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 DropDeadGorgias (talk | contribs) at 16:27, 4 June 2004 (→[[:Category:Dictators]]: moved to cfd). 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


4th - 3rd - 2nd - 1st - 31st - 30th - 29th - 28th - 27th - 26th - 25th - 24th - 23rd - 22nd - 21st - 20th


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 27

Note: The entries for May 27 were inadvertently deleted, and remained so for almost 24 hours. As such, they should remain listed for an extra day and be delisted at the same time as the entries for May 28. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They are getting an extra day by not being moved to /Old today. However, some editors may be monitoring it only every 5 days -- in fact, that practice was urged, on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, in the past week, to users who find the loading time of the page onerous. 20% of such editors missed it due to its 1-day absence, and won't see it for another few days.
Therefore i urge that
  1. A copy of this discussion should be kept here even after the entries are moved to /Old.
  2. Another copy of it should move to /Old with the entries.
  3. Those who consider which entries are Dels and which Keeps should not make final decisions on 27th entries where the decision could be changed by a vote or two more, for about 5 days: i.e., hold open the vote on which it could make the difference, until the every-5-days people have had a fair chance to catch up. --Jerzy(t) 00:28, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)

May 30

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]
The MediaWiki upgrade page was at 140K and skyrocketing earlier today. It was the edit conflict blues all over. Something needs to take some of that load. Denni 05:43, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If Angela and Litefantastic see it as worthy of use, so too do I. 24.65.177.33 19:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless and obviously useful to some, see the edit history. We do need some more pages similar to the Pump to relieve some of its load, maybe this will do that, maybe not. Some links to other pages, and perhaps some warnings that this is a new and perhaps less often visited page than the Village Pump etc, right up top of it would be good IMO. But that's no reason to delete it. Just fix it if you think it's important. Andrewa 21:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Don't take the fact I've edited it to be a vote in support. I don't really mind either way. Angela. 06:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (but you all knew I'd say that). I think the GC page could be quite useful, if given enough attention. And, as it's been pointed out, it could take some strain off the Pump. -Litefantastic 11:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Seems like an extraneous page - Tεxτurε 17:06, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. At least until all the objections on that page are resolved. They are actually being resolved (and deleted from the page), unlike m:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion or MediaWiki 1.3 comments and bug reports which is a good record, but doesn't remove fixed stuff, and has quite a few duplicates all mixed up. This page seems like a good list of critical stuff. --ssd 12:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Has no value. →Raul654 21:40, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

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)


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]

David Frenk

Looks like vanity, few google results Kieff 10:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

-OK, delete it if you will. I thought it was fair game - David Frenk is a bit of a local hero here. Playing with Trieste and Holiday In Hawaii he's supported Radiohead twice, Carrina Round, Chesney Hawkes three times (OK, maybe that's not so impressive), China Drum, SMO and a whole pile of other really famous guys. He's done session gigs with some very big artists too, and although Insomnia Wunny is a bit of an in-joke (it ran in a local paper for a few weeks) the rest is legit. I'll post links to the books as soon as I have time. I really respect Wikipedia, and I wouldn't want to annoy any of the guys who are doing such a great job here. I didn't realise that this was only for 'real' superstars, like Keith Chegwin. User:No_logo 23:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A Google search for "David Frenk" [1] comes up with 12 entries 2 of which are about the person in question. In considering whether to keep musicians I use criteria such as charting albums or singles, famous members, critically recognised albums or singles (Grammies, Brit Awards, Juno Awards, ARIA Awards etc), verifiable work with notable artists and general buzz (Google, Google News hits). This person doesnt score anything against this criteria.Seaeagle04
  • Hi, David Frenk is a legend, he's guna be huge so whatever you computer geeks think about him you'll regret not letting wikipedia (a so called wicked encyclopedia I presume) not listing him early on. Imagine being the first encyclopedia to list Jimmi Hendrix? David Brent 10:44, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - before I start the Texture vanity band - Tεxτurε 17:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Sounds like fun! Let me know if you have a horn section. Oh, and I'm "guna" vote delete on the next "Jimmi Hendrix." - Lucky 6.9 18:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Juls

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Juls

How to rehearse

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-How to rehearse

Aqua_Maria

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Aqua Maria

MENS

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-MENS

TENS

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-TENS

The_Bells

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-The Bells

Battling_companion

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Battling companion



Rhyanne

Is it really all that famous, and is it in the right place? I would have thought wiktionary would be the place for name meanings -- Graham  :) | Talk 18:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Cher (character)

Doesnt deserve its own page. Move info into Clueless page. Saopaulo1

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria

I put this on yesterday (with its old name) and it got deleted from the VfD page. It has been moved to a more appropriate place now, and I would withdraw the objection. It still has the VfD header on the article, it should go through the appropriate waiting period before deleting from VfD, however; and why WAS it deleted from VfD? RickK 21:23, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I promise, I don't know why, but I'm going to look in the history and try to figure it out.--Ingoolemo 06:20, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
Okay. I checked out the history, and the only thing that I can find between when I added my comment to the original VfD request was a change made by PlatinumX. My scan of the article seems to suggest that the changes made by PlatinumX may have included deleting the article (and their edit summary also points to this. However, since my skills at analysing such things are quite deficient, and my 'investigation' incriminates PlatinumX, I think someone more experienced should go in and investigate further.--Ingoolemo 06:31, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
I have gone to some effor to repair the main things RickK objects to.--Ingoolemo 20:15, 2004 May 31 (UTC)


Template:Table Sort Algorithms

  • No longer needed due to category system. I originally speedy-deleted it, but apparently some people don't like the category system as a replacement for these, so I'm putting this up here for discussion and vote. — Timwi 23:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I'm the some people). The table provides useful information that the category system doesn't. I'd like to see all MediaWiki hacks replaced with semantically proper alternatives eventually, but I oppose removing useful content until the category implementation is able to actually provide equal or superior presentation. Fredrik 01:36, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the grouping is sensible, I'd keep the list somewhere in article namespace, e.g. as List of sort algorithms. -- User:Docu
  • Go with Docu's suggestion and then delete. --Jiang 20:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I just noticed there's a table at Talk:Sort algorithm. This should be in sort algorithm, and would solve the issue completely. Fredrik 22:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (see my comment below for List of programming languages) Dysprosia 02:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete once categories are created, references to it are deleted from all the articles, and something is done about moving the table back into the article. --ssd 01:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Judy Star

Porn actress, fails to explain why she is notable apart from HIV scare. Suspicious of motive. Dunc Harris | Talk 23:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we don't want articles for lots of porn stars, we need to do a lot of de-linkage at List of heterosexual erotic actresses (and any similar articles). I'd lean towards delete, but the list appears to have been around for over a month with no complaints. Niteowlneils 23:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't want articles for lots of porn stars - Why wouldn't we? Why is that different to lots of articles on musicians, or baseball players, or TV presenters? Andy Mabbett 11:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pokémon Junior

The only record of Pokémon Junior being a TV series is at the always unreliable fuzzy.com. However, it is a series of books... Delete kelvSYC 17:56, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Created by the same person who created the fictional Hollywood Jam. Not listed on IMDB. Delete. RickK

  • Delete and ban user for repeated nonsense postings and lying about TV Tome entries existing. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. Misinformation like this is far worse than vandalism. - Lucky 6.9 22:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

May 31

Tan-Hauser Gate

Article gives no clue why they are notable. Doesn't exist on allmusic.com. A google search on the name of the band+head singer gives 1 hit. Thue 00:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

OnLine Gamers Anonymous

Blatent advertisement. PlatinumX 04:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

David Elms

A critique of a high school teacher. Maximus Rex 05:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Keith C. McCormic

Vanity -- Jmabel 06:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vanity indeed. Delete - TB 10:04, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
  • Yep, vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. The statement that "McCormic likes to brag about his boring life" may be factual, but it is not encyclopedic. Dpbsmith 23:18, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Starx 02:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interdependence

Dicdef -- Jmabel 06:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC) Same anon contributor as Keith C. McCormic -- Jmabel 06:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've expanded it into a (imho) reasonable stub. -- John Abbe 31 May 2004
  • The new stub has potential. Keep - TB 10:05, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
  • Ugh... grudgingly keep. --Starx 01:48, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Munitions

Dicdef, and not even a good one. -- Jmabel 06:33, 31 May 2004 (UTC) Same anon contributor as Keith C. McCormic (User:24.218.52.116). Looks like there are yet more, but I don't have the patience to keep looking. They may not all be bad, but probably most are. -- Jmabel 06:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Army-navy stores

Dicdef. Maybe a topic worth an article; is there any reason to keep this as a stub? -- Jmabel 06:37, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (I think). I can imagine there being e.g. historical information about the origin/spread of the stores that could go here. Markalexander100 06:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep. I've made it into a slightly better stub, and this is an encyclopedic topic. Meelar 06:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the new stub. Keep - TB 10:04, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
  • Keep - dtto The Land 20:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't much like the new stub, sorry, Meelar but it's a start on potentially a good topic. I remember when Army-Navy stores really did carry war surplus. I have no idea what happens to "war surplus" these days, but it doesn't get into the Army-Navy stores any more. Or Edmund Scientific (ah, I remember the great days when it had only just changed its name from Edmund Salvage, and you could buy chipped lenses from them in coin envelopes...) Dpbsmith 00:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Hey, I wasn't shooting for a medal--I've visited one army surplus store once in my life (about 10 years ago), and have never heard anything more of the concept. No offense taken. Meelar 05:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yellow pages search indicates at least 30 companies called 'Army and Navy store' in the UK.
  • keep Exploding Boy 09:01, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Egalocracy, Egalocratic

Two more in what appear to be a series of tributes by one Keith C. McCormic to his own ego. -- Jmabel 06:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

delete: egalocracy is not a word. It is not even a plausible word. If such a political neologism were to be derived from the relevant stem, it would be 'egalitocracy', not 'egalocracy', and would not mean "equal power", as the article claims, but 'rule by those who are equal', which is something very, very different. There are strict conventions for this sort of coinage. "Equal power" is already described by the word "equipotence". User:No_logo11:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personal neologism. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedily deleted Egalocratic, since it basically just said it was the adjective form of "Egalocracy." Delete Egalocracy. Guanaco 21:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, original research, vanity. Egalocracy is not in AHD4. Does get a couple of Google hits, both to a forum by that name on LiveJournal; forum currently has four members. Dpbsmith 00:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The appropriate term is egalitarian democracy, which has some 900 variously sourced Google hits. A quick (and therefore possibly inaccurate) read of several of these hits leads me to suspect (especially since the term is used to describe this political entity more than once) that this is another label for totalitarian democracy. Denni 06:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a valid term. --Starx 01:49, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Max Berg

This material might be relevant to salvage somewhere, but has no apparent connection to its title here. -- Jmabel 07:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

He's was a German architect [2]. Seemingly worthy, but need of cleanup. Entry in German Wikipedia doesn't exist though. 08:45, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Have cleaned up and written good stub User:Jiang has removed vfd notice. (page history) Dunc Harris | Talk 09:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Nephew

Dicdef, Any place to redirect to? siroxo 09:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yeah! Cartoons & Comics

Appears to be fictional (and talks about future events in the past tense). By same user as Hollywood Jam. Probably everything they have contributed or will contribute is nonsense. Morwen 12:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Confusing one, The Fairly Oddparents (Legit via IMDB) contains a reference to it, the reference was added by 64.165.10.131 who appears to have also edited Oh Yeah! Cartoons & Comics Tracking this guy, and some of the other guys histories, they really seem to be screwing around a lot. I'm betting this one should be deleted since google really doesn't return any legit results. siroxo 13:13, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ban user for persistently posting nonsense after being warned. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually fairly legit; I know that this was a show on Nick; as a bit of a platform for short cartoons by unknown artists. The show presented itself as being something of a real-time comic book, with cartoon host characters that jumped out of the pages, and introduced the next feature (some of which were cartoons, others which were manipulated action figures). No idea if an actual quicktime feature was ever developed, although I remember hearing rumours that such a thing might happen in the future (this was a few years ago). Rhymeless 04:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Noted the weird future tense nonsense. Will try to fix/add/etc. Rhymeless 05:17, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I'd confused some portions of the show with Kablam, another Nickelodeon show, both similar and superior to Oh Yeah!. Tried to clear things up on the entry as best as possible, removed the future/book mess. Rhymeless 06:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • There is such a show on Nickelodeon. Keep but this may need a rewrite. WhisperToMe 05:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Wait a minute, there's already Oh Yeah! Cartoons. I'm thinking that's the actual name of the show. Everyking 15:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • It is. Transferred all meaningful content to the correct page. Rhymeless 18:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Vote for redirect then? siroxo 06:10, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Materiel

Another dicdef by anon User:24.218.52.116, redirect to material (material is materiel in French), or expand? Dunc Harris | Talk 09:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not happy about the redirect (which appears to have, uh, 'appeared'). "Materiel" is also consistently used in non-military dostribution companies too. The redirect now takes it to a page that (sfaict) doesn't include the term nor explain why it has been divererted there. Will undertake to create a proper entry. --VampWillow 12:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think materiel is suitable topic to have an article on. It has a much wider scope than material, so should not be redirected. -- Popsracer 05:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a good concept to illuminate when everyone not exposed to commercial goods flow thinks you're simply misspelling. (Personal axe: my father's title was "Manager of traffic, distribution, and materiel.") Okay, now I've massaged the article some. --Gary D 23:43, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Many Adventures of Tintin

As above. Morwen 12:08, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Toon Adventures: The Baby-Sitters Club

As above. Does this count as 'patent nonsense'? Morwen 12:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Solar System

This is about a concept which were created on April 16th, 2004. Google shows no hits for Flag of the Solar System, not even their home page (guess it has not been crawled yet). The text it copied from the linked page. Wikipedia is not the place to introduce new ideas, wikipedia is for things that is already established. Thue 13:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, Wik is no place for nonsense. Delete. Wyllium 14:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sympathetic, but the Long Future Research Group gets only 3 google hits, whereas by comparison The Long Now Foundation [3] gets 16,000. The flag currently has no recognition and the Long Future Research Group is not currently notable. Dpbsmith 15:19, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Silly stuff, vanity page, not 'pedia material. Delete. --VampWillow 15:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Looks copied. Delete either way. DJ Clayworth 19:29, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Long Future

As above this does not seem like an established concept. While their Long Future Research Group may deserve an article in wikipedia, the concepts they are trying to promote seems not to be well established, and it would be false to present them in wikipedia as established concepts. Like Flag of Solar System some of the text on the page is a cut'n'paste from their web page. Thue 14:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Not an established concept. As noted before, Long Future Research Group gets only four Google hits, they are not yet notable enough to be encyclopedic either. Dpbsmith 18:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The creator has blanket the page and removed all the references he had inserted in other articles. Thue 23:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I the first to note that entries on these pages go missing? This is the third time I've left this same comment. In any case, this is a vote to delete. It's been thrity years since humanity last set foot on the moon, and it'll be at least thirty before we get to Mars. Maybe then we can consider a flag for the Solar System. In the meantime, there is already a damn fine flag for Mars. Denni 23:31, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lynsey De Paul and Mike Moran

Content moved to separate pages on each individual instead of this joint page. All links to page changed to new locations as appropriate. --VampWillow 14:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Two Eighty (web comic)

Text of article is "Two Eighty is the new webcomic created by Josh Phillips who worked at Avalon, another webcomic" and an external link. No evidence that it's significant or has any story to write up. Advertisment.

  • Delete - TB 15:02, 2004 May 31 (UTC) - the current redirect to the artist and brief mention on his article works well for me. TB 11:59, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • The proposed web comics guidelines include an exception for new comics by established web comic authors (and Phillips's Avalon was quite popular before he developed a pathological inability to update). On the other hand, it only has three comics up, which isn't enough of a material to base an article on. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A little short as-is, but has potential, and disk space is cheap. In fact, I'm going to edit the article right now. -- Wikisux 18:54, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It doesn't seem to be worth keeping right now, but should we perhaps have an article on Josh Phillips and move the content there? And perhaps redirect? Andrewa 19:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. I'll take care of it, if that's all right. -- Wikisux 19:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Weak, son, weak! blankfaze | •­• 00:47, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy Tseng

Where to begin? He is widely regarded as the most important mathematicians of the 21st century, but "Jimmy Tseng" mathematician gets 4 hits. The article is written by himself, and referred from his user page User:Drjt87. A leader in Neurological research, but "Jimmy Tseng" Neurology gets 1 google hit. Thue 17:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the reasons you've stated. Vanity, non-notable. I believe it is possible to say, with a fully neutral point of view, that as of 2004 he is not widely regarded as the most important mathematician of the 21st century. I wonder whether he and Shawn Mikula have ever met? Dpbsmith 18:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Joke, vanity or possibly both. Andrewa 18:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete his other vanity page Quadranomial expansion as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, page does not look credible and google does not find any evidence. Andris 22:58, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite the claims of the article, other similar claims found by Google suggest that the kid is in reality about 17, and therefore won't even have got to Melbourne, let alone his other claims. This is a vain attempt to write their history in advance. Average Earthman 10:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I am really at University of Melbourne, (I do not try to bring a bad reputation to the Univeristy though) this page was a crude attempt at a joke, and possibly a desire for Harvard University in the future... The quadrinomial expansion article (see below) however, is true to my knowledge. By the way, University of Melbourne does not have a medicine/law course. The only University in Australia to have that course in Monash University. Jimmy Tseng

Quadranomial expansion

This is an odd one which certainly needs discussion, but I think it should be deleted. It should definitely be moved to quadrinomial expansion (that being the correct spelling). What's odd is I think the article is perfectly correct and reasonably clear, but I don't think it says anything encyclopedic. In the words of the article itself: "Quadranomial expansion is very rarely used, to the extent it is nearly rendered useless." The phrase may itself be a neologism; both "quadranomial expansion" and "quadrinomial expansion" get zero Google hits (and, yes, it was Google that clued me in on the spelling). I think the article should be deleted unless it can be expanded to show some useful application of this piece of algebra. (But what do I know? I don't even understand quaternions). Dpbsmith 18:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Uncertain. Original research, possibly by Jimmy Tseng, whose article by the same newbie is also up for deletion. Very interesting thought, though. Be good to transwiki it but I don't know where. Or maybe redirect to Trinomial expansion, also by the same author, which has some similar thoughts? (Quaternions are brilliant, Hamilton inadvertantly invented both cross and dot products when he suddenly had the courage to abandon the commutative law, and deserves far more credit than he generally gets. His discoveries were unfairly tainted when Tait and others championed quaternion notation against vector notation, rather chauvinistically IMO.) Andrewa 19:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename, assuming it's factually accurate, and it seems to be. If someone went to the trouble to write it up, why bother deleting? I would also add links back to trinomial and binomial expansion (but not necessarily in the reverse direction). -- Wikisux 20:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And combine Quadrinomial and Trinomial expansion, perhaps even move the info and redirect to Binomial expansion. There is no misinformation (besides spelling) and maybe it will be useful to someone, especially if they're browsing binomial expansion and come upon these expansions. siroxo 00:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this and trinomial expansion. There is no such thing as a "quadranomial expansion" - or, perhaps, this is like having an article on Blue car. VV 02:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to multinomial formula where it is handled properly in the general case. The page reads very strangely. Dysprosia 02:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep The article on quadrinomial expansion refers to the method of expanding by the quadrinomial theorem. This is different to the method of the multinomial formula, and thus should not be solely based upon the multinomial formula. The trinomial theorem page has information on the trinomial theorem, but the quadrinomial theorem has not been published much, due to the fact that it has not been proved rigorously yet. Therefore it should not be merely a page from the multinomial formula, but a separate article on its own. Jimmy Tseng
Why should Wikipedia include an article on an unpublished and unproven theorem? Or a not-much-published not-proved-rigorously theorem? Why wouldn't such an article qualify as "original research," which we have a policy against? Dpbsmith 18:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Many theorems are not proved rigously, yet they are used often in mathematics. Such examples include multiplication, where it has not been proved that 1*1=1. For examples of unpublished theorems, try look for the proof of 1+1=2. It does exist, yet it is very hard to find. By the way, this is not original research. Jimmy Tseng
That is a rather riddiculuous argument. 1+1 and 1*1 don't need to be prooven, they are not in of themselves theorums, they follow logically from addition and multiplication. --Starx 02:13, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ridiculous argument? 1+1 was proven by Euler if you have any slightly more advanced knowledge in mathematics! Euler as you (should) know, was the person who invented the signs for e, i and Pi. If Euler believed that it was possible to prove that 1+1=2, I don't think you can say much about that. Jimmy Tseng
  • Redirect this and trinomial to multinomial formula. There is no usefull content here. --Starx 02:13, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template:NAMm, Template:APECm

