipedians who have heard him convince me of notability. Plus I have got to say that the "we interrupt this process for an important Howdy" note, neatly formatted as a bullet item, coherent and informative, is about the classiest anon comment I've ever seen in VfD. Genuinely helpful in evaluating the situation. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- Heh. I agree. Keep. CHL
- Keep. Notable. Jallan 15:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep I'm pleased to have nominated it for VfD/TbO, now seeing the editing it produced. [grin] Dunno, maybe i shouldn't have trusted an obviously lousy article to represent the topic well. --Jerzy(t) 02:41, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
- Keep in this version. JamesMLane 23:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
New institutionalism -- Add to this discussion
New institutionalism
I want to see what was deleted from the page. I'm new here, but my opinion on the matter is 'who other than an academic (per se) or academic-type person would search for "new institutionalism"?' There should at least be an option for a more-developed discourse, we already suffer from enough over-simplification in this world.
mcgrathster@gmail.com (can anyone tell me how to contact other people on this site?)
- Sure. When you click on "history", you can see who has made each edit to the page. Most people also sign their comments; click on the "Lunkwill" link at the end of my comment and you can leave me a personal message on my page, or leave it here and I'll see that it's been edited recently, because it'll show up on my "watchlist". You can have one too by creating an account, which requires only choosing a username and password. Lunkwill 23:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Here's the discussion and voting from when this page was listed on "Votes for deletion":
Non-notable (first three Google hits are Wikipedia and two mirrors), reads like original research. Susvolans 14:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(My google search returned many pages of references, including quite a lot of academic papers.) Lunkwill 20:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Read's like someone's term paper for school. Interesting, but not particularly encyclopedic as it stands. Delete. -FZ 14:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm in the process of revising this article. I admit that it currently reads like a term paper, but I don't believe that new institutionalism is non-notable. It is an emerging school in sociology. Obscure, perhaps, but relevant. While its true that wikipedia mirrors dominate the google results, there are also legitimate academic citations ([10] and [11] for example). Dimaggio and Powell are two regularly cited academics who are proponents of this theory [12]. Their book "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields" was as significant contribution to this field. mennonot 15:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: What's new about it? What makes it different from Institutionalisation? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Institutionalisation describes the process by which large, often bueracratic organisations began to dominate our society, what Max Weber describes as the Iron Cage and in more common usage is the process by which movements or networks become formalized into institutions. New institutionalism is the study of the way those institutions operate, relate to each other and organize themselves[13]. It builds on Webers work (hence the Iron Cage Revisited title above) but goes in more depth. I admit that I only have a superficial knowledge of the field, but I'm willing to put time into improving the article and making it more understandable. mennonot 16:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. I've finished a major revision of the article. Please check it out. It still has a long way to go, but I hope you'll agree that it is now readable enough to avoid deletion. mennonot 19:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - original work/derivation - Tεxτurε 19:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - I find plenty of references to the concept in google, both academic and derivative. The article uses lots of sociology lingo (it was, in fact, written for a class presentation on the topic by a grad student), but is NPOV, informative and relevant. Lunkwill 20:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. Google finds quite a lot of hits (20,000, it appears that a significant fraction is relevant). It still needs work, though. What is the history of this theory? Who introduced it? How does it relate to other theories? Andris 22:59, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I've added a history section in an attempt to begin to answer these question. Its fairly vague, but its a start. mennonot 15:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Worthy topic; notable, with literature. Keep. Rhymeless 00:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - The influence of institutions on individuals seems to me a key subject, although imo more related to social psychology than directly to sociology. --Pgreenfinch 13:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- (Ineligible anon vote) Keep. The new institutionalism is an important movement not only in sociology but in economics and political science. (Douglass North won the Nobel Prize in economics for an early contribution in 1993.) Because of diverse contributors to the movement, everyone who tries to summarize it has trouble. But the article is as good an effort as any, and can be very useful.
- Keep - I even linked to it from organizational studies
Cuts to article by GoodOlPolonius
I'm not happy with the deletion of five paragraphs from the New institutionalism article by GoodOlPolonius with only "simplified approach" as an explanation. Cuts those extensive need a better justification than that. I'm open to listening to the rationale for major cutting, but I don't think those cuts should be made without discussion. mennonot 10:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am quite happy to talk about the cuts, the lack of changes to this page and its votes for deletion led me to believe that it was not being actively modified, so I went ahead and made the changes. The original version of this page did not serve as an introductory article in which a layperson could expect to find their way, nor did it place new institutionalism in the context of other approaches to the field of organizational studies/sociology. For example, your intro included:
"In new institutional theory Institutions are durable, transmittable, maintainable, and reproducible (Scott 2001). Berger and Luckmann (1966) speak of a dialectic process in which institutions are socially constructed but also influence the people who create them. "Man…and his social world interact with each other. The product acts back upon the producer" (p. 61). In this way, institutions are durable - they persist across time (transmittable) and are somewhat difficult to change. Institutions are also maintainable and reproducible. When individuals follow appropriate institutional logics, they are reproducing institutions."
This is very difficult to understand, since you dive right into some heavy academic discourse about various approaches to institutions, rather than discussing what new institutionalism is and how it relates to other fields of study. I thought it would be much better to explain, in general, what the approach of new institutionalism is. Think of this as a general interest encyclopedia.
I am, however, definitely open to change.--Goodoldpolonius2 18:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- To clarify, I didn't write most of the article. I just did a fair amount of revision when it came up for deletion in order to try to improve it. It was even more inaccessible before I started messing with it.
- I agree with what you say about the introduction being too academic. My main concern was with cutting the whole "Regulative, Normative and Cultural-Cognitive Frameworks" section. While this section was pretty academic, I think there might be more that could be used from it. I think you did a good job of starting the process of synthesizing it, but perhaps we can work to pull some of the explanation of the different frameworks back into the article in a more readable format.
- Thanks for taking the time to write a longer explanation. It's helpful for understanding how to go forward from here. mennonot 14:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- Good to get a dialogue going. I guess I did not see that the Regulative, Normative, and Cultural-Cognitive frameworks were the key structural elements within New Insitutionalism. If you want to take a crack at putting them back, with some context around why they are important, that would work. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- I tried to add three types of the new institutionalism in fairly non-academic language here (although my writing is quite clumsy.) I think it's important to look at how different approaches to institutionalism can be. I welcome the alteration of the text to make it more accessible still. Nach0king 18:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
-
I can see that the discussion is here among persons really interested in the field, mayby there might be someone helpfull? I have some problems undestanding the link (or if there is any) between social constructionism and the new institutionalism? Maria
Stacy Rotne -- Add to this discussion
Tally: I count 13 delete votes, 5 keep votes, and 1 merge/redirect vote. I'll delete Stacy Rotner and its redirect Stacy Rotne now. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Stacy Rotne
Game show contestant. Participating in a game show is not evidence of notability. Come back after she wins the grand prize. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- Comment updated above. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. -- Necrothesp 17:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- But if it is kept, for Gawd's sake someone clean it up. It looks like a fansite at the moment, not a serious article. -- Necrothesp 10:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable game show contestant. Betcha that photo is a copyvio, too. — Gwalla | Talk 17:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Greed is a sin. Non-notable. Geogre 18:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Greed is good - Tεxτurε 19:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, Greed is good, but encyclopedic is better. -Vina 20:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, for What she lacks in height, she more than lacks in notability. --Ianb 20:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP - The Apprentice is a highly rated show. As this season continues she'll gain more notoriety. After all Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth has an article. -- Crevaner 23:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Never heard of it. Or that Omarosa person. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- So? You're a hermit crab? Must that affect everyone else? -- user:zanimum
- Never heard of it. Or that Omarosa person. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable game show contestant. SWAdair | Talk 02:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, she inevitably will gain more notoriety! -- Old Right 15:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not about what might be, but about what is. Unless and until she becomes of note separate from this gameshow, there is no need for an article. Average Earthman 18:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't know what you mean by Greed; this woman was on The Apprentice 2, a show which causes more water-cooler talk than I've ever seen. The show has a cult following and if every minor character and place in Star Trek, Star Wars, Pokemon and other fictional universes can have pages, I think a REAL live person on a reality (NOT game) show should have one.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 15:36, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The winner *might* warrant a break-out article, but not every participant. BTW, if there's a "winner", I'd say it's a "game" show. And get rid of all the red-links for the "candidates" at The Apprentice 1 and The Apprentice 2. (Second season debut watched by 0.2% of the population)Niteowlneils 21:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Survivor, The Apprentice 1, and other shows all have contestant articles (even contestants who did not end up winning). Expand, don't delete. - MattTM 04:12, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. An expanded article won't make a non-notable person notable. --Improv 15:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- Comment I just discovered that her name seems to be Stacy Rotner, not Rotne. [14] (I refrained from moving it now since it's on VfD.) And, if doing a Google test on Stacy, a search for "Stacy" + "The Apprentice" would be more accurate than searching for "Stacy Rotner", as the Apprentice candidates' last names were not even know until very recently, and are rarely used on discussion and other related sites. So, this needs to be moved if it is kept. - MattTM 05:01, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect into List of Apprentice 2 candidates Kuwanger 07:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, and here's the reasons why: -- user:zanimum
- There are multiple categories in television that are relevant to this discussion.
- The game show: Where "characters" don't emerge, unless they become Ken Jennings; the sole purpose of watching the show is see their path to the prize. Take Fear Factor, please.
- The reality show: Where "characters" interact, often in a closed environment, for no true purpose but the entertainment of the viewer; may be artificially situated (The Surreal Life or The Simple Life.
- The reality game show: The purpose of watching is both to find out how characters interact, and to see how they get to the prize. Take Survivor, Big Brother, The Real World.
- Out of the above, The Apprentice fits into the reality game show most comfortably. However, unlike pretty much any other show before it, the prize is continuous, and would have existed without the show. Why? Trump needs to employ. Simply, it's an odd interview process, that balances character over credentials. It's quite clever really; while you can hide a dark side in an interview, it's going to come out in a longer, more grueling process. Mark Burnett has essentially tried to stir up a format (interviews) that has worked for decades, with a completely unique idea.
- In like reality shows, Stacey et al are the equivilent of any character; take Injun Joe. Without Injun Joe, the story of of Tom and Huck would fall apart. There's many elements of the duos adventures that would be left intact, but it just wouldn't be the same creative work. Same with any independent reality show contestant, and I will explain this classification later. Without Stacey, the chemistry of the show simply wouldn't be the same. The show would have a different outcome entirely, etc, etc. The difference between Stacey and a girl on the Bachelor, say, is that unless she makes it until the final episode or so, Jayne http://abc.go.com/primetime/bachelor/bios/6/jayne.html won't have an truely individual personality or thoughts. And I don't mean to undermine that show. It's just the sheer quantity of contestants on The Bachelor makes it nearly impossible to create identifiable characters, beyond a caricature, possibly. But seeing just one episode of The Apprentice 2, you can tell how Stacey ticks, how she works.
- If someone can go from relative obscurity, albeit with fairly good credentials, to have 20500 Google hits (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=stacy%2Bapprentice&meta=) in about a month, obviously there's a fan following of the show, and her.
- "Greed is a sin." She is simply going through a unorthodox job candidate interview process. Anyone mentioning anything like this should quite frankly have their vote nulled, as part of their reason for voting to delete is solely based on their POV.
- To those of you who say, "never heard of her", I say might as well go the same cocky-know-it-all route and say that "I've never heard of the United States v. E. C. Knight Co. court case. We should delete is because I'm a genius, and if I'm a genius and I haven't heard of it, it mustn't be important." I'm frankly tired of people using this pathetic attitude, it doesn't belong here.
- Googling for Stacey + The Apprentice would find Stacey Rotner just as fast now as if it was part of a jumbo-sized contestant article.
- The name was a slight typo that I've corrected.
- The photo is not a copyvio. It is a press photo available to anyone, even without registration or proper press credentials, from the NBC press website.
- There are multiple categories in television that are relevant to this discussion.
- Delete. Unless she gains the fames of someone like Osamara (sp?), I see no reason why this information couldn't just be listed on a convenient "The Apprentice 2 - List of Contestants" page. If she's still that well known to google a year after the last episode of this season airs, then maybe she should get her own entry. --Lifefeed 19:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Raj Bhakta -- Add to this discussion
Tally: I count 13 delete, 4 keep or maybe 5 if User:Kuwanger is counted. I have deleted Raj Bhakta. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Raj Bhakta: game show contestant. Participating in a game show is not evidence of notability. Come back after he wins the grand prize. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete -- Necrothesp 17:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable contestant. Photo is probable copyvio (and features a ridiculous tie). — Gwalla | Talk 17:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Twerp in a bowtie, part of the Celebrating Greed series on television. Delete for not being notable. Geogre 18:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 19:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, I protest mightily at some user's disdain of Greed. I don't even know that winning the grand prize will get enough notability. I mean, who cares about the dude that won Apprentice 1? -Vina 20:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess I don't. Comment updated above. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- His suit appears to be made out of my old curtains (disclaimer: it was the ex-wife's taste). But enough of this prittle-prattle, Delete non-entity. --Ianb 20:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable game show contestant.
- Delete. Unless and until he becomes of note separate from this gameshow, there is no need for an article. Average Earthman 18:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't know what you mean by Greed; this guy was on The Apprentice 2, a show which causes more water-cooler talk than I've ever seen. The show has a cult following and if every minor character and place in Star Trek, Star Wars, Pokemon and other fictional universes can have pages, I think a REAL live person on a reality (NOT game) show should have one.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 15:34, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The winner *might* warrant a break-out article, but not every participant. BTW, if there's a "winner", I'd say it's a "game" show. Niteowlneils 21:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Lets not say to delete this page because we do not like the Percieved charter of the show or the show in it's self. If we were to say that no charaters except the winner should deserve a page then so be it, but this page give information about a charater in a show that's status is still unknown. I say we decide if any contesent on any reality show should have a page or not, rather than a piticular person. Asian Animal
- Keep Survivor, The Apprentice 1, and other shows all have contestant articles (even contestants who did not end up winning). I see no reason for this to be deleted, only expanded. - MattTM 04:12, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect into List of Apprentice 2 candidates Kuwanger 07:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. An expanded article won't make a non-notable person notable. --Improv 15:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep I think most of the votes to delete are coming from people who aren't fans of the show or reality tv as a whole. Raj, through his actions and manner of dress, has certainly proven himself notable in this cast of the show. Inturnaround 17:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Apropos, I don't think winning at a game show confers encylopaedic notability, either. -- WOT 18:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Albanian proverbs -- Add to this discussion
Albanian proverbs
The Wikipedia article Albanian proverbs also exists on Wikiquote (verbatim) as Wikiquote:Albanian proverbs. I think Wikiquote is the more sensible place for this, so I think the Wikipedia page ought to be deleted. – Quadell (talk) (quiz)[[]] 17:26, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: As it has been transwikied, it should be deleted. Geogre 18:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Can't it be linked to Wikiquote? - Tεxτurε 19:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. And fix links leading to it to lead to Wikiquote. — Gwalla | Talk 03:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: no information is lost. Wetman 01:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Post-deletion: I doubt anyone will see this (unless they spot it on RC), but whoever deleted it did not update the links. Also, I plenty of X proverbs pages still on Wikipedia. This is an all or none issue as far as I'm concerned (I would have voted to keep, but perhaps reduce the number and expand to an article, which I may well do at some point). Dori | Talk 03:46, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
- I see ya, Dori. I've gone back and updated the links. Yes, I agree, all proverbs pages should be treated the same. (The Albanian one was the only one I found where the Wikiquote version was exactly the same as the Wikipedia version.) I've listed many proverbs pages on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. I'm not sure what one could say in an Albanian proverbs article, other than "Albanian proverbs are proverbs from Albania." But maybe you can think of something. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 12:58, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Aza raskin -- Add to this discussion
Aza raskin
Page was initially speedily deleted by myself as it appeared to be badly named vanity (Aza raskin is listed as the manager of a website) however a complaint from the creator of the article on my talk page made me rethink my decision and I have since restored it. I still think it doesn't appear notable. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: We don't advertise websites, and the article is about the website, not the person. The person appears to be a minor player in the article on his/her own name, in fact, and the article establishes its context so poorly that it's hard to tell what it's about. Non-encyclopedic. Geogre 18:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Vanity/advert - Tεxτurε 19:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. An article about Jef Raskin would be nice though... oh, there is one already. --Ianb 21:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Having read the Guidlines with care, I concure with Graham's decision to DELETE the page. As a newcommer I did not realise that the level of care and consideration for fragmentation (detailing) of subject matter ran so high. Please accept my apologies for the misnomer. -Mr. Aza Raskin is unaware of my posting, which, by the way, was made in good faith, as a matter of information on the person who is the coding architect for 'THE' on behalf of Jef Raskin (who does not code as I understand it). It would have been nice however had Graham elected first to investigate, say hello, attempt to have a brief dialogue with the writer, prior to deletion. perhaps an effort to add to or correct the situation. Any blind mob can destroy, but it takes a true artist to find the usefullness in the appearantly dull. -After all, wikipedias are for the benefit of the people, to bring people closer together, not the reverse. When one removes the civil and humane element from the process... its just the same as any other encyclopedia or self-centered endeavor. My original text to Graham is on the "User talk:Proton44" page should anyone care to read it. Congratulations! a splendid job at making the world feel welcome... Vanity? hmmmm... one wonders... Please delete the offending page post haste with my blessing and be of good cheer!!! The writer.
PS: this page was very enlightning: Pet_rock just the sort of information every school child should know. It has had a profound effect on me already in the past 24 hours alone! --Proton44 03:31, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)
- Delete. The project may be notable, but the guy who runs the website isn't. Also, article is misnamed: unless he's one of those goofballs who likes to be "creative" with capitalization, it should be "Aza Raskin". — Gwalla | Talk 03:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree that an article on the project might be acceptable. Jallan 15:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Failure of SAARC in light of ASEAN Success -- Add to this discussion
Failure of SAARC in light of ASEAN Success
Looks like a huge copy & paste, whether from original research or copyvio, I don't know, but the POV is inescapable, and the discursive style is non-encyclopedic. Geogre 19:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. POV title, no useful content. Andrewa 20:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, although it'd be nice if some of this material, if relevant, could find its way to the article on SAARC. Lacrimosus 20:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: The key words here are relevant and (in my vote) useful. The problem is, extracting and verifying the information is going to take at least as long as starting from scratch IMO. Andrewa 22:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Incurably POV. — Gwalla | Talk 03:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Title screams original research. Shimmin 17:22, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Notion -- Add to this discussion
Exopolitics -- Add to this discussion
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on January 20, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Archive 1 - ended 2006
Archive 2 - ended February 2007
Updating
Ok I am going to start updating this article today and tomorrow and for the rest of the week, if anyone would like to join me please do so (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · contributions 20:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I updated External links today, I will start adding references and citation tomorrow, join the part hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- well i have updated the references a bit (i figured i couldn't wait tell tomorrow), but I will go ahead and clean up the references tomorrow using correct citation and improving on the article (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well i couldnt help myself, I went ahead and fixed the citation style for a few of the references today, I will finish the rest tomorrow hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Extramural -- Add to this discussion
Extramural
Dicdef and substub. - KeithTyler 20:59, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Do not transwiki, as this is an inaccurate definition. Geogre 00:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Dictdef, no potential for expansion. — Gwalla | Talk 03:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 17:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 08:00, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. -- Add to this discussion
from VfD:
Self referential stub that's not going anywhere. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Self-reference, and who on earth is going to search for this? Bizarre idea to even create this "article." Geogre 00:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I think this is a joke for Google and the mirror sites. CHL 00:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Pointless, non-encyclopedic "dictdef". — Gwalla | Talk 03:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to MediaWiki talk:Fromwikipedia so that newbies entering the tagline in the search box can discover the debates that go into the wording of the tagline. (Of course, for this to really be effective, we'd have to add another redirect every time the tagline changed.) --Ardonik.talk() 04:32, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect. I agree with Ardonik's reasoning. Livajo 04:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect. My idea in the first place was to enable some type of discussion of the tagline (even if it was just some stuff about Wikipedia's freeness). Having not ventured terribly far into the non-article spaces in Wikipedia I didn't know there was extended debate on the topic... But anyway, I just thought there'd be something there for the most common phrase on Wikipedia. --Alexwcovington 05:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirected. I hope it's not in contravention of anything, but I'll just go ahead and fix the problem. --Alexwcovington 05:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep redirect - David Gerard 15:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as redirect. Seems harmless and obviously useful to some. Andrewa 18:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, not redirect. Really, why would a newbie type this into the search box? This phrase is non-notable. Also, this page is orphaned. I don't think having this page will help anybody. Eric119 20:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Aren't Redirects normally orphaned, given that we usually try to fix links to bypass redirects? I'd say keep as redirect. -FZ 17:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Meta-human -- Add to this discussion
Meta-human
- Delete. Some vandals have way too much time on their hands. Binadot 22:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, I actually think it's interesting! -- Old Right 22:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hey, just because it's interesting doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. Binadot 22:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- "Interesting" is not a criterion for keeping.
