Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wyllium (talk | contribs) at 09:33, 30 May 2004 (→[[Gurgaon Business Services (India)]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you want to nominate an article for deletion, please read this carefully first.

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 seven days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:

More information.

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.

You can add each AFD subpage day to your watchlist by clicking this link: Add today's AFD to watchlist

See also Guide to deletion | Alternative outlets | Undeletion policy | Deletion guidelines for admins | Deletion process
Archived delete debates | Speedy deletion policy | Category:Pages for discussion


30th - 29th - 28th - 27th - 26th - 25th - 24th - 23rd - 22nd - 21st - 20th - 19th

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.

Decisions in progress

Note that listings more than five days old should now be moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old.

May 25

Jason_Richey

a guy that works for Bomis, Jimbo's internet company. Not otherwise notable. Maximus Rex 00:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


CCITT X.409 '84

Gibberish. RickK 01:35, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mind if I stick my nose back in to say that I agree with you? - Lucky 6.9 01:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del. Orig res, if not tin-foil-hattery. --Jerzy(t) 01:59, 2004 May 25 (UTC)
  • I keep reading it, and it keeps almost but not quite making sense. Delete -- Cyrius|&#9998 07:27, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - looks like the output of a Markov chain. Abigail 14:29, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • [Visualizing Markov-chain chain-edit.] --Jerzy(t) 20:12, 2004 May 25 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incomprehensible, no links or references or background or context to make it possible to verify whether there's anything meaningful at all behind the bush where a gull calls, coming far, ending here. Finn again? Take, but softly memory till thousands are given the keys to a way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, by a commodius vicus of recirculation. Dpbsmith 16:20, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Patent nonense. Ellsworth 23:44, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Bandwagon Oklahoma Music and BandwagonOK

Tom Jackson


Windermere Real Estate

Seems to me like an advert for an undistinguished real estate company. blankfaze | &#9835 04:21, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


It's not an ad (I don't work for Windermere; I don't even work in the industry) and Windermere is not undistinguished. It's the best-known real estate company in the Pacific Northwest. I wrote this article because "Windermere Real Estate" is listed in the companies section of the Seattle article. (Note: We did decide that only companies headquartered in Seattle that do interstate business should be listed in that section, otherwise it could get unmanageably long.) --User Talk:Lukobe/User:Lukobe 04:38, 25 May 2004 (UTC) (Note added by Lukobe 17:03, 25 May 2004 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment: This is just the sort of thing on which we need a mini-policy. I'll be interested to see which way it goes, and will record it in WIWO when decided. Andrewa 07:11, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep this. It's not an advert--it simply provides information about the company. And said company appears to be fairly notable. Does anyone here doubt that more people have heard of Windermere than some Rambot towns, or math concepts, or whatever else you feel should be included? Meelar 13:40, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose I agree with you; there are plenty more obscure articles. From just the info in the article, though, the company didn't appear to be distinguished. But I am not at all familiar with the Seattle area. And my apologies, Lukobe, for I should have checked What links here before listing it on VfD. I hereby retract my orginal complaint. blankfaze | &#9835 18:09, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Otherwise we'd need to set an arbitrary limit on when a company is big enough to be included and when not. And that will result in lots of bickering whether a company is on the right or wrong side of the limit. I agree with Meelar, if we don't exclude not well-known cases of other fields, why for companies? If someone takes the trouble to document something that isn't well known, does it harm Wikipedia to include it? I don't think so - in fact, I think that would only increase the overall quality of Wikipedia. Abigail 14:03, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning toward keep. The local white pages lists six offices including a brand new one not two miles from my house. - Lucky 6.9 17:05, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've tried to clarify its notability in the article. It has obliterated a number of older, previously well-established RE co's in Western WA, at least. Niteowlneils 18:38, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kyle Wilson

  • Delete - world renowned vanity page and advert for his website - Tεxτurε 05:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was painful to read. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 07:22, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I thought we had LiveJournal for this sort of thing. Delete. - David Gerard 07:25, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • He makes Shawn Mikula look like a good poet. Delete. Dunc Harris | Talk 13:06, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, how nice! He gave himself permission to post this. Delete swiftly on silent wings of extreme prejudice. - Lucky 6.9 16:53, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, yeah, I really cracked up when I saw "Released with permission from Robert K. Wilson." Oh, and "Justification came next in the selfishness of yesteryear" ... haha, does that even MEAN anything? Move to Bad Jokes, or not, I could care less, but DELETE. blankfaze | &#9835 18:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • You delete what you do not understand. 69.165.14.27 (signed on his behalf by Cyrius|&#9998 06:44, May 26, 2004 (UTC))
    • Delete. Large scale egos do not warrant inclusion. Genuine world reknown is required. Three google hits for the name, one of which is for someone dead for a century, four Teoma hits, including two dead and a local newspaper list of graduates. This indicates no reknown whatsoever. Average Earthman 11:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • You realize, of course, that most Wikipedia articles cover subjects that would be known only to relatively small numbers of people in particular parts of the world.. Everyking 16:00, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • The poetry is pathetic. The blog is even more pathetic. I wonder what the life is like? Delete yesterday. Denni 22:11, 2004 May 26 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I don't think it's necessary for people to include criticism of the poem or the poet when this is the place to discuss the worthiness of the article. MK 03:42, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, MK, but the poem is the article. He has also linked his blog to the "article", and Blankfaze does not exaggerate. If you open your living room door to people, you should not get upset if they comment on the mess. Denni 05:28, 2004 May 27 (UTC)

Haha, dunno if anyone else got this but someone left a message on my User talk page about this Robert Kyle Wilson case. I figured I'd share it with you all: blankfaze | &#9835 18:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am offended at your lack of taste. Mr. Wilson is a talented poet, as evidenced by his numerous speaking engagements across the midwest.
He is a poet and you can quote it.
E. Buell
Denison University

I got a personal note from the Bobber himself on my user page. It took me to task for the quality of my life, spending "all my time" as I do, working on a "virtual encyclopedia". There was more, but DELETE is such a darn handy key...Denni 22:27, 2004 May 27 (UTC)

I got one as well, claiming that I am "unable to recognize greatness when it smacks [me] in the mouth." -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:37, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
It gets better. I went back on Our Bobby's blog page [3] and it seems he's boycotting us and accusing us of "having too much time on our hands." That's the nice thing about working with a computer all day. I can work and have some fun here as well! - Lucky 6.9 23:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The lot of you does need to lighten up. What you are doing here is ultimately of little substantive importance, so don't take it, or yourselves, too seriously. However, I have found this "debate" to be quite entertaining. But enough is enough. You have my permission to delete the submission and move on to more important issues, such as debating the worthiness of grind punk bands from the early nineties. Go you!

Knowledge, in of itself, is meaningless, if not tempered by wisdom.

Attributed to Robert Kyle Wilson

I'm sorry that you feel that building a free multilingual encyclopedia for the world is unimportant. We'll let you get back to writing angsty poetry in the Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings style and publicly telling the world to go to hell twice a week. Sorry to have wasted your precious time. -- Cyrius|&#9998 02:24, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • " I turn twenty-four in little over a month. Odds are I will buy myself a whore. But, instead of engaging in sexual intercourse, I will spend an hour berating here because she is ,in fact, a dirty, dirty whore. I can't wait till June 28th. " (from Robert Kyle Wilson's "self-effacing" ...uh-huh...blog). So, Robert, tempered by the wisdom of what? A wart? A chancre? A particularly obnoxious social disease? Hey, man, I'll miss you - this is one of the ways I lighten up - by taking the opportunity to slag obnoxious worms like you, with no feelings of guilt whatsoever! But alas! It's back to articles on Lincoln's shoes and chewing gum through the ages. At least it's "too much time" we have on our hands, and not something else, ifyaknowwhatI mean... Denni 04:27, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
  • Once again, we of little "substantive importance" are granted permission, this time to delete his oh-so-unappreciated "article." And, he's now quoting himself in the third person. Bobby, go buy your hooker. Have a ball. And consider applying your quote to yourself. Oh, and don't forget the penicillin. You're too much fun to lose at such a tender age. - Lucky 6.9 17:01, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bob, I tried to speak up in your defense. But your subsequent behavior isn't helping you any. By the way, you misspelled "pseudo-intellectuals" in your recent revision. MK 05:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Massage_Therapy_School_-_NMSNT