Pointless and ugly decorations. If a country is a member, just say so in the relevant section. there's no need for us to give it a ribbon. --Jiang 20:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, right, Avala's other boxes. Yes, these are even worse than the original boxes. Delete. Snowspinner 20:56, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually i think they are pretty ribbons. But if we put one for every association a country belongs, the articles are going to start looking like Idi-Amin's general coat. So delete. Muriel G 15:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Template:PeaceLaureates, Template:EUc, Template:NATOm too. --Jiang

Car Crashing Channel

Doesn't appear to be a notable website. Tom- 20:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Tuna

No idea what this is about. Doesn't look notable to me. Tom- 20:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Magic Begins

Template:List of programming languages

  • Again, no longer needed because replaced with categorisation system. — Timwi 22:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fredrik 22:22, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Delete, redundant (and cluttering). -- Cyrius|✎ 22:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but there are quite a lot of pages still linking to this that will need to be dealt with first. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 23:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Message boxes are not redundant because of categories, but are a way of navigating to other programming languages within the document. The user should perhaps not become reliant on categories to navigate to related topics Dysprosia 02:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • This is the fundametal issue. Some users want "all link to all" model as provided by the msg boxes. Other users want a "hub and spoke" model provided by categories. Others (including me) don't mind too much which, but would loathe the obvious compromise which would mean having both. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I know this is not the right place, but this is one case wherte I'd like to see a tree diagram. (Another is human languages). Many of them (were) developed from previous ones. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you don't want to use categories, wouldn't it be much simpler to say "see also: list of programming languages? -Sean Curtin 18:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete once everything is entered into the categories and the references removed from the pages. It's just a list of stuff. Categories are better. I like the idea of adding a tree to replace it, though. It's been done before, I might have notes on it. --ssd 01:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like both forms of navigation. -- Stevietheman 03:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • (No vote.) It seems this is a case where we need a Wikipedia-wide convention decided. VV 04:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Murder Contest

All three speedily deleted. Guanaco 01:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A.'.A.'.

More Hollywood Jam nonsense, but is this real? Dunc Harris | Talk 23:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • May or may not be for real, but it is historical; it's one of Uncle Al's magickal clubhouses. Keep. Smerdis of Tlön 03:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) - PS. There's also a minimal stub at Argentinum Astrum, and one of the other should be merged. This one is actually better. Argenteum Astrum is the spelling used at least in the index of Crowley's autobiography, and strikes me as the best Latin. All three spellings are "out there," with argenteum probably commonest, and the A.'.A.'. with the three dots in a pyramid shape, or an ASCII art approximation, is actually the most common of them all. Smerdis of Tlön 03:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a historical society. Do not delete. Nixdorf 10:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There really was such an organization. MK 07:29, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The_Book_of_Lies

Now It's seven one-and-a-half liners, and no ad. (I hates Wikispam, I hates it, I does!) Probably should still be deleted. Dpbsmith 00:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Looks like just a poorly constructed disambiguation page to me. Leaning toward keep. blankfaze | •­• 00:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agree with above, also, the book of lies is well known - a classic. If there's an article for britney spears there should definitely be an article on something more intellectual such as the book of lies. Leaning towards keep, but reluctant to vote as I'm not particlarly versed on the topic. Kevin Baas 01:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, The Book of Lies is legit, according to google, An article about Aleister Crowley's version should probably be created and expanded by someone with more expertise. The disambiguation page seems reasonable, since it is a common title. siroxo 01:40, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. At least half of these are legitimate works which would be eminently deserving of articles themselves, and I have no reason to believe the others aren't. - David Gerard 22:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeago 03:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) Agree that this book is pertinent. Perhaps 'stub' it?

Bhak Jonghwa

Only 51 Google results, most of which seem to be Wikipedia copies or things posted by this person elsewhere. Eurleif 03:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I can't anything on google indicating he is notable. Delete. Thue 14:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Jong Park is about the same person. This one doesn't look notable either. Thue 14:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • .mpfa is a format that is used in his lab, also doesn't seem notable. I will just list Jong Park and .mpfa seperatly. Thue 14:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It says UN is helpless and controlled by superpowers.
  • Delete. Not notable. Andris 01:54, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC) 01:47, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like vanity. Delete -- Cyrius|✎ 22:03, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 1

Full Nice Handbag Co

Company, not sufficiently known to be in Wikipedia. 4 google hits. Andris 06:09, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

"Not sufficiently known" is an awkward reason to not have something in Wikipedia. Most of us are probably only familiar with a tiny fraction of the topics covered. 4 google hits probably doesn't mean very much... firstly the website is very new (updated 15th May) and secondly b2b businesses specializing in physical products tend not to have much of a web presence. Keep, unless verified to be an insignificant company by some other means. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Um, I would say that 4 hits on Google "verifies it to be an insignificant company." Delete. blankfaze | •­• 14:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC
Um, did I not just explain in the very comment you are supposedly replying to why 4 Google hits is irrelevant??? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not having a significant presense in Google doesn't mean anything. I'm sure there are a huge number of significant businesses that have no Internent presense, and even then might not come up in Google. Google is not the Internet, the Internet is not the world. I would recommend keeping this article unless it in someway conflicts with Wikipedia operations. --Jeff 23:07, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This is not an ad repository and no one is going to come to an encyclopedia looking for information on a company such as this. - Lucky 6.9 18:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Who are you to judge what people will come to an encyclopedia for? What is particularly ad-dy about this entry, compared with the hundreds (probably thousands) of articles we have about companies? I think you are rejecting something because it is outside your sphere of interest and experience. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I daresay that there are a lot of articles on this site well outside my spheres of interest and experience. There are thousands of articles about companies and their products, but they are companies and products of note, notoriety, infamy, etc. If I was looking for information on a Hong Kong handbag manufacturer, I'd go to Google and find a website. The burden of proof of notoriety in this case should be on the author.
        • It is a leading manufacturer of handbags in Hong Kong (and if you've been shopping in HK, you know they sell a lot of handbags). That is sufficient proof of notoriety. Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I should also mention that many similar articles have been deleted in the past. Let's be honest: Who really would come to a site like this and enter this name? - Lucky 6.9 21:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • If the circumstances are the same as this case, then those deletions were mistaken. People may not come to Wikipedia specifically for this company, but they may come to Google, like most of our traffic. Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Although significantly leaning towards delete, might it have more Google hits in a non-English name? The name sounds like a weird translation, something that only non-English speakers would come up with. -- user:zanimum
  • Keep. Probably reasonably notable in Hong Kong; naturally Google is biased towards companies in English speaking countries. Everyking 20:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless someone can provide results from google.com.hk that this is notable, then it just looks like unnecessary self-promotion to me. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:11, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • I fail to see how this would be considered self-promotion. The article will only be found if someone is ooking for information about this company, or if another article links to it. Another article will only link to it if the conpany has any significance; if not there is nothing to worry about it. --Jeff 23:07, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • For the third time, since when is Google the final arbitrator of anything? A significant proportion of the information I add to Wikipedia comes from books, and can not be found through Google (well it couldn't, until I added it to Wikipedia and hence to Google :-). It is not immediately obvious that this is self-promotion (the IP in question has lots of HK-related edits). Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, strong keep. The article is reasonably NPOV and doesn't sound at all like an advertisement, just a sober statement of its business. I feel Google means little, because many significant companies (for example, established manufacturers in "old-economy" industries) tend not to get mentioned much online. Also, I agree with Pcb21--who are we to judge what people will come to an encyclopedia for? And finally, in any case, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. I can imagine people coming here to learn about the companies they work for, much as they might come to learn about the history of the streets they live on or schools they attended. Who are we to thwart that sort of curiosity? -- Wikisux 23:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • If Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, what is it? Maybe you can help redefine it in the main page. Mandel 16:04, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: wikispam. Demonstration of notability is the responsibility of the author. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Will someone please prove their baseless claims that this is spam. This is a b2b textiles company. There is no reason to call this spam.
  • I can't help but start to see this article as a bit of a litmus test of how deletionist has become in the last X months. I ask those in favour of deletion, which part of the deletion policy are you wanting to kill this under? And why do you see the article's existence as detrimental to Wikipedia? Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • "List pages that you believe have no potential to become encyclopedia articles." blankfaze | •­•
      • The article is already longer than many articles in various printed encyclopedia I've seen in my day (Britannica, New York City, Encarta). -- Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • "List articles that contain no verifiable information." blankfaze | •­•
      • The information presented in this article is verifiable and true, as some cursory internet research will show. --Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete This company has no political, cultural, historical significance. This isn't a accessories catalogue. Who would use this information? It does't have the history required by a commercial company to deserve an encyclopaedia entry. Where is the potential for it to grow beyond a stub? Employee of the month lists? Product ranges? We have to remember that Wikipedia isn't an infinite space where we have space for this stuff. Ask the creator to justify the page at least (if he/she hasn't).--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:37, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • The creator of the page was an anon. They easily might not find this debate. I have thus assumed responsibility for creation by proxy for the purposes of defending it. I justify the page by saying that it has verifiable encyclopedic information, and that it doesn't meet any criteria for deletion under our deletion policy. No threshold for how politically, culturally or historically important a particular company has to be is given. The threshold is that the information has to be verifiable and factual, and that someone has to be bothered to write it. Pcb21| Pete 07:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It is an ad, people. Delete it. RickK 23:40, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • If it is not NPOV, edit it. Pcb21| Pete 07:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • What's to edit? This is nothing but advertising, and as such, does not belong on Wikipedia. Are we going to allow articles on every small company in the world, with one paragraph saying what they do and a link to page to buy their products? If so, we might as well start selling ad space. RickK 19:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
        • Firstly, I don't see the problem with allowing people to write articles about small companies, as long as they are factually accurate and NPOV (as this article is.) Secondly, RickK, based on the evidence, I would submit that this article is NOT AN AD; it appears to have been written in good faith. The anonymous user has a long history of edits related to Hong Kong and China. — Wikisux 00:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • We have literally thousands of articles on things with links to commerce. For instance we have thousands of articles on fictional characters, all of whom created for the purpose of making money. The fact that there seems to be a willingness to keep them, but perhaps not this is indicative of a systematic bias. People want this article deleted because it is about a plain old non-western manufacturing company, rather than cosy western computery domain of understanding. But for a lot of readers, this company's existence is more significant than those daft computer instruction articles, or Star Trek, Starcraft, Pokemon... Pcb21| Pete 09:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've got a few friends from Hong Kong. I'll ask them if they've heard of the company--not that it matters--but in the meantime, I'd say don't do anything rash. --Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikispam. Shawn Mikula all over again. Ambivalenthysteria 12:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • No, User:130.88.185.84 isn't Mikula, he's made many edits to Hong Kong related articles. What I suggest though is that someone who speaks Chinese goes over to the Chinese Wikipedia and asks them there whether they have or want an article on the subject, possibly on their vfd page. Then, if it's good enough for them, keep if not bin it. Have posted a query at their embassy. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This appears to be the corporate equivalent of a vanity page. Verifiable and even written in a sufficiently neutral tone, but not necessarily encyclopedic. Lacking a policy on corporate entries, I have to compare it to other topics and note that we routinely keep topics which I consider far more trivial (such as TV characters and Pokemon strategies). Rossami 23:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Reference : Replies on this issue on zh.wikipedia.org is Here --Cylauj 15:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What's there to keep? There are hundreds of thousands of such companies in Hong Kong. The company claims to export to the US and Europe, but I doubt anyone have heard of them. Mandel 16:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Starx 02:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete yesterday. No encyclopedic relevance. And the transparent crusading by a particular individual only solidifies my position. -- Stevietheman 04:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Please explain what you mean by "transparent crusading". Is it better or worse than opaque crusading? Pcb21| Pete 10:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • You're shilling for the article. Why waste one moment of your existence trying to keep this junk article in the wikipedia? -- Stevietheman 14:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Misunderestimated

Neologism. Timc placed msg:delete, which was removed by article author. Doesn't meet criteria for speedy delete, so I'm listing it here. This term is given as an example at Bushism. Google gives 26,600 hits but it is still a neologism / Bushism. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 06:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Vote to keep as a redirect to Bushism. Not sure what info should be copied to Bushism, though. Ideas? siroxo 08:12, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm... redirect sounds good, but I don't think anything can be salvaged from the article. SWAdair | Talk 09:53, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Bushism. Chameleon 13:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Bushism. Misunderestimated is one of the canonical examples, perhaps the canonical example of a Bushism so we can allowing it to be an entry, while not allowing it for every Bushism. Dpbsmith 14:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stub linking to Bushism. Much like a redirect, only with a nice quick information filter so that any information one might be searching for on "Misunderestimated" is still presented first. Snowspinner 15:47, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • redirect or delete. not worthy of own article --Jiang 21:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. It's a particularly notable Bushism. - David Gerard 22:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Bushism. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect -- Stevietheman 04:34, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dvd to wmv9

Is there a place we can redirect this? Burgundavia 08:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, it could redirect to Ripping, but with a complete loss of the information in this advertisement article. SWAdair | Talk 10:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. All content in article is advertising. Thue 16:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; not encyclopedic. --Jeff 02:40, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nasty ad. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 22:07, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To_His_Coy_Mistress

This is utter trite nonsense. An encyclopaedic amateur summary of a canonical poem? I think not.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 10:04, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's a very famous poem, quite worth of an article of its own. What's there is an OK start, certainly not "nonsense." I like the fact that the article references allusions in other poems. The fact that other works allude to this poem is a very nice NPOV bit of evidence that this poem is notable enough to deserve an article. Yes, the article could certainly be improved. The paraphrases/translations/whatever should be buttressed by quoting the relevant parts of the poem to which they refer. I don't like the way in which, after "stripping the poem of all poetry" they then reclothe it in somethat tacky garb, i.e. the restatement is too creative. "So let's go fast for as long as we are still alive" is both evasive and clumsy, Marvell is talking about amour lovemaking coitus, not track-and-field. The references to those other poems need to be explained (what the heck is The Garden?). (BTW Archibald MacLeish wrote a poem entitled You, Andrew Marvell, another reference to the poem, which could also be included, and there are probably many more.) Might throw in some stuff about similar sentiments expressed in other famous writings, e.g Ecclesiastes and the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. and The article should document the very important fact that quoting this poem is seldom, if ever effective as a seduction strategy—at least, it never was for me.. Dpbsmith 12:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps its style could be more encyclopedic, but I thought it was quite informative. I can't judge how important this poem is in English lit. circles, but it seems to have been influential. -- Solipsist 13:32, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. You yourself say its "a canonical poem". The answer is to FIX (as in edit, add to, expand) the "amateur trite nonsense", not delete it. Thesteve 13:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Edit, but keep. The poem is a cornerstone, and there are monographs upon monographs written on it. It's pretty much the most important poem of the Interregnum that John Milton didn't write. It absolutely demands a first class article, though. Geogre 18:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) (an 18th c. Brit Lit person)
  • It's a very important poem. Perhaps someone could just edit the page, but it certainly should not be deleted. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As noted by [[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] it has been improved utterly beyond recognition and I think is no longer in danger of deletion, thanks to Geogre and several others. Dpbsmith 20:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Radiohead Messageboard

Can this not be merged into Radiohead. Burgundavia 10:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete. This has no cultural significance. Does the messageboard have any notoriety or fame? If it plays a role in the story of Radiohead it can get a mention in that article, but hardly its own one.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 10:50, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree; merge or delete. Thue 11:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok, sorry. I've mergred it with Radiohead, so it can be deleted now. :-)
    • Thanks very much. Just a note, it's considered polite to sign your posts on pages such as this. You can do it by typing 4 tildes, like this:~~~~. Yours, Meelar 18:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's just a messageboard. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nm (UNIX)

Merely the output of "man nm". --Stormie 12:39, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
OK, Keep, I like Finlay's rewrite. --Stormie 21:26, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, unless copying the manpage violates someone's copyright. Informative entry. Fredrik 13:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've replaced man page with stubby explanation of what it actually does. Stormie was quite correct, however, in listing the original, as stuff like manpages should be at wikisource (at best). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You had apparently edited it when I checked it. I agree that the original was subject for deletion. Fredrik (talk) 14:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful. Abigail 14:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Are we going to have articles on every command in every operating system? Who's going to start writing articles on roff and dir? RickK 19:29, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • They are already there! Intrigue 23:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Free game

This attempt at a dicdef for a possible regional slang term didn't make any sense when it was created and hasn't gotten any more useful as folks have tried to fix it. The current useful content is duplicated at pinball. Jgm 13:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jong Park

This looks like vanity. The article talks about his contributions to biosophy, but "Jong Park" biosophy gives few hits, mostly pages written by himself. He also have another article about himself in wikipedia under Bhak Jonghwa, an alternative transliteration of his name. The other article is also listed on vfd. Thue 15:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • We probably also want to remove the note he left on Biosophy. Biosophy looks fishy in itself too, searching for fx Biosophy "Peter Wessel Zapffe" returns almost exclusively wikipedia hits. Not listing biosophy on vfd for now. Thue 16:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all the related pages as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 16:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google shows the person exists and has written some real papers. But this page is bizarre and does not give a reason why he's notable. Andris 20:26, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

.mpfa

File extension used by Jong Park mentioned above. Searching Google for .mpfa "file format" FASTA gives few hits, mostly irrelevant. Compare with the number of relevant google hits for .fa and .pfamentioned at FASTA format. Remember to remove .mpfa from the FASTA format list if/when deleting. Thue 15:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Brook

A dictionary entry. Originally, it was POV, too ("best known use of the word in 'Stairway to Heaven'"). Stripped down to a dictionary entry, it surely doesn't need to be in the encyclopedia. Geogre 16:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I guess the only suggestion I have is wiktionary, then delete. blankfaze | •­• 17:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • As above. DJ Clayworth 17:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I have reworked the article for stream to include the definition of a brook. With this change, please see if a redirect is now appropriate. Rossami 19:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Splendid Isolation