- Delete. Is this from some fictional universe? Andris 22:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep! - Just include a line about it being fictional. -- Crevaner 23:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - After I make a personal copy for its entertainment value (not what Wikipedia is about, though). - Kbh3rd 23:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: fanfic. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Fanfic, conquering hero fantasies. People dream these things, but they don't go to encyclopedias for them. Geogre 00:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Probably a copyvio from some Wild Cards-esque superhero story anyway. Redirect to superhuman. -Sean Curtin 00:23, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Db Not one for mainstream WP, but well worth preserving in BJAODN. Chris 00:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- BJAODN and Redirect to Superhuman. Kevyn 00:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This is great, but delete. I wish there was a place for it. -Seth Mahoney 03:09, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to superhuman. — Gwalla | Talk 03:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Do NOT redirect, this is fiction, people, and not from some fictional universe, it's somebody's short story. Or something. RickK 04:31, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- DC Comics has been using the term to generically refer to superheroes and supervillains for years; the term should have a redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:13, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Fiction. --Yath 04:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Put it on BJAODN if you want, but it's worthless as an encyclopedia entry. Livajo 05:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. A great read, there must be a place for this, but Wikipedia ain't it. Andrewa 18:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and
| Add to BJAODN |
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Fire Star 21:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Delete - no bad jokes. Then redirect namespce to Metahuman to thwart future use of this article title. Davodd 12:43, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Excellent scafolding either for some genuine fiction or fan fiction. More readible than most Wikipedia articles. It deserves posting. So the author should post it somewhere where it belongs. Jallan 16:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete original fiction. Redirects not necessary. Rossami 04:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Very creative, but wholly fictional and therefore not encyclopedic. Is there a WikiFiction? ClockworkTroll 06:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Only in proposed discussion. Wikifition Davodd 02:48, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to the legitimate article metahuman. --Lowellian 19:53, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Ericksonian hypnosis -- Add to this discussion
from VfD:
Maybe there should be an article on this topic, but the current one is gibberish. --68.20.232.73 23:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Total BS. Binadot 23:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I bet it's BS, too, and the article suffers from maximum POV difficulty. But it's encyclopedic. --Yath 04:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This is the sort of thing that makes people whine about deletionists. I cleaned it up a bit. It's not really our place to rule on its validity as a therapy or not (I think hypnotherapy is pretty BS at best, damaging at worst, but that's neither here nor there), and with 9,400 google hits I think it is notable enough to have at least some sort of entry (preferably one which distinguishs it from other forms of hypnotherapy). I broke it down into a NPOV stub, I think it can be keeped. --Fastfission 17:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect and Merge with Milton Erickson. If information on the technique ever gets expanded, then the redirect can again become a separate article. Jallan 16:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Merge & redirect -FZ 17:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Merged. Redirect. Rossami 04:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and list on Cleanup, although I can't help build it up until after this week. --Zigger 16:51, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
- Comment. Deleting this article would not prevent a new article on the subject with different content being written. There is no need for the article to go to cleanup rather than being deleted in order to enable Zigger to write an improved version. Similarly, if the current content is merged with Milton Erickson, which seems to be the consensus now, Zigger or anyone can at any time in the future expand material in Milton Erickson and, if it starts getting too big, move the newly written Eickson hpynosis material back into its own article. Jallan 15:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- While I agree with Jallan's points above, deletion removes attribution & history, which are both important parts of wikipedia. VFD exists because we don't take deletion lightly. OTOH, the content is probably too misleading to merge anywhere else. --Zigger 18:51, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
- merge&redirect Chuck 19:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Frank R. Wallace -- Add to this discussion
Frank R. Wallace
Vanity, non-notable, commercial, and besides, the article is really about "Neo-Tech", a neologism and commercial item. - KeithTyler 23:44, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Lunkwill 00:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Ad, mysticism. Geogre 00:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ad for somebody's pet theory of life, the universe, and everything. — Gwalla | Talk 03:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. --Yath 04:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Neo-Tech is worth an article, if the article were a study of it as a cult. A factual bio of Wallace would be relevant in the same context, if you could write one. This isn't either article. Delete if not rewritten - David Gerard 15:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Amateur philosopher.
- [Last comment was by User:Binadot] - KeithTyler
- Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 17:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fundamentalism vs. Realism -- Add to this discussion
Fundamentalism vs. Realism
Er... well, this is an article comparing two existing concepts, is original research, deals with the topic only as it applies to a specific group. And I think it's POV. I'd love to be more confident about that, but the wording is only borderline POV, though it seems to be based on certain unprovable assumptions. Basically, I don't think it can be cleaned up, so it should be deleted. - KeithTyler 23:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Original research, misleading title, appeal to only a very small party, another example of people mistaking their private concerns for encyclopedic content. Geogre 00:14, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Some content might be salvaged into German Green Party and/or worldwide green parties]; if not, delete. -Sean Curtin 00:32, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral, I do not have an opinion whether it should be deleted but I know that this is a well known and documented battle, as I read in Dutch newspapers, between factions in the German Green party. So I am quite sure it is not original research. Andries 00:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The article's title is misleading... nothing to indicate that this is about Green Party politics. Possibly merge relevant content into approriate Green Party article(s), but as it stands, this article should be deleted. Kevyn 00:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This is useless POV stuff as it stands, but weirdly, our only discussion of the fundi vs. realo split, which uses German terminology, for crying out loud, is in the article on the Canadian Green party. We have a stub on fundi, not even that on realo. There is content we need on this topic, but this generalizing isn't it. -- Jmabel 03:12, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research. --Yath 04:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup. There is a lot of well-written and encyclopedic content here that should be saved. Agree that the title is wrong, and there's a lot of work still required, but I think this can and will be salvaged if given the chance. Andrewa 18:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Davodd 12:36, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing here but generalities, that mostly apply just as much to socialist parties, ultra-right groups, purist and revisionist Tolkien fans in respect to the films, anti-abortionist groups, pro-abortionist groups, and so forth. Just wool-gathering. Jallan 16:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Agree w/ Jallan. Delete. Lacrimosus 21:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with Jallan as well. Let it go with no regrets. ClockworkTroll 06:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
September 18
Basic Public Dental Health -- Add to this discussion
Basic Public Dental Health
Original research / opinion. --Chessphoon 01:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
pointless debate article Allthewhile 02:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. — Gwalla | Talk 03:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research. Personal essay. --Yath 04:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: We have no power to affect policy, so no point in telling us how to make the world better. Geogre 04:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Possibly both the title and some of the content could be saved, but I'm not competent to do it, and unless someone who is offers to I think we're best just to delete it. POV essay as is, probably beyond cleanup. Interested in other views on this. Andrewa 17:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - original research - Tεxτurε 17:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete; original research, however there are aspects of the article that could be merged with Public Health although the focus of the current article is on dental health practices in Australia. Sihaya should be encouraged to apply NPOV, and perhaps create a more neutral page, as the article has useful information that could probably be substantiated in the relevant literature. --Viriditas 02:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" -- Add to this discussion
"Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities"
Should this be moved to Wikisource? The capital letters really hurt your eyes too. --Chessphoon 02:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Since the whole thing is available here, I think it would be best to just delete it and put the link in the External Links section of some relevant page. Livajo 03:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: That link doesn't work for me. Andrewa 17:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-encyclopedic report. — Gwalla | Talk 03:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-encyclopedia. --Yath 04:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Seems to be another voice in a political debate. Geogre 04:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-encyclopedic report / source material from 13 years ago. SWAdair | Talk 08:35, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: There is interesting material here that could be useful, but agree the title is unsuitable, the facts in need of checking and the block letters painful. Unsure as to how it could be used, so no vote for the moment. Andrewa 17:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 17:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: exists elswhere, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Mackensen 05:29, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete but if it's authentic, it is evidence of a war crime, intentional targetting facilities essential for civilian population. What's the frequency Kenneth? Alberuni 05:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I can see this as an external link for any number of pages, but it's not entirely appropriate for an article by itself, under that title and with the current content. --Viriditas 05:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
List of ethnic slurs -- Add to this discussion
List of ethnic slurs
List of ethnic slurs was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.
This page is unencyclopedic and has become a lightning rod for bigoted editors to have a playground to list as many dubious terms as they can. I can't see any value this page adds to the Wikipedia community and could only be hurtful and offensive. There was a previous vote on this page in September and the consenus was to keep, but I request a new vote and discussion. Jewbacca 08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Jewbacca 08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, highly informative and as encyclopedic as almost any of our gajillion other lists. The page is a jerk magnet and the content is (inevitably) offensive, but these are not reasons to delete it: shall we get rid of every page with offensive content and/or antisocial editors? —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Why should this page be kept? (I know that's not the burden on this page, but I can't think of how it makes Wikipedia better) Jewbacca 08:20, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Already explained: the page is informative and lists are a firmly-established part of Wikipedia. A side benefit is that this page (and the numerous redirects to it) help prevent the constant creation and recreation of miniscule articles devoted to individual slurs—as the page's sheer size (over 70k) may have told you, people like to write about these things. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- So the benefit of having a list of ethnic slurs is that it consolidates all ethnic slurs in one place, people like to write about these things, and after all it's informative and lists are part of Wikipedia? Solid justification for having this trash among us. Jewbacca 08:30, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Ethnic slurs, as much as they suck, are part of the world; why should we not document them in a coherent, neutral fashion? Genocide is much more offensive than nasty names, but we have a great deal of information on it, including (yes) a big-ass list. This page is far from perfect, but that's no reason to delete it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Genocides are a part of history, these ethnic slurs are not. What does someone learn by reading this article? That he can call an effeminate black man a "Chimp-Pansie"? -- CPS 10:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Assuming the list is accurate, the reader would learn that someone has already used the slur in question. Slurs contribute to the forces that cause genocides. I am afraid that some terms on the list may have been made up. Personaly, I find it unbelievable that anyone in the US would put together a term like "Chimp-Pansie". Fraudulent entries aside, naming a term a slur exposes it to sunlight. -Willmcw 02:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Genocides are a part of history, these ethnic slurs are not. What does someone learn by reading this article? That he can call an effeminate black man a "Chimp-Pansie"? -- CPS 10:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Ethnic slurs, as much as they suck, are part of the world; why should we not document them in a coherent, neutral fashion? Genocide is much more offensive than nasty names, but we have a great deal of information on it, including (yes) a big-ass list. This page is far from perfect, but that's no reason to delete it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- So the benefit of having a list of ethnic slurs is that it consolidates all ethnic slurs in one place, people like to write about these things, and after all it's informative and lists are part of Wikipedia? Solid justification for having this trash among us. Jewbacca 08:30, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Already explained: the page is informative and lists are a firmly-established part of Wikipedia. A side benefit is that this page (and the numerous redirects to it) help prevent the constant creation and recreation of miniscule articles devoted to individual slurs—as the page's sheer size (over 70k) may have told you, people like to write about these things. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Why should this page be kept? (I know that's not the burden on this page, but I can't think of how it makes Wikipedia better) Jewbacca 08:20, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Periodically, you and your friends try to get something deleted that you don't approve of. Unfortunately for you, "I don't like it" is not a reason for deleting a page. I don't like it either but I'll fight for what I don't like as hard as what I do. We call that the NPOV way, dude. Why not try it for once? Keep this.Dr Zen 08:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep this, it is highly informative. Naturally it is offensive, it is a list of racial slurs, but as it does nothing to condone their use (only lists them) it is nothing more than a useful reference document. You wouldn't want to delete the page on Neo-Nazism either, even though that offends a lot of people. Brother Dysk 08:29, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Y'know, the problem with lists like these has been clearly demonstrated by the anti-semitic troll sockpuppet Wiesenthaler. Take a look at WP:VIP#User:Wiesenthaler to get a sense of what he's trying to do. At any rate, I agree: this list has no value unless it is carefully vetted to make sure that what is listed is actual ethnic slurs in common enough usage to warrant encyclopedic treatment. I mean, I could make up something like "Kinkajews: jews that wear Afros" and use it once to insult a friend, and then enter it on the list as an ethnic slur. Is someone going to go and check out every entry on this list for its actual usage? Is someone going to make sure that the definitions themselves are not ethnic slurs? I'm sure not going to, and unless some person or persons wishes to take on this task, I suggest delete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I can't necessarily audit the entire list (being non-American and non-British, my knowledge of racial slurs is not complete, and Google isn't the most useful thing ever for slang that rarely goes to print) but I'll be doing my bit to monitor this - I suggest others do the same - add it to your watchlist, and whenever there's an addition, check it's acceptable. Brother Dysk 09:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Very well, though I can think of a million better uses for our editors' efforts than verifying additions to a list of ethnic slurs. Jewbacca 10:02, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- How awfully subjective. If I'm bored, and all other articles on my watchlist are inactive, then should I pick up my guitar or audit racial slurs. What's more useful to the Wikipedia project? Brother Dysk 12:08, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Very well, though I can think of a million better uses for our editors' efforts than verifying additions to a list of ethnic slurs. Jewbacca 10:02, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- I can't necessarily audit the entire list (being non-American and non-British, my knowledge of racial slurs is not complete, and Google isn't the most useful thing ever for slang that rarely goes to print) but I'll be doing my bit to monitor this - I suggest others do the same - add it to your watchlist, and whenever there's an addition, check it's acceptable. Brother Dysk 09:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Thoroughly contemptible. Keep anyway. --Korath会話 08:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, but as at Republican/Democrat In Name Only we should require citation for every reference. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:04, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously, but sadly. No censorship here, please. No need for citation for every entry - not a requirement for other articles, and rather unreasonable. Dan100 09:22, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep.. Xezbeth 09:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I hate the fact that there are ethnic slurs, however this is the only place I can think of that can list them in a neutral fashion. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Content is offensive by nature, but that is no reason not to document it. (Groaning while placing this one on my watchlist). SWAdair | Talk 10:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. If the list is suffering from too many not widely used words, they should be weeded out. It would be a pity to deprive people of such a potentially useful list. Ливай | ☺ 10:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep otherwise the practise is clear censorship.
- Keep. Obviously. Inherently encyclopedic, useful and informative.--Centauri 11:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: As has been stated before, "I don't like it" is not reason enough for deletion. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Perfectly good page which has already survived a vote once. The apparent allegation that anyone who adds anything to it must be racist themselves is insulting and bigoted in the extreme. It is not racist to record a fact, and the sad fact is that people use these terms. -- Necrothesp 11:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: DCEdwards1966 14:36, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The only problem is that this list is that it's a target for vandalism but so are th births/deaths sections of the year articles. Should we remove them too? Jeltz talk 16:35, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
- Delete. A list of words per se probably doesn't make an encyclopedia article. If wiktionary deals in lists you could transwiki, I suppose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. Clearly encyclopedic, we are not the morality police of the internet. GRider\talk 17:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: Mirv's reasoning is sound. Wikipedia is to reflect the real world, not the way we wish the real world was. If we didn't have a "List of" article, we'd just have individual articles on each slur, and even if you volunteered to watch vigilantly and VfD each one as it was created, it wouldn't be a stable situation -- so that's reason to Keep even besides the fact that yes, it is a fact of life, albeit an unpretty one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: It's ironic that practically the only editor who wants to delete this page chose an ethnic slur for his User name. --Wiesenthaler 17:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Voting one time only)
- The above user is an admitted sockpuppet. This vote should not be counted per Wikipedia:Sockpuppets despite the dubious guarantee of "Voting one time only" Jewbacca 03:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia policy requires that statements be referenced, yet not a single one of these entries lists a source. This means that racist editors could add a list of slurs they had invented, or had heard a few friends use. It is unencylopedic to have an article explaining that "gorilla" is a big, fat black person; "goatfucker" is a word for Muslims; and "German candle" and "German mitt" are terms for Jews. The publication of material like this encourages racial hatred and debases Wikipedia. Slim 19:10, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
- The study of ethnic slurs, or ethnophaulisms, is a valid academic field even if the content offends you. See [16] [17] [18]. There are whole dictionaries on this subject; Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Oxford Dictionary of Slang, The Color of Words: An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Ethnic Bias, Dictionary of Contemporary Slang, Dictionary of Euphemisms, American Thesaurus of Slang, etc. To claim that this subject is not encyclopedic is absurd. --Wiesenthaler 20:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If none of the entries have sources, then why can't we just go through them and validate the ones in current use and delete the others, then make it clear that new entries are to be provided with sources? It may be a lot of work, but it doesn't make sense to discard all of them and the very idea of having a list like this just because there's a possibility some racist could add made-up words. Ethnic slurs are a reality, like it or not, and I don't see a reason not to have an article showing what slurs in actual widespread use and to whom they refer. Ливай | ☺ 20:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- DELETE. This page would be a magnet for creative bigots to add new ethnic slurs and give them a ready-made "source". A2Kafir 21:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Un-sourced, un-encyclopedic, and a magnet for bigots. Jayjg 21:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, useful to dweebs. Wyss 21:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, useful and encyclopedic. --SPUI 04:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, useful. Some Wikipedians shouldn't be so thin skinned. Wikipedia is not about pandering to "political correctness". Megan1967 23:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Weak keep offensive, yes. But I don't think that is a reason for removal. -Ld | talk 00:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, Unfortunately Wikipedia attracts a few people who want to write offensive but valid articles. Putting them all together in a list is the best way to defuse the issues they give rise to; it makes them all look stupid. ping 03:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's an encyclopedic topic. Acknowledging their existence and explaining them does not imply condoning their use. (Where else are you going to go to look up information of this nature without getting your butt kicked just for asking, anyway?) Mindspillage 04:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Isn't one unsuccessful VfD enough? The arguments put forth for deleting this article don't really justify such action. We should delete it because it's a troll magnet? But so are a lot of articles. The main page would be a troll magnet if it weren't protected. As for "what value this article adds to the Wikipedia community," "the value it adds" is that it's a source for research into this subject. The ideal situation would be that we wouldn't have this conversation because there were no ethnic slurs. But, in the real world, ethnic slurs are a reprehensible part of life. Not all Wikipedia articles have to be morally uplifting. Some subjects are unpleasant and even offensive, but if Wikipedia is going to be a good, NPOV source of information, it must deal with them. BTW: the last VfD failed by a pretty wide margin; right now, that seems to be happening again. --Szyslak 05:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: This really looks like a lightly reworked copyvio. Isn't this basically the Racial Slur Database (cache) ? iMeowbot~Mw 06:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) (clarifying: meaning in its current form. The original 2003 Wikipedia version looks original.)
- Keep much as I disapprove of its regrettable contents. Sjc 06:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. But as iMeowbot points out, editors must avoid the temptation to make it a rewritten mirror of the www.rsdb.org Racial Slur Database. Another danger with this kind of list is that editors will make up slurs to add, so having additional citations should an expectation for editors. Overall, the list right now needs work but is about as good as can be expected. -Willmcw 08:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I do hope that everyone who votes keep is willing to spend a little time maintaining the page. As some have pointed out, it is a natural POV magnet. (or maybe sacrificial anode) Though I voted keep, and have done some maintenance, don't be surprised if I come back in a month or two asking for VfD, tired of the constant weeding and reverting. -Willmcw 08:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This page has no encyclopedic value. Kids aren't out there doing research projects on ethnic slurs. The internet is already filled with racist websites and if people are that desperate for a list of ethnic slurs they can find them there. Anyone buying into this garbage about Wikipedia being an unlimited, neutral source of information needs to get a grip on reality. Wikipedia is made by people and it is read by people. Articles like this are just offensive and serve no purpose. -- CPS 10:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- When I was in middle school, I wrote a paper on race relations where I discussed the issue of racial slurs. I asked my dad if he knew any I didn't IIRC. But I digress. Again, not every article on Wikipedia has to be morally uplifting. --Szyslak 06:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep �xfeff; --fvw* 14:30, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
- Keep, really informative, much of this information is not easy to find elsewhere. -- Note: 24.137.84.198 only has ten edits so far.
- Weak Keep. Very weak. But let's keep some perspective here: This article was listed for deletion by user 'Jewbacca.' Does nobody else find this ironic? Auto movil 02:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes it is ironic. I've noticed going through the history page that some ethnic slurs that were there last year are now missing. Looks like some user/s have been doing their own creative "deletions" :) Megan1967 03:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. When browsing the internet/wikipedia you sometimes stumble upon seedy webpages with ethnic slurs in them. Not everyone knows those slurs, so for understanding the text you're reading it is useful to have a reference list with ethnic slurs. saturnight 16:28, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
- "Keep". Informative, as these terms have been prevalent throughout history and continue to be. It is important to know them to understand the cultures that produce these terms, as lamentable as the terms are. -- this edit by 209.179.222.31, six of whose seven edits are to the article or to this vote.