The text for this page was taken directly from the school's website verbatim. Additionally, an existing page (New Mexico School of Natural Therapeutics) already existed for the school and was linked to from Albuquerque before this page was created. There seems to me to be little justification in having an article with a LESS descriptive name to replace a pre-existing article. --Abqwildcat 05:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Jetsam

Delete- dictdef Burgundavia 07:11, 25 May 2004 (UTC) Keep - like many things that get listed here, this has now been expanded beyond a dictdef, IMHO. Burgundavia 02:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Knut_Lyngar

vanity page. Name gets 6 google hits. Zoda, who wrote this page, is Knut Lyngar's nickname according to [4]. Maximus Rex 07:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've added "Non-syndicated radio disc-jockeys that haven't become a major news item due to controversy, etc. Out." to WIWO. Niteowlneils 19:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


True Magic

Article not written in encyclopedic style, looks like a copyvio, content is source text at best and even the name is POV. Please kill it. -- Graham  :) | Talk 09:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping-stone democrat

Cap N1ne

Looks like vanity. Messy, unwikified deadend. Unworthy! blankfaze | &#9835 18:48, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Phartcore_metal

"Phartcore was coined by Kiyoshi Morgan, in 2004 to describe a previously undefined category of music..." No google hits. Maximus Rex 18:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if no evidence can be found - David Gerard 19:21, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No google hits. Thue 19:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it doesn't seem to be an established genre, and we have no way of knowing if it exists at all. Sounds like it was only intended as an insult to somebody. Everyking 21:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fart"core sounds like somebody's personal joke. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:00, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote against deletion of this genre because it obviously has some merit if it insights negativity towards it. I vote for keeping the genre as listed because there is nothing that suggest it doesn't exist. The explaination for fartcore has technicality to it and it shows the limited perspectives of other users who claim that "it doesn't exist". It is obvious that the entry was made to categorize a real group of genres, that were previously undefined. If grouping genres into a new genre is wrong, why are entries like Nu-Metal allowed to exist? Because you "Say" it is real? Again, I see no votes to remove many other musical genres which I find by default don't exist in of themselves. Some of those genre entries are based on misnomers and fallacies! Nu-Metal is not actually Metal for example. Fartcore, goes to describe something that "is as it is" instead of misleading someone to thinking its something else. SkunkHunt May 25, 2004 (UTC)

There is no such word as phartcore. If there were an article about fartcore, it might merit retention. RickK 23:21, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the entry into wikipedia is not an article of itself? There must be an outside reference to a document talking about Phartcore somewhere? If there was an article of such nature, then what? Is voting against this genre mainly due to negativity in realizing that it might actually be true? Should example bands be mentioned in the wikipedia entry of Phartcore? I still retract to my original vote against deletion on the basis that it actually categorizes without misleading, where as some genres are misleading even in their own naming. Misnomer, or fallacies aside, I think its funny to be so offended by the rationality behind it, however silly it may seem, I take it seriously to defend this entry. I however, conceed to the Wikicommunity if it were to be voted out. I did not intend the entry to be a joke, but if it can't be updated to be compliant with "merit for retention", and get some kind of positive response from someone, go ahead and delete it. I apologize that you had to read the entry in the first place. Thanks. SkunkHunt 23:47, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The votes against it are caused by the fact that we have no verification of its existence, and its name reads like a poorly disguised example of toilet humor. "Insights (sic) negativity" is not a valid reason to keep an article. -- Cyrius|&#9998 00:00, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, for heaven's sake! SkunkHunt, please take a moment to read the article assuming that you didn't write it in the first place. One person just coined the phrase, possibly as an insult or inside joke. There is no such thing as "phartcore metal" outside this discussion, and this probably should be speedily deleted as patent nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 00:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
"no such thing as "phartcore metal" outside this discussion" is an assuming statement. Outside this discussion, discussions occured with other people involving the discovery of Phartcore. You dismiss this possibility when you say there is no such thing as this discussion. How is that possible if I am here today to discuss it with you. I didn't just make it up at the spir of the moment. It was something I heard someone talking about at a music store. Until I can find some documentation to verify its existence, I'll just have to accept your determination about what I know exists or doesn't exist. SkunkHunt 11:37, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Right. We're all voting to delete this thing because we're afraid it might be true. Your contention is ludicrous. RickK 01:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence that the title is encyclopedic. The current contents appear to be an attempt at humour, which leads me to guess so is the title. Andrewa 01:42, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly that its "all of you versus me" on this one. I did however state facts to verify the existence of this genre, and if it is "an attempt at humor" like you say so, then so is "Nu-Metal" ... "Rapcore" and every other non-true or misleading genre. Why? Merely because I said so? Not really. I concede. Delete the phartcore metal genre from wikipedia, I'm sorry that you can't see at all in a serious light why this category was discovered. SkunkHunt 11:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Orphan, at least article-wise. Zero hits on both Yahoo and Google for "Phartcore metal". Niteowlneils 15:38, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dunc Harris | Talk 17:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Skunkhunt, but it seems you do not exist. You are merely a product of your own imagination, but since an imagination can only be a product of a concrete intelligence, then even your illusion of existence is only an illusion. You are, in fact, nothing more than the projection of an article composed entirely of moving electrons, insubstantial in and of themselves, which have coalesced to form the illusionary words phartcore and skunkhunt. When this article has been deleted, your illusion of your illusion will also cease to exist, but you, being nonexistent, will be unaware of that moment. You may be offended by the rationality behind it, however silly it may seem, but you ought to take it seriously enough to delete this entry. Denni 22:29, 2004 May 26 (UTC)
  • Utterly brilliant (and hilarious) as always, Denni. May I direct your attention a little farther down the page to the happy discussion we're having about "Toas?" Your remarkable insight would be greatly appreciated. - Lucky 6.9 22:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Saying I don't exist is an example of the dogma you guys are giving me. I will have proof to end this "vote for deletion" soon enough. SkunkHunt 22:52, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Original research. What is with the long drawn-out rambles on this page lately, anywho?

User:195.93.34.12/message

I have fixed the bad formatting that was disallowing this mediawiki message from appearing properly, can someone please now state their justification for listing this page here? Thanks. -- Graham  :) | Talk 21:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin_Anderson

Stuffology

Patent nonsense. Meelar 20:36, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Trosh

A Trosh is a small weevil made out of carbord. It has only one purpose, to hang on a tree during christmas. No meaningful google hits for 'Trosh' and 'christmas'. I don't get why it links to that website. I am listing it here because the author deleted my msg:delete. Thue 21:34, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that a trosh is used at christmas to hang on a christmas tree. That site used to have info about the decoration but it seems to have changed, I'll take off the link.

Toas

Blatant ad for a martial arts school in Pensacola. - Lucky 6.9 21:56, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Blatand ad? Toaism is real and this entry as made to avoid confusing with Taosim, also real. The link to the founder of Toas Kung Fu is only helpful because their site more accurately describes Toas. It's not an ad. If you find other Taos Kung Fu schools you can add them to the list. How does you claiming this is an ad make it not worthy of being entered into the wikipedia? Again, this is a claim against the validity of an entry that has merit. What of Aikido? Would you not want any links to schools be provided for that entry? What is the logical sense in denying an entry like this? SkunkHunt 23:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. This is not the yellow pages. One doesn't come here looking for information on specific martial arts schools. Nor is it an advertising repository. Ads get kicked off of this site all the time. If this was an article about Toas Kung Fu, you'd have no argument here assuming that there is widespread use of the art. Since this, IMO, meets none of the criteria for inclusion, it should go. It's not even a good list, as you suggest. This article is highly point-of-view, totally non-encyclopedic and is about a totally unnoteworthy martial arts school. - Lucky 6.9 00:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes as "widespread use of the art" ? Obviously there has been some widespread use if the art made its way all the way to here from Persia. I guess this is being overlooked while the entry is being judged. Like I stated before, I guess it wouldn't be cool if the founder of Aikido was listed in his art, or some of his endorsed schools. You calling it an 'ad' does not make it an ad. That is that. And your claim that the school is "unnoteworthy" is just your opinion and not a fact. Do some research into the topic as I have done. That is the reason why I made the entry. Did you know that some people are confused between Toas and Taos? I noticed Toas wasn't in wikipedia and added it. Is there a popularity contest that I don't know about? SkunkHunt 11:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Widespread?!? The only hits on Google that connect with "Toas Kung Fu" link directly back to the school. Period. And, since a great deal of my job is devoted to developing advertising and marketing, I believe that I'm exceptionally well-qualified to identify an advertisement. This school does not warrant an encyclopedia entry, nor does it warrant blatant free advertising. Why do you insist on defending these articles? - Lucky 6.9 17:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Again, this is just you saying its an advertisement. I'm sorry that you cannot accept it as a real martial art. That is purely your own opinion and interpretation. However, I guess if you want to be ignorant to it, go ahead and delete Toas, erase it from wiki, but you won't erase the fact that "it actually exists". I'm sorry if you are intimidated by the fact that it is real. I am not in denial about that though, however. That is why I made this entry. Again, your word against mine. Oh well! SkunkHunt 23:02, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