There might be something here worth merging elsewhere, but I believe this has no article potential in its own right. -- Jmabel 17:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Well... I think this article might have some potential... might. But it's so ugly right now and so uniformative that I really wouldn't miss it if it was to be deleted. blankfaze | •­• 17:40, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an important historical approach and I think it does deserve its own article, though it needs to be Wikified and linked to other relevant articles. -- Wikisux 18:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Splendid Isolation" +Britain returns 7000 hits on google, including books and major universities. It also appears to be used in current British media (e.g. BBC[4]) as an analogy to current British foreign policy. Andris 20:38, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to cleanup, if it passes the copyvio test. It's a real phrase for a real thing - David Gerard 22:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Article needs improvement. Splendid Isolation definitely deserves one. Chameleon 11:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Krazyletter

  • Unofficial school newspaper, which competes against another unofficial paper, and an official paper. While I've advocated schools related stuff in the past, this is too much. -- user:zanimum
  • Delete. I tried for a speedy delete, but the author reverted the edit. Thanks to Zanimum for re-nominating this. - Lucky 6.9 19:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with above. Andris 20:40, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. My low faith in its value was lessened by the author spamming wikilinks to it all over unrelated articles. - David Gerard 22:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not agree. This article should be kept. If articles on a simple school newspaper can not be kept, then articles about Microsoft or Invision Power Board should be not, too. - 198.104.63.141
    • The above is, of course, by the author of the article in question, who has been spamming links to it - David Gerard 22:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Ban the author if he continually adds spam-links to the article. Mandel 16:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the article itself wasn't bad enough, the attempt to delete everybody else's votes on it makes me want it gone anyway. RickK 23:49, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • There's a big fuzzy line dividing encyclopedic from unencyclopedic, and non-noteworthy unofficial school newspapers are squarely on the side of deletion. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and move the author's quote equating it with Microsoft to BJAODN. Ambivalenthysteria 12:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I hear you, Ambivalenthysteria Chameleon 11:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Topic unencyclopedic, and article is worthless even if the topic was worthy. Now if the article described the paper even slightly, and mentioned something interesting about the paper beyond what normal papers do (there probably isn't anything though)... --ssd 13:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cybofree

9 google hits. Entry written by User:VRmanoj, which claims the term was coined by "V.R.Manoj". Maximus Rex 19:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Umm, it says it was written about in some journal, so perhaps it's worth keeping. The page needs rewriting, though. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not everything written in some journal merits Wikipedia entry. Andris 20:28, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • If anyone knows if that journal is reasonably respectable, its probably worth keeping. If its a minor journal, might want to wait for a second occurence before actually wiki-ing it. siroxo 22:32, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Vote to keep; while the term is certainly ridiculous (in my opinion), we shouldn't use that as a basis for removing the article. This article provides valid information about this term, and would be useful to people looking up 'cybofree'. Anyone else would not even know it existed, and would thus not be bothered by it in any way. --Jeff 22:47, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • This completely ignores the real argument: the article should be deleted because the term has no currency whatsoever beyond the two people who wrote a paper about it. WP does not exist for the promotion of their invention. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • It's not promotion if nobody reads it; but if people want to read it, then they should have that option open.
  • Delete. A term a couple of academics made up in hopes that other people would adopt it. Google returns 17 hits for "cybofree", every last one of them associated with the Manoj and Azariah. -- Let me explain that invention of neologisms is very common in some fields. It is a form of advertising: every time someone mentions the neologism, it reflects well on the authors. There are hundreds of academic journals, and they generate many neologisms every year, the vast majority of which do not enter common use. Until someone comes up with some evidence, we should consider "cybofree" an idiosyncratic neologism. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Promotion of personal neologism. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Rossami 15:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, for goodness sake. If I invent a word and then write about it on the Internet, it can be a Wikipedia article? Please. Delete. RickK 19:36, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Changsha (1942), Battle of Changsha (1941), Battle of Changsha (1939)

All in Simplified Chinese, all listed since April 23, 2004 at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, but no one has translated any of them. Someone did translate Battle of Changsha (1944), which we should keep. -- Jmabel 19:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete if not translated before their time is up. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Phytophagy

Could be put in Wiktionary. (User:Tothebarricades.tk added vfd notice.)

  • Have moved from adjective phytophagous to phytophagy, (please use nouns folks!) but I think this just needs cleaning up - its the kind of technical dicdef that we need. Put in Wiktionary too of course ;) Dunc Harris | Talk 20:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • probably be best to merge content with an article on phagy, which can discuss polyphagy and other types of phagy. Dunc Harris | Talk 21:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • agh! what a mess. Right first there's eating, which is essentially duplicated by nutrition which is extremely POV towards nutrition in H. sapiens, and not well written. Dunc Harris | Talk 22:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mind-Brain Society

Shawn Mikula again, in between his ego explosion he did post some useful stuff on some mind-brain stuff, been away for a while, better to work with than against. I still suggest delete though; if it's notable enough someone else will post. The following was snipped from copyright problems: (Dunc Harris | Talk 20:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC))

The author has now posted on the discussion page, and claims to have permission for this material. I have no reason to doubt that the permission is genuine. I still think the page is simply an advert, perhaps it should be changed to a VfD? --gadfium 01:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm supporting VfD. Note that this page is a Shawn Mikula vehicle; see the talk page of that article to get a link to what I mean. VfD may spawn a truly enormous discussion again (between anonymous supporters and everybody else) but I'm all for it. Martijn faassen 19:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agreed w/ Martijn, VfD is the place to list it. Probably someone should check for additional Shawn Mikula promo articles. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I see my comment is copied over already. I was actually starting this procedure myself but it looks like I don't need to do a thing. Martijn faassen 20:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Likely an advert for website. Andris 20:30, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  1. Speedy Delete. The Mind-Brain article has already been VfD'd once. --Starx 20:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, of course, for reasons given above. I'm afraid I see it as almost but not quite eligible for speedy delete, because: I can't find a separate VfD debate on Mind-Brain.com; the discussions on Shawn Mikula and Mind-Brain.com were sufficiently mixed up that reviewing Template:VfD-Shawn_Mikula it's not 100.00000% clear that there was consensus on Mind-Brain.com; and the titles and content of the two articles are very similar but not absolutely identical. Title and text are close enough for speedy delete had there really been a well-articulated consensus on Mind-Brain.com, as opposed to "throw 'em both out." Text of old Mind-Brain.com article was (reformatted for compactness, external link omitted)
Mind-Brain.com is a brainchild of Shawn Mikula which was established in 2002 to develop, implement and support a wide range of neuroinformatics tools, services, databases, and information, and to foster communication and collaboration between neuroscientists, scientists from other fields, technicians, and engineers for the purposes of facilitating and accelerating the development of neuroscience and neurotechnologies. Objectives: Core Objective: To develop neuroscience and neurotechnologies with the intent of using them as tools for the enhancement and expansion of normal healthy human consciousness. Tangential Objectives: 1) To increase public awareness of the potentials offered by neuroscience and to educate the lay public in neuroscience matters; 2) To bring together highly motivated and competent scientists and other individuals for the purpose of achieving our core objective. 3) To provide useful neuroscience services, tools, databases, and information for the facilitation of neuroscience research.
  • Personally, I think ANY article that is recognised as being the work of Mikula should be speedily deleted. I guess that's kind-of fascist, but we don't have room for his BS in the Wikipedia. blankfaze | •­• 23:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If this is a Mikula article, it needs to go swiftly due to its author's prior declaration that his content was not licensed under the GFDL. (Which, inexplicably, we agreed with, and deleted the content on copyright grounds, thus effectively validating this claim, which means we should stick with it.) Snowspinner 05:49, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
This article was actually on the copyrights page before, but it apparently (according to the creator) got permission. So we can't delete it for reasons of copyright, unless this turns out to be a lie or something. Martijn faassen 17:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The issue was that, back in the first Mikula flareup, this user posted a bunch of articles that mentioned Shawn Mikula. The articles were kept for a while, but eventually the mentions of Shawn Mikula were taken out by various editors. This user then claimed that, unless the articles kept their mention of Shawn Mikula, Wikipedia did not have permission to use his copyrighted material. The pages were all deleted at this point, as sort of a good faith "Oh, you ddn't quite understand the GFDL" thing. My view is that this action means that it is uncertain whether a given contribution by this user is GFDL or not, and that we need to err on the side of "no lawsuit". Snowspinner 04:35, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a general policy I dislike authors starting articles about themselves or their projects. If it's worth writing, someone else will eventually do it. Isomorphic 00:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for all reasons already stated, and that Mikula is a has proven bubbleheaded jackass an extreme egotism in his behavior, and this works against the very nature of the Wikipedia. -- Stevietheman 04:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons stated. This is just senseless. - Lucky 6.9 07:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Poor design

Over-the-top POV and/or non-encyclopedic. - Lucky 6.9 21:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep; real argument, against intelligent design. POV-neutralize and wikify. Fredrik (talk) 21:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: incoherent babble at the moment. The topic might work in some other context but way too wooly and undirected at the moment. --VampWillow 21:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Or merge into intelligent design. It's not a very good article but I don't see anything wrong with it. Googling on "poor design" evolution turns up thousands of hits, and quite a lot are relevant, suggesting that this phrase is really in use. The article is an adequate description and explanation of the way in which the phrase is used. The article characterizes "poor design" as an "argument," labelling it as a point of view, and notes that it "opposes intelligent design," so other points of view are acknowledged. The main reason for merging it into intelligent design would be to unify the range of points of view in a single place. And it's a legitimate argument. Opponents of evolution state—correctly, I think—that it is hard to understand how the human eye could have evolved through a process of small continuous modifications. But it is just as hard to understand how any sort of "intelligent" designer could have gotten the retina of the eye the wrong way around, with the blood vessels in front of the receptors—as if a digital camera ran wires across the camera's field of view—when the cephalopods get them the right away around, showing that getting it right is not biologically impossible. I don't want to discuss which argument is stronger. I'm saying a) based on Googling, "poor design" or "the poor design argument" is a real phrase in actual use; b) that it is a serious argument (having been made in various forms since the time of Darwin) with at least a trace of merit to it; c) that the article does not assert "poor design" as truth but identifies it as a point of view, and d) identifies and links to the opposing point of view. C and D make it acceptably NPOV, I think. Dpbsmith 22:43, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
(Ah. I see I was commenting on an improved version. The original really was within VfD territory. Thanks, Fredrik)
  • It looks great the way it's been rewritten. Keep new stub. - Lucky 6.9 22:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has the potential to become a good article and doesn't seem to merely be an invention of the article's author. (See this) Acegikmo1 02:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This one could be fun - something to bite into once the interface settles down. Denni 03:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks encyclopedic. →Raul654 03:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, what Dpbsmith said. Abigail 10:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to intelligent design. (And Dpbsmith's example is better than the current content.) Rossami 23:37, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into intelligent design and redirect. The int.des. article briefly mentions the poor design argument (though not by name), might as well fully expand it into a section and not fracture the topic unessicarily over multiple pages. --Starx 18:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, by a hair. I can see potential. -- Stevietheman 04:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The South End

Unremarkable student newspaper. Dunc Harris | Talk 22:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, but clean up POV (e.g. opinionatedly racist conservative slant, etc.). The history and development of this paper is probably relevant and interesting to thousands of people. I'd like to think Wikipedia could be the source for such information. -- Matty j 22:52, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't really care for these kind-of articles, but it seems to be a fairly well-written NPOV article about something that has a modicum of significance. Keep, I guess. blankfaze | •-• 23:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Classifying the newspaper as "unremarkable" is POV. I'd vote delete if the content was wrong - but if the only reason is "unremarkable newspaper", I vote keep. It doesn't hurt Wikipedia to have articles about subjects not everyone already knows about. Abigail 10:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - The paper is popular and established and the article contains information not easily available elsewhere. - TB 11:15, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've done a basic NPOVing of it. Plus, this is my father's alma mater and it's nice to see the article :-) BCorr|Брайен 11:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Del arte 19:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipolice

now Wikipedia:Wikipolice --Jerzy(t) 01:47, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)

Vandalism? Move to Wikipedia:Wikipolice. Delete to BJAODN? Dunc Harris | Talk 22:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

by User:Irismeister, oh golly, here we go... Dunc Harris | Talk 22:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Almost an interesting concept, but its a very subjectively written page, and has no real basis yet. It also fails to clearly state what Wikipolice are, just alludes to thier necissity and formation. Definately at least move, perhaps delete. siroxo 22:42, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • So gentlemen, I work and you just vote for deletion! Moreover, you are using gobbledygook like vandalism (an editor who initiated hundreds of enclycopedic articles is, by definition not a vandal) and oh golly. What is the purpose of Wikipedia if contributors write, and Wikipolice deletes. You see the point? This proves that the page is badly needed. So, gentlemen, just thhhinkkkk again, before you offer VfD, with a stress on thinking not on your POV :O)!
    • It sound like you would be more at home with the editorial policies at Wikinfo, so if you don't think the people here will give you the chance to write the article as you want it, why not just go there? This certainly doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything with your time. Thue 23:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • No thank you, Thue! Redirection is not a good, constructive, genuine authoring policy. Have gone through months of research only to see my criticism of Conventional Medicine dismissed in a second by an imbecile, and put beyond Wiki traffic. If Wiki has articles on tampons and fists, which do nothing to improve the Wikipedian image, Wikipolice is here to stay, for it certainly improves it - and they need their own police :O) Besides, I'd rather lose a bit to earn a lot of my time, in the "tolerance with the wolves is cruelty to the lambs" line of thought :O) - irismeister 23:36, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
        • Couldn't redirection be good? If there we a positive and a negative article for a topic then the reader would be forced to consider both and make up his own mind. Articles could still have review, and be improved, but the problem of wikipolice with a totally different worldview would not exist. Thue 23:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • siroxo thank you for constructive criticism, this is only a first proposal, not even a stub yet. So thanks for your SPEED :::::O)- irismeister 22:47, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • This is part of Irismeister's ongoing attacks on User:Theresa Knott. Speedy delete. Consumerium might want it, though - David Gerard 23:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Nope, David, don't Wikicacadevaca me :O) It's a genuine legitimate NEW article, on policing the police, you bent mind over contorted ratiocinations :O) - irismeister 23:06, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • Whatever its merits, it doesn't belong in the namespace. Move it to Meta or delete it, it's that simple. There are no alternatives. RickK 23:53, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Does 'move' work across namespaces? If so, do that promptly - David Gerard 00:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not move. Not funny, so no BJAODN. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:22, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia.org is an anarchy. We don't need police. Mob rules.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 00:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote yet. I moved it to Wikipedia:Wikipolice, on the grounds that it is not encyclopedic but may deserve more than 5 minutes consideration on meta. Even if the editor deserves sactions for vandalism, for pretending not to understand the difference between meta and articles. --Jerzy(t) 01:47, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Not sure what to do with this but it doesn't belong in namespace. Certainly not vandalism.It is POV and original research, but Irismeister does make a few good points. Personally, I'd park this at Village Pump, or create a Wikipedia:Op-Ed (oh, be honest. Wikipedia:Rant) in Meta. We need something like that anyway. Denni 03:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme predjudice. Snowspinner 05:34, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only long enough to be considered as part of Irismeister's arbitration case. Then delete. Content like this belongs on Meta, so if Irismeister wants it, he can recreate it there. --Michael Snow 05:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP-A charming article/project page on one of everybodies favorite pastime activies. -- John Gohde 09:00, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move or delete - it's 'original research' and non-neutral POV, so not qualified to be an encyclopaedia article. Average Earthman 12:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is also a proposal. As such, it has no place in an encyclopedia. Sir Paul 17:28, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep in Wikipedia namespace or move to meta. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 19:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not move - Original work proposal - Tεxτurε 20:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to personal subpage, or delete when arbitration is over. -Sean Curtin 22:17, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, although the arbitration committee may be interested in this. Maximus Rex 22:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rick K. Delete or move to meta. Interesting POV, but not inclusive in an encyclopedia as such. - Lucky 6.9 22:56, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Whatever is done with it, it doesn't belong in the article namespace. Also, does anyone else think it's inappropriate for Irismeister to be engaging in personal attacks and abuse of the article namespace after being banned once already for such behavior? I really don't understand why the Wikipedia community puts up with this sort of nonsense. Isomorphic 00:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, if Irismeister wants a page to complain about the behaviour of other editors, he can put it in his User namespace and deal with the consequences there. --Stormie 06:11, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this junk. Agreed with Stormie. -- Stevietheman 04:23, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dept of Botany, University of Guelph

Article is a stub about a department of a University. Do individual departments really derseve their own articles? Krik 23:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Not in my book. Merge with University of Guelph and delete. blankfaze | •­• 00:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The magic eight ball says "probably not". At any rate, this is a sub-stub. Delete -- Cyrius|✎ 06:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not noteworthy. I guess we can use this article as a test case / precedent for Plant Sciences at Wageningen University, Plant Biology at Cornell, and Plant Sciences at Rice University. BTW, the author of these pages has made some very good botany-related contributions, but this trend should be nipped in the... No, I won't say it.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 06:32, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, a valid topic that is imortant to many. - SimonP 12:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, because the article is useless. Entire content is "The Department of Botany at Guelph carries out research and teaching in Botany," plus a link. You don't have to go to Wikipedia to know that any big university has a department of botany, or to find out what such a department does. Anyone who wants Guelph's published Web information can find it easily via Google. Since the topic itself is not obviously encyclopedic, having a stub placeholder contributes nothing. Anyone who knows enough notable things about this department to write an article about it can just go ahead and write it at any time; it's not as if this stub gives them a useful head-start or will serve as a reminder that we really need such an article. Someone could write a bot to generate thousands of such articles. "The Department of Zoology at the University of Wisconsin carries out research and teaching in Zoology." "The Yale department of Genetics carries out research and teaching in Genetics." "The Case Western Reserve department of Economics carries out research and teaching in Economics." These statements are close to being vacuously true. Almost-vacuously-true statements are not encyclopedic. If, say, the University of Wisconsin School of Agriculture operated an ice-cream store, now that would be encyclopedic. Dpbsmith 14:54, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unremarkable academic department. Agreed w/ Dpbsmith. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Andris 17:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I also agree with Dpbsmith. Furthermore, I believe these sort of vacuous statements should be speedy delete candidates, true or not. Two cents' worth. - Lucky 6.9 22:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Academic departments at universities just don't need their own encyclopedia articles. And this one is particularly useless. Isomorphic 00:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Uh, oh. There are plenty of similar articles (departments of universities) that seem to be stemming from List of plant science research institutions. -- SWAdair | Talk 12:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Beatrice Portinari,

The main article is Beatrice Portinari, while this article has an extra comma in the name. The text of Beatrice Portinari, has been copied to Talk:Beatrice Portinari. -- Micha 23:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 2