- Keep. Neutralitytalk 18:22, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete this page supports racism. 08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC) -- This unsigned edit by 84.112.11.114, whose two edits are to the article and to this page. The edit was also made at 00:28, 25 Dec 2004, not 08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (simultaneous with the creation of the VfD) as claimed.
- "delete" Although this page gives information, there is no use, or need for it. what is the point of having it? If anything, it simply arms racists with more ammunition. It also humiliates jus about every race there is. This page serves as a reminder of racism in the world. We would be better off without it. -- Note: This is 82.32.26.215's only edit.
- Keep the arguments against this little page are hilarious. Scary but hilarious. Actually, as a kike myself I am more offended by your arguments against this page then by any of the words on here! Since when is a mature non-condoning presentation of knowledge offensive? Are you suggesting Jewbacca that we burn all history books that mention the word "holoucost"? No. Do you know why? Because to not chronicle them is to deny there existance. And Jewbacca, I think we can both agree that listening to people who deny the holoucost happened is a million times worse than learning about it. Furthermore this is not in the least bit racist, and the author takes a much mature attitude towards the whole thing than you appear to be doing. If this were racist I would want it taken down. It's not. What is offensive however is your suggestions of censorship. Thats just my opinion. -- Note: This is 216.175.85.162's only edit.
- Keep I would understand a movement for deletion if the terms listed here were used derisively on the page itself. However, the terms are listed in an objective way: the contributors have not written that they agree with them, or that they encourage their use. It's current form is informative, not derogatory, and it should be kept that way.>--Jordanperryuk 19:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) -- Note: Jordanperryuk has four edits, two of which are to this VfD.
- I've already voted, but I spent another few minutes looking at the page, and at Jewbacca's user page, and it would seem that we're dealing with a right-wing zealot whose most avid contribution to Wikipedia is in policing articles for content he doesn't agree with. My own work here is mainly in writing (or rewriting) articles from the ground up, which leads me to take a strong position on unwarranted deletions, and sometimes on users who appoint themselves as deletors or censors. I'm modifying my vote to Strong Keep. The article is flawed in that it seems, at least in part, to be a repository for invented ethnic slurs, but there's nothing inherently wrong with having such an article here. I think there is something inherently wrong with having such an article bounced into VfD by an activist user. Auto movil 05:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Encyclopedic, useful and informative. As long as the terms are in use , however regrettable this may be, indexing and documenting them from a NPOV perspective has indisputable value.
- Keep. Odious, but legit. Needs diligent monitoring not deletion Icundell 00:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and expand by adding references. Ethnic slurs are real and notable: people have gone to jail or worse because of them. Compare with list of fictional curse words, which are not even real, yet we're not voting on whether to delete that article. --MarkSweep 06:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, for the reasons MarkSweep has stated. Provide sources for the ones where possible, monitor carefully, but it has every reason to be here even though the subject matter is offensive to some. -- asciident 16:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Although the subject matter is offensive to some like Asciident has mentioned, it provides sources for the slurs mentioned and what they mean. Wikipedia articles are here for a reason (vandalism included, but most vandalism is reverted within 5 minutes.) Scott Gall 20:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Certainly useful information, especially if it includes information on origins of words, etc, that aren't long enough for their own articles. Just because something offends someone doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. I think our society needs a slightly higher tolerance for being offended. Besides, the only way to deal with things like this is to walk headlong into them, not hide, censor, Bowdlerize them, or pretend they don't exist. That will just make it worse. - Omegatron 02:16, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Encyclopedic, useful and informative. Hiding our eyes from racism and "ethnicism" solves nothing. One must know the enemy to fight it.MasterJ 13:56, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC) Note: this vote was actually made by 155.84.57.253.
- Keep If someone thinks it should be deleted, they should instead rework the article up to encyclopedic standards. There is no reason we can't have a list of ethnic slurs. They exist, people use them, they have a history, and we are neutral. --Alterego 04:53, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree it's a sad page but closing our eyes to reality is the real unencyclopedic approach. Anyway, the huge variety of this article shows that derogatory terms against "the other one" go in all possible directions in Homo sapiens. It shows a lot about what we are as a global community. - Piolinfax 12:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It's good for people who use them to see that there are ones about them, too. - Omegatron 14:26, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Keep: It's intriguing
Fundamental equation -- Add to this discussion
Fundamental equation was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Not standard usage, as it is not a meaningful concept. When is an equation "fundamental" and when is it not? -- CYD
- Delete. Neologism, at least in this sense. — Gwalla | Talk 03:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. --Yath 04:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, nonsensical. -- Creidieki 07:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism that was reverted when inserted into Differential equation. SWAdair | Talk 07:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism. I'm sure I've never heard that term used in that way. Nevertheless... there are a number of selected theorems that are generally known as the "Fundamental theorem of..." The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is that every positive integer has a unique prime decomposition. The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra is that every polynomial has at least one complex root. I've always wondered who decides "when is a theorem 'fundamental' and when is it not?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The word "fundamental" in the context you describe has a very different (and more or less well-defined) meaning. In mathematics, a "fundamental theorem" is a theorem, based on a set of axioms, from which all the other more complicated results follow. There is no similar thing in physics, because physics isn't concerned with axioms. -- CYD
- That's not particularly true; many fields of physics, such as Hamiltonian mechanics and quantum mechanics, have axiomatic formulations, at least for parts of them. You don't generally see these axioms until around graduate level. It might be more accurate to say that physics has been less successful at axiomizing itself than mathematics has; we would love to have sets of axioms from which all the more complicated results follow, we just don't yet. -- Creidieki 17:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Mathematical physicists would love it, anyway. -- CYD
- That's not particularly true; many fields of physics, such as Hamiltonian mechanics and quantum mechanics, have axiomatic formulations, at least for parts of them. You don't generally see these axioms until around graduate level. It might be more accurate to say that physics has been less successful at axiomizing itself than mathematics has; we would love to have sets of axioms from which all the more complicated results follow, we just don't yet. -- Creidieki 17:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The word "fundamental" in the context you describe has a very different (and more or less well-defined) meaning. In mathematics, a "fundamental theorem" is a theorem, based on a set of axioms, from which all the other more complicated results follow. There is no similar thing in physics, because physics isn't concerned with axioms. -- CYD
- Delete. Not used this way in physics. -- Decumanus 19:00, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism that gets off to a poor start with a bad and useless definition. ---Rednblu 21:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete- meaningless & unused neologism -FZ 17:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Vvardenfell -- Add to this discussion
Green Party of Canada Seal Hunt Controversy -- Add to this discussion
Green Party of Canada Seal Hunt Controversy
Bad capitalization. Most of the article was a copyright violation from an NTV news report. Since that has been deleted, the article itself now has virtually nothing to do with the title. RickK 05:25, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Transwiki to wikinews. (Oh darn, we don't have that yet). Ok, fair deal, Delete Kim Bruning 10:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Stop the presses! Breaking news put in Wikipedia! (You know, we set ourselves up for this by having the In the News feature on the main page.) Geogre 13:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Merge any genuinely usable information (which ain't much) back into Green Party of Canada (from whence it came in the first place), and then delete without redirect. Bearcat 08:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree with Bearcat's suggestion. JamesMLane 11:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ars Nova School of the Arts -- Add to this discussion
Ars Nova School of the Arts was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Only three related Google hits for a school with 140 students. It's mostly echoing what's on their own website anyway. - Lucky 6.9 05:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing to indicate it is notable. Well, except for the fact that all of their "instructors hold college degrees or certification in their field of expertise," but "...it is estimated that the school has grown to 140 students." Estimated? 140? Well, it is a school of arts. ;-) SWAdair | Talk 06:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Not notable, not encyclopedic, advertising, link forest. Geogre 13:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - not encyclopedic - Tεxτurε 17:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Ars Nova, Incorporated -- Add to this discussion
Ars Nova, Incorporated was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Same reasons as above. I find the fact that the author has wikified the names of the faculty members to be a tad disconcerting (no pun intended). Gimme a break...been a long time since I've posted anything to this page! :^) - Lucky 6.9 05:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. "Ars Nova" + Incorporated = 599 hits. Not a good showing. SWAdair | Talk 06:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable. Redlinks for every single fellow and gal in the joint. It's either page rank boosting or a very, very mistaken idea of encyclopedic content. Geogre 13:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 17:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Ars Nova (production company) -- Add to this discussion
Ars Nova (production company) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was
More of the same...and after I swore I'd stay off of "newpages." Lots of red links to major works. Wondered why until I started to edit the page to add the VfD header. The plays in question link to non-existent articles about their own productions. I have a feeling we're about to be spammed big time. - Lucky 6.9 05:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ars Nova, and thousands of others, have produced those plays. These three articles are simply an advertisement. Those red links cinched it for me. SWAdair | Talk 06:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable production company, and Guffman will come to see the most recent production, I'm sure. Geogre 13:06, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 17:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Steller Secondary School -- Add to this discussion
St Francis of Assisi School -- Add to this discussion
St Francis of Assisi School
Delete - Non-notable secondary school. RedWolf 06:35, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete unless useful content is added. -- Creidieki 07:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Kid vanity. Geogre 13:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not-notable, badly written, and overly generically named.--Samuel J. Howard 13:18, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete unless enormously improved before expiration of VfD period. By the way I moved it to St Francis of Assisi Catholic Technology College because that's what the referenced website lists as the name of the school. Sorry about that, I probably shouldn't have done that. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- Just make sure that the redirect gets deleted as well when the page does.--Samuel J. Howard 05:37, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable --Improv 00:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Has potential, even if not particularly worthwhile yet. -- Necrothesp 14:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- What potential, exactly, does it have? If you know of anything interesting or notable about the school, please, just add it. I looked at the school's rather problematical website and couldn't find anything, other than the correct name of the school and the headteacher's first initial. This article doesn't have enough facts in it to be a helpful start. If we delete it and someone comes by six months from now with the knowledge to write a good article, they can write it then. Starting from zero won't be any harder than starting from this. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, you want to delete all stubs. Fair enough, if that's what you enjoy. -- Necrothesp 23:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Some stubs are useful, some are not. I want to keep the ones that are useful and delete the ones that are not. Stubs are only useful they grow into articles. This is likely to happen for an article that Wikipedia needs, in an area where we believe that there are Wikipedians with expertise who are likely to come along and fill out the stub. It's not very likely to happen with articles like this one. Have you looked at Perfect stub article? One of the most telling comments is "If nobody contributes to your stub for a few weeks, roll up your sleeves and expand it yourself." In effect, a stub is a request for someone else to do some work. In the case of a not-very-notable school, the person who wants there to be an article about the school should just write the article, not drop in a stub and expect someone else to write it for him or her, because the chances are small that there is anyone in the current pool of contributors who will know anything about that school. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, you want to delete all stubs. Fair enough, if that's what you enjoy. -- Necrothesp 23:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- What potential, exactly, does it have? If you know of anything interesting or notable about the school, please, just add it. I looked at the school's rather problematical website and couldn't find anything, other than the correct name of the school and the headteacher's first initial. This article doesn't have enough facts in it to be a helpful start. If we delete it and someone comes by six months from now with the knowledge to write a good article, they can write it then. Starting from zero won't be any harder than starting from this. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Almost any short and useless sub has potential, more so than an article already complete and excellent in every way. By that logic no article at all has even more potential, as a null article can develop into anything at all. So deleting this article improves its potential. Jallan 17:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete unless significantly improved. The stub, as it stands, has no significant information in it, and in particular no evidence of notability. Average Earthman 12:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 17:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete random secondary school. Isomorphic 18:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable --G Rutter 18:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. If Point_of_Rocks,_Wyoming, total population: 3 can be in Wikipedia then so can this--Xed 22:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. RickK 22:41, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Jitu Das -- Add to this discussion
Jitu Das
Vanity page. Markalexander100 07:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Delete. ClockworkTroll 07:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity. Agree with speedy deletion. RedWolf 07:52, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Sadly, vanity pages don't qualify as speedies. Markalexander100 08:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity. --Ianb 08:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. SWAdair | Talk 08:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Vanity. If we develop a new speedy alternative, this would go there. Geogre 13:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
De Vermis Mysterii -- Add to this discussion
from VfD:
delete. This stub presents an imaginary book as it it were real. There is nothing in it worth saving or merging. There is already a good stub on this same book under the name De Vermiis Mysteriis. AlainV 07:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect for spelling. I just learned, yet again, that trojan/worm coders love literary references. SWAdair | Talk 08:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect for spelling, don't delete. You might consider redirecting it to "De Vermis Mysteriis". I don't understand why a fictional book can't have an article of its own? As long as the article explains it as work from Lovecraft it can stay there. Jee, I've even seen articles about "Protoss", why these latter are fair game? --Kensai 11:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I've made it a redirect, which I suggest we keep. —Rory ☺ 11:54, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, it has good information and it mentions the book is fictional. -- Old Right 15:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
- Uh, Old Right, you are referring to the page De Vermiis Mysteriis with two i's in Vermiis, which does indeed have good information and does mention that the book is fictional. De Vermis Mysterii with one i in Vermis was made into a redirect by —Rory ☺, as noted above. The original content of the article that is being discussed was:
- Written in a prison in Prague by Ludwig Prinn in c1542, this terrible Tome has been known to contain knowledge that would drive men to madness. Banned by Pope Pius V, copies may still be found at the Starry Wisdom Church in Providence Rhode Island, at the Huntington Library in California, and at Miskatonic University.
- which has bad information and does not mention that book is fictional. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Uh, Old Right, you are referring to the page De Vermiis Mysteriis with two i's in Vermiis, which does indeed have good information and does mention that the book is fictional. De Vermis Mysterii with one i in Vermis was made into a redirect by —Rory ☺, as noted above. The original content of the article that is being discussed was:
- Keep in current form as redirect to De Vermiis Mysteriis. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep in current form as redirect to De Vermiis Mysteriis. It would be encyclopedic to know the correct latin translation for The mysteries of the worm as well as the forms in which Lovecraft wrote them, and put them in the good little stub. AlainV 21:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep but CORRECT both the syntax of the word AND the information needed to show that the book is FICTIONAL! --Kensai 21:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) ☺
end moved discussion
FANTASY?
This is not a fantasy related article, it's a horror related article. Is Wikipedia really so similistic as to see no difference between the genres? --Xinoph 16:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Vote for Deletion
This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 01:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Savi Technology -- Add to this discussion
from VfD:
Blatent advert. TPK 10:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I cut out the advertising, leaving us with a stub. I believe it's a sufficiently notable company, so keep. —Rory ☺ 11:51, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as written now. Geogre 12:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rewritten version indicates an international company of note. KeepAverage Earthman 12:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - advert - I still don't see anything notable about this company. Are we going to list the toilet makers for the military latrines? - Tεxτurε 17:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- They're the major military supplier (for several nations) of a technology that's in the news frequently- they seem notable. Looks like a decent stub. Keep. -FZ 18:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Sniggle -- Add to this discussion
from VfD:
This appears to be a neologism, a made-up word that is not in general usage (and an obscure word for eel fishing which is also not in general usage). A quick Google for the word returns usages, in the "culture jamming / prankster" sense, ONLY pages on sniggle.net and Wikipedia and its clones. I don't think that a word made up by the people that run a web site and not used elsewhere justifies a Wikipedia article, and I vote to delete it, as well as remove the word from all the pages that link to this, since it is not a word understood by the general English-speaking population. It clearly survived VfD once before in November 2003; since it is functionally impossible to look back in the VfD history that far, I have no idea why. It was removed from VfD after four days, suggesting that a complete vote was not taken. —Morven 10:41, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The eel meaning appears to be legitimate. Transwiki that to wiktionary. —Rory ☺ 11:41, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- I would say keep, since it only links to culture jamming (we need to check that article to make sure that snigle.com hasn't been added to it inappropriately). However, because "sniggle" is a sort of proprietary slang term, this amounts to advertising stuck on top of a dict def, so delete. Geogre 12:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I have removed pretty much all the references to this on Wikipedia. —Morven 02:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- I can't appreciate that: you seem to have started removing without re-linking to culture jamming, e.g. in the September Morn/Harry Reichenbach case. --Francis Schonken 22:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 17:12, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- While the present content of the sniggle article is in fact a disambiguation page I vote for: (1) create Sniggle (disambiguation), where the fishing term links to wiktionary and the prankster meaning to culture jamming; (2) make both sniggle and sniggling redirect pages to the sniggle (disambiguation) page. --Francis Schonken 22:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- note: at least consider using soft redirect, for the part that goes to wiktionary. --Francis Schonken 22:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Spiritual heart -- Add to this discussion
Spiritual heart
POV new age ramblings. Non-encyclopedic. yadda yadda yadda ... Danny 14:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- My spleen is the organ that tells me to delete this. The Heart article does in fact need to take some notice of the ♥ heart shape, the heart in metaphor, and its supposed rôle as seat of love and emotion. Not sure that this stuff would be very helpful in that regard. Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a copyvio from here, anyway. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth ─┼─]] 15:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I wiped out the infringing content, put {{copyvio|url=http://www.swami-center.org/en/chpt/heart/page_5.shtml}} on the article, and listed it on WP:CP. --Ardonik.talk() 18:15, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
V.V. Balaji Viswanathan -- Add to this discussion
X86 vitualization -- Add to this discussion
X86 vitualization was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Delete: I added the page a few days ago, and unfortunately made a typo in the page name, although the link to it from X86 was to the correct page name (which didn't exist). I've moved the content to the correct page name. --Brouhaha 17:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- make it into a redirect, and put it on Redirects for deletion. --Ianb 17:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Why bother with all that? Put {{deletebecause|this article is misspelled and its correct title is [[X86 virtualization]]}} on the article so that it can be speedied. --Ardonik.talk() 18:00, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I tried putting it up for speedy, but an admin redirected it. As nothing linked to the page and nobody would type that title into the search box, I fail to understand why a speedy delete was not considered appropriate, but that's neither here nor there. --Ardonik.talk() 22:47, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't put the request in for speedy because it didn't seem to fall into any of the stated criteria in the speedy policy. Perhaps name typos should be added to thte criteria. --Brouhaha 08:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I tried putting it up for speedy, but an admin redirected it. As nothing linked to the page and nobody would type that title into the search box, I fail to understand why a speedy delete was not considered appropriate, but that's neither here nor there. --Ardonik.talk() 22:47, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Why bother with all that? Put {{deletebecause|this article is misspelled and its correct title is [[X86 virtualization]]}} on the article so that it can be speedied. --Ardonik.talk() 18:00, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you want to delete the article. X86 virtualization is very real.
Keep--G3pro 01:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Typo in the name, that's why. Mikkalai 04:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Damn, I didn't see that originally. :-) Delete --G3pro 04:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Typo in the name, that's why. Mikkalai 04:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Per author's request, the article has been speedy deleted Geogre 14:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Prince_of_Persia_3D -- Add to this discussion
Prince of Persia 3D
The article is an almost exact copy of the Prince of Persia 3D web page (ref: http://princeofpersia3d.com/html/leg/leg_body_1.html)
Copyvios go on Wikipedia:copyright problems. Anon who listed this should also special:userlogin Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Daedalus Publishing -- Add to this discussion
HBMS Future -- Add to this discussion
HBMS Future was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Made up nonsense posted by an anonymous user. David Newton 21:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I can't find any reference whatsoever to these things in a web search. Delete; the Wikipedia is a non-fiction reference. We ought to add "obvious, fictitious BS" to the list of things qualifying as candidates for speedy deletion (or, at least, to the definition of patent nonsense.) --Ardonik.talk() 22:42, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, look like micronation stuff. Rmhermen 22:57, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Deleted as patent nonsense. Mikkalai 03:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Destroyers - Future Class -- Add to this discussion
Destroyers - Future Class was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Made up nonsense posted by an anonymous user. David Newton 21:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, as before. What are these things, and why was it decided that the Wikipedia was the right place for them? --Ardonik.talk() 22:42, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Rmhermen 23:06, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Do we now begin the guessing game of what this is from, micronation, alternate history, or movie? Geogre 23:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Deleted as patent nonsense. Mikkalai 03:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Navy of Britannica -- Add to this discussion
Navy of Britannica was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.