  • "Toaism is real and this entry as made to avoid confusing with Taosim, also real." Well, Taosim must be real. It gets 914 Google hits, and appears to be a simulacrum of the actual religion of Taoism. It may therefore be necessessary for an article to exist distinguishing between these two shadow-reality concepts. I would recommend articles also on Taismo, Tismao, and Tsimoa for the same reason. However, most people should be able to distinguish readily between Toaism and Amotsi, Sitamo, and Maoist. I can also understand the difficulty some people have with Toas and Taos. I mean, one's an alleged martial art and the other's a popular ski resort. SO easy to confuse. Denni 06:12, 2004 May 27 (UTC)
  • Gosh, I just knew I could count on you, but you forgot to mention "Aitsmo." Easy mistake. One more comment: Persia hasn't been called "Persia" for a long time. The proper name is Iran which, as everyone knows, is a hotbed of Far Eastern martial arts practices. - Lucky 6.9 18:58, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having held his Toas to the fire for a bit, I figured I'd let him off on this one. Besides, I was assuming he meant Persia, Ohio, a "city" of some 350 residents just a spit and a whistle west of Des Moines, where each and every individual is a licensed killing machine, I should think.(And I left out Masito, Moista, Tomisa, Saimto and Ostima just because.) Denni 22:31, 2004 May 27 (UTC)

I ask everyone here to examine Tai Chi Chuan and THEN tell me its not okay to have links to a school. Is "Toas" being hypocritically ostracized? ... SkunkHunt 23:10, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome War Relocation Center

Tarppy

To quote the article: "A special and local term used in The University of Hong Kong ONLY". Unimportant, unverifiable. Fredrik 22:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Ulrike Köhler and Jochen Köhler

May 26

White nationalist FAQ

It was deleted 20 minutes after a move from another article. It was source text at the time, not a candidate for speedy deletion. I suggest waiting a couple of days before voting to see whether the rewrite it needs happens - it really needs cleanup instead of here but undeletion policy requires this listing. Jamesday 01:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; reconsider in a month if it's still source text after being given more than 20 minutes for followup editing. Jamesday 01:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, the VFD debate page seems to have been redirected, making it impossible to contribute to the debate, so I will discuss it here. No, do not wait 30 days, wait the requisite VfD time, then see if it deserves deleting. RickK 02:28, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't an article -- it's propaganda and an apologia for racism and white supremacism. -- BCorr|Брайен 03:04, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • You didn't read it carefully. they try do distance themselves from racists and supremacists. A much more subtle thing; only anti-Semitism stciks out. Mikkalai 06:16, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did read it carefully, Mikkalai. That's why I specified it's an apologia rather than a defense. Subtle, but it's still advocacy and propaganda, and it's making a distinction without a difference. -- BCorr|Брайен 01:37, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • While very few here are likely to agree with the view, it is a view we should describe somewhere - I don't much care where but views which seem daft to me and still have many followers do merit coverage. Worth remembering here that some separatists do legitimately believe that they are different from supremacists and do not necessarily agree with things like genocide. (shrug) Personally I think both are harmful movements but that's just my POV. Jamesday 18:38, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One must know basic arguments of any political movement. Mikkalai 06:16, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article isn't a description of their political views. It advocates a specific idealogy. Delete it or at the very least heavily revise to eliminate all POV. MK 06:41, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having now read the "white nationalism" article others have mentioned, I see it already contains any possible NPOV information that might be extracted from the FAQ. So there's no reason not to delete it. MK 15:38, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a FAQ repository. And isn't User:Paul Vogel banned for one year, and thus his highly POV white supremacist stuff thus qualified for speedy deletion? andy 08:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for the moment to see if the article improves. Above all though this should be cleaned up rather than deleted as it is a description of a political viewpoint, however badly written. -- Graham  :) | Talk 10:03, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disgusting racist nonsense. white nationalism already has a page, if anything merge any new info, but this is wrong. Dunc Harris | Talk 12:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a FAQ repository, it is a copyright violation from a neo-Nazi newspaper and website (1), masking racism in neutral language does not hide the fact that it is racism, and therefore essentially POV. Wikipedia should not be turned into a pocium for hate groups masquerading their ideology as NPOV. David Duke in a business suit is no less David Duke in a bedsheet. Danny 12:48, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are so many reasons to delete this. 1) No article should have FAQ in the title 2) It's massively POV 3) If it really is copyvio, stick a notice on it and let's get it out of here. If there is already a white nationalism then there is no reason for this article. DJ Clayworth 13:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horrible, racist POV. At the very least, it isn't even an encyclopedia article. This site can do far worse than to give this pile the death it so richly deserves. - Lucky 6.9 17:36, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there's anything valuable in this article, merge it with White nationalism. Other than that, delete asap. blankfaze | &#9835 18:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Racist and unencyclopaedic. — Chameleon 22:39, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys with two main objections (racist and POV) totally miss the point. The purpose of the article is exactly what it is: to present a racist POV. Your attitude is exactly like in my best Stalinism times: in the books we used to read that this and that philosopher or economist was "borgeois lackey", but we had no chance to know why exactly he was that kind of lackey. There is POV and POV about POV. From the viewpoint of encyclopedia, for this article to be POVved means to say something like: "what they say is 100% true", "what they say is supported by majority of Americans". But there is absolutely no dispute as to the topic: they say EXACTLY what is written. Of course, this silly Q&A format is to be gone, but if you delete this one, articles about fascism must go as well. Mikkalai 00:45, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to White nationalism in US and cleanup. They sound badly racist but, if this movement is sufficiently popular, Wikipedia should inform that they exist and what their views are. That's the same principle as in the quackery debate a few items lower on Vfd. FAQ format should be removed, needs massive NPOV. Andris 01:33, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I remain unconvinced by Mikkalai's argument. Between the two, White supremacy and White nationalism provide the information needed, and we don't need to "present a racist POV" in order to avoid some sort of Stalinist censorship. And this doesn't represent "White nationalism in US" versus simple White nationalism. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:37, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I proposed "White nationalism in US" since I thought that some aspects in these movements might be country-specific. The article we are discussing mentions America quite a lot. But that a minor distinction and merging relevant information into White nationalism would be fine as well. Andris 02:23, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Careless dismissing of extremists by a couple of labels gave way to Hitler grabbing power. BTW, I am a bit surprised by lack of parallels drawn with "theoretical" apartheid. Can anyone? Mikkalai 02:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible to discuss a POV subject in a NPOV manner, but this article doesn't do it. If the article said, "there is an ideology called White Nationalism that believes the following..." it would be one thing. But this article says the equivalent of "this is what we believe..." MK 03:59, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not this article is POV, IT'S A COPYVIO! Delete. RickK 04:10, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unlikely. Given the purpose of the document it's really hard to infringe its copyright (propaganda = press release = widest possible distribution desired). In any case, it's effectively certain that whatever remains here, in whatever form and wherever it remains, won't be copyright infringement, simply because our NPOV poicy requires a near total rewrite of the document to present the arguments of the movement in a neutral way. Jamesday 18:38, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I rest my case. I just wanted to make sure the decision is not as emotional as it may seem from reading this page. Mikkalai 05:55, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move any usable content into "white nationalism" and delete. As andy said above, this is an encyclopedia and we ought not to have articles with "FAQ" in the title. Rossami 19:20, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apart from FAQ of course ;) or if this FAQ was somehow notable, and notable enough not to be in the FAQ article itself; in which case the article should be about the FAQ and not a straight copy of it. Glad we got that straight ;) Dunc Harris | Talk 21:55, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sexdecillion, Quattuordecillion, Quindecillion, Tredecillion, Undecillion

There's an excessive list of numbers, which don't need to each be expanded into an article unless a significant number is related to it (ie. the Googol related numbers). None of these pages, Sexdecillion, Quindecillion, Quattuordecillion, Tredecillion, Undecillion, have that.