International Community School

  • The kids of Krazyletter are back. - Lucky 6.9 00:26, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lord Bob 03:37, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a legitimate topic for which Wikipedia should have an article. Acegikmo1 03:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming it's accurate. Everyking 05:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I still don't like these pages, but I removed the unverifiable school newspaper stuff, and added some more info off the school district's page. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - hardly enthralling but it is encyclopedic. - TB 11:09, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Not exactly thrilling, but if the current consensus on Wikipedia is to keep this sort of thing (I've voted delete in the past, but I think I'm in the minority), keep this revised version. Average Earthman 12:08, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not crazy about these kinds of pages either, but the rewrite looks fabulous. Given the special curriculum, I'd like to change my vote to keep. - Lucky 6.9 22:49, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Funny, my previous edit is gone. Anyway, please don't help out these schoolkids with a rewrite. The last edit they did was this [6]. They are simply out for fun and vandalism and not serious work. Delete. Mandel 18:33, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • There were two copies of each vote - you updated one and the other has been kept. I'm going through each vote to catch any lost votes and restore them. You just beat me to yours. - Tεxτurε 19:02, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I DID NOT DO the last edit that was done by my ip, Mandell. If you use nslookup, my ip address is something.kcls.org. I use a public computer. I'm sorry if there are some people abusing this system. To show my sincerety, i will now always log in as lappy512. Thanks. Note: My ip is 198.104.63.140 or 198.104.63.141. It changes, according to www.whatismyip.com. Also, that was done on April 15th. That's a while back, and i didn't know about wikipedia then. - lappy512
  • Delete. Another ordinary school. -- Stevietheman 04:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gadfly (social)

Dictionary defininition. Move to Wiktionary. - Hephaestos|§ 00:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - there is potential for an interesting article on the term's origins, usage, and notable histroical examples of people who have been called Gadfly's - leave it as a stub, it may flourish. Mark Richards 18:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - the historical merit. - Tεxτurε 21:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - linked to from another article
  • Keep for potential. -- Stevietheman 04:56, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Karen Davis

Article contains only one fact which links to the slightly more informative article, United Poultry Concerns. Change to Redirect? - siroxo 03:03, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - she's done notable things other than found the UPC (an early animal rights activist with a number of published books). I've expanded the article into a stub. - TB 10:53, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
    • Better now. I'll say keep. blankfaze | •­• 18:00, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed, keep - siroxo 23:40, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Fossil Monotremes

This was an article I personally created some time ago because I wanted to have a directory to all articles on the fossilised forms of monotremes. It now has a redirect to the article Monotreme, whre there is a section devoted to the same subject (added by me). It now has no pages linking to it, and serves no logical purpose anymore. Seeing this, it should no longer be in the article namespace.--Ingoolemo 04:48, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)

  • Keep, it's a valid redirect. RickK 04:59, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A user might type it, or it may have been found by a search engine while it had content. In general, I think it's good to have/leave redirs unless they're hogging a name that should be a different article. Niteowlneils 23:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay. I withdraw my reccommendation. --Ingoolemo 04:28, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)

Dwele

Could well be a copyvio, and in any event looks like an ad, "Here's where to get his CDs" type of stuff. -- Jmabel 07:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Ah, it is copyvio, from [7]. I've taken the appropriate steps for copyvio material. Please note that this includes removing the VfD header from the article, as it is no longer a VfD item, but a copyvio item. SWAdair | Talk 09:48, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Stirner (NationState)

fictional country developed on a website. Maximus Rex 07:48, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Oh, no. A fictional nation in a game, Jennifer Government: NationStates, that was originally intended as an advertisement for a book. The game gets about 28,000 Google hits, but let's not create encyclopedia articles for fictional game nations. There would be no end. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is not the WWW, either. Leave Stirner to the WWW. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 08:32, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete Essentially a personal page.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 08:43, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The book and the game itself may well deserve articles, but not this. I think we need to point out the difference between Wikipedia and the WWW to the author. Average Earthman 12:14, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm amazed nobody's made a comment about micronations yet. Delete this anyway. Lord Bob 14:38, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Average Earthman. Andris 15:32, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • We've gone through this once before with another NationStates country, and it was deleted, too. There are thousands of NationStates countries, I have one, but I see no need to have an article on every single one of them. RickK 19:45, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Traveller aliens

A lot of work went into this page and it is probably based on a movie or a science fiction novel, not one I recognize. However lacking a proper introduction it is only nonsense. ping 08:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

keep but relocate under the game they're from. See GURPS Traveller.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 08:31, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
I've put a redirection to place it in context.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 09:13, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
Much better now, with a proper introduction it makes sense. Keep. ping 08:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category:Dictators

Moved to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion

Thomas William Finch

Useless vanity page. Can we speedy delete this sort of thing? -- Jmabel 08:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Aghh, I would love to see a criterion added to the list at speedy deletions, to include "obvious vanity pages," but currently this doesn't qualify for a speedy delete. Delete when the VfD clock ticks down. SWAdair | Talk 08:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Classic self-confessed vanity, by anon. Andrewa 10:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not even vain enough to call it vanity. Average Earthman 12:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the moment the clock ticks down. Admins, these really should be allowed to be elected for speedy deletion, IMO. - Lucky 6.9 19:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Knob

Dicdef -- Jmabel 08:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Dicdef, with one meaningless link to it now removed. Andrewa 10:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • not even a useful dicdef. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tilki

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Tilki Turkish (?), maybe junk. Maximus Rex 17:20, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it's Turkish, and describes some kind of dogfish. Don't know enough Turkish - nor enough marine bilogy - to judge if it has any value. - Mustafaa 19:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Tilki is fox in Turkish. This article is a somewhat funny description. It can be safely deleted. ato 01:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(end of Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation...)

  • Delete if not translated into a reasonable stub. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:48, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pferdestärke

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

(end of Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation...)

    • just a note for the curious: I think it means 'horsepower' in German.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 09:06, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, any translation would be redundant. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:45, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mike Wolfe

Advertising for election of that guy for Mayor somewhere. Heavily POV. Delete or significant rewrite -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:48, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Definitely needs a rewrite - I think the election for Mayor was in 2002. On the other hand, I think he won it, so an article is warranted. Average Earthman 12:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Stripped out some of the POV. It's a close one, but keep since he is actually Mayor. DJ Clayworth 12:55, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Electrodermal screening

Advertising, possibly copyvio from [9] or [10]. Delete. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:52, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: It looks like someone pasted in his company's promotional brochure. Seems like waiting room reading material. Geogre 00:32, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep: I pasted it.. it is not advertising material, but a useful discussion on what electrodermal screening really is.. I am happy to delete any ref to websites (done).. I have been doing this work for 13 years and yes, I use an instrument which is made by the person who wrote this article, however he does not actually even talk about his instrument and the information can be related to many of the computerised electrodermal instruments that are in use today. Shazar Robinson

  • Delete as copyright violation. There's other reasons to delete this, but that's enough. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Erwin

merge into User Friendly and redirect This page contains too little information to be considered an article individually. It would perform better as an addition to User Friendly, of which Erwin is a charactor of. --Kd7nyq 13:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. User Friendly still has lots of room. The characters can always be split out later if there is need. By the way, just do it. VfD listing was not necessary since you are not proposing anything for deletion and no history will be lost. Rossami 15:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Appear to be already merged. Przepla 15:31, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dust puppy

merge into User Friendly and redirect This page contains too little information to be considered an article individually. It would perform better as an addition to User Friendly, of which Dust puppy is a charactor of.--Kd7nyq 13:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. See comment on Erwin above. Rossami 15:12, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Appear to be already merged. Przepla 15:31, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ideological assumption

A stalking horse for a fundamentalist (?) attack on "'science'". The concept is identical to "premise" or "warrant" in rhetoric. If the article is stripped of its examples (which are all Darwin and geology), there is nothing left but a lexical term that needs no definition. Is there a famous thinker who came up with this term? Is it essential for understanding the life and social sciences? Is it different from a premise? I don't think it can be rewritten successfully. Oops, meant to sign. Geogre 14:22, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 16:01, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. An explosive cocktail of straw men, dishonest innuendos, and plain falsehoods. Completely unencyclopaedic. Sir Paul 17:04, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV rant. Also look at The Logic of Scientific Discovery, by the same contributor. Andris 17:31, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • This is POV and contains a lot of contentious stuff, but when was that a criterion for deletion? I believe there is room for an article on ideological assumptions underlying various disciplines. Keep and see if it improves. DJ Clayworth 17:42, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agreed that it is POV and contentious, and should certainly be tagged as controversial. I'd like to see citations rather than assertions, indicating who among published authors considers each of these assumptions "ideological", but the topic is not inherently unencyclopedic. -- Jmabel 19:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A personal essay. Not academically competent, pretty useless.
    • The above unsigned vote was by HamYoyo at 19:26, Jun 2, 2004. See [11]. Andris 20:00, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry 'bout that.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 16:23, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV rant. RickK 19:51, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV. Also delete The Logic of Scientific Discovery by same. -Sean Curtin 22:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV rant that attempts to attach a specific meaning to the phrase "ideological assumption". Other than this article and its clones (first 8 google hits), the phrase is used only in the obvious context of "an assumption which someone believes is based on ideology". None of the examples I found matched the bullets in this article. Rossami 23:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for good reasons noted by others. Dpbsmith 01:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Unsalvageable. Delete this rant. Chameleon 11:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto and etcetera. Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The article as it stands is highly slanted to one particular POV. If we cannot have an article explaining both points of view, then it should be deleted. Average Earthman 16:40, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Overintellectualized silliness, but if there's any good here, it proves the irrationality and bigotry of fundamentalist theists. Delete. -- Stevietheman 05:14, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unredeemable rant. A general article on "ideological assumption" is useless anyway -- what can you put there except "An ideological assumption is an assumption about ideology"? Any specific assumptions show up in specific articles (science, history, etc etc). Wile E. Heresiarch 05:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Scalex

Looks like vanity. Searching google for Scalex "Miroslav Hlavicka" doesn't really turn up much, indicating he is not notable. Thue 16:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to agree. blankfaze | •­• 18:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree. Andris 19:55, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even signed recording artists aren't automatically notable, and this guy doesn't have that going for him. 151.196.174.56 00:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this advert. Chameleon 11:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely unknown in the Czech Rep., probably a graphoman. 194.213.60.18 11:32, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ugol's law

An aphorism of very limited significance. Not found on Google. One link back. Perhaps the Jargon File might need it, but a general encyclopedia reader? Geogre 16:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I get 900 hits on Google. Fredrik (talk) 16:52, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • My mistake, then (although I got 187, some from Wikipedia). I'll remove the vfd, but still wonder about the "Can we find the original" comment in the article body. Shouldn't that be in the Comments? Will clean, if no one minds.

Blog.com

Shameless self promotion for an brand-new unestablished site. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:53, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Ick. Smells like an ad; quacks like an ad. Delete like an ad. - Lucky 6.9 22:22, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look notable, so it's probably not worth trying to salvage. Just delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-confessed advert. The same newbie also added a link from Weblog, so if this goes so should the link. Andrewa 10:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this advert. Chameleon 11:17, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know, how easy could it have been to get the address blog.com? That they got it suggests to me some notability, but no vote for now, I suppose. Everyking 19:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Desenrascanço

I'm a native portuguese speaker and this page is full of tripe. Please delete this junk, it's embarassing. See it's talk section. cbraga 18:15, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - Either it needs to be fleshed out including all controversies or it needs to change to discuss why it sparks so much contention. It is a valid article in that it is causing so much discussion. The content may require changes but it becomes more valid as an article as the article is spread from person to person across email and web sites. - Tεxτurε 18:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Judging by the talk page, Cbraga is in the minority among the native Portuguese speakers who have commented. It might be interesting to sort out whether this word is in common use in some geographic areas, while nearly or totally unknown in others. Obviously a valid topic, even if specific content is in dispute. This might get more appropriate attention if translated, placed in Portuguese Wikipedia, and fought over there as well. -- Jmabel 18:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Sad thing is, the "majority" is probably a single person and you're being sadly trolled. Oh well, what do I care anyway? cbraga 21:17, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - the same in here, i'm a native Portuguese speaker and i'm not ashamed of Portuguese culture. It is spreeding a lot, because it was never commented in English (for a wider audience), only in Portuguese. But because the wiki is an open encyclopedia, some guy edited it, and I agree with the concept. I learn it in college and my brothers went to the army and there they learned that concept and word as well. Cbraga would do better if he created articles about Portugal than trying to delete valide ones. The talk is what it is, because it is somewhat a funny subject. It is true that Portugal evolved largely, but that has nothing to do with development, so it is a pretty common used word and concept. And it is in VfD for the 2nd time and earlier it was pretty POV. It is known in the area of Cbraga he must be from Braga and I live 25 km from there, and it extensevely used word in here. -Pedro 19:00, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This article has had an unhappy history. From the previous VfD debate I have a vague recollection that our very long-term portuguese contributor on en, Muriel Gottrop, said there was reason to keep it. Perhaps we could get her opinion again? Pcb21| Pete 21:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • As before, I vote to delete from the English Wikipedia because, regardless of content, no one has presented evidence that this word is used in English discourse. Rossami 22:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Thats the difference between an encycopaedia and a dictionary. Muriel G
  • Keep. It's an interesting article, and I frequently read books in which foreign words or concepts appear and want to know about them. I haven't run across this one, before, but I love the concept and I don't know any English word for it and we need some sort of word for it... so I may just start using it myself. I think I'll start calling myself a software um, desenrascançiste? Few would admit it but 90% of real-world software "engineering" is desenrascanço. Perhaps "gumption" is the closest equivalent in English? Dpbsmith 23:14, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • English usage is crisis management (formal) or "fire-fighting" (informal business use). Rossami
    • Crisis manageement in Portuguese is "gestão de risco" or "gestão de crise" which is not desenrascanzo, but it has some similarities, but desenrascanzo is a bit different. -Pedro 10:59, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keeplete! I really dont know. In a way its a part of Portuguese culture, wxhich i agree with Pedro its encyclopaediac. In another is written as a private joke and is a very difficult topic, because its an abstraction like saudade. As for the possible translations suggested above i dont agree with any. In fact: i speak fluent english for 20 - i learned it very early :) - years and i never-ever found any word that even vaguely reproduces the desenrascanço concept. Keep for now. Muriel G 10:10, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the english used in the article needs some polish, and the article should perhaps be moved into a more generic section about portuguese culture. Apart from that it's ok, since it describes a genuine phenomenon, at least according a the subjective view of many portuguese. rnbc 10:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it, but edit it. The article seems incomplete. djps 18:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I found it interesting and informative, and am grown-up enough to realize that it describes a national stereotype (or self-stereotype?) that needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps it's time for an article on Yankee ingenuity? Smerdis of Tlön 04:14, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

. Keep it, but maybe the photo is too much Nbarr

Logical behaviorism

Delete or completely rewrite. As it is, it's just a rant, and a pretentious rant at that. -- Jmabel 19:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

delete. Funny. Funny but wrong. Just wrong.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 19:30, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
delete if not improved in 5 days. google search indicates that the term is real but this article is nonsense. Andris 19:54, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ugly. RickK 19:56, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not that funny. Looks like someone trying to bootstrap-invent a word - Tεxτurε 22:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unremarkable nonsense. Andrewa 10:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this nonsense. Chameleon 11:03, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete rant. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the exclamated (word?) nonsense! :) -- Stevietheman 05:19, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)!

MG 131 machine gun

This is just a misplaced article, listing it here for procedure. Please go easy on the author, since this looks like a genuine contribution. Thue 20:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • The MG 131 is not mentioned in the text at all. Delete. Would give the autor some guidance, but it is an anon with 1 edit, so I am not sure if he's ever gonna return. -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and if this anon comes back, could someone please teach him about sentences? -- Cyrius|✎ 20:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Plastic Assassins

One Google hit referring back to a Wikipedia article on "anti-folk" music. No further description. - Lucky 6.9 20:35, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Looks like self-promotional vanity. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and de-link from anti-folk. Someone knowledgable about music should probably see if some of the other anti-folk names should be de-linked and/or removed. Niteowlneils 22:30, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree w. Niteowlneils. Delete and de-link from anti-folk. -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • havnt heard of plastic assassins but uncle tupelo and son volt certainly dont belong. if plastic assassins are an anti folk band why not be here? anti folk aint a social club. prewar kicks ass!65.65.70.178 17:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ray of Frost

Wikipedia is not a D&D strategy guide. Thue 20:47, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral - Wikipedia is not paper. I'd rather see it moved to Dungeon & Dragon Spells or some such generic title where a larger collection could be gathered. - Tεxτurε 21:04, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • That would seem fair. But individual articles for spells is overdoing it. Thue 21:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to cantrip. -Sean Curtin 22:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I was looking for delete, but there's actually a decent article in here. Keep or merge with a List of D&D spells (and don't omit the description and uses). Do NOT redirect to cantrip--that would be like redirecting George W. Bush to President of the United States. Meelar 04:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wiki is not paper. Putting in on a list of AD&D spells might work for now, but that list is huge, and a page having a paragraph the size of this article for each spell would be unusable. AD&D spells could be a category. If we have a page for every Pokemon invented, and every town in the USA, no matter how small, I don't see a problem with pages about AD&D spells. Preferably good, interesting articles. I wouldn't give it high priority, but if someone invests the time to write one, why punish it by deleting it? What does Wikipedia gain by deleting it? Abigail 12:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Move content to a list of Dungeon & Dragon Spells in order to make it more obvious to other author/editors that we do not now have very many listed (and that we want them at least as much as all the Pokemon articles). We can always break that list apart later when it becomes unmanagably large. Rossami 14:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Agreed, move to a spell list as suggested previously. When too many short articles are separated, it does become more difficult for the user to navigate through the information sought. Perhaps when the list of spells becomes unwieldly, break it into sectoins based on level or school. - siroxo 15:57, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is not objective. End of story.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 14:18, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • True, that last sentence could use some revision, but it really made the article, at least for me. That's the kind of information I might expect to find in an encyclopedia. I've reworked it. Meelar 15:06, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:33, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
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


4th - 3rd - 2nd - 1st - 31st - 30th - 29th - 28th - 27th - 26th - 25th - 24th - 23rd - 22nd - 21st - 20th


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.