Made up nonsense posted by an anonymous user. David Newton 21:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete fictional meanderings. --Ardonik.talk() 22:43, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, nonsense Ianb 23:03, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Rmhermen 23:08, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Didn't you hear? The Future Navy of EUpia decommissioned all those ships in the future just before this future, whenever that is, and the nation of Britannica had trouble funding the shipworks anyway. (Delete for fiction.) Geogre 23:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Deleted as patent nonsense. Mikkalai 03:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Magnesium Fluoride -- Add to this discussion
 |
Votes for deletion archive September 2004 is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
from VfD:
This article doesn't provide any useful information about Magnesium Fluoride aside from its formula, which can be determined from its name. Unless the article contains information about its special properties or uses, I don't see a point of having it, as we could just as easily have an article like this for the other ten million compounds. --Chessphoon 22:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It was listed as a "requested page" which is why I created it, including only what I knew. But now that you mention it, I suppose you're right. I'll vote to delete it, unless someone has more information. --MatrixFrog 22:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I've expanded the substub into a stub, will work on it further over the next few days. Yes we could have millions of articles on compounds. As long as those articles are capabable of being made encylopedic, we should have them. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 22:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - perfectly fine stub, now. Sould be Magnesium fluoride (uncapitalized) though. TPK 00:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I would have loved to say keep as I want meaningful chemistry articles, but Magnesium fluoride is just not a significant chemical. As far as I know, it's just a random salt. If anyone can come up with some meaningful uses for the chemical, please add to it.
Delete with reserve--G3pro 01:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)- It probably isn't significant chemically, but it has useful physical properties, which make it important enough for an article. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 01:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep good stub. 8000 Google hits on "magnesium fluoride" in quotes, many optical applications in addition to AR coatings. This sort of stub is quite likely to grow. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Current stub is fine. Thue | talk 15:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. --G3pro 15:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Major importance in high-energy laser develpment, much research going on in this area (yes, I'll write it up & add it later when I have time)- it's an important component of a lot of new research & industrial lasers, & is going to have increasing notabiliy if someone notices how much the US military is spending on it for their non-working missile defense project. -FZ 17:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Now that the article has been expanded, I'm going to vote keep as well. --Chessphoon 00:30, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Good example of a VfD rescue. Antandrus 00:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
September 19
List of U.S. State medical licensing agencies -- Add to this discussion
List of U.S. State medical licensing agencies
Is possibly a copyvio but minimally a hopeless list of agencies that extend medical licenses. This is not encyclopedic by any measure. This is the second time this is listed on Vfd; there have been no improvements since its previous listing. Wikipedia is not a phonebook. JFW | T@lk 00:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete JFW | T@lk 00:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Pointless. Delete. Rhymeless 00:17, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a list, and like almost all lists on Wikipedia, it's not encyclopedic. --Improv
- Delete - It had possiblity to be useful but a directory listing isn't. - Tεxτurε 17:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If any (or all) of these agencies are individually notable, an article can be written about them and added to a "Category:U.S. state medical licensing agencies" that would function as the list. --Delirium 06:40, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Lala laj pat rai bal mandir -- Add to this discussion
Lala laj pat rai bal mandir
Is a high school in India. Despite absence of consensus re schools, this article is unlikely to ever reach encyclopedicity. JFW | T@lk 00:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete JFW | T@lk 00:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Improperly named and non-notable. Geogre 02:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --Improv 17:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. No indication that this school is any different from the other high schools in India. And there are a lot of high schools in India. Average Earthman 12:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 17:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Arif Khan -- Add to this discussion
Non-notable. Former Taliban warlord. Full story here. Four years after his assassination, "Arif Khan" + Peshawar gets only 241 hits. There is a story here, but a non-notable one. SWAdair | Talk 00:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Er... neutral, for the moment. I did just want to comment, however, that the most powerful figure in Taliban-controlled northern Afghanistan sounds pretty notable, but I don't know enough about it to help improve this 1 sentence article. func(talk) 01:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: List on Requested Articles, as this was a very notable figure whose assassination was the immediate precursor to the 9/11 attacks and whose assassination was probably al Qaeda's payment for Taliban upcoming military support. This, however, is not an article and could be speedy deleted for not even establishing clearly what it is. Geogre 02:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The current version doens't give any usefull information unless you know who he is in advance.Keep current version. Thue | talk 15:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Keep. Sounds notable, at least in theory, so belongs as a stub. Article could be improved a lot though. --Improv 17:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable figure in recent history. The current article is pretty bad, but that just means it needs some TLC. — Gwalla | Talk 20:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Inadequacy of the current version doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article about him. Lacrimosus 23:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with Geogre - if not improved by the end of the VfD period, delete this article and add to List of Requested Articles. The current article is worse than useless, it actively makes Wikipedia look bad in its inadequacy. Average Earthman 12:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Well, I did a quick rewrite so it's at least a slightly more informative stub. Does it look all right? -FZ 18:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Historically notable and relevant, and currently linked to List_of_Taliban_leaders. One thing I'm confused about, is whether he's alive or dead. The list linked above reports that he's "at large" and various western media reports claim he's alive and the US is hunting him down. I can't help but notice that this wanted man was reported killed in Pakistan on April 5, 2000 by The Times of India, and Reuters on April 24, 2000. Now, I know the name "Arif Khan" is probably popular in that area, but the Arif Khan that this page refers to was murdered four years ago. Perhaps both pages should reflect that change. I've noticed that the media reports tend to say, "fighters loyal to Arif Khan", not Khan himself. --Viriditas 03:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: notable, potential for expansion. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: notable, relevant, potential for expansion. We do not delete stubs, we expand them. Kim Bruning 17:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Richard Mackay -- Add to this discussion
Richard Mackay
Vanity page, non-notable. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 00:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Vanity by a person who is not worthy of an encyclopedia article yet. Geogre 02:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This person is littering WP with self-agrandizing articles. C.f. Ricball and Kinlochbervie High School. Kbh3rd 02:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. C in English, Richard? You need a GPA of at least 4.0 to get into Wikipedia. Timbo
- Delete, unnotable juvenile vanity. --Ianb 07:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Possibly speedy, if the person who blanked it really is the author. Vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 20:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, vanity and deletion appears to be requested by the author. StuartH 13:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Gillian Belbin -- Add to this discussion
Gillian Belbin
Vanity page, non-notable. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 00:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Sublocal high school band vanity. Geogre 02:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Absolutely. Kbh3rd 02:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, unnotable juvenile vanity. --Ianb 07:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. Get back to us when you're actually famous, not just "planning to be famous". — Gwalla | Talk 20:49, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. - MattTM 07:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Whelan -- Add to this discussion
Whelan
Not encyclopedic, non-notable. not a good starting point for any real articles. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 01:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Looked like a dicdef to me, so I transwikied (transwikified?) it to Wiktionary:Transwiki:Whelan and listed it on the Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Transwiki log. I guess I'll clean it up over there or have it removed when the time comes. My vote is to delete it from here. --Ardonik.talk() 01:18, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Looks like another "all occurrences of this name" thing. Non-encyclopedic, random information without context. Geogre 02:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. "People with this name" random info. — Gwalla | Talk 20:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete surnames that are nonnotable. RickK 23:31, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I tend to be inclusionist when it comes to names, as they often have interesting histories or etymologies associated with them, and there's no real downside to including them. However, this article doesn't have anything along those lines, so delete unless there's something interesting to say about it. --Delirium 06:44, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Animal names in Papiamento -- Add to this discussion
Animal names in Papiamento was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI AND DELETE
Tagged for VFD in April by User:RickK. Joyous 03:37, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete this. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not even a translating one. - RedWordSmith 03:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a regional dialect primer. Geogre 14:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The previous discussion is here. The decision was to transwiki it, and sure enough it is listed as such on Votes for deletion/Old. - 16:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
- Delete. Not encyclopedic. — Gwalla | Talk 20:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Transwiki Rich Farmbrough 23:57, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Transwiki: move to Wiktionary. Danny 00:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Kinlochbervie High School -- Add to this discussion
 |
This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article. | |
| Current Collaborations: | McGill-Toolen Catholic High School - Newton North High School - Kennet Comprehensive School | |
|---|---|---|
from VfD:
Part of a vanity campaign. See Ricball, Richard Mackay, and Gillian Belbin. -- Kbh3rd 03:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, unnotable school, students not aware of proper use of shift key. --Ianb 07:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: High spirits and youth and vanity. Geogre 14:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. But get rid of the vanity stuff. -- Necrothesp 14:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Unnotable high school. Getting rid of the vanity would effectively blow away the entire article as it exists. Why not say when it was founded? Picture is nice. Jallan 17:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Delete. School vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 20:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, isn't it pretty. Delete this article, use the picture in the Kinlochbervie article. Average Earthman 12:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Vote changed to Merge and redirect per Average Earthman's suggestion to put the picture in the Kinlochbervie article. What real information was here about the school would serve as the caption. But currently some anons have deleted both text and picture. Jallan 19:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, but remove the crap, of course. Mark Richards 19:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. The picture in this article has been flagged as possible copyvio. Jallan 16:27, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - SimonP 23:40, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, of course. Mandel 18:21, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Ricball -- Add to this discussion
Ricball
Part of the vanity campaign of Richard Mackay, including Ricball, Kinlochbervie High School, and Gillian Belbin. -- Kbh3rd 03:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, unnotable juvenile vanity sport. --Ianb 07:20, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. --ssd 12:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Kiddie vanity. Geogre 14:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. "Hey look, I made up a sport!" — Gwalla | Talk 20:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. He's no William Webb Ellis. Average Earthman 13:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
List of worlds largest companies -- Add to this discussion
Sentinels and Guides as Non-Human Species -- Add to this discussion
Sentinels and Guides as Non-Human Species
Nonsense presented as fact. At best, could be called original research. SWAdair | Talk 03:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. At worst, it could be called non-sensical. func(talk) 04:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Mikkalai 04:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg 05:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Omits very important subspecies, the Wikipedians. --Ianb 08:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, reads like a badly copied copyvio to me. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 12:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Very likely copyvio, but we don't need a non-copyvio version, either. Geogre 13:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. So much typing, so little point.... Fire Star 18:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Divorced from reality. — Gwalla | Talk 20:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, not nonsense. After all it does mention this being a theory! -- Old Right 22:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Being a theory isn't sufficient for deserving an article. There are all sorts of possible theories and theories held by one person or a small group of people. We want to include theories which are more well-known than that. Livajo 23:47, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:15, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep!- Agree with what Old Right wrote. -- Crevaner 12:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research based on a woeful misunderstanding of popular science and wild speculation. Also questionable sanity and probably appears on a webpage somewhere already. Merely claiming to be 'a theory' doesn't make anything notable, theories need to be tested. Average Earthman 13:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - I theorize its deletion - Tεxτurε 17:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - the article is ridiculously convoluted with little hope of improving, and describes a "theory" which is incomprehensible. If there is a legitimate theory, it needs a portrayal in this encyclopedia which differs so greatly from the current article that deletion is by far the wisest course of action. Jwrosenzweig 21:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Theory? Inventing a fictional universe and calling it theory doesn't make it one (and it especially doen't make it encyclopedic) especially when the article begins with the self-contradictory phrase "Much is known about Sentinels and Guides". I know it's fantasy. ClockworkTroll 06:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I would argue that this could have been speedy deleted. Patent nonsense sums it up really well. It would take an explanation of what a Sentinel and a Guide are to raise it out of that category. In any case, delete. DJ Clayworth 20:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sentinel (human) -- Add to this discussion
Sentinel (human)
Nonsense presented as fact. Someone has been watching too much "Sentinel" on television. SWAdair | Talk 03:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. You say this is on TV? If it's a fan type of thing, then it needs to noted as such... oh, and it needs to make sense. ;-) func(talk) 04:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Mikkalai 04:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg 05:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Copyvio -- Turns out it is copyvio. I've listed it as such. No need to keep this listing. SWAdair | Talk 05:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm not sure we want this if it weren't copyvio. Geogre 13:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 17:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Cancer Coast -- Add to this discussion
Engrish -- Add to this discussion
Engrish
Sparta nazi germany totalitarian states -- Add to this discussion
Sparta nazi germany totalitarian states
Somebody's school project? Hardly an encylcopedia article, anyway. RickK 05:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The heading Conclusion says it all... not an encyclopedic article. (I should never have put VFD on my watch list ;-) ) func(talk) 05:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research. Mikkalai 05:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research. SWAdair | Talk 05:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete original research, non-encyclopedic title issues [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 06:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Original research, to be polite. Geogre 13:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It's an interesting schoolpaper. It's almost a shame to Delete it. Almost. --Improv 18:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I think it is an excellent school paper. Top-notch thinking. Fascinatingly insightful. Creative topic. However, the others are quite correct, it's not an encyclopedia article by any stretch. Reluctanly, I must recommend a Delete. We keep bad jokes around out of the main article space, couldn't we do something like that for stuff like this? Maybe boot it into the User: space as a subpage at least?- RedWordSmith 18:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Transwiki to WikiBooks, no? Also, either keep the redirect when using "move" to put it in user space, or modify Wikipedia:Cleanup/September#September 18 to point to it & to mention its new location, for those w/ a strong interest. --Jerzy(t) 03:18, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research. I hope the author got a good grade on this paper, though. — Gwalla | Talk 21:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I personally would've speedied it. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]
- Delete. This was the first article i put up, did not read the 'NO EASSY' bit, think i might add it to my user: page, or to a user page of its own, its a good eassy took me 9 hours of straight work to get it together. i still think it might be revelent to the two topics as there is nothing connecting nazi germany, sparta and totalitarism together. --Whatsup will 11:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Aryan Koushik -- Add to this discussion
Aryan Koushik
I've never listed on VfD before, but I think this page is an easy candidate for deletion and doesn't seem to satisfy speedy requirements. It returns zero google hits, and it's safe to conclude it's vanity because it advertises his email addess. CHL 12:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- He linked himself into a half dozen pages, which I've reverted. According to his entry on September 20, tomorrow is his 23rd birthday. Happy birthday Aryan! CHL 13:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete quickly: virtually vandalism in process, if he's going on a self-inflating spree in honor of himself. Vanity. Geogre 13:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, self-aggrandisement, he'll never achieve nirvana like this. --Ianb 17:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 21:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I would've speedied it. -- PFHLai 21:40, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
- I speedied it yesterday and it was recreated 20 minutes later. (Reincarnation?) I still say delete. Bearcat 00:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Nirvana means extinguishing, so we can help this article achieve nirvana. Delete. Average Earthman 13:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, for recreation of a speedy. -Vina 19:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Alpine Club of the University of Leuven -- Add to this discussion
Alpine Club of the University of Leuven
With no hit on Google from the English title "Alpine Club of the University of Leuven", only 9 hits on the Dutch title "Leuvense Universitaire Alpinisten Klub" and only 90 members, I personally think this student outdoor/climbing society is not worth an encyclopedic article. --Edcolins 13:14, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable. If there is a university entry, this can be merged to a section, but no separate article. Geogre 13:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: these guys have climbed the north face of the Eiger, it may not be noticable to you, but I'm pretty sure that it is very useful for climbers, especially those interested in information about climbing said mountain and for climbers from Belgium. Perhaps a climber or someone from the University of Leuven may comment about the popularity of this club. Who knows if one day someones creates a Timeline of Eiger ascents and LUAK is mentioned but we don't have an article about it? This article doesn't hurt anyone and it is NPOV and informative, so why the hell would you delete it? /boggle I don't know about you, but I learned a lot of new info with just this small article without even visiting their website. I did got a few hits for "Alpine Club of the University of Leuven" on Google, and saw it mentioned on the website of the Sports Council of the Catholic University of Leuven Student Organization. [20] By the way, size is irrelevant, it doesn't matter if the club has only 90 members; you should be focused on their accomplishments instead. —Joseph | Talk 16:50, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- How did you get a few hits on your google for "Alpine Club of the University of Leuven"? You must be kidding. Mine returns 0 hits [21]... --Edcolins 18:38, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment from the author: isn't that normal? We speak dutch here, not english. I just thought it might be interesting for some people, not for everybody of course. You decide guys.
- Remove the quotes young padawan: [22] [23] —Joseph | Talk 02:07, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Obviously without quotes you get multifarious web sites, master Jedi...;) --Edcolins 19:25, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- How did you get a few hits on your google for "Alpine Club of the University of Leuven"? You must be kidding. Mine returns 0 hits [21]... --Edcolins 18:38, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. I hope not every student organization in every university everywhere starts making entries for themselves. Oy! --Improv 18:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete no more notable than the clubs from Dartmouth College. RickK 18:14, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. This information should be preserved. The resulting redirect is not the best but will preserve the history; Perhaps later move the redirect to University of Leuven and list the resulting Alpine Club redirect (which will then have no significant history) as a redirect for deletion. The thing we lose by this, of course, is the category link to climbers. Andrewa 18:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: It'd be nice if we could get some sort of rough consensus on what counts as a notable student society - some may be quite article-worthy.
As far as this particular one goes, I'm undecided.Lacrimosus 23:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Comment: for a student society, why not the same as for a person? That is, if mentioned by people outside the society reasonably often, whether in the press or in books or on the web or in other media, then it is notable. If no-one knows much about the socieety except the members, and it's not doing anything especially unusual, then however big it is, it really isn't notable, at least for encyclopedia purposes. One shouldn't explect to find information local rock-climbing groups and local bowling leagues and local bridge clubs and local trampoline clubs and local antique car enthusiasts in any encyclopedia, though one might occasionally find one mentioned in an article on that interest. Web directories and local lists of local clubs and associations is normally the place for such things to be mentioned. Jallan 00:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment from the author again: OK, delete it, no problem. But am I allowed to say one more thing please? :-) Concerning the argument about press and media: I will give you some external links that you don't find on google. article 1: from a local newspaper - article 2 and article 3: from national newspapers - video: LUAK on television - article 4: LUAK in a climbing magazine - audio: LUAK on national radio (ok, this was some years ago) - website 1: LUAK on the most popular belgian climbing website - website 2: LUAK discussed on a climbing forum - interview: an interview with a LUAK member (one of the members that climbed the Eiger).... so you see, google doesn't say it all! Delete LUAK, but remember it for the future. ;-) ciao, Maarten
- I suppose that sounds reasonable. Some functions of some student organisations might make them notable even if they aren't widely known. In this case, Delete. Lacrimosus 22:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: for a student society, why not the same as for a person? That is, if mentioned by people outside the society reasonably often, whether in the press or in books or on the web or in other media, then it is notable. If no-one knows much about the socieety except the members, and it's not doing anything especially unusual, then however big it is, it really isn't notable, at least for encyclopedia purposes. One shouldn't explect to find information local rock-climbing groups and local bowling leagues and local bridge clubs and local trampoline clubs and local antique car enthusiasts in any encyclopedia, though one might occasionally find one mentioned in an article on that interest. Web directories and local lists of local clubs and associations is normally the place for such things to be mentioned. Jallan 00:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ambi 05:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete another student organization probable vanity piece. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:00, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
WMAX-FM -- Add to this discussion
Carlisle_Adams -- Add to this discussion
Carlisle_Adams
Vanity meets crackpottery. Josh Cherry 15:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- They meet in the house of non-native English. Delete, but why did "Petrosyan P.M. from Armenia" choose this title for his nonsense? Carlisle Adams is a notable cryptograher who helped develop CAST5. Keep if anyone puts an Adams article here. CHL 15:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg 15:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Likely an attempt at hiding what the author knew to be spam/page rank boosting. I nowikied the web site to do my bit. Geogre 17:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity, tin foil hattery. — Gwalla | Talk 21:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Endearing, but altogether useless, vanity. Spatch 22:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Speed deleted as patent nonsense. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Alice Peisch -- Add to this discussion
Alice Peisch
Delete. Non-notable, possibly a vanity page. Even if POV problems were resolved, subject's main claim to fame is as a state representative, and that alone does not warrant a Wikipedia entry. Steve Casburn 15:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't think she's a state representative. I think she's a city/township person. No notability established, and the article is her CV. Recommended material for a user page, but not for a main article. Geogre 17:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- She is a state rep, and an article about her is appropriate, but this is a campaign ad. If the article doesn't get made NPOV and written as a bio and not an ad, then delete at the time deletion is due. RickK 18:12, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- According to [[24]], she is the representative of the towns of Natick, Weston and Wellesley to the Massachusetts legislature. The first line of criteria for inclusion of biographies says "Political figures holding statewide ... elected office" are generally noteworthy. I interpret that to mean the Governor, Attorney General, Speaker, etc. - people voted on by the entire state - not each local representative to state government. (We should probably clear up that ambiguity on the "criteria" page.) Rossami 06:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Dave gaspar -- Add to this discussion
Dave gaspar
Initially I thought to edit this piece of drivel, but honestly don't see how it can be rescued. If this person is notable enough for a page, I suggest it should wait for a real article, not this. -- Kbh3rd 17:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, does not seem notable, article unencylopedic. --Ianb 17:47, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of notability. Joyous 17:55, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete vanity. Kim Bruning 18:06, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Non-notable. Vanity. Delete. RickK 18:09, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I laughed, I grimaced, I scratched my head. Geogre 19:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 21:06, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity. Zwilson 23:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Interstate 76W -- Add to this discussion
Interstate 76W
- The highway is Interstate 76, not Interstate 76W. The content from this article was merged into Interstate 76. -- Gregory Pietsch
- First, you should not write your name after votes; you should write ~~~~ . Second, you should know that your vote doesn't count as much as most other votes because you aren't a registered Wikipedian. 66.245.124.202 19:06, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yes I am a registered Wikipedian, I just wasn't logged in. Gpietsch 19:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: it's actually quite simple and works completely without vfd, logins and the like: set a redirect. In fact, I'd do that myself, but I'm not sure whether Interstate 76W is a common moniker which would be a valid redirect.--Ianb 19:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, what is a better title?? Do the 2 highways go together on a single article for any reason independent of sharing a name?? 66.245.124.202 19:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- So...rename? redirect? Sorry. I didn't realize you were new. The best thing to do is to merge the material over to the new article, I-76, and then blank this one and type in # and then REDIRECT and then I-76. That's better than moving the page. I would assume that I-76W is just I-76 West, probably a spur off I-76. The spur should never take precedence. Geogre 21:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- To paraphrase "Logan's Run", THERE IS NO INTERSTATE 76W! There are two separate interstates called Interstate 76 in different parts of the country. Both are discussed in the Interstate 76 article. The I-76W article is then superfluous. 4.239.183.132 23:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete "Interstate 76W" is a neologism. Both segments are "Interstate 76". The Federal Highway Administration does not distinguish an E or W segment [25]. If we are to keep this article, then Interstate 76 should become a disambiguation page with both east and west segments in separate articles. But personally, I think they should remain in one article. older ≠ wiser 00:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 17:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Given that the W is not officially part of the highway, try this: rename to "Interstate 76 (West)" or "Interstate 76 (Western)" or something like that, and put the Eastern Interstate 76 at somethign similar, making Interstate 76 a dis-ambiguation page. Please try whatever technic is possible. Both sections are large enough to be separate articles that are not stubs. 66.245.10.194 01:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A.L. Goodheart -- Add to this discussion
A.L. Goodheart
- This person is not notable. Content is entirely copied from Nuremburg Trials. _R_ 20:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete if a real article doesn't materialize. I would imagine that an Oxford don is quite notable and that the fellow has a great deal of significance. However, this is just an opportunity for someone to get in a dig at international law. Not nice. If there isn't a blanking of this with a new page in its place, or a heavy context given, I can't see its remaining. Geogre 21:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 17:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Poetic Terrorism -- Add to this discussion
Poetic Terrorism
- looks to be some poetry, not an encyclopdia entry Allthewhile 19:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- See Special:Contributions/EDGE. User:EDGE moved User:Jongarrettuk to Yellow mustard rabbit (the user talk page was moved also) and blanked the page, evidently in retaliation for listing him on WP:VIP. Yellow mustard rabbit was subsequently speedy deleted, destroying Jongarrettuk's homepage. Here, EDGE was trying the same thing with User:Jiang. (I can't see the history now, but Jiang's page was moved.) Delete now that Jiang's user page and talk page are safe and EDGE has been blocked. --Ardonik.talk()* 20:33, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: If he's blocked, keep him blocked. This, however, is primary source stuff, a manifesto. Geogre 21:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This is either poetry or a manifesto. In either case, the content does not fit the criteria for an encyclopedic entry.