  • Don't delete articles about large numbers. They are to be kept in the case of any special numbers in the ranges, including:
  • I've consolidated it down to one debate, which should be enough. The issue is the same, and voters can list exceptions. --Ben Brockert 02:49, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Also, you need to remember to sign your entry, 132.205.15.4, and you should both realise that "anonymous" entries aren't given as much weight as those by registered users. Registering is trivial and has many benefits, I highly recommend it. Oh, and don't forget the edit summaries. --Ben Brockert 02:55, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Each of these gets more than 500 google hits. If I saw one of these used, I'd need to look it up to find out what it was. - TB 14:33, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enter each into the table I've provided for that very purpose at Large numbers, then replace each with a redirect to Large number. But, please, someone, include the authority for the existence and usage of the word. In most cases that will just be the name of a dictionary, but we should have it. I believe many of these names have no real use and were coined simply for the pleasure of creating the name. (And while you're at it... I couldn't get the wiki-markup table to come out the way I wanted it...). Dpbsmith 15:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Some words are so obscure or so rare that it's not clear whether you can really call them legitimate words, because almost nobody uses them. Thus, the Oxford English Dictionary, and I believe only that dictionary, includes floccinaucinhilipilification because they have some record of its being used somewhere. But Merriam-Webster doesn't think it's a word. The Merriam-Webster Unabridged 2nd edition, and I think only that dictionary, included pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. But the Oxford English dictionary doesn't think that is a word.
Trigintillion is another example of such a word. It's not really needed, because there simply aren't a trigintillion of anything. Not the number of grains of sand on the seashore, not the U. S. national debt in pennies, not the number of atoms in the universe. It's not a useful word, because you never need to talk about a trigintillion. And if you did, you should just say "ten-to-the-ninety-third." It would be silly to use the word "trigintillion" because (a) almost nobody would know what you meant, and (b) even the people who did know wouldn't know whether you meant ten-to-the-ninety-third or ten-to-the-one-hundred-and-eightieth. Even sextillions, septillions, etc. are a little dubious; the only people that need to use numbers that large are scientists and astronomers, and they don't use these words; they just use numeric notation, or SI prefixes, or special units like light years and parsecs.
My position is that, in the interest of being comprehensive, it's OK to include these names as entries, but a) they don't deserve entire articles, since they will never be much more than dictionary definitions; they should redirect to some kind of simple tabular summary; and b) since their status as real English words is a little dubious, we should cite the authority we're using. A dictionary (a mathematics dictionary if you like), a manual of style, whatever. If someone says "quattuordecillion is a word," I want to know who said so. Personally, as to how high it is sensible to go, I think that if the American Heritage Dictionary doesn't need a word, Wikipedia doesn't need it, either. That's just my $0.02 I challenge you to find any use of the word quattuordecillion--or "septillion," for that matter in any context other than discussions of names for large numbers. Dpbsmith 19:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a matter of judgement. I've seen "quadrillion" in print, in newspaper articles about the energy consumptions of entire nations. I don't know that I've personally seen anything larger. Have you? Where? As I said, the American Heritage Dictionary goes up to a vigintillion. THat's one answer.
P.S. I don't know when I'll have a chance to get to the library and consult some dictionaries and other sources about this, so I won't be working on this myself in the immediate future. I don't have a problem with the entry in the "authority" column being something like a math textbook, or even "Dr. Nerd's Trivia Fun Facts'n'Trivia Website". As time goes on if we find better authorities we can include them. But if we're going to include, say, "septilliard" because http://www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/numbers_names.php says it's British for 1045 I really do want the reference—just in case www.uni-bonn.de/~manfear/numbers_names.php is wrong. Dpbsmith 19:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

footjob

Straight 1-line dicdef: move to Wiktionary (only one page linked to it foot fetishism and it already contained substantially the same definition --- already fixed that).JimD 02:06, 2004 May 26 (UTC)

Star of the County Down

Nothing but lyrics. Unless there's a discussion of the significance of the song, why keep it? RickK 02:33, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. You might want to read the article, which contains more than lyrics, and the deletion discussion resulting from its listing on 14 May, which you cut short by using a speedy delete on 14 May with the claim that this old Irish ballad was copyvio, contrary to our speedy delete, deletion and copyvio policies. After a brief discussion, the original lister changed their mind and said keep. Jamesday 02:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, this is that page, it was moved, deleted, undeleted, un-VfD'd, and now RickK is re-VfDing it. Perhaps it could be more of a page, but right now it doesn't really contain any more than lyrics. Is Wikipedia a database of lyrics? If not, as I suspect, my current vote would be to delete or transwiki to a more appropriate place. I expect the page will go through the "Speedy Cleanup" process of many VfD'd pages, though, so my vote may change. --Ben Brockert 03:13, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, I expect it'll be cleaned up. Short lyrics are fine so far as I'm concerned, for things like this, since we also don't want to frustrate people. Could do with more coverage of its history and repeated use in lots of other works over the years, of course. Not really a topic which interests me but I doubt we'll have a shortage of those interested in well known Irish ballads to work on it. :) Jamesday 03:45, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any precedent for keeping lyrics? This song's lyrics are so prevalent on the Web, I'm not sure we need to repeat them. Anyway, my position is basically the same as on 5/14; Info about the song is plenty worthy of inclusion (more's been added already). I'd replace the lyrics with a stub notice and let nature take its course. (And not put it on cleanup--during New Pages patrol today I've left several articles much shorter as plain stubs--there's already so many needier articles on Cleanup.) Niteowlneils 04:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if the lyrics were to be cut, there's a nice stub here about an important (And lyrically interesting) folk song. Snowspinner 07:14, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say we keep the article, but only the "article" part. If the lyrics are so prevalent on the web, then the article can just link to them. blankfaze | &#9835 18:06, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep including lyrics. RossA 02:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known song, lyrics should be kept also as they ar annotated. Nikola 09:07, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting song with a relevant history. And I'd like to vote that if a song is encyclopedic and worthy of keeping, we should keep the full lyrics at the bottom of the article. Wikipedia is not paper. Rossami 19:14, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