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


4th - 3rd - 2nd - 1st - 31st - 30th - 29th - 28th - 27th - 26th - 25th - 24th - 23rd - 22nd - 21st - 20th


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 27

Note: The entries for May 27 were inadvertently deleted, and remained so for almost 24 hours. As such, they should remain listed for an extra day and be delisted at the same time as the entries for May 28. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They are getting an extra day by not being moved to /Old today. However, some editors may be monitoring it only every 5 days -- in fact, that practice was urged, on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, in the past week, to users who find the loading time of the page onerous. 20% of such editors missed it due to its 1-day absence, and won't see it for another few days.
Therefore i urge that
  1. A copy of this discussion should be kept here even after the entries are moved to /Old.
  2. Another copy of it should move to /Old with the entries.
  3. Those who consider which entries are Dels and which Keeps should not make final decisions on 27th entries where the decision could be changed by a vote or two more, for about 5 days: i.e., hold open the vote on which it could make the difference, until the every-5-days people have had a fair chance to catch up. --Jerzy(t) 00:28, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)

May 30

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]
The MediaWiki upgrade page was at 140K and skyrocketing earlier today. It was the edit conflict blues all over. Something needs to take some of that load. Denni 05:43, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If Angela and Litefantastic see it as worthy of use, so too do I. 24.65.177.33 19:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless and obviously useful to some, see the edit history. We do need some more pages similar to the Pump to relieve some of its load, maybe this will do that, maybe not. Some links to other pages, and perhaps some warnings that this is a new and perhaps less often visited page than the Village Pump etc, right up top of it would be good IMO. But that's no reason to delete it. Just fix it if you think it's important. Andrewa 21:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Don't take the fact I've edited it to be a vote in support. I don't really mind either way. Angela. 06:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (but you all knew I'd say that). I think the GC page could be quite useful, if given enough attention. And, as it's been pointed out, it could take some strain off the Pump. -Litefantastic 11:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Seems like an extraneous page - Tεxτurε 17:06, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. At least until all the objections on that page are resolved. They are actually being resolved (and deleted from the page), unlike m:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion or MediaWiki 1.3 comments and bug reports which is a good record, but doesn't remove fixed stuff, and has quite a few duplicates all mixed up. This page seems like a good list of critical stuff. --ssd 12:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Has no value. →Raul654 21:40, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

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)


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]

David Frenk

Looks like vanity, few google results Kieff 10:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

-OK, delete it if you will. I thought it was fair game - David Frenk is a bit of a local hero here. Playing with Trieste and Holiday In Hawaii he's supported Radiohead twice, Carrina Round, Chesney Hawkes three times (OK, maybe that's not so impressive), China Drum, SMO and a whole pile of other really famous guys. He's done session gigs with some very big artists too, and although Insomnia Wunny is a bit of an in-joke (it ran in a local paper for a few weeks) the rest is legit. I'll post links to the books as soon as I have time. I really respect Wikipedia, and I wouldn't want to annoy any of the guys who are doing such a great job here. I didn't realise that this was only for 'real' superstars, like Keith Chegwin. User:No_logo 23:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A Google search for "David Frenk" [12] comes up with 12 entries 2 of which are about the person in question. In considering whether to keep musicians I use criteria such as charting albums or singles, famous members, critically recognised albums or singles (Grammies, Brit Awards, Juno Awards, ARIA Awards etc), verifiable work with notable artists and general buzz (Google, Google News hits). This person doesnt score anything against this criteria.Seaeagle04
  • Hi, David Frenk is a legend, he's guna be huge so whatever you computer geeks think about him you'll regret not letting wikipedia (a so called wicked encyclopedia I presume) not listing him early on. Imagine being the first encyclopedia to list Jimmi Hendrix? David Brent 10:44, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - before I start the Texture vanity band - Tεxτurε 17:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Sounds like fun! Let me know if you have a horn section. Oh, and I'm "guna" vote delete on the next "Jimmi Hendrix." - Lucky 6.9 18:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Juls

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Juls

How to rehearse

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-How to rehearse

Aqua_Maria

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Aqua Maria

MENS

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-MENS

TENS

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-TENS

The_Bells

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-The Bells

Battling_companion

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Battling companion



Rhyanne

Is it really all that famous, and is it in the right place? I would have thought wiktionary would be the place for name meanings -- Graham  :) | Talk 18:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Cher (character)

Doesnt deserve its own page. Move info into Clueless page. Saopaulo1

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria

I put this on yesterday (with its old name) and it got deleted from the VfD page. It has been moved to a more appropriate place now, and I would withdraw the objection. It still has the VfD header on the article, it should go through the appropriate waiting period before deleting from VfD, however; and why WAS it deleted from VfD? RickK 21:23, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I promise, I don't know why, but I'm going to look in the history and try to figure it out.--Ingoolemo 06:20, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
Okay. I checked out the history, and the only thing that I can find between when I added my comment to the original VfD request was a change made by PlatinumX. My scan of the article seems to suggest that the changes made by PlatinumX may have included deleting the article (and their edit summary also points to this. However, since my skills at analysing such things are quite deficient, and my 'investigation' incriminates PlatinumX, I think someone more experienced should go in and investigate further.--Ingoolemo 06:31, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
I have gone to some effor to repair the main things RickK objects to.--Ingoolemo 20:15, 2004 May 31 (UTC)


Template:Table Sort Algorithms

  • No longer needed due to category system. I originally speedy-deleted it, but apparently some people don't like the category system as a replacement for these, so I'm putting this up here for discussion and vote. — Timwi 23:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I'm the some people). The table provides useful information that the category system doesn't. I'd like to see all MediaWiki hacks replaced with semantically proper alternatives eventually, but I oppose removing useful content until the category implementation is able to actually provide equal or superior presentation. Fredrik 01:36, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the grouping is sensible, I'd keep the list somewhere in article namespace, e.g. as List of sort algorithms. -- User:Docu
  • Go with Docu's suggestion and then delete. --Jiang 20:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I just noticed there's a table at Talk:Sort algorithm. This should be in sort algorithm, and would solve the issue completely. Fredrik 22:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (see my comment below for List of programming languages) Dysprosia 02:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete once categories are created, references to it are deleted from all the articles, and something is done about moving the table back into the article. --ssd 01:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Judy Star

Porn actress, fails to explain why she is notable apart from HIV scare. Suspicious of motive. Dunc Harris | Talk 23:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we don't want articles for lots of porn stars, we need to do a lot of de-linkage at List of heterosexual erotic actresses (and any similar articles). I'd lean towards delete, but the list appears to have been around for over a month with no complaints. Niteowlneils 23:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't want articles for lots of porn stars - Why wouldn't we? Why is that different to lots of articles on musicians, or baseball players, or TV presenters? Andy Mabbett 11:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pokémon Junior

The only record of Pokémon Junior being a TV series is at the always unreliable fuzzy.com. However, it is a series of books... Delete kelvSYC 17:56, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Created by the same person who created the fictional Hollywood Jam. Not listed on IMDB. Delete. RickK

  • Delete and ban user for repeated nonsense postings and lying about TV Tome entries existing. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. Misinformation like this is far worse than vandalism. - Lucky 6.9 22:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

May 31

Tan-Hauser Gate

Article gives no clue why they are notable. Doesn't exist on allmusic.com. A google search on the name of the band+head singer gives 1 hit. Thue 00:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

OnLine Gamers Anonymous

Blatent advertisement. PlatinumX 04:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

David Elms

A critique of a high school teacher. Maximus Rex 05:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Keith C. McCormic

Vanity -- Jmabel 06:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vanity indeed. Delete - TB 10:04, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
  • Yep, vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity. The statement that "McCormic likes to brag about his boring life" may be factual, but it is not encyclopedic. Dpbsmith 23:18, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Starx 02:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interdependence

Dicdef -- Jmabel 06:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC) Same anon contributor as Keith C. McCormic -- Jmabel 06:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've expanded it into a (imho) reasonable stub. -- John Abbe 31 May 2004
  • The new stub has potential. Keep - TB 10:05, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
  • Ugh... grudgingly keep. --Starx 01:48, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Munitions

Dicdef, and not even a good one. -- Jmabel 06:33, 31 May 2004 (UTC) Same anon contributor as Keith C. McCormic (User:24.218.52.116). Looks like there are yet more, but I don't have the patience to keep looking. They may not all be bad, but probably most are. -- Jmabel 06:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Army-navy stores

Dicdef. Maybe a topic worth an article; is there any reason to keep this as a stub? -- Jmabel 06:37, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (I think). I can imagine there being e.g. historical information about the origin/spread of the stores that could go here. Markalexander100 06:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep. I've made it into a slightly better stub, and this is an encyclopedic topic. Meelar 06:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the new stub. Keep - TB 10:04, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
  • Keep - dtto The Land 20:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't much like the new stub, sorry, Meelar but it's a start on potentially a good topic. I remember when Army-Navy stores really did carry war surplus. I have no idea what happens to "war surplus" these days, but it doesn't get into the Army-Navy stores any more. Or Edmund Scientific (ah, I remember the great days when it had only just changed its name from Edmund Salvage, and you could buy chipped lenses from them in coin envelopes...) Dpbsmith 00:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Hey, I wasn't shooting for a medal--I've visited one army surplus store once in my life (about 10 years ago), and have never heard anything more of the concept. No offense taken. Meelar 05:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yellow pages search indicates at least 30 companies called 'Army and Navy store' in the UK.
  • keep Exploding Boy 09:01, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Egalocracy, Egalocratic

Two more in what appear to be a series of tributes by one Keith C. McCormic to his own ego. -- Jmabel 06:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

delete: egalocracy is not a word. It is not even a plausible word. If such a political neologism were to be derived from the relevant stem, it would be 'egalitocracy', not 'egalocracy', and would not mean "equal power", as the article claims, but 'rule by those who are equal', which is something very, very different. There are strict conventions for this sort of coinage. "Equal power" is already described by the word "equipotence". User:No_logo11:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personal neologism. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedily deleted Egalocratic, since it basically just said it was the adjective form of "Egalocracy." Delete Egalocracy. Guanaco 21:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, original research, vanity. Egalocracy is not in AHD4. Does get a couple of Google hits, both to a forum by that name on LiveJournal; forum currently has four members. Dpbsmith 00:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The appropriate term is egalitarian democracy, which has some 900 variously sourced Google hits. A quick (and therefore possibly inaccurate) read of several of these hits leads me to suspect (especially since the term is used to describe this political entity more than once) that this is another label for totalitarian democracy. Denni 06:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a valid term. --Starx 01:49, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Max Berg

This material might be relevant to salvage somewhere, but has no apparent connection to its title here. -- Jmabel 07:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

He's was a German architect [13]. Seemingly worthy, but need of cleanup. Entry in German Wikipedia doesn't exist though. 08:45, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Have cleaned up and written good stub User:Jiang has removed vfd notice. (page history) Dunc Harris | Talk 09:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Nephew

Dicdef, Any place to redirect to? siroxo 09:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yeah! Cartoons & Comics

Appears to be fictional (and talks about future events in the past tense). By same user as Hollywood Jam. Probably everything they have contributed or will contribute is nonsense. Morwen 12:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Confusing one, The Fairly Oddparents (Legit via IMDB) contains a reference to it, the reference was added by 64.165.10.131 who appears to have also edited Oh Yeah! Cartoons & Comics Tracking this guy, and some of the other guys histories, they really seem to be screwing around a lot. I'm betting this one should be deleted since google really doesn't return any legit results. siroxo 13:13, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ban user for persistently posting nonsense after being warned. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually fairly legit; I know that this was a show on Nick; as a bit of a platform for short cartoons by unknown artists. The show presented itself as being something of a real-time comic book, with cartoon host characters that jumped out of the pages, and introduced the next feature (some of which were cartoons, others which were manipulated action figures). No idea if an actual quicktime feature was ever developed, although I remember hearing rumours that such a thing might happen in the future (this was a few years ago). Rhymeless 04:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Noted the weird future tense nonsense. Will try to fix/add/etc. Rhymeless 05:17, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I'd confused some portions of the show with Kablam, another Nickelodeon show, both similar and superior to Oh Yeah!. Tried to clear things up on the entry as best as possible, removed the future/book mess. Rhymeless 06:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • There is such a show on Nickelodeon. Keep but this may need a rewrite. WhisperToMe 05:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Wait a minute, there's already Oh Yeah! Cartoons. I'm thinking that's the actual name of the show. Everyking 15:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • It is. Transferred all meaningful content to the correct page. Rhymeless 18:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Vote for redirect then? siroxo 06:10, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Materiel

Another dicdef by anon User:24.218.52.116, redirect to material (material is materiel in French), or expand? Dunc Harris | Talk 09:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not happy about the redirect (which appears to have, uh, 'appeared'). "Materiel" is also consistently used in non-military dostribution companies too. The redirect now takes it to a page that (sfaict) doesn't include the term nor explain why it has been divererted there. Will undertake to create a proper entry. --VampWillow 12:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think materiel is suitable topic to have an article on. It has a much wider scope than material, so should not be redirected. -- Popsracer 05:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a good concept to illuminate when everyone not exposed to commercial goods flow thinks you're simply misspelling. (Personal axe: my father's title was "Manager of traffic, distribution, and materiel.") Okay, now I've massaged the article some. --Gary D 23:43, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Many Adventures of Tintin

As above. Morwen 12:08, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Toon Adventures: The Baby-Sitters Club

As above. Does this count as 'patent nonsense'? Morwen 12:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Solar System

This is about a concept which were created on April 16th, 2004. Google shows no hits for Flag of the Solar System, not even their home page (guess it has not been crawled yet). The text it copied from the linked page. Wikipedia is not the place to introduce new ideas, wikipedia is for things that is already established. Thue 13:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, Wik is no place for nonsense. Delete. Wyllium 14:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sympathetic, but the Long Future Research Group gets only 3 google hits, whereas by comparison The Long Now Foundation [14] gets 16,000. The flag currently has no recognition and the Long Future Research Group is not currently notable. Dpbsmith 15:19, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Silly stuff, vanity page, not 'pedia material. Delete. --VampWillow 15:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Looks copied. Delete either way. DJ Clayworth 19:29, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Long Future

As above this does not seem like an established concept. While their Long Future Research Group may deserve an article in wikipedia, the concepts they are trying to promote seems not to be well established, and it would be false to present them in wikipedia as established concepts. Like Flag of Solar System some of the text on the page is a cut'n'paste from their web page. Thue 14:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Not an established concept. As noted before, Long Future Research Group gets only four Google hits, they are not yet notable enough to be encyclopedic either. Dpbsmith 18:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The creator has blanket the page and removed all the references he had inserted in other articles. Thue 23:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I the first to note that entries on these pages go missing? This is the third time I've left this same comment. In any case, this is a vote to delete. It's been thrity years since humanity last set foot on the moon, and it'll be at least thirty before we get to Mars. Maybe then we can consider a flag for the Solar System. In the meantime, there is already a damn fine flag for Mars. Denni 23:31, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lynsey De Paul and Mike Moran

Content moved to separate pages on each individual instead of this joint page. All links to page changed to new locations as appropriate. --VampWillow 14:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Two Eighty (web comic)

Text of article is "Two Eighty is the new webcomic created by Josh Phillips who worked at Avalon, another webcomic" and an external link. No evidence that it's significant or has any story to write up. Advertisment.

  • Delete - TB 15:02, 2004 May 31 (UTC) - the current redirect to the artist and brief mention on his article works well for me. TB 11:59, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • The proposed web comics guidelines include an exception for new comics by established web comic authors (and Phillips's Avalon was quite popular before he developed a pathological inability to update). On the other hand, it only has three comics up, which isn't enough of a material to base an article on. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A little short as-is, but has potential, and disk space is cheap. In fact, I'm going to edit the article right now. -- Wikisux 18:54, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It doesn't seem to be worth keeping right now, but should we perhaps have an article on Josh Phillips and move the content there? And perhaps redirect? Andrewa 19:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. I'll take care of it, if that's all right. -- Wikisux 19:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Weak, son, weak! blankfaze | •­• 00:47, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy Tseng

Where to begin? He is widely regarded as the most important mathematicians of the 21st century, but "Jimmy Tseng" mathematician gets 4 hits. The article is written by himself, and referred from his user page User:Drjt87. A leader in Neurological research, but "Jimmy Tseng" Neurology gets 1 google hit. Thue 17:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the reasons you've stated. Vanity, non-notable. I believe it is possible to say, with a fully neutral point of view, that as of 2004 he is not widely regarded as the most important mathematician of the 21st century. I wonder whether he and Shawn Mikula have ever met? Dpbsmith 18:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Joke, vanity or possibly both. Andrewa 18:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete his other vanity page Quadranomial expansion as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, page does not look credible and google does not find any evidence. Andris 22:58, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite the claims of the article, other similar claims found by Google suggest that the kid is in reality about 17, and therefore won't even have got to Melbourne, let alone his other claims. This is a vain attempt to write their history in advance. Average Earthman 10:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I am really at University of Melbourne, (I do not try to bring a bad reputation to the Univeristy though) this page was a crude attempt at a joke, and possibly a desire for Harvard University in the future... The quadrinomial expansion article (see below) however, is true to my knowledge. By the way, University of Melbourne does not have a medicine/law course. The only University in Australia to have that course in Monash University. Jimmy Tseng

Quadranomial expansion

This is an odd one which certainly needs discussion, but I think it should be deleted. It should definitely be moved to quadrinomial expansion (that being the correct spelling). What's odd is I think the article is perfectly correct and reasonably clear, but I don't think it says anything encyclopedic. In the words of the article itself: "Quadranomial expansion is very rarely used, to the extent it is nearly rendered useless." The phrase may itself be a neologism; both "quadranomial expansion" and "quadrinomial expansion" get zero Google hits (and, yes, it was Google that clued me in on the spelling). I think the article should be deleted unless it can be expanded to show some useful application of this piece of algebra. (But what do I know? I don't even understand quaternions). Dpbsmith 18:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Uncertain. Original research, possibly by Jimmy Tseng, whose article by the same newbie is also up for deletion. Very interesting thought, though. Be good to transwiki it but I don't know where. Or maybe redirect to Trinomial expansion, also by the same author, which has some similar thoughts? (Quaternions are brilliant, Hamilton inadvertantly invented both cross and dot products when he suddenly had the courage to abandon the commutative law, and deserves far more credit than he generally gets. His discoveries were unfairly tainted when Tait and others championed quaternion notation against vector notation, rather chauvinistically IMO.) Andrewa 19:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename, assuming it's factually accurate, and it seems to be. If someone went to the trouble to write it up, why bother deleting? I would also add links back to trinomial and binomial expansion (but not necessarily in the reverse direction). -- Wikisux 20:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And combine Quadrinomial and Trinomial expansion, perhaps even move the info and redirect to Binomial expansion. There is no misinformation (besides spelling) and maybe it will be useful to someone, especially if they're browsing binomial expansion and come upon these expansions. siroxo 00:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this and trinomial expansion. There is no such thing as a "quadranomial expansion" - or, perhaps, this is like having an article on Blue car. VV 02:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to multinomial formula where it is handled properly in the general case. The page reads very strangely. Dysprosia 02:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep The article on quadrinomial expansion refers to the method of expanding by the quadrinomial theorem. This is different to the method of the multinomial formula, and thus should not be solely based upon the multinomial formula. The trinomial theorem page has information on the trinomial theorem, but the quadrinomial theorem has not been published much, due to the fact that it has not been proved rigorously yet. Therefore it should not be merely a page from the multinomial formula, but a separate article on its own. Jimmy Tseng
Why should Wikipedia include an article on an unpublished and unproven theorem? Or a not-much-published not-proved-rigorously theorem? Why wouldn't such an article qualify as "original research," which we have a policy against? Dpbsmith 18:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Many theorems are not proved rigously, yet they are used often in mathematics. Such examples include multiplication, where it has not been proved that 1*1=1. For examples of unpublished theorems, try look for the proof of 1+1=2. It does exist, yet it is very hard to find. By the way, this is not original research. Jimmy Tseng
That is a rather riddiculuous argument. 1+1 and 1*1 don't need to be prooven, they are not in of themselves theorums, they follow logically from addition and multiplication. --Starx 02:13, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ridiculous argument? 1+1 was proven by Euler if you have any slightly more advanced knowledge in mathematics! Euler as you (should) know, was the person who invented the signs for e, i and Pi. If Euler believed that it was possible to prove that 1+1=2, I don't think you can say much about that. Jimmy Tseng
  • Redirect this and trinomial to multinomial formula. There is no usefull content here. --Starx 02:13, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template:NAMm, Template:APECm

Pointless and ugly decorations. If a country is a member, just say so in the relevant section. there's no need for us to give it a ribbon. --Jiang 20:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, right, Avala's other boxes. Yes, these are even worse than the original boxes. Delete. Snowspinner 20:56, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually i think they are pretty ribbons. But if we put one for every association a country belongs, the articles are going to start looking like Idi-Amin's general coat. So delete. Muriel G 15:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Template:PeaceLaureates, Template:EUc, Template:NATOm too. --Jiang

Car Crashing Channel

Doesn't appear to be a notable website. Tom- 20:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Tuna

No idea what this is about. Doesn't look notable to me. Tom- 20:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Magic Begins

Template:List of programming languages

  • Again, no longer needed because replaced with categorisation system. — Timwi 22:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fredrik 22:22, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Delete, redundant (and cluttering). -- Cyrius|✎ 22:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but there are quite a lot of pages still linking to this that will need to be dealt with first. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 23:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Message boxes are not redundant because of categories, but are a way of navigating to other programming languages within the document. The user should perhaps not become reliant on categories to navigate to related topics Dysprosia 02:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • This is the fundametal issue. Some users want "all link to all" model as provided by the msg boxes. Other users want a "hub and spoke" model provided by categories. Others (including me) don't mind too much which, but would loathe the obvious compromise which would mean having both. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I know this is not the right place, but this is one case wherte I'd like to see a tree diagram. (Another is human languages). Many of them (were) developed from previous ones. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you don't want to use categories, wouldn't it be much simpler to say "see also: list of programming languages? -Sean Curtin 18:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete once everything is entered into the categories and the references removed from the pages. It's just a list of stuff. Categories are better. I like the idea of adding a tree to replace it, though. It's been done before, I might have notes on it. --ssd 01:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like both forms of navigation. -- Stevietheman 03:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • (No vote.) It seems this is a case where we need a Wikipedia-wide convention decided. VV 04:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Murder Contest

All three speedily deleted. Guanaco 01:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A.'.A.'.