In addition, taken as a manifesto, the article merely seems to advocate some mean-spirited pranks, apparently on the grounds that they are clever. Too bad. An article on the intellectual history of challenging performances (a la Ken Kesey, or, more cerebrally Shea/Willson) with commentary about the role of art in illuminating social conventions would have been quite interesting. --TuringTest 21:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) - Delete. Manifesto. — Gwalla | Talk 21:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: This is a manifesto/poem by Hakim Bey, a mildly notable anarchist writer. The term itself is somewhat obscure, but I've definitely heard it used a fair bit in anarchist circles, and might be worthy of an article. RadicalSubversiv E 07:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Created by a vandal. RickK 00:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm over my vandal ways. Have you not seen my most recent contributions? There is no need to hold a grudge. I plan on being an administrator one day. Poetic Terrorism, as it now stands, is part of a "manifesto" by Hakim Bey (as above user has noted). I support the deletion of this page as it seems manifestos are not welcomed in this encyclopedia. Would Wikisource be a better host? Regardless, I think I will replace it with a decent write-up in the following weeks. Godbless. EDGE 06:13, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm pleased to say that you really have changed your ways for the better (how often does that happen around here?) but I still can't tell what Poetic Terrorism is supposed to be. A manifesto, as you say? A neologism with a few examples of what might be classified under it? A "how-to" for what the original writer felt was subversive and radical behavior? I honestly don't think this thing has a place in either the Wikipedia or Wikisource, but maybe there's something I'm leaving out? --Ardonik.talk()* 06:29, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- It seems there is precedence for discussing manifestos. I refer you to: The Hacker Manifesto and The Communist Manifesto. I'm sure I'm overlooking quite a few. I intend to add a write-up similar to The Hacker Manifesto for Poetic Terrorism. Does anyone object, or will this new article find itself on this page once again? As for what Poetic Terrorism is, I like to think of it as a form of artistic terrorism that hopes to shock and terrorize its audience out of its collective normality EDGE 06:39, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm pleased to say that you really have changed your ways for the better (how often does that happen around here?) but I still can't tell what Poetic Terrorism is supposed to be. A manifesto, as you say? A neologism with a few examples of what might be classified under it? A "how-to" for what the original writer felt was subversive and radical behavior? I honestly don't think this thing has a place in either the Wikipedia or Wikisource, but maybe there's something I'm leaving out? --Ardonik.talk()* 06:29, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - I haven't read Hakim Bey in a while, but this sounds exactly like him. And quick search on Google confirms it. Hakim Bey is a very well known author in many subcultures, his "T.A.Z." is an underground classic. I'd keep this up. Although It'd be nice if it was at least linked to or from some other article. --Lifefeed 19:26, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Allthewhile 01:13, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)Obviously there is nothing wrong with an article about the manifesto, but this clearly isn't even close to encyclopedic. If anything it's a source document.
- Delete: source text. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Talking Toby -- Add to this discussion
Talking Toby
Non-notable blog with 8 posts. Possible vanity article. (Toby's profile mentions Wikipedia.) - [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Possibly important subject in the US, but misusing Wikipedia to promote an individual, non-notable blog is not going to be a good basis for it. --Ianb 20:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. There have been lots of folks who have gamed the system. This seems just political (again). Geogre 21:06, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable cheater. — Gwalla | Talk 21:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity/advert - Tεxτurε 17:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - His blog mentions us only days before the creation of his selfrighteous article? Hah. --TIB (talk) 02:49, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Paradise Community Church -- Add to this discussion
Also Austral-Asian Christian Church and Burnside Christian Church.
Paradise Community Church
Also Austral-Asian Christian Church and Burnside Christian Church.
- Sites Paradise Community Church, Austral-Asian Christian Church, and Burnside Christian Church are three similar articles by same anon and read like yellow-page adverts without address or phone number. Not encyclopedic. Looks like an excuse for web links. At best merge to list of Australian churches or Adelaide churches or wherever they are. The weblink from the first one hung my system. Jallan 19:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete All: I've looked at all of them, and none of them establishes notability, nor passes beyond a Yellow Pages listing. They do, together, look like page rank boosting, but, even if they are not, they're advertising, even if for laudable entities. Geogre 21:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete all. Guy Sebastian is reasonably well known for being a fundamentalist Christian, but I hardly think his particular church needs his own article. The other articles are so far from notability it's not funny. Lacrimosus 23:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete all - Tεxτurε 17:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete all. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: most of the other edits of the anon that created these were vandalism [26]. (William M. Connolley 21:37, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC))
Maritza Campos-Rebolledo -- Add to this discussion
from VfD:
Merge and redirect to College Roomies from Hell!!! - [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- So do so. No need to list it on VfD if you don't want to delete it. Merge/redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 21:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't want to do it without consensus. I've been in too many edit conflicts lately, so maybe I'm a bit gunshy. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 21:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Kalledout -- Add to this discussion
David Hartwell -- Add to this discussion
David Hartwell
unclear what page has to do with David Hartwell, or who that might be. no internal links to page. seems to be a proposal for a study on stock market trading issues. Wolfman 22:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I've had ticks. They start small and get bigger. The stock market didn't notice, and I didn't get any richer. Original research, misnamed, incomprehensible and unformatted mess. Geogre 01:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg 02:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Incoherent original research. Looks like a random excerpt from something. — Gwalla | Talk 17:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - incoherent vanity titled research? - Tεxτurε 17:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Tobias Mainprize -- Add to this discussion
Tobias Mainprize
Sounds like utter nonsense regarding a seemingly non-existent Belgian scam. The original contributor User:Rarr's other contributions do not exactly inspire confidence in his/her seriousness, e.g. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Earwig&diff=0&oldid=5982365 ]. --Ianb 22:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- comment: having said that, the edit history here List_of_New_Zealanders seems to imply this Belgian scam might be a phenomenon in New Zealand. Can someone there comment? --Ianb 22:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the Belgian scam/scheme is something in NZ, so keep. However, not positive, no google results for it. –Andre (talk) 22:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)Alright, this seems decidedly non-notable, so I change my vote to Delete. –Andre (talk) 22:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)- The earwig edit was made in all seriousness, though I must admit that I am going on secondhand information on that. The Belgian Scam is also completely serious and existant and is in no way a New Zealander thing. It's most often used by males that wish to fool their girlfriends into thinking they are more intelligent than they really are, and is used by those who have thought of or heard of it in most countries. Tobias Mainprize often tells people in need of something like this about it anonymously through the internet. Rarr 23:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Rarr, I think that it's probably more of an NZ thing than not... you don't hear it much in the States. –Andre (talk) 00:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Rarr, apologies for any offence caused by casting doubt on your edit, it unfortunately matches the pattern of many recent less well-intentioned new-user edits. I'm still not convinced of Mr. Mainprize though, and I say that as a fluent speaker of Swiss. --Ianb 08:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Let's all shake the cobwebs out of our heads for a second. Forget the Belgian scam. Is the guy called Tobias Mainprize notable? Not so far as I can tell. Is this person essentially a spammer or viral marketer? Seems like it. Hence the delete. (BTW, did you know the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?) Geogre 01:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --Improv 02:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Spammer? Viral marketer? He just tells guys who need something to impress their girlfriends with about the Belgian thing when they expressly state their need. I've heard it several times here in the US, Andre, before hearing of Tobias's help. Rarr 03:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 06:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The article says he's one of the "least known" proponents of a rather common and silly lie. In other words, non-notable. — Gwalla | Talk 17:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This is all just a bunch of baloney. Toby is just a guy who goes to IRC with a few of the people here (myself included) and it's all just a huge scheme to put mis-information on Wikipedia. There. That's the whole truth. Pembertond 03:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Baloney it is. Hey, wiki needs an article on Baloney. Heaven knows we could cite some great examples from wiki archives. Present Baloney redirects to Bologna sausage, and gives the briefest mention of slangword baloney meaning nonsense. Moriori 22:34, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral - Wouldn't that be for Wiktionary instead? --TIB (talk) 02:54, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)--
- Not necessarily. Think outside the square. Moriori 03:04, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral - Wouldn't that be for Wiktionary instead? --TIB (talk) 02:54, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)--
Ô Canada! mon pays, mes amours -- Add to this discussion
Liberal healthcare system -- Add to this discussion
Liberal healthcare system
Seems to be a neologism. - SimonP 22:42, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Libertarian POV passing as universal truth. "Liber" is Latin for free, folks. Geogre 01:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg 02:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, unless someone has evidence for significant political/journalistic/academic use of the term (google doesn't turn up any). RadicalSubversiv E 07:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism, POV. — Gwalla | Talk 17:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - POV - Tεxτurε 17:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - POV. --Viriditas 04:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Neologism. ClockworkTroll 06:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Beau Berman -- Add to this discussion
Beau Berman
The last 2 sentences of this short article, included by the original author, are: In 1821 he met Napoleon on the island of Saint Helena where the two fought to the death, Vice Admiral emerging victorious. Two days later after a passionate romp with 18 African prostitues Vice Admiral Berman died, suffering from multiple orgasm's. Given that Napoleon did not die in a duel & that it seems unlikely an Admiral died from too many orgasms, the credibility of the entire article is in doubt. Wolfman 22:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Very much nonsense/prank. Geogre 01:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense.-- Jmabel 01:19, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)- Or maybe not. The very first version of this looks more legit. Can someone check into it? I'm going to restore that first, more reasonable version (but the patent nonsense comes from the same editor). -- Jmabel 01:22, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I can't find a naval Beau Berman, and our own article on HMS Pathfinder seems to suggest that such a ship did not exist in this time period. It's rather odd that the original creator placed what looks like a legit article, and then immediately put in the patent nonsense. I'm going to guess that he cut and pasted from somewhere, and then just changed names around. Oh... Delete. func(talk) 01:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Nonsense. Jayjg 02:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - unsupported by facts - Tεxτurε 17:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Zuckermann ghil'ad -- Add to this discussion
Zuckermann ghil'ad
Non-notable college professor, and the article should be at Ghil'ad Zuckermann, anyway. RickK 23:30, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- I do find two books of his on Amzaon. What's the criteron for "notable"? - Kbh3rd 23:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Move, cleanup, keep. Pjacobi 23:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sure he is notable, given where he is, but the presentation here is deathly poor. Send to clean up with a note that it should come back here if the only earth shaking thing about him is that he thinks that Modern Hebrew is a hybrid. Geogre 01:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Change to delete: What the heck is with the people who can't find the shift key? This isn't his name. Geogre 15:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg 02:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: random academic. I'm sympathetic, but he doesn't have, say, an endowed chair, presidency of some school, or even tenure. Article appears to be a book advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 17:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I recommend to delete it, however his ideas need to be added to the Hebrew language page with a link to his homepage http://www.zuckermann.org. Mr. Zuckermann is not unique in claiming that modern Hebrew, which he calls "Israeli", is not a revival of ancient, Biblical Hebrew, rather a mixture of primarily Yiddish and Mishnaic Hebrew with largely Sfardi pronunciation. Where he differs from other scholars is the amount of Yiddish in modern Israeli: some say modern Israeli has Hebrew words on a Yiddish grammar, Zuckermann claims that its roots are about 50/50 and others differ. Zuckermann discusses these other ideas as well on his homepage. Melamed
- I recommend to delete it, however his ideas need to be added to the Hebrew language page with a link to his homepage http://www.zuckermann.org. Mr. Zuckermann is not unique in claiming that modern Hebrew, which he calls "Israeli", is not a revival of ancient, Biblical Hebrew, rather a mixture of primarily Yiddish and Mishnaic Hebrew with largely Sfardi pronunciation. Where he differs from other scholars is the amount of Yiddish in modern Israeli: some say modern Israeli has Hebrew words on a Yiddish grammar, Zuckermann claims that its roots are about 50/50 and others differ. Zuckermann discusses these other ideas as well on his homepage. Melamed
Beyond Maxwell-Lorentz Electrodynamics -- Add to this discussion
Beyond Maxwell-Lorentz Electrodynamics
I don't know if this a copyvio of a work by George Galeczki, or original research by George Galeczki himself, but it doesn't belong here. RickK 23:55, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
- The original article carries no copyright notice. Please do not delete. This paper may open an urgent path to new understanding of electrodynamics that opens paths to superseding fossil and uranium fuels as well as beginning to reverse Greenouse Warming. Overtone 00:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Just because something doesn't have a copyright notice doesn't mean you can copy it. Just because my car isn't locked in the garage doesn't mean you can steal it. If this is NOT your property, you need to get approval from the originator to release under the GFDL, with the understanding that it can and will be edited. Otherwise, this has to go. RickK 00:46, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Listed on copyright problems. All works are automatically copyright under the Berne Convention. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Fringe physics. -- Decumanus 00:24, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
- Overtone, Wikipedia isn't here to attempt to open urgent paths to new understandings etc. That's what those free personal web pages over at yahoo.com are for. Delete func(talk) 03:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete'. Crackpot. The guy who wrote it is supposedly the president of the "Society for the Advancement of Physics" which does not seem to exist (according to Google) except in references to this particular fellow listing it as his title. I think regarding crackpot/fringe science, the general policy ought to be something along the lines of: 1. Wikipedia cannot present it as anything reasonably close to fact if it does not appear in some sort of mainstream scientific literature; 2. If we aren't pretending it is anything close to fact then it would have to be an article about George Galeczki's theory and how people on the internet (but no actual professional physicists) believe it will do all sorts of wonderful things. And only then if it is notable -- if a lot of people believe in the crackpot theory and it is worth noting (i.e. the Apollo moon landing hoax). This guy Galeczki seems total crackpot the more of his papers I Google -- he's in with some crowd of "dissident physicists" who are anti-Einsteinian and probably anti-QM, using most of the same old arguments that have been made unsuccessfully since Einstein first published a hundred years ago. --Fastfission 05:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyvio, promotion of non-notable crackpot theory. — Gwalla | Talk 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyvio or not, it is, scientifically speaking, bullshit and does not belong in any encyclopaedia. StuartH 13:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete (William M. Connolley 21:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
- Delete. Fringe science, original research, possibly copyvio. Andris 00:00, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
September 20
Johnnie Rivers -- Add to this discussion
Johnnie Rivers
This stub duplicates information already listed under the proper spelling of the musician's name, Johnny Rivers. 23skidoo 22:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) Another contributor has suggested turning this entry into a redirect instead, so this vote can be discontinued. 23skidoo 23:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Scientific enterprise -- Add to this discussion
New Bark Town -- Add to this discussion
New Bark Town
If this is all that can be said about this subject, it doesn't deserve an article of its own. RickK 00:43, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Even if there was more to say about it, it's an article for a Poketown. These things need to be in a table in some article where folks will find it. Every time one of these things survives VfD, we license every vanity creator to say, "But, but, but the Pokemon are there!" Geogre 01:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete as above, this could not possibly be expanded. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 01:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete both this and Template:Johto so as to discourage additional pokétown breakouts. Cianwood City (Cianwood Island) and Ecruteak City, linked from the template, are also suspect; they read like game guides and teach an outsider like me nothing about their subject. --Ardonik.talk()* 04:48, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: useless pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete along with template. Agree with Ardonik. --Improv 10:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. An article for each pokemon? Okay, sure, fine. An article for each location in the games? Gimme a break. — Gwalla | Talk 17:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete both - Tεxτurε 17:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It would save time and energy if a Wiki fictional universe project was set up where all this effort could go. Jallan 19:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Move to Wikibooks - I've created the start of a Wikibooks game guide to the Pokémon series of games, but unfortunately I haven't had any time to work on even basic structure of the Wikibook. However, I can imagine that these articles can become part of that game guide if and when it is started, hence the reason for the vote. kelvSYC 03:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Move > Wikibooks - His page for NBT shows that it exists (at least in his mind). However did anyone else think of WikiProject Pokédex when they saw this? I did. --TIB (talk) 03:04, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Hans-Erik Wennberg -- Add to this discussion
Hans-Erik Wennberg
Not notable, vanity. This person also changed Elizabethtown College to include vanity information diff - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 01:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
regarding:Hans-Erik Wennberg
- Delete. Jayjg 02:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Don't delete. Hans-Erik Wennberg is one of America's premier academic Photoshop professionals.