William Guzzardi

I stumbled on this earlier today soon after it was posted. I put it up as a speedy delete, but the little so-and-so who posted it did a naughty and reverted the edit. So, I thought I would bring this incredible piece of vanity to your attention. Can we speedy delete, or shall we just let this stew for five days? - Lucky 6.9 03:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why, god, why? Delete this before his ego develops an event horizon. Meelar 03:18, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite his lack of luck both in cards and in love, he is socially functional, occasionally even leaving his house on weekends to see friends." Heh. Delete (sooner or later). Niteowlneils 03:55, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye gads the people who write these pages could at least have the gall to make up something decent and noteworthy about themselves. I really don't want to know the finer details of the failing of a teenager's love life... Delete -- Graham  :) | Talk 10:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure of his own date of death. Delete. Dunc Harris | Talk 12:52, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • And see His weblog for a copy of his biography "From Wikipedia the free encylopedia", and his note go to this site for a good bio of me, written by me. some douchebag... [that would be User:Lucky 6.9 ...tried to get it deleted, so i'm gonna reproduce it here in case he succeeds. read his friggin bio. what a DOUCHEBAG. So does Lucky 6.9 have a vanity page he's not telling us about?
    • Not any of which I happen to be aware...Someone here actually tried writing an article about me based on my experience in local radio, but I asked for it to be removed. - Lucky 6.9 22:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad. Very sad. But wikipedia is not therapy. Delete. DJ Clayworth 13:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amusing ramblings and rants from an 18 yr old kid, but such things are what really what blogs are for and have no place in an encyclopedia. Pyramidal 14:11, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL! Now there's some egomaniacal little kid calling me a douchebag, eh? I've been called worse. I wonder what he'll think of all the other comments posted here about his cute little bio. - Lucky 6.9 16:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. The person probably misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Andris 22:13, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
I continue to feel that it is not made clear to new users that vanity pages are unacceptable, nor is it made clear that pages can be deleted as well as edited. You read Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page or go through the whole Wikipedia:Tutorial without learning either of these things. Dpbsmith 23:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an initial attempt to overcome this shortcoming in the Tutorial (Tutorial (Keep in mind)). It may be a bit heavy-handed, but I think it's a reasonable start, and gives links to both WIWO, and What Wikipedia is not. Hopefully the text can be made clearer/fairer without getting much longer--the page is already pretty big for the tutorial. Niteowlneils 19:11, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. The writing is good and in encyclopedic style. I really wish he hadn't decided to engage in name-calling and reversion of VfD notices, as this behavior makes it difficult to be sincere in offering him encouragement. Dpbsmith 23:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi guys. I'd like to make a quick point. This is William Guzzardi, by the way. The biographical page on your website was set up by a friend of mine by way of a sort of gift to me. I know it's strange, and I know it's not what Wikipedia is intended for. In fact, the only reason the page was posted was because this friend of mine knows how much respect I have for this website. I have in the past edited several articles as well as contributing a large amount of research to articles in the field of cryptography. I perfectly understand your wishes to delete it, and in fact hope you do. The "reversion of VfD notices" I know nothing about, except to say that the friend who set up the page for me also said he deleted some sort of "deletion notice" that was in my article. For this I apologize. As far as accusing me of name-calling, I find it hard for this body of administrators who has called me "egomaniacal" and described my ego as bordering on an "event horizon", as well as the simple claim of "sad", to stake any claim to being above name-calling. And as for Lucky 6.9, whose pampered California lifestyle seems to have allowed this middle-aged man the ability to enjoy power trips based on insulting people who live thousands of miles away, I apologize for any insult, and my irritation has of late been transformed into pity.
In short, please delete the page, for the integrity of this awesome research tool. However, I'd appreciate it if my very high opinion of this very site was not lowered any further by insults hurled at me by its administrators.
Yours truly and humbly, William Guzzardi. 21:52, 26 May 2004 (EST)
William, I understand your annoyance at the comments. On the other hand, if you look at the rest of this page, you'll see there's a never-ending torrent of worthless articles. The people who deal with cleaning out the clutter get a little brusque at times, and don't stop to ask whether a vanity page was self-vanity or a friend. Cut them some slack, OK? By the way, I agree with Dpbsmith that the article is well-written. Tell your friend that, if he's gotten the hijinks out of his system, he could make a real contribution here should he choose to do so. Oh, and I vote Delete. JamesMLane 04:28, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pampered California lifestyle? Mr. Guzzardi, I work hard for a living. I'm anything but pampered, and I won't burden you with the details. Please don't make assumptions. As for my claim of "egomaniacal," try reading that article your well-meaning friend wrote from a neutral point of view. Regarding insults, it was you who decided to call me a "douchebag" on your blog page after you reverted the vote to delete. Furthermore, I'm not an administrator, only a user. Anyone can vote to delete an article, anyone can change one and Lord knows I've seen a lot of garbage pass through here in the few months I've been playing around on this site. And, anyone can write one. I've written several, which means I don't simply hang around here and vote to delete anything that comes down the pike. If you and your friend wish to make a meaningful contribution to this site now that you understand it better, consider yourselves welcome with open arms. - Lucky 6.9 16:13, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

David Pearce

The David Pearce page looks like a low-key vanity page to me that must have slipped through when it was first created. David Pearce is the webmaster of BLTC, the hedonistic imperative website. I like the website and support this guy's views, but I hardly think he's notable enough to be listed in wikipedia, unless you want to start listing anyone and everyone who owns a website. The fact that his website is listed too suggests a vanity thing going. I'm not saying this guy can't be notable, maybe in ten years or so he will be, but I don't think he's notable enough now to be listed here, and I don't think his website is notable enough to be included either. Pyramidal 03:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hedonistic imperative

See my comments above in the David Pearce entry. This website is not notable and I think the page was created as part of David Pearce's vanity page. Pyramidal 03:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bostrom

This guy is a postdoc at Oxford (what I got from his site at http://www.anthropic-principle.com/ which he advertises on his wikipedia page). I think this is a vanity page which is tied in with the David Pearce vanity page. Both pages promote and link to their personal websites and also link to each other. This page says Nick Bostrom founded the World Transhumanist Association, but I have never heard of this and I'm a transhumanist. This isn't notable, or at least I haven't seen the evidence for it. Delete the page. Pyramidal 03:24, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious to know what source you heard of him. I have looked around on google some more and still can't find anything notable about this guy. Pyramidal

World Transhumanist Association

This association is essentially a website created by David Pearce and Nick Bostrum. I think it's just an advertisement page which links to Nick Bostrum's vanity page, but I may be wrong. It's interesting to look at the page histories for Nick Bostrom and David Pearce pages, as well as the pages for their websites. They're all created/edited by Sir Paul. I suspect vanity and advertisement behind these pages. Pyramidal 03:24, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "just a website", they host a conference and have active members.

Michael H. Hart

Possible auto-promo article only edited once linking to a strange book entitled The 100 (Book), that (my second claim) is ranking persons by influence and gives Muhammad the first... Would remove both pages... gbog 03:31, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Hart's written at least two books that I've read. And his book "The 100" inspired an entire series of similar books. MK 06:44, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems OK, mildly interesting ping 08:06, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I am the guy who put up both pages, and while we have the same first name, I am not Michael H. Hart. I think that his list makes an excellent starting point for someone interested in history. While I am not a muslim, I am not sure why you would say the book should be removed just because it puts Muhammad first. --Michael L. Kaufman 21:31, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, maybe it's my personnal taste but I don't like much articles containing only lists of links and would (if I were the Big Boss) progressively remove all of them, replacing them by thematic boxes. I especially don't like lists of persons, because it's very hard to reach NPOV (in a list of great philosophers, or a list of great singers, for example). So this list of the Most Influencial Persons, even if the statement itself is NPOV (Hart says that...), hurts a little bit my feelings on what is neutral and what is not, what is encyclopedic and what is not (this is awfully debatable, I know). Imho and afaik, Hart's work should be mentionned in an article about ranking influencial figures, but I doubt it deserves a full article. (I have to say that, as my knowledge on this topic is shallow, my opinion is subject to change and you may convince me). I would also like to ask you if you'd let my remove the link on Hart's work in Confucius, until a larger development of Hart's article says something about Confucius ? gbog 04:46, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am just the opposite. I really enjoy lists of links. To me they are a way of jumping off in semi-random directions to learn new and interesting things. Hart has written a book that has a had a (fairly) large impact on the publishing industry, and is IMHO deserving of a page. And since wiki_is_not_paper why not include the list as well. I guess you can remove the reference if you like, but the book had some interesting things to say about Confucius which you will be hiding from people if you remove it. Michael L. Kaufman 05:12, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd like to know more about this large impact on publishing industry. I fully respect your enjoyment of lists but I feel the need to underline that, even if Wikipedia is not paper, it's still supposed to be an encyclopedia, I guess. The List of countries is very usefull but things like List of people by belief, List of people, List of agnostics and many others (where I could include many many people, even myself) seems to be useless and pure nonsense (to me, at least).
    • I (more or less) agree with you on the generic ones, but I find many of the ones that have some thought put into them are quite interesting. Many people enjoy readings lists of things. Thats why books series like "The People's Almanac" are so popular. The WIkipedia is even better IMHO, because you can have the lists, and the context for them. Why do you care so strongly? Can't you just ignore the pages of lists?
As far as Hart's impact, if you go to Amazon, you can find dozens of books written since Harts called "The 100 most influential [XXX]". If you read these (I have read perhaps a half dozen) most of them credit Hart for the idea.
  • Leaving aside the question of importance, there may be a copyright issue. Isn't the editorial content of selecting and arranging certain items for a list like this protected by copyright? Hopefully, someone who knows copyright law better than me can clarify this. MK 22:59, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Haifa Linux Club