More Hollywood Jam nonsense, but is this real? Dunc Harris | Talk 23:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • May or may not be for real, but it is historical; it's one of Uncle Al's magickal clubhouses. Keep. Smerdis of Tlön 03:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) - PS. There's also a minimal stub at Argentinum Astrum, and one of the other should be merged. This one is actually better. Argenteum Astrum is the spelling used at least in the index of Crowley's autobiography, and strikes me as the best Latin. All three spellings are "out there," with argenteum probably commonest, and the A.'.A.'. with the three dots in a pyramid shape, or an ASCII art approximation, is actually the most common of them all. Smerdis of Tlön 03:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a historical society. Do not delete. Nixdorf 10:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There really was such an organization. MK 07:29, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The_Book_of_Lies

Now It's seven one-and-a-half liners, and no ad. (I hates Wikispam, I hates it, I does!) Probably should still be deleted. Dpbsmith 00:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Looks like just a poorly constructed disambiguation page to me. Leaning toward keep. blankfaze | •­• 00:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agree with above, also, the book of lies is well known - a classic. If there's an article for britney spears there should definitely be an article on something more intellectual such as the book of lies. Leaning towards keep, but reluctant to vote as I'm not particlarly versed on the topic. Kevin Baas 01:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, The Book of Lies is legit, according to google, An article about Aleister Crowley's version should probably be created and expanded by someone with more expertise. The disambiguation page seems reasonable, since it is a common title. siroxo 01:40, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. At least half of these are legitimate works which would be eminently deserving of articles themselves, and I have no reason to believe the others aren't. - David Gerard 22:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeago 03:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) Agree that this book is pertinent. Perhaps 'stub' it?

Bhak Jonghwa

Only 51 Google results, most of which seem to be Wikipedia copies or things posted by this person elsewhere. Eurleif 03:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I can't anything on google indicating he is notable. Delete. Thue 14:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Jong Park is about the same person. This one doesn't look notable either. Thue 14:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • .mpfa is a format that is used in his lab, also doesn't seem notable. I will just list Jong Park and .mpfa seperatly. Thue 14:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It says UN is helpless and controlled by superpowers.
  • Delete. Not notable. Andris 01:54, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC) 01:47, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like vanity. Delete -- Cyrius|✎ 22:03, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 1

Full Nice Handbag Co

Company, not sufficiently known to be in Wikipedia. 4 google hits. Andris 06:09, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

"Not sufficiently known" is an awkward reason to not have something in Wikipedia. Most of us are probably only familiar with a tiny fraction of the topics covered. 4 google hits probably doesn't mean very much... firstly the website is very new (updated 15th May) and secondly b2b businesses specializing in physical products tend not to have much of a web presence. Keep, unless verified to be an insignificant company by some other means. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Um, I would say that 4 hits on Google "verifies it to be an insignificant company." Delete. blankfaze | •­• 14:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC
Um, did I not just explain in the very comment you are supposedly replying to why 4 Google hits is irrelevant??? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not having a significant presense in Google doesn't mean anything. I'm sure there are a huge number of significant businesses that have no Internent presense, and even then might not come up in Google. Google is not the Internet, the Internet is not the world. I would recommend keeping this article unless it in someway conflicts with Wikipedia operations. --Jeff 23:07, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This is not an ad repository and no one is going to come to an encyclopedia looking for information on a company such as this. - Lucky 6.9 18:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Who are you to judge what people will come to an encyclopedia for? What is particularly ad-dy about this entry, compared with the hundreds (probably thousands) of articles we have about companies? I think you are rejecting something because it is outside your sphere of interest and experience. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I daresay that there are a lot of articles on this site well outside my spheres of interest and experience. There are thousands of articles about companies and their products, but they are companies and products of note, notoriety, infamy, etc. If I was looking for information on a Hong Kong handbag manufacturer, I'd go to Google and find a website. The burden of proof of notoriety in this case should be on the author.
        • It is a leading manufacturer of handbags in Hong Kong (and if you've been shopping in HK, you know they sell a lot of handbags). That is sufficient proof of notoriety. Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I should also mention that many similar articles have been deleted in the past. Let's be honest: Who really would come to a site like this and enter this name? - Lucky 6.9 21:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • If the circumstances are the same as this case, then those deletions were mistaken. People may not come to Wikipedia specifically for this company, but they may come to Google, like most of our traffic. Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Although significantly leaning towards delete, might it have more Google hits in a non-English name? The name sounds like a weird translation, something that only non-English speakers would come up with. -- user:zanimum
  • Keep. Probably reasonably notable in Hong Kong; naturally Google is biased towards companies in English speaking countries. Everyking 20:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless someone can provide results from google.com.hk that this is notable, then it just looks like unnecessary self-promotion to me. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:11, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • I fail to see how this would be considered self-promotion. The article will only be found if someone is ooking for information about this company, or if another article links to it. Another article will only link to it if the conpany has any significance; if not there is nothing to worry about it. --Jeff 23:07, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • For the third time, since when is Google the final arbitrator of anything? A significant proportion of the information I add to Wikipedia comes from books, and can not be found through Google (well it couldn't, until I added it to Wikipedia and hence to Google :-). It is not immediately obvious that this is self-promotion (the IP in question has lots of HK-related edits). Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, strong keep. The article is reasonably NPOV and doesn't sound at all like an advertisement, just a sober statement of its business. I feel Google means little, because many significant companies (for example, established manufacturers in "old-economy" industries) tend not to get mentioned much online. Also, I agree with Pcb21--who are we to judge what people will come to an encyclopedia for? And finally, in any case, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. I can imagine people coming here to learn about the companies they work for, much as they might come to learn about the history of the streets they live on or schools they attended. Who are we to thwart that sort of curiosity? -- Wikisux 23:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: wikispam. Demonstration of notability is the responsibility of the author. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Will someone please prove their baseless claims that this is spam. This is a b2b textiles company. There is no reason to call this spam.
  • I can't help but start to see this article as a bit of a litmus test of how deletionist has become in the last X months. I ask those in favour of deletion, which part of the deletion policy are you wanting to kill this under? And why do you see the article's existence as detrimental to Wikipedia? Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • "List pages that you believe have no potential to become encyclopedia articles." blankfaze | •­•
      • The article is already longer than many articles in various printed encyclopedia I've seen in my day (Britannica, New York City, Encarta). -- Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • "List articles that contain no verifiable information." blankfaze | •­•
      • The information presented in this article is verifiable and true, as some cursory internet research will show. --Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete This company has no political, cultural, historical significance. This isn't a accessories catalogue. Who would use this information? It does't have the history required by a commercial company to deserve an encyclopaedia entry. Where is the potential for it to grow beyond a stub? Employee of the month lists? Product ranges? We have to remember that Wikipedia isn't an infinite space where we have space for this stuff. Ask the creator to justify the page at least (if he/she hasn't).--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:37, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • The creator of the page was an anon. They easily might not find this debate. I have thus assumed responsibility for creation by proxy for the purposes of defending it. I justify the page by saying that it has verifiable encyclopedic information, and that it doesn't meet any criteria for deletion under our deletion policy. No threshold for how politically, culturally or historically important a particular company has to be is given. The threshold is that the information has to be verifiable and factual, and that someone has to be bothered to write it. Pcb21| Pete 07:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It is an ad, people. Delete it. RickK 23:40, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • If it is not NPOV, edit it. Pcb21| Pete 07:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • What's to edit? This is nothing but advertising, and as such, does not belong on Wikipedia. Are we going to allow articles on every small company in the world, with one paragraph saying what they do and a link to page to buy their products? If so, we might as well start selling ad space. RickK 19:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
        • Firstly, I don't see the problem with allowing people to write articles about small companies, as long as they are factually accurate and NPOV (as this article is.) Secondly, RickK, based on the evidence, I would submit that this article is NOT AN AD; it appears to have been written in good faith. The anonymous user has a long history of edits related to Hong Kong and China. — Wikisux 00:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • We have literally thousands of articles on things with links to commerce. For instance we have thousands of articles on fictional characters, all of whom created for the purpose of making money. The fact that there seems to be a willingness to keep them, but perhaps not this is indicative of a systematic bias. People want this article deleted because it is about a plain old non-western manufacturing company, rather than cosy western computery domain of understanding. But for a lot of readers, this company's existence is more significant than those daft computer instruction articles, or Star Trek, Starcraft, Pokemon... Pcb21| Pete 09:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've got a few friends from Hong Kong. I'll ask them if they've heard of the company--not that it matters--but in the meantime, I'd say don't do anything rash. --Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikispam. Shawn Mikula all over again. Ambivalenthysteria 12:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • No, User:130.88.185.84 isn't Mikula, he's made many edits to Hong Kong related articles. What I suggest though is that someone who speaks Chinese goes over to the Chinese Wikipedia and asks them there whether they have or want an article on the subject, possibly on their vfd page. Then, if it's good enough for them, keep if not bin it. Have posted a query at their embassy. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This appears to be the corporate equivalent of a vanity page. Verifiable and even written in a sufficiently neutral tone, but not necessarily encyclopedic. Lacking a policy on corporate entries, I have to compare it to other topics and note that we routinely keep topics which I consider far more trivial (such as TV characters and Pokemon strategies). Rossami 23:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Reference : Replies on this issue on zh.wikipedia.org is Here --Cylauj 15:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What's there to keep? There are hundreds of thousands of such companies in Hong Kong. The company claims to export to the US and Europe, but I doubt anyone have heard of them. Mandel 16:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Starx 02:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete yesterday. No encyclopedic relevance. And the transparent crusading by a particular individual only solidifies my position. -- Stevietheman 04:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Please explain what you mean by "transparent crusading". Is it better or worse than opaque crusading? Pcb21| Pete 10:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Misunderestimated

Neologism. Timc placed msg:delete, which was removed by article author. Doesn't meet criteria for speedy delete, so I'm listing it here. This term is given as an example at Bushism. Google gives 26,600 hits but it is still a neologism / Bushism. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 06:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Vote to keep as a redirect to Bushism. Not sure what info should be copied to Bushism, though. Ideas? siroxo 08:12, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm... redirect sounds good, but I don't think anything can be salvaged from the article. SWAdair | Talk 09:53, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Bushism. Chameleon 13:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Bushism. Misunderestimated is one of the canonical examples, perhaps the canonical example of a Bushism so we can allowing it to be an entry, while not allowing it for every Bushism. Dpbsmith 14:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stub linking to Bushism. Much like a redirect, only with a nice quick information filter so that any information one might be searching for on "Misunderestimated" is still presented first. Snowspinner 15:47, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • redirect or delete. not worthy of own article --Jiang 21:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. It's a particularly notable Bushism. - David Gerard 22:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Bushism. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect -- Stevietheman 04:34, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dvd to wmv9

Is there a place we can redirect this? Burgundavia 08:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, it could redirect to Ripping, but with a complete loss of the information in this advertisement article. SWAdair | Talk 10:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. All content in article is advertising. Thue 16:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; not encyclopedic. --Jeff 02:40, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nasty ad. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 22:07, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To_His_Coy_Mistress

This is utter trite nonsense. An encyclopaedic amateur summary of a canonical poem? I think not.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 10:04, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's a very famous poem, quite worth of an article of its own. What's there is an OK start, certainly not "nonsense." I like the fact that the article references allusions in other poems. The fact that other works allude to this poem is a very nice NPOV bit of evidence that this poem is notable enough to deserve an article. Yes, the article could certainly be improved. The paraphrases/translations/whatever should be buttressed by quoting the relevant parts of the poem to which they refer. I don't like the way in which, after "stripping the poem of all poetry" they then reclothe it in somethat tacky garb, i.e. the restatement is too creative. "So let's go fast for as long as we are still alive" is both evasive and clumsy, Marvell is talking about amour lovemaking coitus, not track-and-field. The references to those other poems need to be explained (what the heck is The Garden?). (BTW Archibald MacLeish wrote a poem entitled You, Andrew Marvell, another reference to the poem, which could also be included, and there are probably many more.) Might throw in some stuff about similar sentiments expressed in other famous writings, e.g Ecclesiastes and the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. and The article should document the very important fact that quoting this poem is seldom, if ever effective as a seduction strategy—at least, it never was for me.. Dpbsmith 12:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps its style could be more encyclopedic, but I thought it was quite informative. I can't judge how important this poem is in English lit. circles, but it seems to have been influential. -- Solipsist 13:32, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. You yourself say its "a canonical poem". The answer is to FIX (as in edit, add to, expand) the "amateur trite nonsense", not delete it. Thesteve 13:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Edit, but keep. The poem is a cornerstone, and there are monographs upon monographs written on it. It's pretty much the most important poem of the Interregnum that John Milton didn't write. It absolutely demands a first class article, though. Geogre 18:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) (an 18th c. Brit Lit person)
  • It's a very important poem. Perhaps someone could just edit the page, but it certainly should not be deleted. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As noted by [[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] it has been improved utterly beyond recognition and I think is no longer in danger of deletion, thanks to Geogre and several others. Dpbsmith 20:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Radiohead Messageboard

Can this not be merged into Radiohead. Burgundavia 10:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete. This has no cultural significance. Does the messageboard have any notoriety or fame? If it plays a role in the story of Radiohead it can get a mention in that article, but hardly its own one.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 10:50, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree; merge or delete. Thue 11:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok, sorry. I've mergred it with Radiohead, so it can be deleted now. :-)
    • Thanks very much. Just a note, it's considered polite to sign your posts on pages such as this. You can do it by typing 4 tildes, like this:~~~~. Yours, Meelar 18:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's just a messageboard. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nm (UNIX)

Merely the output of "man nm". --Stormie 12:39, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
OK, Keep, I like Finlay's rewrite. --Stormie 21:26, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, unless copying the manpage violates someone's copyright. Informative entry. Fredrik 13:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've replaced man page with stubby explanation of what it actually does. Stormie was quite correct, however, in listing the original, as stuff like manpages should be at wikisource (at best). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You had apparently edited it when I checked it. I agree that the original was subject for deletion. Fredrik (talk) 14:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful. Abigail 14:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Are we going to have articles on every command in every operating system? Who's going to start writing articles on roff and dir? RickK 19:29, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • They are already there! Intrigue 23:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Free game

This attempt at a dicdef for a possible regional slang term didn't make any sense when it was created and hasn't gotten any more useful as folks have tried to fix it. The current useful content is duplicated at pinball. Jgm 13:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jong Park

This looks like vanity. The article talks about his contributions to biosophy, but "Jong Park" biosophy gives few hits, mostly pages written by himself. He also have another article about himself in wikipedia under Bhak Jonghwa, an alternative transliteration of his name. The other article is also listed on vfd. Thue 15:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • We probably also want to remove the note he left on Biosophy. Biosophy looks fishy in itself too, searching for fx Biosophy "Peter Wessel Zapffe" returns almost exclusively wikipedia hits. Not listing biosophy on vfd for now. Thue 16:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all the related pages as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 16:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google shows the person exists and has written some real papers. But this page is bizarre and does not give a reason why he's notable. Andris 20:26, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

.mpfa

File extension used by Jong Park mentioned above. Searching Google for .mpfa "file format" FASTA gives few hits, mostly irrelevant. Compare with the number of relevant google hits for .fa and .pfamentioned at FASTA format. Remember to remove .mpfa from the FASTA format list if/when deleting. Thue 15:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Brook

A dictionary entry. Originally, it was POV, too ("best known use of the word in 'Stairway to Heaven'"). Stripped down to a dictionary entry, it surely doesn't need to be in the encyclopedia. Geogre 16:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I guess the only suggestion I have is wiktionary, then delete. blankfaze | •­• 17:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • As above. DJ Clayworth 17:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I have reworked the article for stream to include the definition of a brook. With this change, please see if a redirect is now appropriate. Rossami 19:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Splendid Isolation

There might be something here worth merging elsewhere, but I believe this has no article potential in its own right. -- Jmabel 17:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Well... I think this article might have some potential... might. But it's so ugly right now and so uniformative that I really wouldn't miss it if it was to be deleted. blankfaze | •­• 17:40, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an important historical approach and I think it does deserve its own article, though it needs to be Wikified and linked to other relevant articles. -- Wikisux 18:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Splendid Isolation" +Britain returns 7000 hits on google, including books and major universities. It also appears to be used in current British media (e.g. BBC[15]) as an analogy to current British foreign policy. Andris 20:38, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to cleanup, if it passes the copyvio test. It's a real phrase for a real thing - David Gerard 22:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Article needs improvement. Splendid Isolation definitely deserves one. Chameleon 11:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Krazyletter

  • Unofficial school newspaper, which competes against another unofficial paper, and an official paper. While I've advocated schools related stuff in the past, this is too much. -- user:zanimum
  • Delete. I tried for a speedy delete, but the author reverted the edit. Thanks to Zanimum for re-nominating this. - Lucky 6.9 19:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with above. Andris 20:40, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. My low faith in its value was lessened by the author spamming wikilinks to it all over unrelated articles. - David Gerard 22:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not agree. This article should be kept. If articles on a simple school newspaper can not be kept, then articles about Microsoft or Invision Power Board should be not, too. - 198.104.63.141
    • The above is, of course, by the author of the article in question, who has been spamming links to it - David Gerard 22:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Ban the author if he continually adds spam-links to the article. Mandel 16:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the article itself wasn't bad enough, the attempt to delete everybody else's votes on it makes me want it gone anyway. RickK 23:49, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • There's a big fuzzy line dividing encyclopedic from unencyclopedic, and non-noteworthy unofficial school newspapers are squarely on the side of deletion. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and move the author's quote equating it with Microsoft to BJAODN. Ambivalenthysteria 12:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I hear you, Ambivalenthysteria Chameleon 11:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Topic unencyclopedic, and article is worthless even if the topic was worthy. Now if the article described the paper even slightly, and mentioned something interesting about the paper beyond what normal papers do (there probably isn't anything though)... --ssd 13:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cybofree

9 google hits. Entry written by User:VRmanoj, which claims the term was coined by "V.R.Manoj". Maximus Rex 19:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Umm, it says it was written about in some journal, so perhaps it's worth keeping. The page needs rewriting, though. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not everything written in some journal merits Wikipedia entry. Andris 20:28, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • If anyone knows if that journal is reasonably respectable, its probably worth keeping. If its a minor journal, might want to wait for a second occurence before actually wiki-ing it. siroxo 22:32, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Vote to keep; while the term is certainly ridiculous (in my opinion), we shouldn't use that as a basis for removing the article. This article provides valid information about this term, and would be useful to people looking up 'cybofree'. Anyone else would not even know it existed, and would thus not be bothered by it in any way. --Jeff 22:47, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • This completely ignores the real argument: the article should be deleted because the term has no currency whatsoever beyond the two people who wrote a paper about it. WP does not exist for the promotion of their invention. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • It's not promotion if nobody reads it; but if people want to read it, then they should have that option open.
  • Delete. A term a couple of academics made up in hopes that other people would adopt it. Google returns 17 hits for "cybofree", every last one of them associated with the Manoj and Azariah. -- Let me explain that invention of neologisms is very common in some fields. It is a form of advertising: every time someone mentions the neologism, it reflects well on the authors. There are hundreds of academic journals, and they generate many neologisms every year, the vast majority of which do not enter common use. Until someone comes up with some evidence, we should consider "cybofree" an idiosyncratic neologism. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Promotion of personal neologism. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Rossami 15:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, for goodness sake. If I invent a word and then write about it on the Internet, it can be a Wikipedia article? Please. Delete. RickK 19:36, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Changsha (1942), Battle of Changsha (1941), Battle of Changsha (1939)

All in Simplified Chinese, all listed since April 23, 2004 at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, but no one has translated any of them. Someone did translate Battle of Changsha (1944), which we should keep. -- Jmabel 19:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete if not translated before their time is up. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Phytophagy

Could be put in Wiktionary. (User:Tothebarricades.tk added vfd notice.)