- this comment by User:Smoothtom who is likely the creator of Hans-Erik Wennberg, (contribs). See creation of Weis Markets by that user, followed by addition of Weis Markets to Supermarkets in the United States by User:Smoothtom in this diff - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 03:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Smoothtom, have you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Vanity page yet? Your article fits the definition of a vanity page. This encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge for notable things, and that you think highly of your abilities does not establish notability. I am also ineligible for an encyclopedia article at this time, and if I saw an article on Ardonik in the main namespace, I'd be the first to vote for its deletion. Delete vanity page; nothing personal. --Ardonik.talk()* 04:53, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Anonymous User:138.28.35.21 deleted the above comments by cohesion and myself. --Ardonik.talk()* 17:36, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, okay. New user here. I apologize sincerely for adding an article that shouldn't have been added. I did add another article, like you said, that is relevant here. Tell me, what was the reason for bringing that up? Some sorta "gotcha" kind of attack? Anyway, like I said, I shouldn't have added that one. Now, can it PLEASE disappear so that I can get on with being a positive contributor here? I will be, I swear it. --Smoothtom 00:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No, sorry if it seemed that way, usually people sign their comments on votes for deletion, and if not people will note who they were by, because sometimes people forget etc. It is also common for people to mention if they were the page creator so that people know who is talking. Since you have signed up for an account in the interim the page Hans-Erik Wennberg looks to be created by an anonymous user, while the comment here is by a logged in user. I was just pointing out that the two people were likely the same, which would have been obvious in most circumstances. Thanks for joining Wikipedia though! Don't worry about this, there's no hard feelings about deleting pages. :D [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 05:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, okay. New user here. I apologize sincerely for adding an article that shouldn't have been added. I did add another article, like you said, that is relevant here. Tell me, what was the reason for bringing that up? Some sorta "gotcha" kind of attack? Anyway, like I said, I shouldn't have added that one. Now, can it PLEASE disappear so that I can get on with being a positive contributor here? I will be, I swear it. --Smoothtom 00:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Anonymous User:138.28.35.21 deleted the above comments by cohesion and myself. --Ardonik.talk()* 17:36, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Smoothtom, have you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Vanity page yet? Your article fits the definition of a vanity page. This encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge for notable things, and that you think highly of your abilities does not establish notability. I am also ineligible for an encyclopedia article at this time, and if I saw an article on Ardonik in the main namespace, I'd be the first to vote for its deletion. Delete vanity page; nothing personal. --Ardonik.talk()* 04:53, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- this comment by User:Smoothtom who is likely the creator of Hans-Erik Wennberg, (contribs). See creation of Weis Markets by that user, followed by addition of Weis Markets to Supermarkets in the United States by User:Smoothtom in this diff - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 03:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. --Yath 04:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - unsigned by user:24.210.83.107 - vote does not count
- Delete --JumboFiske 12:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Vanity page. Geogre 13:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Average Earthman 13:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete for non-notability. (Not that the addition made much difference to Elizabethtown College, now listed on Copyright problems: it was an unembarrassed advertisement, copied from the college website.) --Bishonen 16:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable teacher. — Gwalla | Talk 17:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity. Nadavspi 23:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. ugen64 00:52, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Jonathan Yang -- Add to this discussion
Jonathan Yang
not notable, vanity page. Wolfman 01:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. Jayjg 02:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. --Yath 04:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete pre-teen vanity page. Almost every welcome page on the Wikipedia discourages newcomers from creating vanity pages; I can only conclude that people start contributing without reading them. --Ardonik.talk()* 04:44, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Vanity page, cute, empty, delete. Geogre 13:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 17:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity. Cute, like Geogre said. Nadavspi 23:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I took the mention of his birthday from August 13, where he was among Alfred Hitchcock, Fidel Castro and others who strive to reach the level of glory and fame that this 13-year-old robot designer embodies. Livajo 12:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jamie -- Add to this discussion
Jamie
Unverifiable, and content seems to contradict itself. "Famous woman philosopher" who died at age 13. SWAdair | Talk 02:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Bizarre. Jayjg 02:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not even an attempt is made in the article to provide verification references, and the language isn't 13th century English, to boot. Fire Star 04:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, fiction. --Yath 04:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete; unverifiable. A google search turns up nothing on the poem, nothing on "Jamie Greene" and "Henry III", and the article doesn't even specify where "her blood can still be seen." The cynic in me says that User:168.102.16.178 just made her up. --Ardonik.talk()* 04:41, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Hilarious. A guard kills a 13 year old girl on sight. Uh-huh. People have funny ideas about the middle ages (not to mention the Modern English cliches that this medieval girl utters). Prank. Geogre 12:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, and "Jamie?" Excuse me, but that's a male name and Scottish in that era. Oh, and "the saint" would lead her? Which one? Hooo-boy, it's not even a good one. Unless someone has something nice to say about this soon, I'm going to make it a speedy delete. Geogre 12:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Kids, Wikipedia is not the place to document your daydreams. That's what LiveJournal is for. — Gwalla | Talk 17:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Cool! Martyr fanfic! Delete. Spatch 17:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 17:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't believe a word of it. Average Earthman 17:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - amusing, but utter crap. Nadavspi 00:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mohammed Nour al-Din Saffi - Add to this discussion
from VfD:
This guy doesn't seem very notable, except that he happens to be related to Saddam Hussein. But he's not important enough to be mentioned there, as the article is an orphan. Adam Bishop 02:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Jayjg 02:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Mohammed Nour al-Din Saffi is wikified and not bad as far as bio-stubs go, but has this man done anything more notable than merely being a nephew of Saddam Hussein? Perhapsthe argument could be made that his detention by US authorities established notability, but one would have to ignore the thousands of other non-notable people similarly detained. My vote is to delete. --Ardonik.talk()* 04:31, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: There really isn't any notability established here, either. If it gets better, I'll change my vote. Geogre 12:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I remember reading about this guy in the paper. This article is what I'd call a fat redirect: it has a short note on Saffi's minor notability and a link to Saddam Hussein. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --Improv 16:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The bit on how he was detained after taking a refresher course in flying was interesting. — Gwalla | Talk 17:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - nothing in the article makes him notable - Tεxτurε 17:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, Texture is wrong! Everything in the article makes notable. -- Old Right 22:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Really? I'm on a course related to my employment right now. Does that make me notable? Although a non-criminal relation of Saddam seems to be pretty rare... Average Earthman 08:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Weak keep. -Sean Curtin 00:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Noteworthy deportation story. --Viriditas 04:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Kim Bruning 18:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I've heard his name mentioned before, so he must have done something. The bellman 07:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - he sounds like an ordinary guy, nothing too notable except the relation. Given that he has not made any attempt to be in the media or raise attention, I think it is fair to respect privacy as well. I am sure he doesn't want this information about himself readily available. Lupinewulf 05:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Alonso High School -- Add to this discussion
Alonso High School was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was kept. SimonP 22:07, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
My count of the votes: 17 Keep, 16 Delete.
A non-special primary education high school.
- (Note: above rationale was added by User:DraQue Star.) --Ardonik.talk()* 05:06, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- A Google search for "Alonso High School" gives 263 hits. Since I think the community's consensus on high schools is to let each one stand or fall on its own merits and notability, I find it hard to vote for anything but delete. As always, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. --Ardonik.talk()* 05:06, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: The article does not establish anything special about this high school. It is not poorly written, but it does not establish notability. Geogre 12:51, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. --Improv 16:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep consensus is not to delete high schools and 90% of them listed on VfD are kept. - SimonP 17:01, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- There is no such consensus that I'm aware of. If there is one, please point me to it. I believe that the correct statement is that because there is no such consensus, and because consensus is required for deletion, it is fairly easy for a high school article to survive VfD. That is not a reason for automatically keeping them without discussion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The difficulty with having no policy on high schools is that most of them are kept, but some also end up being arbitrarily deleted. Since we are fairly evenly divided on the inclusion of high schools it generally works out that stubs or unformatted articles on high schools get deleted, while longer ones are kept. This violates basic Wikipedia principles. - SimonP 20:00, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be argumentative—really. This is not a rhetorical question. I agree that the tendency is that "stubs get deleted, while longer ones are kept." But I'm happy with that. What basic Wikipedia principles does this violate? I'm willing to listen. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- How many other articles get deleted simply because they are stubs? Being as stub has never been a criteria for deletion, nor should it be. Yet high schools are getting deleted simply because they are stubs. Not because people vote to delete them for that reason, but because others refrain from voting to keep them. - SimonP 23:25, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- SimonP has either not been reading reasons given by those who vote to delete or doesn't understand them. I vote to delete most high school articles not just because the article is a stub but because most schools are not notable and won't ever ever generate an encyclopedia article beyond a bad stub. Most high schools are normal high schools much like any other normal high school. People mostly neither know nor care about any of them individually. Those who care about a particular school are mostly those employed at that school or by the local Board of Education or who are attending that particular school during a few years of their lives at most. Immediate family also care while a child or sibling is attending such a school. But most don't think that their school is special or notable or stands out. That most high school articles are uniformative stubs reflects the fact that the editor writing such an article either doesn't care much or just can't make a good article from information easily available oor both. What people do care about is their own years in "high school" in general rather than about the history of the particular high school or high schools that they attended. Notable high schools, like notable people, or notable organizations of any kind, would be those mentioned in media as being recognized for some reason other than merely existing and performing their normal, mundane functions. The repetative litany that "high schools are notable" is belayed by the substance of most Wikipedia high school articles which don't provide any reason why a particular high school is notable and often don't say much at all. An encyclopedia article should not provide only the minutiae of present day information such as the name of the current prinipal and whether a football team is doing well, all likely to be out of date even a year from now. Yet a history of a high school would be mostly nothing but such disjointed minutiae: names of principals, lists of teaching staff, awards won each year by teams or bands or clubs, average grades obtained compared to other schools, additions and renovations of the building, and so forth. Such an article would be encyclopedic. But people don't write them. SimonP doesn't write them. And there's no point in retaining bad stubs when it would be just as easy for a knowledgeable editor to start an article fresh. Wikipedia is not improved by bad articles that don't improve and are unlikely to improve. Jallan 17:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Jallan, I agree with you. I further would say that said articles with all that detail is not encyclopedic, and that this kind of topic, with very rare exceptions, is never encyclopedic. --Improv 18:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- SimonP has either not been reading reasons given by those who vote to delete or doesn't understand them. I vote to delete most high school articles not just because the article is a stub but because most schools are not notable and won't ever ever generate an encyclopedia article beyond a bad stub. Most high schools are normal high schools much like any other normal high school. People mostly neither know nor care about any of them individually. Those who care about a particular school are mostly those employed at that school or by the local Board of Education or who are attending that particular school during a few years of their lives at most. Immediate family also care while a child or sibling is attending such a school. But most don't think that their school is special or notable or stands out. That most high school articles are uniformative stubs reflects the fact that the editor writing such an article either doesn't care much or just can't make a good article from information easily available oor both. What people do care about is their own years in "high school" in general rather than about the history of the particular high school or high schools that they attended. Notable high schools, like notable people, or notable organizations of any kind, would be those mentioned in media as being recognized for some reason other than merely existing and performing their normal, mundane functions. The repetative litany that "high schools are notable" is belayed by the substance of most Wikipedia high school articles which don't provide any reason why a particular high school is notable and often don't say much at all. An encyclopedia article should not provide only the minutiae of present day information such as the name of the current prinipal and whether a football team is doing well, all likely to be out of date even a year from now. Yet a history of a high school would be mostly nothing but such disjointed minutiae: names of principals, lists of teaching staff, awards won each year by teams or bands or clubs, average grades obtained compared to other schools, additions and renovations of the building, and so forth. Such an article would be encyclopedic. But people don't write them. SimonP doesn't write them. And there's no point in retaining bad stubs when it would be just as easy for a knowledgeable editor to start an article fresh. Wikipedia is not improved by bad articles that don't improve and are unlikely to improve. Jallan 17:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- How many other articles get deleted simply because they are stubs? Being as stub has never been a criteria for deletion, nor should it be. Yet high schools are getting deleted simply because they are stubs. Not because people vote to delete them for that reason, but because others refrain from voting to keep them. - SimonP 23:25, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be argumentative—really. This is not a rhetorical question. I agree that the tendency is that "stubs get deleted, while longer ones are kept." But I'm happy with that. What basic Wikipedia principles does this violate? I'm willing to listen. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The difficulty with having no policy on high schools is that most of them are kept, but some also end up being arbitrarily deleted. Since we are fairly evenly divided on the inclusion of high schools it generally works out that stubs or unformatted articles on high schools get deleted, while longer ones are kept. This violates basic Wikipedia principles. - SimonP 20:00, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- There is no such consensus that I'm aware of. If there is one, please point me to it. I believe that the correct statement is that because there is no such consensus, and because consensus is required for deletion, it is fairly easy for a high school article to survive VfD. That is not a reason for automatically keeping them without discussion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith. Furthermore, I can point you to the "consensus." It was informally reached when someone wrote List of schools and someone else listed it on VfD. That debate went on for a few epochs, and, in the end, people voting there sort of kind of agreed that high schools stay (there) and others go (there). That's it. No policy, no consensus reached in any deliberative forum except the VfD debate on one article. Since then, people have used the chimera of a consensus that "High schools stay" in VfD voting, but the truth is that it's exactly as Dpbsmith says: every single nomination is its own case. The only policy is the deletion guidelines. Thus, notability, encyclopedic content, non-advertising, etc. Geogre 00:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 17:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Why not? There are lots of high schools and lots of colleges. There's no good to add all of them, but, so far as I'm concerned, there's no good reason to delete them either. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:53, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- My view is that they should be kept if they are good articles, and discarded if they are basically stubs, because stubs are essentially a request for someone else to write an article. In a developing encyclopedia it makes sense that there are those who can reliably judge "we need an article on X," knowing that they can't write it themselves, and that there are others around ready and willing to flesh out the skeleton. In this case, there is value in submitting a stub. This is not the case for non-notable high schools. If we had a high-school expert who loved to write articles about high schools, such a person might well take high school stubs into account in prioritizing his work. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. There is good reason to delete anything that is not notable, that isn't likely to be mentioned in books or other media outside of its local area (and is considered rather ordinary and non-notable in its local area). There is good reason to add only those that are notable in some way or other. This particular uninformative substub article contains more information on Braulio Alonso than on the school. Since the Braulio Alonso article (created by the same editor who created this article) is marked as suspected copyright violation, perhaps the Braulio Alonso information here could be moved to that article's /Temp subpage to create a new stub there. Jallan 19:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. RickK 19:13, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- delete. While there is no consensus to delete high school articles, there is no concensus to keep them, either. This school appears to lack notability. Gentgeen 19:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete unless greatly improved before the expiration of VfD. Delete because it is not an article that says anything of much use or much interest even to alums; because stubs are not worthwhile in themselves, but only as they lead to articles; and because it is unlikely that the Wikipedian community contains anyone able and interested in adding more to this than the original contributor. People who want high school articles to Wikipedia should submit articles, not stubs. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Just curious -- is that an argument not to write stubs at all? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 23:20, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- No. There are better stubs and worse stubs. See Wikipedia:Perfect stub article. A stub is not useful in itself. It's only useful if it grows into an article, or if it provides a useful amount of information itself. We should write articles when we can. We should write good stubs when we are quite sure that the topic is encyclopedic, and the stub provides enough information to have some value of its own, and we think there's a reasonable likelihood that someone will expand it within a month or so. We should not write worthless stubs, and we should delete worthless stubs if others write them. Wikipedia:Perfect stub article says that when you do write a stub you should be prepared to keep adding to it yourself. "If nobody contributes to your stub for a few weeks, roll up your sleeves and expand it yourself." This is an encylopedia; it's not the Britannica "Micropedia" and it's not a nanopedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- My opinion is that a useful stub gives a reason why the article should be expanded - so if the stub states nothing other than that the individual is a nobel prize winner, or that the school is the oldest in Virginia, or similar, then it's clearly worth expanding (as long as it is true). If it merely says John Smith is a scientist, or Bog Standard Comprehensive is a high school, then it isn't a useful stub. Average Earthman 09:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, you'll hate me, but in my random acts of cleanup at Special:Deadendpages, I've been known to turn a substub into a stub and hope that the winds of Recentchanges and What Links Here traces will push it towards its full potential. Especially when I don't know much of anything about the subject matter. Of course, turning a substub into a stub is still improvement. - KeithTyler 06:07, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Just curious -- is that an argument not to write stubs at all? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 23:20, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't have a good reason why, maybe I'm just feeling generous. Something about the former high school of a former NEA president lends it a touch of notability to me. - KeithTyler 21:22, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with KeithTyler about NEA president! -- Old Right 23:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I just wanted to point out that this high school (and most high schools, actually) has more students than Alligator, Mississippi has residents. I'm just saying. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 23:20, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I have no idea who decided it was a good idea to start importing Census data for every little town in the world, and, despite having contributed to a description of a place I used to live (Brecksville, Ohio) and another place where my grandparents live (Bath, Ohio), if there ever were a discussion that would have a reasonable guideline by which all nonnotable towns were to be removed (Bath and Brecksville are really not notable), I probably would vote for their mass deletion. --Improv
- Delete: no evidence of notability. The notion that there's a consensus for keeping high school articles is just wishful thinking. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete unless evidence of notability added. There is no consensus on high schools. Average Earthman 09:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, just so if my high school ever comes up, I can vote keep without being a hypocrite. The Steve 12:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Articles on random high schools might be considered community vanity. -- WOT 18:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep ugen64 00:47, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable. FWIW, my high school is notable and happens to have an article which someone else started. - Lucky 6.9 17:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, and the article says almost nothing about the school anyway. It just talks about the guy the school is named after. Isomorphic 00:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep I'm new to Wikipedia and came across this by pressing random page and couldn't believe that an article about a real school would be deleted. The Recycling Troll 00:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. SWAdair | Talk 07:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I think all schools (primary and secondary) should be kept. I see no reason to delete. However, this article should be improved. Still, I vote for keep. --AAAAA 20:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Islamonazism -- Add to this discussion
Islamonazism
POV essay attempting to prove a connection between Islam and Nazism based largely on the actions of Amin al-Husseini and a few other Palestinians, some tendentiously-presented photographs, and the theories of a few right-wing cranks. —No-One Jones (m) 04:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I've seen the term used by right wing cranks before, maybe it should have a page, just one that it is encyclopedic ("Right wing cranks use the term Islamonazism to indicate that they consider various extreme forms of Islam to be morally or functionally equivalent to Nazism under Adolf Hitler" etc). The biggest problem with this article (and theory) is that it confuses two completely different aspects of Middle Eastern politics (as I understand it): Pan-Arabism (which is functionally similar to Fascism, i.e. the Baath party in Iraq and Syria) and Islamism (radical Islamic rule, i.e. the Taliban, or Iran). The problem is... the ideologies are generally mutually incompatible (hence the divisions between Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Iran, Al Quaida, etc.).
Which is really here nor there on the VfD page, but I guess maybe this could be turned into a real article, but you'd have to start by blanking the current version.Actually, nevermind: redirect to List_of_pejorative_political_slogans#Islamofascism. --Fastfission 04:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) - Kill it. Kill it dead. Kill it dead dead dead. Also the redirect Palinazi. Kill that one dead dead dead too. Bearcat 05:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- My gut reaction is to delete this irritatingly stupid jab at all of Islam, but a redirect to List_of_pejorative_political_slogans#Islamofascism is more appropriate and is more than this topic deserves. --Ardonik.talk()* 05:11, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- The contributions of the article's creator are also suspect. --Ardonik.talk()* 05:13, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:17, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to List_of_pejorative_political_slogans#Islamofascism as suggested, but also delete the history. This page is thoroughly disgusting. --Zero 07:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) Don't worry about Palinazi, it was an obvious fast delete and I did it already.
- Agree with redirecting and deleting the history. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Livajo 09:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, come on, not this again? We deleted Islamonazi per VfD recently! This ought surely to be speedied as a mere reposting of that. I so vote: Speedy delete. Bishonen 12:12, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Islamonazi was recreated as a redirect to this one. I speed-deleted Islamonazi but on second thoughts it may have been better to make it a protected redirect to List_of_pejorative_political_slogans#Islamofascism. --Zero 12:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete JFW | T@lk 12:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, no redirect: Make Islamonazi a protected redirect per all the suggestions above, but the way to delete this one's page history is simply to delete it outright. Delete also Palinazi, with no need for a redirect there, as it is unlikely that another orthographically challenged person will mistake PalEstine for PalIstine. Geogre 12:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This article is an anti-Islamic witchhunt, suggesting that Islamism = Islam, drawing connections about as strong as, say, that the KKK is representative of the United States. While it is possible to collect data, as Iceman has, that provide a bare semblance of an argument, this tie is only there because of his selection, not because of an actual underlying regularity. Ahh, the joy of kooks with an agenda. --Improv 16:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- "Keep this article". I see no reason to delete an article that is factual in every respect. A policy of deletion simply because the facts are unpleasant is a poor policy for a reference source.
- I showed the history and modern days of Islamonazism based purely on facts and nothing more. Not only that you call a balanced and honest article a "biased and disgusting" basing your statements on absolutely nothing, but you want to delete it along with its history. Iceman 14:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Anybody like to prove this article wrong with facts other than feet stamping.
- This article is based on fact and history. There is no reason to delete it. You can't change history by ignoring it, or pretending it didn't happen. Tony Sopranostein
- It's a must stay factual article.
- An article should NOT be deleted because of "Political Correctness" Hurt feelings and ethnic pride must not come ahead of the truth. An article should only be judged on its factual content. Mephisto 4535
- Probable sockpuppet: user's first edit was to this vote. —No-One Jones (m) 15:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Loony [vote by User:Xed ]
- Some of the history in this article could reasonably survive under a suitably neutral title like Arab support for Germany during World War II, but not this article, which tries to draw a conclusion from insufficient data and is factually wrong in several places. Delete. Author: see talk page for why this article is wrong. DJ Clayworth 15:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yet you didn't show what data is insufficient and where I was factually wrong... Iceman 15:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I show exactly that. Read the talk page. Skorzeny, for example. DJ Clayworth 15:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Otto Skorzeny article will show you that I am right.