Just some non-noteworthy Linux club in Israel. Languished in speedy delete, so here's another for our perusal. Cute logo, though. - Lucky 6.9 03:49, 26 May 2004

Paul_McKeever

Vanity page written by subject (ie Drdolittle is Paul McKeever). AndyL 06:47, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. May need to shorten to correlate with significance. Request somebody with knowledge of Canadian politics to see how significant this Freedom Party of Canada is; seems pretty small and irrelevant, but deserving of a mention. Need to clarify, and see if there's any dirt on him to be NPOV. People's Front of Judea anyone? Dunc Harris | Talk 12:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd never heard of the Freedom Party of Canada, which Mr. McKeever has founded, before today. Which makes sense, since they're neither registered nor running candidates in the 2004 federal election...if I just popped off with five of my friends and started my own unregistered party, would I be worthy of a Wikipedia article? The Party's page itself I'm not so strong on, but the vanity page should go. Lord Bob 14:49, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • The new NPOV version is much better, I must say, and I really had no idea that the FP was registered in Ontario. I'm therefore dropping my 'delete' vote. Lord Bob 18:07, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. He gets almost 1000 hits, his party almost 4000, and his mondo politico web site over 30,000. The party IS registered in Ontario[22], and, at least according to their web site, has been around since 1984. I have worked on the first few paragraphs of the article to format and reduce the excess blah, blah. Niteowlneils 16:34, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've reverted to a more succinct NPOV version but can someone keep an eye on the page and intervene when McKeever/drdolittle inevitably reverts it to his vanity version? I'm not going to be online a lot in the next few days and I don't have time to deal with egos. AndyL 17:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Poof and Pouffe

Dictionary definitions. Thue 13:34, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

And offensive ones at that. Possibility of poof being a redirect to gay man or something, although it's offensive it is somewhat mild. Pouffe is both a chair and a feminised version of puff, and has possibility as a disambig page. You could have a history of pouffes if you like furniture Dunc Harris | Talk 14:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Poof is an extremely common term for a gay man and should be a redirect to it. — Chameleon 22:53, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This presents a dilemma. While poof doesn't deserve an entry of its own, the first thing readers should see is that this is a derogatory word for a gay man. Is there a mechanism for this? --Atemperman 03:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Hygiene

This article was listed for deletion, and a notice added to the page, but the mediawiki page wasn't started. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • I listed it. This is an ad for quackery. This showed up on Wikipedia:Cleanup, and someone had tried to NPOV it, but I doubt there is anything worth saving in this malarkey. Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the subject is quackery, but I think the editor did a pretty good job of NPOV'ing it. The subject should be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Thue 14:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - This is a well known branch of alternative medicine popularlized by Paul Bragg. A bunch of trolls have tried to destroy this article. But, the vandalism can be removed. The use of the word quackery is advocating a point of view. -- John Gohde 18:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - I am the original author of this page. I thought this was an encyclopedia, without censorship. Freedom of speech and freedom of health is a necessary thing if men are to aquire knowledge and pursue their own happiness. Whether it is quackery or not, is an opinion. I have had 32 years of experience with this. For those that are opposed, what experience do you have with Natural Hygiene? -- User:Paulbmann
  • Keep. It needs a lot of work to become truly NPOV (rather than just an argument between two sets of advocates) but is a perfectly valid article to be here.--ALargeElk 16:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I listed it on Wikipedia:Cleanup, and I was the editor who went through it and tried to NPOV it - in its original condition it was essentially an advertisement for the system it describes, and I'm afraid that is POV. Obviously the original author didn't like the results, and since I believe the system described is a particularly noxious kind of quackery, I may well have been too aggressive in my edits. But the place for that debate is the article's talk page. As far as VfD goes, whether we are for or against the system, it undoubtedly exists and has quite a significant following, so it is not just entitled to but needs an article. What it can't have is an uncritical piece of advocacy. seglea 17:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Even if it's harmful stuff you don't agree with, it has a place in an encyclopedia so long as it is a theory of health that some people believe in, and provided the entry about it is NPOV - which it seems to be in process of becoming. Tonusperegrinus 18:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing this; when I first read it my impression was that it was full of self-promotion that no attempt at NPOVing could fix, and idiosyncratic nonsense along the lines of the "real magic" article that was deleted a few days ago. It seems that it is idiosyncratic nonsense with a following. I am going to have to get out the book that has Martin Gardner's account of the death of Eugene V. Debs in it, it seems. Smerdis of Tlön 20:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Chelation therapy

This is another alternative medicine article that was created by a troll so that could knock it. DELETE - Not remotely connected to the alternative treatment called Chelation therapy. -- John Gohde 14:51, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should be noted that Mr-Natural-Health's usage of the word "troll" may not match that of others - see the history of Alternative medicine (or its talk page) or the history of Iridology (or its talk page), or others' responses to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott. This article was created by User:Geni, whose edits to Alternative medicine MNH didn't like [23] and has decided could not possibly make any useful contribution concerning alternative medicine (Talk:Chelation therapy, edit summary "Any alternative medicine article created by Geni is pure pollution"). (See also MNH on "science trolls", and his refusal to post to talk pages, even though he's posting to VfD.) As such, I would strongly advise this VfD listing be inspected exceedingly closely before voting - David Gerard 15:32, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems like a perfectly good article. A quick google search seems to verify the content as accurate, certaintly you can't seriously claim "Not remotely connected to the alternative treatment called Chelation therapy". Thue 15:44, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's POV or inaccurate, that's a reason to cleanup, not to delete.--ALargeElk 16:11, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, there is a valid subject called "chelation therapy;" it is in fact used for treating genuine cases of heavy metal poisoning. Quacks posit the mysterious ubiquity of such toxins as the cause of all sorts of ailments. If it is possible to refer to these claims without advertising them, keep it. Smerdis of Tlön 16:12, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listing this for deletion because it is critical of chelation therapy is dishonest and betrays every important principle of the wiki pedia. Mr. Gohde's behavior at the alt med pages is offensive enough, but this attempt at censorship of what someone else may choose to write about is a clear demonstration that he does not share or even understand the values of this community.Alteripse 21:59, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting this would be POV. Abigail 22:10, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could use improvement and I agree with John Gohde's perception that it appears to be primarily concerned with knocking the alternative-medicine practice. However, it's a legitimate topic, it is used in conventional medicine, and the article presents both pros and cons of the alternative-medicine use. It could use improvement, but it shouldn't be deleted. Dpbsmith 23:35, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with ALargeElk's summary theresa knott 01:26, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the article is thought to be biased against chelation therapy, then the improvement it could most use would be the insertion of reference to properly controlled, double-blind studies that show effectiveness of the treatment outside the areas currently accepted by orthodox medicine. I'm not holding my breath. JamesMLane 05:40, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having had to deal with the horticultural use of iron chelates in highly alkaline garden soils, it is perfectly plausible what is being said in therapy. If there are additional points that ought to be added then that should be done, but don't remove the article. It has a right to be there. Dieter Simon 00:45, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm a chemist, and this is perfectly reasonable. It even addresses, fairly and unbiasedly, the alt-med practice. DS 02:21, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Karmann

(1) In German and (2) not worth translating (or moving to the German Wikipedia) because it appears to be of a commercial nature. I've left a note on the talk page of the contributor, who has not worked on any other article, pointing him/her to this MediaWiki page in case he/she wants to defend it. -- Jmabel 17:11, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thinkism

Vanity. No Alexa data [24] [25], no indication on website that there are any other members of this "art movement" besides David Kam. - Hephaestos|§ 20:43, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

LUX

(I think I've got this right). LUX seems to be nothng more than an advert for a website. I edited it the other day to add the magic square algorithm, but on balance this should have its own page, to be called Conway's LUX method for magic squares, which I haven't got round to creating yet.Robinh 21:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Khamula

It has two lines, they don't make sense, they don't explain what "Arab Khamula" means, and even the keywords bring up nothing on Google other than the usual selection of wikipedia mirrors. It only has one real page linking to it (Clan) and it's unclear why that page benefits from its existance. --Caliper 21:26, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Partit Nacionalista Liberal de Catalunya