  • Have moved from adjective phytophagous to phytophagy, (please use nouns folks!) but I think this just needs cleaning up - its the kind of technical dicdef that we need. Put in Wiktionary too of course ;) Dunc Harris | Talk 20:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • probably be best to merge content with an article on phagy, which can discuss polyphagy and other types of phagy. Dunc Harris | Talk 21:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • agh! what a mess. Right first there's eating, which is essentially duplicated by nutrition which is extremely POV towards nutrition in H. sapiens, and not well written. Dunc Harris | Talk 22:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mind-Brain Society

Shawn Mikula again, in between his ego explosion he did post some useful stuff on some mind-brain stuff, been away for a while, better to work with than against. I still suggest delete though; if it's notable enough someone else will post. The following was snipped from copyright problems: (Dunc Harris | Talk 20:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC))

The author has now posted on the discussion page, and claims to have permission for this material. I have no reason to doubt that the permission is genuine. I still think the page is simply an advert, perhaps it should be changed to a VfD? --gadfium 01:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm supporting VfD. Note that this page is a Shawn Mikula vehicle; see the talk page of that article to get a link to what I mean. VfD may spawn a truly enormous discussion again (between anonymous supporters and everybody else) but I'm all for it. Martijn faassen 19:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agreed w/ Martijn, VfD is the place to list it. Probably someone should check for additional Shawn Mikula promo articles. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I see my comment is copied over already. I was actually starting this procedure myself but it looks like I don't need to do a thing. Martijn faassen 20:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Likely an advert for website. Andris 20:30, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  1. Speedy Delete. The Mind-Brain article has already been VfD'd once. --Starx 20:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, of course, for reasons given above. I'm afraid I see it as almost but not quite eligible for speedy delete, because: I can't find a separate VfD debate on Mind-Brain.com; the discussions on Shawn Mikula and Mind-Brain.com were sufficiently mixed up that reviewing Template:VfD-Shawn_Mikula it's not 100.00000% clear that there was consensus on Mind-Brain.com; and the titles and content of the two articles are very similar but not absolutely identical. Title and text are close enough for speedy delete had there really been a well-articulated consensus on Mind-Brain.com, as opposed to "throw 'em both out." Text of old Mind-Brain.com article was (reformatted for compactness, external link omitted)
Mind-Brain.com is a brainchild of Shawn Mikula which was established in 2002 to develop, implement and support a wide range of neuroinformatics tools, services, databases, and information, and to foster communication and collaboration between neuroscientists, scientists from other fields, technicians, and engineers for the purposes of facilitating and accelerating the development of neuroscience and neurotechnologies. Objectives: Core Objective: To develop neuroscience and neurotechnologies with the intent of using them as tools for the enhancement and expansion of normal healthy human consciousness. Tangential Objectives: 1) To increase public awareness of the potentials offered by neuroscience and to educate the lay public in neuroscience matters; 2) To bring together highly motivated and competent scientists and other individuals for the purpose of achieving our core objective. 3) To provide useful neuroscience services, tools, databases, and information for the facilitation of neuroscience research.
  • Personally, I think ANY article that is recognised as being the work of Mikula should be speedily deleted. I guess that's kind-of fascist, but we don't have room for his BS in the Wikipedia. blankfaze | •­• 23:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If this is a Mikula article, it needs to go swiftly due to its author's prior declaration that his content was not licensed under the GFDL. (Which, inexplicably, we agreed with, and deleted the content on copyright grounds, thus effectively validating this claim, which means we should stick with it.) Snowspinner 05:49, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
This article was actually on the copyrights page before, but it apparently (according to the creator) got permission. So we can't delete it for reasons of copyright, unless this turns out to be a lie or something. Martijn faassen 17:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The issue was that, back in the first Mikula flareup, this user posted a bunch of articles that mentioned Shawn Mikula. The articles were kept for a while, but eventually the mentions of Shawn Mikula were taken out by various editors. This user then claimed that, unless the articles kept their mention of Shawn Mikula, Wikipedia did not have permission to use his copyrighted material. The pages were all deleted at this point, as sort of a good faith "Oh, you ddn't quite understand the GFDL" thing. My view is that this action means that it is uncertain whether a given contribution by this user is GFDL or not, and that we need to err on the side of "no lawsuit". Snowspinner 04:35, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a general policy I dislike authors starting articles about themselves or their projects. If it's worth writing, someone else will eventually do it. Isomorphic 00:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for all reasons already stated, and that Mikula is a has proven bubbleheaded jackass an extreme egotism in his behavior, and this works against the very nature of the Wikipedia. -- Stevietheman 04:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons stated. This is just senseless. - Lucky 6.9 07:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Poor design

Over-the-top POV and/or non-encyclopedic. - Lucky 6.9 21:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep; real argument, against intelligent design. POV-neutralize and wikify. Fredrik (talk) 21:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: incoherent babble at the moment. The topic might work in some other context but way too wooly and undirected at the moment. --VampWillow 21:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Or merge into intelligent design. It's not a very good article but I don't see anything wrong with it. Googling on "poor design" evolution turns up thousands of hits, and quite a lot are relevant, suggesting that this phrase is really in use. The article is an adequate description and explanation of the way in which the phrase is used. The article characterizes "poor design" as an "argument," labelling it as a point of view, and notes that it "opposes intelligent design," so other points of view are acknowledged. The main reason for merging it into intelligent design would be to unify the range of points of view in a single place. And it's a legitimate argument. Opponents of evolution state—correctly, I think—that it is hard to understand how the human eye could have evolved through a process of small continuous modifications. But it is just as hard to understand how any sort of "intelligent" designer could have gotten the retina of the eye the wrong way around, with the blood vessels in front of the receptors—as if a digital camera ran wires across the camera's field of view—when the cephalopods get them the right away around, showing that getting it right is not biologically impossible. I don't want to discuss which argument is stronger. I'm saying a) based on Googling, "poor design" or "the poor design argument" is a real phrase in actual use; b) that it is a serious argument (having been made in various forms since the time of Darwin) with at least a trace of merit to it; c) that the article does not assert "poor design" as truth but identifies it as a point of view, and d) identifies and links to the opposing point of view. C and D make it acceptably NPOV, I think. Dpbsmith 22:43, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
(Ah. I see I was commenting on an improved version. The original really was within VfD territory. Thanks, Fredrik)
  • It looks great the way it's been rewritten. Keep new stub. - Lucky 6.9 22:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has the potential to become a good article and doesn't seem to merely be an invention of the article's author. (See this) Acegikmo1 02:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This one could be fun - something to bite into once the interface settles down. Denni 03:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks encyclopedic. →Raul654 03:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, what Dpbsmith said. Abigail 10:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to intelligent design. (And Dpbsmith's example is better than the current content.) Rossami 23:37, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into intelligent design and redirect. The int.des. article briefly mentions the poor design argument (though not by name), might as well fully expand it into a section and not fracture the topic unessicarily over multiple pages. --Starx 18:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, by a hair. I can see potential. -- Stevietheman 04:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The South End

Unremarkable student newspaper. Dunc Harris | Talk 22:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, but clean up POV (e.g. opinionatedly racist conservative slant, etc.). The history and development of this paper is probably relevant and interesting to thousands of people. I'd like to think Wikipedia could be the source for such information. -- Matty j 22:52, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't really care for these kind-of articles, but it seems to be a fairly well-written NPOV article about something that has a modicum of significance. Keep, I guess. blankfaze | •-• 23:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Classifying the newspaper as "unremarkable" is POV. I'd vote delete if the content was wrong - but if the only reason is "unremarkable newspaper", I vote keep. It doesn't hurt Wikipedia to have articles about subjects not everyone already knows about. Abigail 10:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - The paper is popular and established and the article contains information not easily available elsewhere. - TB 11:15, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've done a basic NPOVing of it. Plus, this is my father's alma mater and it's nice to see the article :-) BCorr|Брайен 11:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Del arte 19:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipolice

now Wikipedia:Wikipolice --Jerzy(t) 01:47, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)

Vandalism? Move to Wikipedia:Wikipolice. Delete to BJAODN? Dunc Harris | Talk 22:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

by User:Irismeister, oh golly, here we go... Dunc Harris | Talk 22:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Almost an interesting concept, but its a very subjectively written page, and has no real basis yet. It also fails to clearly state what Wikipolice are, just alludes to thier necissity and formation. Definately at least move, perhaps delete. siroxo 22:42, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • So gentlemen, I work and you just vote for deletion! Moreover, you are using gobbledygook like vandalism (an editor who initiated hundreds of enclycopedic articles is, by definition not a vandal) and oh golly. What is the purpose of Wikipedia if contributors write, and Wikipolice deletes. You see the point? This proves that the page is badly needed. So, gentlemen, just thhhinkkkk again, before you offer VfD, with a stress on thinking not on your POV :O)!
    • It sound like you would be more at home with the editorial policies at Wikinfo, so if you don't think the people here will give you the chance to write the article as you want it, why not just go there? This certainly doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything with your time. Thue 23:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • No thank you, Thue! Redirection is not a good, constructive, genuine authoring policy. Have gone through months of research only to see my criticism of Conventional Medicine dismissed in a second by an imbecile, and put beyond Wiki traffic. If Wiki has articles on tampons and fists, which do nothing to improve the Wikipedian image, Wikipolice is here to stay, for it certainly improves it - and they need their own police :O) Besides, I'd rather lose a bit to earn a lot of my time, in the "tolerance with the wolves is cruelty to the lambs" line of thought :O) - irismeister 23:36, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
        • Couldn't redirection be good? If there we a positive and a negative article for a topic then the reader would be forced to consider both and make up his own mind. Articles could still have review, and be improved, but the problem of wikipolice with a totally different worldview would not exist. Thue 23:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • siroxo thank you for constructive criticism, this is only a first proposal, not even a stub yet. So thanks for your SPEED :::::O)- irismeister 22:47, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • This is part of Irismeister's ongoing attacks on User:Theresa Knott. Speedy delete. Consumerium might want it, though - David Gerard 23:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Nope, David, don't Wikicacadevaca me :O) It's a genuine legitimate NEW article, on policing the police, you bent mind over contorted ratiocinations :O) - irismeister 23:06, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • Whatever its merits, it doesn't belong in the namespace. Move it to Meta or delete it, it's that simple. There are no alternatives. RickK 23:53, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Does 'move' work across namespaces? If so, do that promptly - David Gerard 00:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not move. Not funny, so no BJAODN. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:22, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia.org is an anarchy. We don't need police. Mob rules.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 00:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote yet. I moved it to Wikipedia:Wikipolice, on the grounds that it is not encyclopedic but may deserve more than 5 minutes consideration on meta. Even if the editor deserves sactions for vandalism, for pretending not to understand the difference between meta and articles. --Jerzy(t) 01:47, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Not sure what to do with this but it doesn't belong in namespace. Certainly not vandalism.It is POV and original research, but Irismeister does make a few good points. Personally, I'd park this at Village Pump, or create a Wikipedia:Op-Ed (oh, be honest. Wikipedia:Rant) in Meta. We need something like that anyway. Denni 03:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme predjudice. Snowspinner 05:34, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only long enough to be considered as part of Irismeister's arbitration case. Then delete. Content like this belongs on Meta, so if Irismeister wants it, he can recreate it there. --Michael Snow 05:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP-A charming article/project page on one of everybodies favorite pastime activies. -- John Gohde 09:00, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move or delete - it's 'original research' and non-neutral POV, so not qualified to be an encyclopaedia article. Average Earthman 12:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is also a proposal. As such, it has no place in an encyclopedia. Sir Paul 17:28, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep in Wikipedia namespace or move to meta. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 19:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not move - Original work proposal - Tεxτurε 20:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to personal subpage, or delete when arbitration is over. -Sean Curtin 22:17, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, although the arbitration committee may be interested in this. Maximus Rex 22:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rick K. Delete or move to meta. Interesting POV, but not inclusive in an encyclopedia as such. - Lucky 6.9 22:56, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Whatever is done with it, it doesn't belong in the article namespace. Also, does anyone else think it's inappropriate for Irismeister to be engaging in personal attacks and abuse of the article namespace after being banned once already for such behavior? I really don't understand why the Wikipedia community puts up with this sort of nonsense. Isomorphic 00:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, if Irismeister wants a page to complain about the behaviour of other editors, he can put it in his User namespace and deal with the consequences there. --Stormie 06:11, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this junk. Agreed with Stormie. -- Stevietheman 04:23, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dept of Botany, University of Guelph

Article is a stub about a department of a University. Do individual departments really derseve their own articles? Krik 23:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Not in my book. Merge with University of Guelph and delete. blankfaze | •­• 00:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The magic eight ball says "probably not". At any rate, this is a sub-stub. Delete -- Cyrius|✎ 06:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not noteworthy. I guess we can use this article as a test case / precedent for Plant Sciences at Wageningen University, Plant Biology at Cornell, and Plant Sciences at Rice University. BTW, the author of these pages has made some very good botany-related contributions, but this trend should be nipped in the... No, I won't say it.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 06:32, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, a valid topic that is imortant to many. - SimonP 12:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, because the article is useless. Entire content is "The Department of Botany at Guelph carries out research and teaching in Botany," plus a link. You don't have to go to Wikipedia to know that any big university has a department of botany, or to find out what such a department does. Anyone who wants Guelph's published Web information can find it easily via Google. Since the topic itself is not obviously encyclopedic, having a stub placeholder contributes nothing. Anyone who knows enough notable things about this department to write an article about it can just go ahead and write it at any time; it's not as if this stub gives them a useful head-start or will serve as a reminder that we really need such an article. Someone could write a bot to generate thousands of such articles. "The Department of Zoology at the University of Wisconsin carries out research and teaching in Zoology." "The Yale department of Genetics carries out research and teaching in Genetics." "The Case Western Reserve department of Economics carries out research and teaching in Economics." These statements are close to being vacuously true. Almost-vacuously-true statements are not encyclopedic. If, say, the University of Wisconsin School of Agriculture operated an ice-cream store, now that would be encyclopedic. Dpbsmith 14:54, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unremarkable academic department. Agreed w/ Dpbsmith. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Andris 17:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I also agree with Dpbsmith. Furthermore, I believe these sort of vacuous statements should be speedy delete candidates, true or not. Two cents' worth. - Lucky 6.9 22:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Academic departments at universities just don't need their own encyclopedia articles. And this one is particularly useless. Isomorphic 00:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Uh, oh. There are plenty of similar articles (departments of universities) that seem to be stemming from List of plant science research institutions. -- SWAdair | Talk 12:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Beatrice Portinari,

The main article is Beatrice Portinari, while this article has an extra comma in the name. The text of Beatrice Portinari, has been copied to Talk:Beatrice Portinari. -- Micha 23:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 2

International Community School

  • The kids of Krazyletter are back. - Lucky 6.9 00:26, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lord Bob 03:37, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a legitimate topic for which Wikipedia should have an article. Acegikmo1 03:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming it's accurate. Everyking 05:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I still don't like these pages, but I removed the unverifiable school newspaper stuff, and added some more info off the school district's page. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - hardly enthralling but it is encyclopedic. - TB 11:09, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Not exactly thrilling, but if the current consensus on Wikipedia is to keep this sort of thing (I've voted delete in the past, but I think I'm in the minority), keep this revised version. Average Earthman 12:08, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not crazy about these kinds of pages either, but the rewrite looks fabulous. Given the special curriculum, I'd like to change my vote to keep. - Lucky 6.9 22:49, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Funny, my previous edit is gone. Anyway, please don't help out these schoolkids with a rewrite. The last edit they did was this [17]. They are simply out for fun and vandalism and not serious work. Delete. Mandel 18:33, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • There were two copies of each vote - you updated one and the other has been kept. I'm going through each vote to catch any lost votes and restore them. You just beat me to yours. - Tεxτurε 19:02, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I DID NOT DO the last edit that was done by my ip, Mandell. If you use nslookup, my ip address is something.kcls.org. I use a public computer. I'm sorry if there are some people abusing this system. To show my sincerety, i will now always log in as lappy512. Thanks. Note: My ip is 198.104.63.140 or 198.104.63.141. It changes, according to www.whatismyip.com. Also, that was done on April 15th. That's a while back, and i didn't know about wikipedia then. - lappy512
  • Delete. Another ordinary school. -- Stevietheman 04:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gadfly (social)

Dictionary defininition. Move to Wiktionary. - Hephaestos|§ 00:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - there is potential for an interesting article on the term's origins, usage, and notable histroical examples of people who have been called Gadfly's - leave it as a stub, it may flourish. Mark Richards 18:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - the historical merit. - Tεxτurε 21:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - linked to from another article
  • Keep for potential. -- Stevietheman 04:56, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Karen Davis

Article contains only one fact which links to the slightly more informative article, United Poultry Concerns. Change to Redirect? - siroxo 03:03, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - she's done notable things other than found the UPC (an early animal rights activist with a number of published books). I've expanded the article into a stub. - TB 10:53, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
    • Better now. I'll say keep. blankfaze | •­• 18:00, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed, keep - siroxo 23:40, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Fossil Monotremes

This was an article I personally created some time ago because I wanted to have a directory to all articles on the fossilised forms of monotremes. It now has a redirect to the article Monotreme, whre there is a section devoted to the same subject (added by me). It now has no pages linking to it, and serves no logical purpose anymore. Seeing this, it should no longer be in the article namespace.--Ingoolemo 04:48, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)