- Don't argue here, go to talk page. DJ Clayworth 16:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- *KEEP* as is. This is a comprehensive well done piece that is not a point of view, but a factual history that is certainly worth keeping in Wikipedia. If "neutrality" of information means facts are not acceptable, then Wikipedia is doing itself a disservice. Truthseeker0001
- Probable sockpuppet. —No-One Jones (m) 16:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To whoever is stacking up sockpuppets to vote on this page: Please don't. It's really, really, really obvious that a new account is a sockpuppet when it makes its first edit to an obscure VfD page, and sockpuppet votes are not counted. —No-One Jones (m) 16:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This page is showing up elsewhere on the net. As a user of wikipedia, though a new registraton here, I see no reason for *certain* votes to "not" count. It smacks of censorship and control of information by virtue of how long you have been registered Truthseeker0001 16:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Some criteria are necessary to make votes legitimate, otherwise this page could be mercilessly abused by anonymous cranks. . . Lacrimosus 22:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- So long as there are criteria for how votes count, it's not a problem. The reason new accounts count less is that it's too easy for someone either to make new accounts for the purpose of multiple-voting, or for someone to go find a bunch of their friends to vote their way. Suggesting that people hang around for awhile and make some contributions before their votes count is a good guard against these problems. --Improv 16:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Antandrus 17:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, Delete, Delete, and Delete. That is actually just one vote, btw, and not the attempt of a single person to vote multiple times, like the sock puppets above. Oh, or Redirect to the pejorative thing, whatever. func(talk) 17:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - do not redirect - even if you accept the terms as slang the content is rubbish when applied thus. - Tεxτurε 17:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: POV rant nonsense. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 17:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, what he said! -- Billy Bob Sock 17:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- That there above user may be a sockpuppet. -- Sheriff Sock 18:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Billy Bob Sock is no such thing! -- Sock Dude 18:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- That there above user may be a sockpuppet. -- Sheriff Sock 18:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Merge into a black hole and redirect. -- There's no way I'm a sockpuppet! 17:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, what he said! -- Billy Bob Sock 17:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, some of the info can be merged into pan-arabism and islamism, if NPOV-ified and factual, but the problem with this is that it is just an NPOV rant. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Speedy delete because islamonazi was already VfDed. -Vina 18:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Unforunately the votes of sock puppets and one-issue new contributors are sometimes counted when a sysop wants to keep an article. Jallan 18:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Adding one more Delete to help the count against the sockpuppets. RickK 19:12, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
-
- (Ineligible anon vote): Keep this page. It should be clear by now that there exists a radical version of Islam, which is rapidly becoming mainstream (unlike the KKK), which is the modern, murderous equivalent of Nazi fascism. Sorry to disappoint the ultra-liberals among us, but this is an accurate portrayal of a large number, though far from all, Muslims.
-
- Has anyone said "original research" yet?
Deletefor that and all other reasons already stated. - KeithTyler 21:19, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC) - Delete. I concur with comments made by DJ Clayworth. If the original author is interested in salvaging the article, (which does contain useful information) he or she needs to read and understand NPOV. --Viriditas 22:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This misuse of the VFD process here is deplorable. Lacrimosus 22:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, not POV at all. Its simply informing the readings of an important topic. -- Old Right 23:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- (I've already voted) On the question of delete vs redirect (obviously keep is a ridiculous option for anybody who isn't a sock puppet or an extreme right-wing crackpot), I think redirect is probably best. I've seen people use the term Islamonazi and leaving it open will just encourage someone else to think it doesn't have an entry. I don't see the purpose in killing the page history -- who cares? Anybody who is seriously looking up the term here will find similarly nonsensical and hate-filled things if they have typed it into Google first, I could care less, personally, if they read that at one time a crackpot had once again filled up Wikipedia with hate-filled nonsense... --Fastfission 23:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I agree...Old Right's user page is kinda cool. Speaking as a lifelong Republican-voting, Drudge Report-reading, Sean Hannity-watching, LA Times-hating conservative who would greatly enjoy the opportunity to give Dan Rather an atomic wedgie, I have to give this horrific rant as emphatic a delete vote as I have ever given. There are conservatives and there are crackpot, extreme, hate-filled individuals who wrap themselves in the flag while spouting their vitriol all over this site. This is almost worse than the damned kiddie porn apology articles! Lacrimosis hit it on the head. Just get rid of this thing and the sockpuppets that go with it. - Lucky 6.9 04:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to [[List of Perjorative etc.. and delete. There is obviously a history of association between the Nazis and Moslems but that belongs on the appropriate pages, not as a aseperate article. You could probably find a similar connection between the nazis and any other historical opposition to British rule. Presumably we don't have an article on IRA-Nazism, and yet there was definitely some contact between them. Similarly, in more recent times, there may have been contact between the IRA and Libya, are we to expect an article on Irish-Islamism?
Furthermore; articles like this are by their nature contentious and involve Wikipedia in unnecessary acrimony. ping 09:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Why are we even letting this go on and on? Anon votes count zero. As for the people being reasonable and trying to find content to merge, let's remember one of those really basic truths: Islamic and Arab are not the same thing. If someone wants to talk about Arab tribes that supported the Nazis, well, whatever. That's not Islam. Secondly, if we do decide to trace that out, then, as Ping says, the IRA supported Hitler, and so did Prebscott Bush (current president's grandfather) and so did Charles Lindbergh. So? There is a big difference between a realpolitik supporter of the enemy of one's enemy and ideological agreement, and therefore there is a big difference between, say, a sheik and Ezra Pound (or, pre-war, Prebscott Bush). Delete the article, no redirect. Make a new Islamonazi as a protected redirect to the ethnic slurs article. Geogre 13:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: agenda promo. Redirect to List_of_pejorative_political_slogans and protect the redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. POV garbage. Jayjg 16:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to Islamo-fascism Shimmin 17:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete this junk POV page. Is there a Judeonazism page? Or is that synonymous with Zionism?Alberuni 17:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I could—but am not going to—write such a page, which would be just as valid as Islamonazism. —No-One Jones (m) 18:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Now that you ask, yes, on the List of pejorative political slogans page there are gems like Judeofascism and Zionazism. Whatever happened to just using adjectives? --Fastfission 23:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I dunno, but you could ask whoever came up with the term Wikipedia. :) - KeithTyler 23:58, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete this logic-free garbage. Binadot 19:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I might support a short entry that says something like this "This is a term used as a pejorative, etc."--iFaqeer 20:29, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, redirect, protect. SWAdair | Talk 07:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You probably won't believe this, but I vote Strong Keep. Why? We've dealt with this kind of thing with people like User:WHEELER, and we can do it again. Change the article title to something non-godwin inducing, and then NPOV the thing to pieces to see what remains of it. Things may or may not remain, but I'm curious as to the result. Kim Bruning 13:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Change vote to neutral. If it is a verifiable historical and current phenomenon, crop article to those provable NPOV facts. Remove baseless insinuations e.g. Islam==Nazi or Arab==Nazi, etc. Priority cleanup. If, say, Arab nazism is the more accurate explanation, then do the same cleanup, and move article to Arab Nazism. And so on. KeithTyler 16:43, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 04:19, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Ode To Unix -- Add to this discussion
Ode To Unix
This didn't quite fit the candidates for speedy deletion, but doesn't belong here; it's source text, and I'm not sure it's notable. Wikisource (?) if anything. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:04, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. As a side-note, what qualifies this as source text? - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 06:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I suppose it could be one of those Internet funnies floating about, if it were funny. Geogre 12:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not encyclopedic. At all. — Gwalla | Talk 17:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and wikisource - Tεxτurε 17:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, no doubt. Nadavspi 17:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Let's not inflict this stupidity on Wikisource, they don't need it either. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- BJAODN.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 08:19, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete this crud. RedWolf 04:37, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Digifolk -- Add to this discussion
Digifolk
Neologism, original research. There's not a lot of info about this term in a Google. Maybe it is common and I am not aware. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 08:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be a widespread term, but as it is used, I would vote for not deleting that article. (It does need a rewrite, though).- Katherine Shaw 08:37, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Slang, neologism, a few references can be generated far too easily. Geogre 12:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to Filk --Improv 16:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism, POV original "research". — Gwalla | Talk 17:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism, slang, I can't verify it's wider use. Average Earthman 10:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sigmund Freud Cocaine -- Add to this discussion
Sigmund Freud Cocaine
I'm almost certain that there is no person or brand of cocaine named Sigmund Freud Cocaine—although it would be pretty funny if there were—so Wikipedia should not have an article with this name. If any of this is true and not already in Sigmund Freud then it can be merged. Unfortunately, such merging probably won't include my favorite line from this article, "Sigmund Freud was already a pretty weird person." —Triskaideka 15:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This looks like a fast-track delete. Straight to BJAODN? -- The Anome 16:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- BDJAON and speedy delete: It's just some kid's ramblings from his book report on Freud. (Yes, I did have students write like this. "The Boy Scout Manual could have helped many on the gloomy isle of Britain," one student wrote.) Geogre 16:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Essay. I got a good laugh, though. — Gwalla | Talk 17:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - BJAODN - Tεxτurε 17:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete.. Drivel, not bad enough for BJAODN IMHO. --Ianb 17:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- delete. Who was paying him this salary, anyway? RickK 19:09, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This might be true. Searching google for "Sigmund Freud" +cocaine returns 5,000 hits, the first being [27]. The title is, however, not proper, as User:Triskaideka noted, and the style is unencyclopedic. Merge with Sigmund Freud, after a fact-check, might also be appropriate. Andris 19:27, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, it's quite true that Freud used cocaine for his patients. It's one of the big scandals that invalidates his results. When discussing "hysteria," he'd shoot his female patients full of cocaine until they began to wig out. He'd then demonstrate to his colleagues that they were hysterical. As for Freud himself using recreational cocaine, it's hard to say. He may have. Addicted? Well, since it's not a physically addictive drug, that's hard to say. Was he one weird dude? Dunno. Geogre 00:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, but why merge this brilliant prose and unparalleled scholarship? Even if it's true, there's nothing redeeming here. CHL 01:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- BDJAON and delete: This is one of the funnier entries on VFD. It needs to be saved for future generations. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 19:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and
| Add to BJAODN |
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The title is fatally flawed, and the article doesn't have much either. Fire Star 20:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- If this article is deleted, we should also delete the mirror of its contents currently being writen by the same author at Sigmund Freud and Cocaine (oh, and by the way, Delete)Iain 15:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. There's no reason at all to have a separate article for Freud's adventures with cocaine when we could just as easily discuss them at Sigmund Freud in greater length than we already do, if necessary. —Triskaideka 15:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Article does not contain enough good material to be reworked. Any treatment of Sigmund Freud's use of Cocaine should be within one or the other of these articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Bob Taylor -- Add to this discussion
Robert Taylor (computer scientist)
from VfD:
Looks like vanity to me. Might be notable, but I tend to doubt it. -R. fiend 16:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- keep (tentative), not vanity, poor stub, is connected with the founding of ARPANET, quick reference for further research [28]. Somewhere I have a book with more info. --Ianb 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This info appears to have been taken directly from [here]. But a significant figure, certainly. Keep Average Earthman 11:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- keep. Notable. Mikkalai 02:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Neowin -- Add to this discussion
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Archives of Previous Discussions
- /Archive 1: December 2004 – January 2006.
- /Archive 2: January 2006 and page vote.
Discussion Page Cleaned, Good Luck
The vote to keep the new version of this article passed unanimously. I've archived it above. I was hoping that would be a fresh start for this page and several people put a lot of work into making this page respectable, but it seems that it has just gotten reverted again to the old version that is unorganized and unedited. Therefore, I have decided to absolve myself of this article and let it become whatever the community lets it become as I will not waste my time playing revert wars with anonymous IPs.
-Noneloud 07:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Due to Dan Davis encouraging me to come back to this page, I've decided to do so. Hopefully all of this Brazil4Linux crud is over and done with
- -Noneloud 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Staff list?
Is this really necessary? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think not. Wikipedia:Vanity
- What does "Wikipedia Vanity" have to do in any way, shape or form with this? None of the NeoWin creators are involved in this article at all, and neither are any family of NeoWin- which is what that link you posted refers to. Daniel Davis 22:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)
- Personally, I don't think Wikipedia:Vanity has anything to do with the staff list, but having the staff list on the page seems really un-encyclopedic. A staff list really provides no extra information to the article about the site itself, so I think that BorgHunter's decision is justified.
- -Noneloud 04:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- What does "Wikipedia Vanity" have to do in any way, shape or form with this? None of the NeoWin creators are involved in this article at all, and neither are any family of NeoWin- which is what that link you posted refers to. Daniel Davis 22:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)
- I think not. Wikipedia:Vanity
POV? Or true?
How can dull this down to fit the article. I find sound parts of it are true: " Their high traffic discussion forums are frequented by zealous, bright, young Microsoft fan boys, who enjoy (among other things) testing illegal beta software." [29]. Food for thought; Karma be damned. --Depakote 14:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Could you be a bit clearer? "How can dull this down to fit the article. I find sound parts of it are true" doesn't quite make sense... Daniel Davis 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)
Current Version
What is the problem with the current version? Loneloud's version is ugly, poor developed and formated. Don't justify keep a crap-deloped article to satisfy the vanity of Loneloud IMHO. I'm no seeing any move of Loneloud for article increase and absolutely nothing to adjust as minimum-decent formatting. This is Encyclopedia afertall and not "This site and authors too". --LaMaroche 20:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- *sigh* Hello again Brazil4Linux. Please stop reverting the page back to a version that's now well over two months old. The *real* current version is quite good in and of itself, and is the result of a lot of hard work on the part of many indiviuals. Daniel Davis 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC) (Doom127)
- Oye vey... -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 09:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Neocum
Marcel Klum and Steven Parker’s adult forum NeoCum.com deserves inclusion in this article. Neowin was underwritten by Neocum.
OT: What is the reason for Talk:Neowin if comments on the article are just deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.71.223.140 (talk • contribs).
- I'm sorry to say that your information is pure nonsense that is why it is being removed. Jedi6 04:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- This also sounds like complete nonsense to me and doesn't meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. A google search turns up nothing to support what you're suggesting here. If you can't back this up with a reputable source and reference, it doesn't belong here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 04:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
A basic Google search for the terms “Neobond RedMak Neocum” delivers archived forum postings from 2000 authored by both Neobond and RedMak on a variety of topics including but not limited to establishing NeoCum.com
It’s unlikely two posters on an adult message board, would conspire to impersonate the founders of Neowin.net before that community is even established.
Nonetheless, I will update with a reputable source and reference, in the next few days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.71.223.140 (talk • contribs).
- Just because they have the same username doesn't mean they are the same person. Also that doesn't mean they created Neocum either, it might just be fans copying it. Jedi6 04:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Expanding the article
I've wanted to expand this article and make it more in-dept for some time now, but I just can't seem to figure out where to start. I'm reallyworried about point of view when it comes to changing this as even though there is none to little point of view present, people still think that the article is worthy of deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neowin .
Please write back with ideas. I'm stumped on this one.
-Noneloud 04:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Go ahead and be Bold. Jedi6-(need help?) 20:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Removed POV Comments
Does anyone object to me removing these comments:
The forum moderators are often considered to be too strict in their judgement. For example, one user on Neowin made a post on the forums offering to help with the IRC chat server. A moderator quickly closed the post with a rude comment: "Thank you, come again." The moderator could have simply said that Neowin did not require help, but instead they offered a rude and uninformative comment. Some users have begun to joke about the strictness of the moderators with remarks such as "the Gestapo has closed another post" and related sarcastic remarks.
xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I did add something back in about moderation but I kept it as factual and unbiased as possible. The point is the Neowin is moderated more than other similar forums. Esptoronto 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
--Yeah I object, because it's true. They will change usernames on people without valid proof, all someone has to do is cry "hacker"
Shift
Neowin 5 has effectively been canceled, and Shift has pretty much taken over, so should we remove the section on "The Future of Neowin" and expand more on Shift? Also, the shot of the front page is of V3, should we move to a screen of Shift? --Simon360 00:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Simon360! Yea, replace that image. I have no idea how to do that full screen screenshot though, so if you could do it, I'd appreciate it. I don't know exactly what to say about shift though. - xxpor ( Talk| Contribs) 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Finity/Last Screenshot
A preview of Neowin 5 ("Finity") <<caption to the very last screenshot
- I pretty sure that No.5 wasn't Finity, and Finity has since been scraped for Shift, so do we still need that picture?. Peachey88 08:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Neowin 5 was Finity, but Finity was downgraded to version 4 and renamed Shift. I think the plan is to one day upgrade Shift to the feature set planned for Neowin Finity, but it hasn't happened yet. However, this is the last surviving picture of what v5 was supposed to look like. Maybe we need a page called Neowin Finity? I know lots of people who still like to look at it, since it was a nice upgrade, and people can look at it and sometimes just compare it to what we got. WE actually got more in v4 in my opinion, but not all of the promised features, and a slightly downgraded look. --205.251.4.109 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Neowin and warez
I don't know, my memory sort of fails me, but did Neowin ever (between 2000-2002) offer warez on IRC? I think they sneaked it in somehow... I think it's important we get to the bottom of this and try to find proof, it would of been before google was around -- I think they had bots in like #neowin-files or something that gave out whistler/office builds. Anyway, just wanted to mention, I didn't want to say anything without direct evidence/source. :D --24.7.194.240 14:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The Neowin staff is from United Kingdom.
I undid this edit. Neowin staff are not exclusively from the UK. One Admin is from Netherlands, one Admin is from Detroit and two Admins are from the U.K. Two Supervisors are from Canada, one is from Thailand and two are from the United States. Then there are Global Mods, Forum Mods, Newsposters and News Staff to think about. I don't think you can begin to justify to say that Neowin Staff members are exclusively from the United Kingdom. Esptoronto 19:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Audience and moderation
The Audience section reads like a bit too much written with a POV in mind. Parts I'm talking of:
- "Neowin community is basically Microsoft zealotry - with large concentration of Fanboys of Redmond products. Apple, Sony and Linux are considered evil to rivalize with various Microsoft products."
This reads very odd to me, as Neowin (despite its name) has several highly active forums specifically discussing e.g. Apple / OS X and Linux, and then definitely not in a negative regard. Developers on Neowin are involved in their own Linux distro, Shift Linux. I also frequently read attacks on Microsoft on their forum, where users are free to debate in an orderly fashion. It seems like a place with a varied community although I agree with a focus on Windows, but far from a breeding ground of "Microsoft zealots" that this part reads like. Heck, the place even have frequent IE / Firefox flame wars, and that's not happening on boards without a sizable Firefox population. There is also notable support of FOSS applications there.
- "This turns Neowin a very closed community to new users that are harrassed if supports Microsoft rivals."
I often attack Microsoft for things if they've deserved it, and there use to be quite eloquent threads on such subjects even on Neowin, where people are most certainly not banned. Again, this reads almost like having been typed by a banned user of Neowin!
Thanks for reading my concerns, and I hope this section can be revised to leave out judgements of their users and moderators. If people still doubt what I'm saying, I can bring you several thread examples to clarify what I mean. -- Northgrove 17:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Eric -- Add to this discussion
 |
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
Eric was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP
- Delete - creating a disambig for "Eric" is like making one for "The" - Tεxτurε 17:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep the monarchs and the novel. Delete the first name folks, real and fictional. -R. fiend 17:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps keep the monarchs and novel, but, you know, a dab page is for when something will be searched for that way. Is anyone going to search for Eric Rudoph by typing in "Eric?" Geogre 17:12, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- What if you can't remember a person's exact surname? Who's that explorer... Erik the... Eric the... dammit I'll just try "Eric".... Seems useful to me. — Chameleon 17:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Have you considered using the "search" feature when you are... well... "searching"? - Tεxτurε 17:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Wikipedia search is disabled for performance reasons.
- You can search via Google or Yahoo! in the meantime.
- Note that their indexes of Wikipedia content may be out of date.
- Chameleon 17:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Have you considered using the "search" feature when you are... well... "searching"? - Tεxτurε 17:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This list is likely to always be out of date. Same goes for all other silly disambiguations by just first names and last names. Jallan 18:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep the monarchs and the novel, maybe add Erik the Red if it exists, delete the rest but keep the page. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - it's not harming anyone and may be useful on occasion. violet/riga (t) 19:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - interesting and useful list that's not harming anyone. Where else on the web can you find a list of people named "Eric"? A little bit of history on the name "Eric" would make this page even better.
21:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) - Keep, without doubt. At the least, the page needs to disambiguate between the monarchs, the book, and (though it doesn't yet) ERIC, the major educational research database. And frankly, I don't see why the other Erics can't stay. Certainly it could get ridiculous. On the other hand, they do no harm. I might put them on the bottom of the article instead of the top, but I think deleting them serves no useful purpose. Jwrosenzweig 21:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I think we can use the John page as an example of what a good Eric page can look like. However, there is also a John (name) page with another pretty ridculous list of people named John (and where's Johnny Cash on the list, to name but one?). Obviously such a list could never approach anything resembling completion, so we have to ask if it really serves any purpose at all. I can sort of see mentioning first names when they're particularly rare (I believe Errol Flynn was added to the Errol disambiguation page, for example, though I'm still not sure its useful), but John and Eric just seem silly to me. I admit they do no harm, but VfD is filled with pages that clearly harm no one. -R. fiend 02:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with R. fiend....the John page is much cleaner. I still oppose deleting the whole page, though -- it seems like at this point we're simply debating how to edit the page, which belongs at Talk:Eric. Jwrosenzweig 22:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, it's not hurting anyone. Maybe rearrange the information so the monarchs and novel are at the top and the first-namers at the bottom. Livajo 03:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, after removing the famous people with "Eric" as their first names as suggested by R. fiend. There's just too many Erics out there, and it's too bothersome to update because we already have List of people by name. (Side note: there may be a place in the Wikipedia namespace for an index of people by first names, to be generated by a bot from List of people by name.) • Benc • 04:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, but prune to monarchs and other folk better known by their first than last name. Shimmin 17:47, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and club the author. Not at all encyclopedic. --Improv 19:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Useful, if a bit OTT. James F. (talk) 22:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, hope someone will add some more info on the name too. bbx 10:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, going straight to the novel here doesn't follow the Principle of Least Surprise. ;-) --Kundor 20:20, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, I think that the list of people named Eric must go away, but must keep the name origins and meaning (and expand it). Almost every name has a meaning or root: what if someone is not looking for people named Eric, but for the origin of his name ? BTW, if someone is looking for people named Eric, use google. --EricRoss 19:37, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Haydar -- Add to this discussion
Haydar
Trippy pseudomyth. Geogre 17:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Questionable, as I'm finding sites that go both ways on whether the story is true. Someone who knows more about this than me should probably do the research and write it up as either truth or legend -- but either way, I think it's notable enough to be worthy of an entry. Keep and fix. —Etaoin 20:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Issue closed for now: it is 'copyvio. Mikkalai 05:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Aristasia -- Add to this discussion
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aristasia
Circumciser -- Add to this discussion
Circumciser
Originally an anti-circumcision rant. When the POV was removed, what remained was a dicdef. An attempt to redirect this to circumcision has already been reverted. --Ardonik.talk()* 17:20, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. till an anti-circumcision rant.JFW | T@lk
- Delete - weak support for redirect - Tεxτurε 17:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Dictdef. Nobody is going to search for this as opposed to circumcision. — Gwalla | Talk 17:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: no redirect, no useful content. I sure wish these people had a different cause or hobby. Geogre 17:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete.
It's not even a dicdef. Someone who cuts a toe nail isn't a "toe nailer", and someone who cuts hair is a barber, not a "hair cutter". The intact POV pushers are taking a real delight in inventing words, like "circumfetishists" and "circumcisiophiliac".func(talk) 18:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) - Keep - Your 'toenail' analogy is wrong. The term 'Circumciser', ritual or otherwise, is a widespead occupational title. Do a Google search, and you'll find its usage is common, not "invented". It's used just as much by the proponents of circumcision. The circumcision article, if you take the time to read it, focuses on the subject (or "circumcisee" to truly invent a term), but does not cover the personal motivations and mindset of the circumciser at all. Attempts to remove irrelevant psychological motivations and blatant homophobic bias from the foreskin restoration article have been reverted, apparently because cultural practices are OK to criticise without justification, as long as it's not mutilating boys that is. So now we have attempts to delete this whole article without merging the info with other articles, which is contrary to NPOV by definition. This is typical pro-mutilation bigroty against circumcised men. But apparently it's OK with some irrational POV agenda to psychoanalyze practice A , but permit nothing said about the psychology of practice B. Nice. DanP 18:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, for Edit War bait and participating in the circumcision NPOV war. Frankly, if foreskin restoration shows up here, I'd vote to kill it too. Ideally, the war can be resolved, then an NPOV of each can be written, but as it stands, delete the lot is my vote. -Vina 18:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- ¿Why would you delete foreskin restoration, a perfectly legitimate, medically accepted article about a proven procedure? Ŭalabio 05:31, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not warrant its own article.
It's also not a word.Rhobite 19:05, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)- The pro-mutilation lies get deeper. 'Circumciser' is not a word? Well there is quite a bit of info about circumcisers, do a Google search. Even Jewish mohel have their own Wikipedia article. It's time to confess that this deletion effort is pure POV to hide this topic. If you think the article is POV, then fix the article instead of deleting it. If the only claim against this article is its insufficient content, I've have just added some more, and you're all welcome to do so. DanP 20:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It appears to be a word, but I still object. This topic doesn't warrant its own article. All of the information should be moved to Circumcision. Rhobite 21:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- The pro-mutilation lies get deeper. 'Circumciser' is not a word? Well there is quite a bit of info about circumcisers, do a Google search. Even Jewish mohel have their own Wikipedia article. It's time to confess that this deletion effort is pure POV to hide this topic. If you think the article is POV, then fix the article instead of deleting it. If the only claim against this article is its insufficient content, I've have just added some more, and you're all welcome to do so. DanP 20:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. RickK 19:05, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. In the West, in English at least, medical "circumcisers" are actually called "surgeons." Fire Star 20:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- OK, instead of listing a reason from deletion policy, your reason is just because the word belongs to a larger group. So maybe delete the "circumcision" article because it falls categorically under "plastic surgery"? Does that make the same amount of sense to you? DanP 20:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I, for one, smell a little "Article is biased or has lots of POV" (from the deletion policy) in the use of the specialty word "circumciser" (whereas circumcision and plastic surgery are both common surgical terms, I, who have worked for ten years in an OR, have never once used or heard used the inelegant word "circumciser") as a title for an article on what could be a pediatric or urologic as well as a plastic procedure. Interestingly, myself, I believe that most circumcisions are pointless (pardon me) in that the risks outweigh any possible advantage from the procedure. So, while I would normally be sympathetic to such a POV, I unfortunately or not believe in NPOV for our articles. We have had a lot of hot air from the Intact crowd trying to make Wikipedia a soapbox rather than an encyclopaedia. So, while I may agree with you in principle on most of your concrete arguing points, I find your political approach to be pushy, off-putting and also that it ultimately undermines your attempts here to establish articles inclusive of your POV that other editors would support. It is possible to report on issues you know about here without preaching them, and such reporting will perhaps convince more capable associates than your present approach. Fire Star 22:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- OK, instead of listing a reason from deletion policy, your reason is just because the word belongs to a larger group. So maybe delete the "circumcision" article because it falls categorically under "plastic surgery"? Does that make the same amount of sense to you? DanP 20:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Any content that should be here should be in the circumcision article and any that shouldn't be there shouldn't be anywhere. Aside from being POV and argumentative, it's just bad. Aside: I'm confused by the comment above about "pro-mutilation bigroty against circumcised men". Are you refering to men who were circumcised as minors and who would rather not have been? Are there many men like that? —Rory ☺ 21:50, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- So few cut guys are anxious to meet up and shake their circumcisers hand and say "great job obliterating most of the nerve endings. And what nice big scar. Now I can't feel a thing!". This is not a popularity contest, as NPOV clearly indicates. If you are intact, then great. I have no problem moving info to the circumcision article, though traditionally that article has grown too large and unwieldy. Often breaking it up has been suggested, and that is why we have several articles now on related topics. In any case, I can only ask you to change your mind, as this is not a topic that can be jammed into one article. But obviously the drive to delete the article long before correcting it for NPOV says a lot about the pro-mutilation mindset. Even the proponents of circumcision use the term 'circumciser' and many online articles describe the persons motives and feelings. DanP 22:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Did you read my comments at Talk:Masturbation, by any chance? I addressed this 20,000 nerves issue there. func(talk) 00:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- So few cut guys are anxious to meet up and shake their circumcisers hand and say "great job obliterating most of the nerve endings. And what nice big scar. Now I can't feel a thing!". This is not a popularity contest, as NPOV clearly indicates. If you are intact, then great. I have no problem moving info to the circumcision article, though traditionally that article has grown too large and unwieldy. Often breaking it up has been suggested, and that is why we have several articles now on related topics. In any case, I can only ask you to change your mind, as this is not a topic that can be jammed into one article. But obviously the drive to delete the article long before correcting it for NPOV says a lot about the pro-mutilation mindset. Even the proponents of circumcision use the term 'circumciser' and many online articles describe the persons motives and feelings. DanP 22:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Sigh. What a wacky place this is sometimes. Delete. Lacrimosus 22:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- 'Keep Circumciser is a real profession. Some religions use different titles, but so what. Many American Ob/Gyns, who are not even licensed to practice medicine on males, are more circumciser than obstetrician or gynecologist -- and one wonders why the price of malpractice-insurance Ob/Gyns must may for covering lawsuits and damages is so high that it puts many Ob/Gyns out of business (in most other countries (the Brazilian Gynecologist Doctor Nelson Soucasaux wrote an essay] about this), Obstetrician and Gynecologist are separate specialties, and only pædiatric Urologists would perform surgery on the genitals of children, and then only if absolutely necessary). Ŭalabio 22:59, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
- Urologists circumcise adults, occasionally, too. Fire Star 01:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I know what urologists do. My point is that the greedy Ob/Gyns, without any qualifications for operating on males, should not be cutting pieces of the genitals of boys. Being both Obstetricians and Gynecologists makes them avarous jacks of all trades, masters of none. When the Ob/Gyns take to cutting off pieces of male genitals (Ob/Gyns are not qualified to work on males), that is just greedily stupid. When Dubya Shrub complains that patients sue Ob/Gyns out of business. I say the Ob/Gyns should get their house together:
- Become either obs or gyns
- No more medically unnecessary surgery of nonconsenting minors for whom they are not qualified to treat.
- It is no wonder that patients sue Ob/Gyns out of business and their rates for malpractice-insurance is so high. The Ob/Gyns reap the harvest of their own greed.Ŭalabio 02:59, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
- Not qualified to operate on males? Funny, I had always assumed that Ob/Gyns were, you know, doctors, with real medical degrees from real medical schools and everything.... you guys do a lot better when you stick to the medically unnecessary line of reasoning, but no, you then have to start talking about conspiracies, like how each and every single circumciser and Ob/Gyn in the country is a money grubbing fiend. I'm just glad Walabio hasn't used the word frottage yet, (which is a crime, btw, not a form of masturbation). Yikes! You are all turning me into Robert Brooks! func(talk) 03:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, we are getting a little off topic here. Perhaps this could be taken up on Talk:International male genitalia alteration conspiracy theories? Fire Star 05:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- ¿If you needed an emergency coronary-bypass, would you prefer a cardialogist or a neurologist to operate? Pædiatric Urologists are the ones who should operate on the genitals of children, and only if absolutely necessary. Indeed, Pædiatric Urologists often [ complain about stupid Ob/Gyns circumcising without checking for Hypospadias, thus making a bad situation worse. For your information, frottage means to rub. If someone rubs up against his own pillow, it is not a crime. If one attacks another person and rubs up against the victim that is assault and is a crime. I know one thing for sure; involuntary medically unnecessary circumcision is worse that some weirdo rubbing against a leg like a dog. Ŭalabio 05:31, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
- I know what urologists do. My point is that the greedy Ob/Gyns, without any qualifications for operating on males, should not be cutting pieces of the genitals of boys. Being both Obstetricians and Gynecologists makes them avarous jacks of all trades, masters of none. When the Ob/Gyns take to cutting off pieces of male genitals (Ob/Gyns are not qualified to work on males), that is just greedily stupid. When Dubya Shrub complains that patients sue Ob/Gyns out of business. I say the Ob/Gyns should get their house together:
- Urologists circumcise adults, occasionally, too. Fire Star 01:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:31, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. "Circumciser" is a word, as is "mohel" and the other words in other cultures. Although the present article contains material that is critical of circumcisers this is not in itself a ground for deletion. Rather it is a ground for other material to be added that would give more information about the role of the circumciser in various cultures.Michael Glass 01:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Dictionary definition, nothing more. --Viriditas 04:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The topic is covered in the circumcision article. -- DanBlackham 06:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Change back to redirect and protect if necessary. Livajo 12:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect to circumcision and protect. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. At its best, this can never become anything but a dicdef or redirect. Moreover, it invites all the anticircumcisionists out there to come and vent their anger. Maybe it's time we create Opiniopedia. Binadot 14:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Any useful information here should be incorporated into the Circumcision article; the only bit that can't be incorporated is the 'Psychological aspects' section, which is deeply POV and does not have enough credible evidence to support it. If 'Circumciser' were to be an article in its own right, surely there should be some more information on the roles of circumciser in different cultures, not to mention those roles' histories. There isn't any of that here (and I doubt there ever would be of the article were left). Katherine Shaw 14:47, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Concur with Katherine Shaw. --Improv 19:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- merge with circumcision and redirect, as appropriate. Kim Bruning 22:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Just more from the monomaniacal anti-circumcision zealots. There is lots more of there POV stuff that needs to be looked at. - Friends of Robert 07:07, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1000 Needles -- Add to this discussion
1000 Needles was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
Incredibly unnotable "chip music" group. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 18:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Well, they certainly have a web site. I suspect they're not yet ready for prime time. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 18:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The "band" (read: group of friends with a computer) has existed for about a year, and has no commercial recordings. — Gwalla | Talk 22:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Advertising. Now we wait for the Christian hip-hop gospel rock chip music. Geogre 00:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Handstand -- Add to this discussion
Hardwarezone -- Add to this discussion
Hardwarezone was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
Whee, we're a website with a forum, we talk about hardware, we have a general discussion forum, look at us, we're so cool. - KeithTyler 20:02, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- One delete, hold the sarcasm. Although a Google search on "hardwarezone" comes up with plenty, a link: query on "forums.hardwarezone.com" returns 35 hits. Unnotable, unencyclopaedic, deletable. —Etaoin 20:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, yet another internet forum. --Ianb 22:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. — Gwalla | Talk 22:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I don't know, the sarcasm is a needed response to seeing forum after forum after forum after forum after forum after forum after blog after forum entered. Still, we should realize that it's the author's first vanity, non-notable entry. Geogre 00:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Livajo 03:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 15:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
How to dress at night fighting -- Add to this discussion
How to dress at night fighting
Perhaps its a bad translation of something, but it reads almost like patent nonsense to me. The article title seems comical (how to dress at night while fighting?) Still, someone familiar with nocturnal combat dress under fire might show me that it actually has merit. - KeithTyler 20:42, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Uh...Delete? No, seriously, I don't know. It's like you combined Chinese philosophy with 'Fight Club'. I now understand that "Order is the shortest road, and if followed, there will be nothing forgotten". Well I think that's super! Terrapin 21:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- That's gotta be a copyvio from somewhere. Delete. Lacrimosus 22:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds like some kind of survival guide. Missing the most important item of all though: the delete key. --Ianb 22:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- In the history's edit lines, the creator says that this was translated from a 1913 Japanese military manual. So, it is out of context and out of date. Delete. Fire Star 22:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Source material. — Gwalla | Talk 22:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Couldn't this be transwikied to Wikisource?Upon further review, it doesn't look like this translation could be salvaged. Delete -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 23:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)- Delete: Be sure to preserve propriety when night fighting. You do not wish to be indecent before you kill. Not really a source matter. Geogre 00:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete; it's not a copyvio - [30] says it's from 1913 and not copyrighted (and, IIRC, it can't be copyrighted from that far back anyway). ugen64 01:10, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like nonsense to me. It shall soon meet its disgraced ancestors. Binadot 14:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 15:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- BJAODN? Otherwise, delete. RickK 20:11, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't want to sound like too much of an inclusionist, but if someone supplies the original source, it would be possible to do cleanup (and then keep since it's then encyclopedic). Else delete. Kim Bruning 18:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The original wouldn't belong here but in ja:. - KeithTyler 18:52, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Sure, and then we'd have the translation on [[:en:]] . Article would clearly be encyclopedic for ja:. Kim Bruning 19:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The original wouldn't belong here but in ja:. - KeithTyler 18:52, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Please find out where this actually came from before your itchy deletefingers get too restless. An article on historical Japanese combat manuals could be kind of interesting if cleaned up. Mark Richards 19:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Move to wikisource & delete. It's completely sensible; dunno where the comprehension problem is coming from here. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:25, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Images of Galle -- Add to this discussion
from VfD:
Nothing more than a photo collection. While the photos are nice to have, is an article of just photos a good idea? Would it be better located at something like Galle/Images, if anywhere? There's also Images of Mumbai. - KeithTyler 21:06, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Images of Mumbai lost VfD, as I recall. It was my second VfD nomination ever, I think, after Drexel Shaft. Pages of pictures are pages of pictures, but they're not encyclopedia articles. They're better stored in a user's subpages until they are needed or placed on the new Commons. Geogre 00:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Nope, Geogre, it did not. I would like to think it was because I reworked the collection extensively in Photoshop, leaving the best of a pretty mediocre photo essay in place. Pages of pictures are, to be sure, pages of pictures, but that does not render them unencyclopedic. I have just completed a photo essay of wildflowers of the Canadian Rockies, but have ensured that a healthy stub describes each of the images. Denni☯ 02:37, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
- My recollection of the Mumbai thing was that the author had been contacted and said that he put them up without really knowing what he was going to say about them. Pshopping them to reduce size and load times was a good thing, but a stub on each image is, in fact, all I would ever ask. It's just when a page loads, the text says, "Images of Mumbai," and then 8-10 photos simply load there, possibly with captions only, I don't think it's encyclopedic. Instead, I think those pictures would be fantastic if merged with Mumbai for example. In this case, I'm not sure what the proper target would be. Geogre 12:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Move to Wikipedia:List of images/Places/Asia Pacific or a subpage thereof. —No-One Jones (m) 00:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It would be nice if a local would put some commentary on the photos, but even if they don't this page is still worth keeping. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - no content by definition - Tεxτurε 15:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- delete. No content. RickK 20:09, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral. You can't just have some pictures, you have to actually do something encyclopedic with them. If the author intends to extend the article, I'll change my vote to keep or delete, as appropriate. Kim Bruning 21:21, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
A. P. Mathur -- Add to this discussion
A. P. Mathur was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
non-notable university teacher. _R_ 21:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. No notable accomplishments listed. Wolfman 21:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, does not appear notable. --Ianb 22:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: the alumini list of BITS_Pilani contains possible even less notable entries. --Ianb 22:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Is associate dean of computer science notable enough? ugen64 01:09, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- associate deans are a dime a dozen, that title just means you don't mind dealing with bureaucracy and want a reduced teaching load.
- Delete: nonnotable. An associate dean is not notable without further evidence. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 15:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Lush Bar -- Add to this discussion
Lush Bar was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
some bar in Beijing. no internal links to page. written like an ad. 1 month with 'notable' tag & no response. fails google test for "'lush bar' beijing" Wolfman 21:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable local bar in Beijing. — Gwalla | Talk 22:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, looks like it could've been taken straight out of an ad. Nadavspi 00:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Echo above concerns. ugen64 01:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 15:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
AfD footer
This page describes how to list for deletion articles and their associated talk pages. See the related pages for templates, categories, redirects, stub types, pages in the Wikipedia namespace, user pages, or images and other media, or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases.
Note: Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III.
To list a single article for deletion for the first time, follow this three-step process:
| I. |
Put the deletion tag on the article.
Insert the {{subst:afd1}} tag at the top of the page.
(If the article has been nominated for deletion before, use {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}. See Template Talk:afdx. This does not include articles that have only had the {{prod}} tag removed.) |
| II. |
Create the article's deletion discussion page.
The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page.
OR
|
| III. |
Notify users who monitor AfD discussion.
replacing PageName appropriately.
(If you used template {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination, etc.). |
To list multiple related pages for deletion see here.
WikiProject User scripts may have some scripts to streamline these steps.
Once listed, deletion discussions can, optionally, also be transcluded into an appropriate deletion sorting category, such as the ones for actors, music, academics, or for specific countries; which helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. Please see the list of categories.
Categories: Start-Class meteorology articles | Low-importance meteorology articles | Wikipedia soft redirects | Biography articles of living people | Unassessed biography articles | Start-Class paranormal articles | WikiProject Paranormal articles | Stub-Class chemicals articles | Unknown-importance chemicals articles | Unassessed school articles | Unassessed-importance school articles | Wikipedia archives