Being catalan myself, never heard before of this party. Search in google does not retrieve anything except articles in wikipedia or similar projects. The external link in the article appears to be a personal weblog with opinions in politics, but nothing that looks like a real political party. Xevi 22:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

UNaXcess

Vanity page for a private website. Probably should be speedily deleted, but then again, we'd miss all the fun of the debate. - Lucky 6.9 22:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why has this been voted for deletion? I've not heard any justification and I only wrote the article five minutes ago! Pwaring 23:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err, it's not a vanity page, it's information about a BBS dating back to the 80s. Pwaring 23:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps not, but an article about a bulletin board that only a few people at a college use is not, IMO, reason for inclusion. If the consensus is to keep, it wouldn't bother me. I'm of the opinion it doesn't belong, which is why I nominated it. - Lucky 6.9 23:36, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not something that a "few people at college" use though. Yes, it's predominantly used by current/ex CS students but that doesn't make it a minor bulletin board. Pwaring 23:40, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't want to "bite the newbie," as it were. In fact, I snuck a peek at your contributions and the article you wrote for Bulletin board system looks to be absolutely magnificent at a glance. However, I still don't believe that the UNaXcess bulletin board is noteworthy enough to be included. Since this is a very democratic process, other users can decide whether or not it stays. If it's as notable as you say, heck, it should stay and I'll withdraw my vote to delete in an instant. - Lucky 6.9 02:21, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Someone might encounter this term and want to know what it is -- e.g., is it a BBS or antivirus software. If the context makes clear it's a BBS, knowing the center of gravity of its participant base (Manchester U. CS people instead of a more general cross-section of the public) might be useful information. JamesMLane 06:15, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make things clear, I didn't write all of the main bulletin board system article, I just added to it, before anyone comes in and accuses me of taking credit for their work. :) Pwaring 10:36, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason to delete this at all. - David Gerard 14:20, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless the information is incorrect. Abigail 21:56, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Withdraw vote to delete. This is much larger and more relevant than I'd assumed. - Lucky 6.9 22:53, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Cairns State High School

Not notable. See my opinion at User:Dpbsmith/schools. Entire content is:

Cairns State High School is a public state school located near the centre of Cairns, North Queensland. The school caters for grades 8 though to 12 and currently has over 1400 students in attendance. Founded in 1917, it is the oldest High School in Cairns. The school motto is 'Vincit Qui Se Vincit' One Who Conquers Oneself Conquers All.

Dpbsmith 23:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh. Keep. Important to thousands of people. Everyking 00:38, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems factual and important to some - SimonP 01:19, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Current practice and proposed policy is to keep articles about high schools. -- Cyrius|&#9998 01:40, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly good stub on a large high school. - David Gerard 14:23, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I support delete if the content is wrong or nonsense. Not notable shouldn't be a reason for delete - the worst that can happen is that the bytes collect some dust. Abigail 21:51, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think there's a definite shift towards being more inclusive showing here, and in general lately. Interesting. Andrewa 03:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I might as well add something about Monroe Township High School in Monroe Township, New Jersey. Rickyrab 03:37, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd like to think in a few years that anybody can come to this site and find relevant encyclopedic information about whatever they want to know about - including the high school they went to. I'm leaning towards including the history of the street they grew up on, too, to be honest, if people are willing to put in the time researching it. -- Matty j 23:17, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

May 27

Very large numbers

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Very large numbers

Guánica Bay

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Guanica-Bay

Vollis

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Vollis

Disassociate

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Disassociate

Mr.Bits

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-MrBits


List of people who have not committed suicide

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-List of people who have not committed suicide

Kassandra Hiroshima and Kassandra HiroshimA

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-KassandraHiroshima

Digivolve

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Digivolve

Nothlit (Animorphs)

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Nothlit Animorphs

May 28

Mudgik

Mudgik was deleted from this page out of process and the discussion moved to Talk:Mudgik. I'm putting it back here until such time as the actual voting period is ended. RickK 20:44, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Heck

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Heck

Advanet

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Advanet

MediaWiki:Top seeds for French Open 2004

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Top seeds for French Open 2004

Miscible

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-debate miscible

Quantum perception creation

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Quantum preception creation

Iontophoresis

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Iontophoresis


Yu song

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Yu song

Glass Cliff

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Glass Cliff

Cagone

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Cagone

Blimey

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Blimey

Vatic

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Vatic

Polyface Farm

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Polyface Farm

David Carson

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-debate David Carson

KonsoleKalendar

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-KonsoleKalendar

Platonic epistemology

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-PlatonicEpistemology


More "Fifth World" nonsense

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Juscerebrielectronici


James Holzier

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-James Holzier

Great Temple of Abydos

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Great Temple of Abydos

DJ Petzi

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-DJ Petzi


Netivot Shalom and Union for Traditional Judaism

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-NetivotShalom

Debt-free, Tax-free, Indexed Fiat Money

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-debtfreetaxfree

Page in question has been edited and modified to conform to encyclopedia article content -- and it has been reformatted for clarity.

Johngelles 23:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the helpful comment from all the above more experienced Wikipediasts. All they say is true. But the story is more than what they say:

  • Wikipedia is an open system encyclopedia to capture understanding of the world we live in and disseminate it for free.
  • Wikipedia shuns self-interested promotion of the type that authors of many books on monetary reform may be accused of -- because they need book sales to support the authors of the reforms.
  • Wikipedia also shuns ego-trips that seek personal pleasure more than seriously trying to spread understanding of such complex subjects as the dilemmas of modern fiat money (incidentally, it is the only kind of money used today by nations who are members of the UN).
  • I argue, and I may be right, that my article is not an attempt to support me as a reformer nor an ego trip.

If my article is understood, it will be seen as an open system to refrom modern money so that such money can support open systems generally: we human beings suffer from monopolies that create the problem of increasing returns -- whereby the more an orthodoxy goes unchallenged the deeper it imbeds itself in the culture and slows the rate of reform everyone knows is necessary.

DFM is already established and up and running within the United Kingdom's Channel Islands.

  • My recognition of the need to add indexed savings to it, so that hyperinflation can be prevented, is a reasonable stretch -- we already do this in the United States with TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities).
  • The addition of the tax-free potential is also established in the literature of Functional Finance, pioneered by Abba Lerner as part of the Keynesian reforms associated with the 1940's and '50s.

After writing this, I will make another revision to try to meet as many of your well-founded objections as I can.

Rather than shutting off this attempt at understanding -- (remember Wikipedia in its current explanation of money says it is a topic that nobody understands!) -- why not join in and do some editing of the article?

Johngelles 00:24, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd Long Songs

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-PinkFloydLongSongs

List of Puerto Rican phrases, words and slangs

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-ListofPuertoRicanphraseswordsandslangs

Chocha

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Chocha

Trollgnaw

4 hits on Google, term idiosyncratic, apparently used by 1 person. Maximus Rex 20:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I remember correctly, this has gone through VfD and consensus then was to delete. It appears to have been re-created. RickK 22:58, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • precedent as in law does not apply to wikis IMHO; since apparently not all community members saw the former debate; there are multiple edits now; perhaps the article would have survived if renamed? -- Waveguy 03:32, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are seriously mistaken. Precedent in Wikipedia is that if a page has gone through the VfD process and consensus was to delete, if it is re-created, it is to be deleted on sight. RickK 19:10, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Planetquake

Uncertain - I don't know enough about Quake, but it seems like this is not a major website. Burgundavia 22:09, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • It definitely needs work, but it's been a major webstie for several years now - turns up about a quarter of a million hits on Google, I vote keep. (203.217.26.143 02:54, 29 May 2004 (UTC))[reply]
  • It's a major website, but what use do those website-articles have anyway? Why not simply go to the actual website, instead of looking it up on Wik? Keep. Wyllium 05:52, 2004 May 29 (UTC)

Government Warehouse

By removing redundancy I can reduce the entire introduction into no more than three sentences which are a very plain description of "secret government warehouse", which is nearly fully explained just by it's adjectives. Thus, that definition does not belong in an encyclopedia as it is simply a definition that is only sufficient for a dictionary. And, it shouldn't even be in a dictionary. The following lists (which at the very least would make this only suitable for a List article) are simply a list of fictional items which have ever been in a "secret government warehouse" in any fiction. As a list, this seems very pointless and, indeed, useless. They are categorized by the government that owns the warehouse, and don't even show what film, literature, etc. they were in. - Centrx 23:54, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is well-written, encyclopedic and actually kind of fun. We're dreadfully short of fun yet topical articles. - Lucky 6.9 00:52, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • The artifacts listed need to reference whatever fictional work or conspiracy theory says they're being stored. It's flawed, but keep. Possibly list on Wikipedia:Unusual articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:56, May 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the current version. RickK 19:18, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Acegikmo1 19:29, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; original research. Some (achem) enterprising soul has taken it upon themselves to copy the current contents (so to speak) from the two external links, both of which are lists of things that could be contained in a hypothetical fictional secret warehouse. This is basically a "list of neat stuff I think ought to be put together"; if it were listed as such, it would maybe be worth keeping, but as is it's not. Also, some of the things on this list seem to be competely made up (and by that I mean, created from the editor's imagination rather than drawn from any particular myth or work of fiction). If this article is for whatever goony reason kept, the list should be removed post-haste. -Sean 22:40, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

Sphere 41

Fictional object (Trek) that only appears in one episode. Yes, I know we cover fiction--I have no problem with that. Yes, WP is not paper--I have no real problem with that (as I have noted before, I believe the limiting resource is the ratio between the number of Wikipedians and the number of articles). The problem I have with this level of granularity is that, from a user perspective, having to click to an article that can never be more than a couple of lines, is a complete waste (especially given how sluggish WP currently is). Any relevant info should be merged into Zero Hour (ENT), and make Sphere 41 a redir to it. Niteowlneils 05:37, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Gonzalez

Graduate student writes guest column for his school newspaper. If anything, a vanity page would be more relevant. - Hephaestos|§ 18:42, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pat Tillman and delete. RickK 19:16, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the original poster, but it seems to me that this is vanity. Wyllium 01:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This guy did recieve some media attention. Keep. Rhymeless 03:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wagner

I don't see how the content relate to the title. A search for "Peter Wagner" "Modern Knowledge System" gives no hits. Thue 23:16, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Electric blues euphoria

Was flagged for VfD over a month ago, but has apparently neither been deleted nor discussed (nothing links to it, anyway). Not sure about this. University students' band and no albums released except the one on their website, but over 200 Google hits. Fredrik 22:00, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Cooper

Vanity. RickK 21:29, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Run (cricket statistics)

This is an orphan page with very little information on a topic covered comprehensively elsewhere: Cricket (sport), Cricket statistics, Four (cricket), Six (cricket), Bye, Leg bye, No ball, Wide (cricket). dmmaus 23:14, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Clem

Buffy character substub. Wyllium 23:44, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Street, Wollongong, Crown Street, Wollongong and Church Street, Wollongong

Unnotable streets. RickK 23:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

List of movies that have been considered the worst ever

Silly list. Inherently POV. Wyllium 01:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Valid topic only if started over as a properly referenced list of professional reviewers calling movies the worst ever. Fredrik 01:12, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been around since August 2003 and there have been nearly 200 edits. It needs some work but it should not be removed. Acegikmo1 01:49, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep. A movie's entertainment value is perhaps its most critical metric. We have other lists of subjects sorted by the metrics that are most important to those subjects. Why should we exclude the most important metric to movies simply because it's subjective? As long as each entry on the page is defended (some certainly need to be expanded), then the page serves its use. RADICALBENDER★ 02:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just the title uses weasel words and is POV. The entire article is based upon the opinions of its creators. Delete it before more of its ilk have time to sprout. Guanaco 02:22, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't like the title much myself, but there are many movies downright notorious for being bad, and it's nice to have a list of them. The article as stands has useful information, though perhaps it could be pruned a bit. VV 03:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_movies_that_have_been_considered_the_greatest_ever

Same as above. Wyllium 01:44, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everything from "Films that are considered among the greatest in their particular genre" onwards is almost entirely POV. Delete unless fixed. -Sean 01:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep. See above. RADICALBENDER★ 02:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one does contain some perfectly valid and well referenced facts. A lot of it is also arguably true, such as e.g. The Seventh Seal being considered, and note that it's about being considered, the greatest Swedish movie. Of course, it can be argued that what's "considered" is not encyclopedic material. Non-factual bits should be deleted. As with the worst-ever list, opinions attributed to notable people and publications are valid for inclusion. Fredrik 02:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, but this one is slightly better. However, such a list is inherently POV and should not be kept. Guanaco 02:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Similar reasons as above. There are simply widely-acknowledged "all time great" movies, and it's nice to have them collected like this. A title change might be nice, however. VV 03:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Acegikmo1 03:11, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the folks that argue that there are some movies that are simply widely-acknowledged as great or exceptional. However, who's to say what is and what isn't widely-acknowledged. This article and its sister above are both inherently POV. And that just simply cannot work on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopædia; we've no room for opinions in the articles. DELETE. blankfaze | ♫ 03:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: General complaints

This page is either a less structured repeat of village pump or wikipedia: replies to common objections without the replies. Bensaccount 03:24, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this will end up either like Village Pump or the MediaWiki page on the upgrade. Delete. Wyllium 03:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

3D program

I can't believe there is anything here that isn't better covered somewhere else. At most, we should find the right article to make this a redirect to, and in the unlikely event that anything here is not covered there, merge it. -- Jmabel 03:24, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Chris Keeler

This is a vanity page, probibly written by Chris himself. A yahoo search for '"Chris Keeler" rugby' yields one result, a university in Nottinghamshire, where the person named Chris Keller has nothing to do with rugby. Seems pretty light internet coverage for the best Rugby Union player. Gentgeen 04:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria

How is this possibly an encyclopedia article? RickK 06:38, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I have to tell the truth -- it's not. The purpose in creating the article was to try to get a public discourse going about how to break up the class Mammalia into subclasses and infraclasses. Most of the relevant articles are inconsistent, and I'm not personally qualified to make the decision on what version to use. I would really hope that it isn't deleted, because it could lead to a strong consensus in the arena of mammalian taxonomy. (I know there are better ways to get votes on subjects, but I'm afraid I'm not aware of them. If you could explain them to me, it would be greatly appreciated.) Sorry for the inconvenience, --Ingoolemo 06:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the page to the more appropriate Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria. I will try to read up a bit more on the subject before casting my vote.-PlatinumX 07:47, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Should be delisted, it's in an appropriate place for discussion now. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:40, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Haylie Duff

click here to add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Haylie Duff

Haylie Duff

Gurgaon Business Services (India) click here to add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Haylie Duff

Michael Mazengarb

Delete Vanity page, no google hitsBurgundavia 07:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Gurgaon Business Services (India)

Delete - Right, about that vanity. Burgundavia 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This section describes how to list articles and their associated talk pages for deletion. For pages that are not articles, list them at other appropriate deletion venues 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. Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers.

Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. (Autoconfirmed registered users can also use the Twinkle tool to make nominations.) If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process.

You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.

I – Put the deletion tag on the article.
  • Insert {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the article. Do not mark the edit as minor.
    If this article has been nominated before, use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} or {{subst:afdx|3rd}} etc.
  • Include in the edit summary AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. replacing NominationName with the name of the page being nominated. Publish the page.
    The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)
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. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear.

You can do it manually as well:

  • Click the link saying "deletion discussion page" to open the deletion-debate page.
  • Insert this text:
    {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
    Replace PageName with the name of the page, Category with a letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
  • Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion for [[PageName]]. Publish the page.
III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions.
  • Open the articles for deletion log page for editing.
  • At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:{{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}}
    Replace NominationName appropriately (use "PageName", "PageName (2nd nomination)", etc.)
  • Link to the discussion page in your edit summary: Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. Publish the page.
  • Consider letting the authors know on their talk page by adding: {{subst:Afd notice|Page name}} ~~~~
    If this is not the first nomination, add a second parameter with the NominationName (use "PageName (2nd nomination)" etc.): {{subst:Afd notice|PageName|NominationName}} ~~~~
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_September_2004&oldid=3779140"