  • Keep, it's a valid redirect. RickK 04:59, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A user might type it, or it may have been found by a search engine while it had content. In general, I think it's good to have/leave redirs unless they're hogging a name that should be a different article. Niteowlneils 23:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Okay. I withdraw my reccommendation. --Ingoolemo 04:28, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)

Dwele

Could well be a copyvio, and in any event looks like an ad, "Here's where to get his CDs" type of stuff. -- Jmabel 07:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Ah, it is copyvio, from [18]. I've taken the appropriate steps for copyvio material. Please note that this includes removing the VfD header from the article, as it is no longer a VfD item, but a copyvio item. SWAdair | Talk 09:48, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Stirner (NationState)

fictional country developed on a website. Maximus Rex 07:48, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Oh, no. A fictional nation in a game, Jennifer Government: NationStates, that was originally intended as an advertisement for a book. The game gets about 28,000 Google hits, but let's not create encyclopedia articles for fictional game nations. There would be no end. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is not the WWW, either. Leave Stirner to the WWW. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 08:32, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete Essentially a personal page.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 08:43, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The book and the game itself may well deserve articles, but not this. I think we need to point out the difference between Wikipedia and the WWW to the author. Average Earthman 12:14, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm amazed nobody's made a comment about micronations yet. Delete this anyway. Lord Bob 14:38, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Average Earthman. Andris 15:32, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • We've gone through this once before with another NationStates country, and it was deleted, too. There are thousands of NationStates countries, I have one, but I see no need to have an article on every single one of them. RickK 19:45, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Traveller aliens

A lot of work went into this page and it is probably based on a movie or a science fiction novel, not one I recognize. However lacking a proper introduction it is only nonsense. ping 08:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

keep but relocate under the game they're from. See GURPS Traveller.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 08:31, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
I've put a redirection to place it in context.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 09:13, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
Much better now, with a proper introduction it makes sense. Keep. ping 08:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category:Dictators

I created this page but am now persuaded that its existence is too controversial and problematic. See Category talk:Dictators. Lupin 08:22, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

undecided You're right; rather subjective. Perhaps empty it with a forwarding link to category:Politicians. Not that they're synonyms ;) .--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 08:34, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, please. –Hajor 13:26, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Either delete or restrict to people who have actually held "dictator" as a title, such as in the Roman Republic. Everyking 16:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Quite subjective.Dmn 18:47, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should this listing be on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion instead of here? -Sean Curtin 20:34, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thomas William Finch

Useless vanity page. Can we speedy delete this sort of thing? -- Jmabel 08:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Aghh, I would love to see a criterion added to the list at speedy deletions, to include "obvious vanity pages," but currently this doesn't qualify for a speedy delete. Delete when the VfD clock ticks down. SWAdair | Talk 08:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Classic self-confessed vanity, by anon. Andrewa 10:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not even vain enough to call it vanity. Average Earthman 12:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the moment the clock ticks down. Admins, these really should be allowed to be elected for speedy deletion, IMO. - Lucky 6.9 19:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Knob

Dicdef -- Jmabel 08:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Dicdef, with one meaningless link to it now removed. Andrewa 10:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • not even a useful dicdef. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tilki

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Tilki Turkish (?), maybe junk. Maximus Rex 17:20, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, it's Turkish, and describes some kind of dogfish. Don't know enough Turkish - nor enough marine bilogy - to judge if it has any value. - Mustafaa 19:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Tilki is fox in Turkish. This article is a somewhat funny description. It can be safely deleted. ato 01:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

(end of Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation...)

  • Delete if not translated into a reasonable stub. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:48, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pferdestärke

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

(end of Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation...)

    • just a note for the curious: I think it means 'horsepower' in German.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 09:06, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, any translation would be redundant. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:45, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mike Wolfe

Advertising for election of that guy for Mayor somewhere. Heavily POV. Delete or significant rewrite -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:48, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Definitely needs a rewrite - I think the election for Mayor was in 2002. On the other hand, I think he won it, so an article is warranted. Average Earthman 12:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Stripped out some of the POV. It's a close one, but keep since he is actually Mayor. DJ Clayworth 12:55, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Electrodermal screening

Advertising, possibly copyvio from [20] or [21]. Delete. -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:52, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: It looks like someone pasted in his company's promotional brochure. Seems like waiting room reading material. Geogre 00:32, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep: I pasted it.. it is not advertising material, but a useful discussion on what electrodermal screening really is.. I am happy to delete any ref to websites (done).. I have been doing this work for 13 years and yes, I use an instrument which is made by the person who wrote this article, however he does not actually even talk about his instrument and the information can be related to many of the computerised electrodermal instruments that are in use today. Shazar Robinson

  • Delete as copyright violation. There's other reasons to delete this, but that's enough. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Erwin

merge into User Friendly and redirect This page contains too little information to be considered an article individually. It would perform better as an addition to User Friendly, of which Erwin is a charactor of. --Kd7nyq 13:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. User Friendly still has lots of room. The characters can always be split out later if there is need. By the way, just do it. VfD listing was not necessary since you are not proposing anything for deletion and no history will be lost. Rossami 15:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Appear to be already merged. Przepla 15:31, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dust puppy

merge into User Friendly and redirect This page contains too little information to be considered an article individually. It would perform better as an addition to User Friendly, of which Dust puppy is a charactor of.--Kd7nyq 13:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. See comment on Erwin above. Rossami 15:12, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Appear to be already merged. Przepla 15:31, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ideological assumption

A stalking horse for a fundamentalist (?) attack on "'science'". The concept is identical to "premise" or "warrant" in rhetoric. If the article is stripped of its examples (which are all Darwin and geology), there is nothing left but a lexical term that needs no definition. Is there a famous thinker who came up with this term? Is it essential for understanding the life and social sciences? Is it different from a premise? I don't think it can be rewritten successfully. Oops, meant to sign. Geogre 14:22, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 16:01, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. An explosive cocktail of straw men, dishonest innuendos, and plain falsehoods. Completely unencyclopaedic. Sir Paul 17:04, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV rant. Also look at The Logic of Scientific Discovery, by the same contributor. Andris 17:31, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • This is POV and contains a lot of contentious stuff, but when was that a criterion for deletion? I believe there is room for an article on ideological assumptions underlying various disciplines. Keep and see if it improves. DJ Clayworth 17:42, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agreed that it is POV and contentious, and should certainly be tagged as controversial. I'd like to see citations rather than assertions, indicating who among published authors considers each of these assumptions "ideological", but the topic is not inherently unencyclopedic. -- Jmabel 19:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A personal essay. Not academically competent, pretty useless.
    • The above unsigned vote was by HamYoyo at 19:26, Jun 2, 2004. See [22]. Andris 20:00, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry 'bout that.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 16:23, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV rant. RickK 19:51, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV. Also delete The Logic of Scientific Discovery by same. -Sean Curtin 22:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV rant that attempts to attach a specific meaning to the phrase "ideological assumption". Other than this article and its clones (first 8 google hits), the phrase is used only in the obvious context of "an assumption which someone believes is based on ideology". None of the examples I found matched the bullets in this article. Rossami 23:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for good reasons noted by others. Dpbsmith 01:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Unsalvageable. Delete this rant. Chameleon 11:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto and etcetera. Smerdis of Tlön 16:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The article as it stands is highly slanted to one particular POV. If we cannot have an article explaining both points of view, then it should be deleted. Average Earthman 16:40, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Overintellectualized silliness, but if there's any good here, it proves the irrationality and bigotry of fundamentalist theists. Delete. -- Stevietheman 05:14, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unredeemable rant. A general article on "ideological assumption" is useless anyway -- what can you put there except "An ideological assumption is an assumption about ideology"? Any specific assumptions show up in specific articles (science, history, etc etc). Wile E. Heresiarch 05:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Scalex

Looks like vanity. Searching google for Scalex "Miroslav Hlavicka" doesn't really turn up much, indicating he is not notable. Thue 16:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm inclined to agree. blankfaze | •­• 18:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree. Andris 19:55, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even signed recording artists aren't automatically notable, and this guy doesn't have that going for him. 151.196.174.56 00:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this advert. Chameleon 11:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absolutely unknown in the Czech Rep., probably a graphoman. 194.213.60.18 11:32, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ugol's law

An aphorism of very limited significance. Not found on Google. One link back. Perhaps the Jargon File might need it, but a general encyclopedia reader? Geogre 16:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I get 900 hits on Google. Fredrik (talk) 16:52, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • My mistake, then (although I got 187, some from Wikipedia). I'll remove the vfd, but still wonder about the "Can we find the original" comment in the article body. Shouldn't that be in the Comments? Will clean, if no one minds.

Blog.com

Shameless self promotion for an brand-new unestablished site. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:53, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Ick. Smells like an ad; quacks like an ad. Delete like an ad. - Lucky 6.9 22:22, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Doesn't look notable, so it's probably not worth trying to salvage. Just delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-confessed advert. The same newbie also added a link from Weblog, so if this goes so should the link. Andrewa 10:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this advert. Chameleon 11:17, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know, how easy could it have been to get the address blog.com? That they got it suggests to me some notability, but no vote for now, I suppose. Everyking 19:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Desenrascanço

I'm a native portuguese speaker and this page is full of tripe. Please delete this junk, it's embarassing. See it's talk section. cbraga 18:15, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - Either it needs to be fleshed out including all controversies or it needs to change to discuss why it sparks so much contention. It is a valid article in that it is causing so much discussion. The content may require changes but it becomes more valid as an article as the article is spread from person to person across email and web sites. - Tεxτurε 18:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Judging by the talk page, Cbraga is in the minority among the native Portuguese speakers who have commented. It might be interesting to sort out whether this word is in common use in some geographic areas, while nearly or totally unknown in others. Obviously a valid topic, even if specific content is in dispute. This might get more appropriate attention if translated, placed in Portuguese Wikipedia, and fought over there as well. -- Jmabel 18:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Sad thing is, the "majority" is probably a single person and you're being sadly trolled. Oh well, what do I care anyway? cbraga 21:17, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - the same in here, i'm a native Portuguese speaker and i'm not ashamed of Portuguese culture. It is spreeding a lot, because it was never commented in English (for a wider audience), only in Portuguese. But because the wiki is an open encyclopedia, some guy edited it, and I agree with the concept. I learn it in college and my brothers went to the army and there they learned that concept and word as well. Cbraga would do better if he created articles about Portugal than trying to delete valide ones. The talk is what it is, because it is somewhat a funny subject. It is true that Portugal evolved largely, but that has nothing to do with development, so it is a pretty common used word and concept. And it is in VfD for the 2nd time and earlier it was pretty POV. It is known in the area of Cbraga he must be from Braga and I live 25 km from there, and it extensevely used word in here. -Pedro 19:00, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This article has had an unhappy history. From the previous VfD debate I have a vague recollection that our very long-term portuguese contributor on en, Muriel Gottrop, said there was reason to keep it. Perhaps we could get her opinion again? Pcb21| Pete 21:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • As before, I vote to delete from the English Wikipedia because, regardless of content, no one has presented evidence that this word is used in English discourse. Rossami 22:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Thats the difference between an encycopaedia and a dictionary. Muriel G
  • Keep. It's an interesting article, and I frequently read books in which foreign words or concepts appear and want to know about them. I haven't run across this one, before, but I love the concept and I don't know any English word for it and we need some sort of word for it... so I may just start using it myself. I think I'll start calling myself a software um, desenrascançiste? Few would admit it but 90% of real-world software "engineering" is desenrascanço. Perhaps "gumption" is the closest equivalent in English? Dpbsmith 23:14, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • English usage is crisis management (formal) or "fire-fighting" (informal business use). Rossami
    • Crisis manageement in Portuguese is "gestão de risco" or "gestão de crise" which is not desenrascanzo, but it has some similarities, but desenrascanzo is a bit different. -Pedro 10:59, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keeplete! I really dont know. In a way its a part of Portuguese culture, wxhich i agree with Pedro its encyclopaediac. In another is written as a private joke and is a very difficult topic, because its an abstraction like saudade. As for the possible translations suggested above i dont agree with any. In fact: i speak fluent english for 20 - i learned it very early :) - years and i never-ever found any word that even vaguely reproduces the desenrascanço concept. Keep for now. Muriel G 10:10, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the english used in the article needs some polish, and the article should perhaps be moved into a more generic section about portuguese culture. Apart from that it's ok, since it describes a genuine phenomenon, at least according a the subjective view of many portuguese. rnbc 10:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it, but edit it. The article seems incomplete. djps 18:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I found it interesting and informative, and am grown-up enough to realize that it describes a national stereotype (or self-stereotype?) that needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps it's time for an article on Yankee ingenuity? Smerdis of Tlön 04:14, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

. Keep it, but maybe the photo is too much Nbarr

Logical behaviorism

Delete or completely rewrite. As it is, it's just a rant, and a pretentious rant at that. -- Jmabel 19:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

delete. Funny. Funny but wrong. Just wrong.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 19:30, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
delete if not improved in 5 days. google search indicates that the term is real but this article is nonsense. Andris 19:54, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ugly. RickK 19:56, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not that funny. Looks like someone trying to bootstrap-invent a word - Tεxτurε 22:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unremarkable nonsense. Andrewa 10:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this nonsense. Chameleon 11:03, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete rant. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the exclamated (word?) nonsense! :) -- Stevietheman 05:19, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)!

MG 131 machine gun

This is just a misplaced article, listing it here for procedure. Please go easy on the author, since this looks like a genuine contribution. Thue 20:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • The MG 131 is not mentioned in the text at all. Delete. Would give the autor some guidance, but it is an anon with 1 edit, so I am not sure if he's ever gonna return. -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and if this anon comes back, could someone please teach him about sentences? -- Cyrius|✎ 20:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Plastic Assassins

One Google hit referring back to a Wikipedia article on "anti-folk" music. No further description. - Lucky 6.9 20:35, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Looks like self-promotional vanity. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and de-link from anti-folk. Someone knowledgable about music should probably see if some of the other anti-folk names should be de-linked and/or removed. Niteowlneils 22:30, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree w. Niteowlneils. Delete and de-link from anti-folk. -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • havnt heard of plastic assassins but uncle tupelo and son volt certainly dont belong. if plastic assassins are an anti folk band why not be here? anti folk aint a social club. prewar kicks ass!65.65.70.178 17:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ray of Frost

Wikipedia is not a D&D strategy guide. Thue 20:47, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral - Wikipedia is not paper. I'd rather see it moved to Dungeon & Dragon Spells or some such generic title where a larger collection could be gathered. - Tεxτurε 21:04, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • That would seem fair. But individual articles for spells is overdoing it. Thue 21:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to cantrip. -Sean Curtin 22:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I was looking for delete, but there's actually a decent article in here. Keep or merge with a List of D&D spells (and don't omit the description and uses). Do NOT redirect to cantrip--that would be like redirecting George W. Bush to President of the United States. Meelar 04:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wiki is not paper. Putting in on a list of AD&D spells might work for now, but that list is huge, and a page having a paragraph the size of this article for each spell would be unusable. AD&D spells could be a category. If we have a page for every Pokemon invented, and every town in the USA, no matter how small, I don't see a problem with pages about AD&D spells. Preferably good, interesting articles. I wouldn't give it high priority, but if someone invests the time to write one, why punish it by deleting it? What does Wikipedia gain by deleting it? Abigail 12:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Move content to a list of Dungeon & Dragon Spells in order to make it more obvious to other author/editors that we do not now have very many listed (and that we want them at least as much as all the Pokemon articles). We can always break that list apart later when it becomes unmanagably large. Rossami 14:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Agreed, move to a spell list as suggested previously. When too many short articles are separated, it does become more difficult for the user to navigate through the information sought. Perhaps when the list of spells becomes unwieldly, break it into sectoins based on level or school. - siroxo 15:57, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is not objective. End of story.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 14:18, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • True, that last sentence could use some revision, but it really made the article, at least for me. That's the kind of information I might expect to find in an encyclopedia. I've reworked it. Meelar 15:06, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:33, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Humana Inc.

Suspicious of vanity, ("This is the company I work for" history but what is the size of a notable health insurance company? Cleanup? Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:41, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Looks like a cleanup candidate. If the numbers are real, the company really is significant. - Lucky 6.9 20:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Why cleanup? It should be longer, yes, but it is simply a stub as so many others. Thue 21:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: You're right. I meant that the article should be expanded. Good stub as is. - Lucky 6.9 22:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fortune 200 claim seems to be true, so the company probably deserves an article. I don't have any reason to believe the rest of the info isn't true.
  • Keep: Humana is real and significant, but it has also been entangled in some controversy about its moves in cost cutting, so coverage of these issues would add somewhat to the significance (i.e. "why should a general reader have heard of this company?"). As a stub, it might invite a knowledgeable contributor to add. Geogre 00:25, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, for reasons noted by Geogre. Humana is noted as being a) very big and b) very, very much for-profit. It's not just a health insurance company, it operates hospitals, lots of them. I think it was one of the first to use the controversial capitation system for paying doctors (per patient, rather than per service, thus creating an incentive for minimizing care). Dpbsmith 01:17, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, quite real. Note should also be taken of the Humana Building in Louisville, a definitely unusual skyscraper designed by Michael Graves. Smerdis of Tlön 19:31, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I live in the hometown of its corporate headquarters (Louisville). I don't say 'keep' out of any pride, but this is indeed a major well-known corporation with a rich history that I suspect will make its way into this article over time. Heck, its highly unusual headquarter building alone gives this company notability. -- Stevietheman 05:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I started the article and I added the comment that I worked for Humana not for purposes of vanity, but as a disclosure. I will, of course, abstain from voting.Brian Schlosser42 13:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

credibility gap

An anon started this article, but it wasn't really clear, so I rewrote it entirely myself. However, I don't feel Wikipedia should have an article on this topic. We shouldn't have articles on every minor political slogan, just the big ones (e.g. compassionate conservatism yes, but not necessarily bring it on (at least in the Kerry usage). Thoughts? Meelar 20:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - your rewrite made it a pretty good article. Do we have an article on Where's the beef? - Tεxτurε 21:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Could probably still use some expansion, but it's a proper stub. And we've had Where's the Beef? for the better part of a year :) -- Cyrius|✎ 21:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- this phrase has a pretty long history (well, decades, anyway). Wile E. Heresiarch 22:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, well known catch phrase -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-known phrase with a lot of history behind it. What's there now is a perfectly good stub. Dpbsmith 15:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Most definitly keep. --Starx 02:21, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template:University of Oxford

  • Replaces with a category. — Timwi 21:14, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. See Cambridge comments. Lupin 21:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could come in handy and a lot of clicking would be required if this page was eliminated. Johnleemk 06:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • To be precise, to go through the category would be two clicks instead of one directly. Please can we have a general discussion on whether we want the "all to all" linking model or the "hub and spoke" linking model, instead of going through the purgatory of listing every darn page here. (Comments also applies to Cambridge below). Pcb21| Pete 08:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template:University of Cambridge

  • Replaces with a category. — Timwi 21:14, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Why not have both? It's handy to have a list of colleges on the article page; the category could potentially become a lot more unwieldy and requires active clicking to bring up. Lupin 21:43, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • See my Oxford argument. Johnleemk 06:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Improbability drive

A specific effect from a flash movie. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia; "Madness Combat 3" "Improbability drive" gets 8 google hits. Thue 22:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • The improbability drive is a concept taken from The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In that sense it would probably be worthy of an article if anyone wanted to go into enough detail, but this version is unrelated. Delete unless replaced with the H2G2 version - Rory ☺ 22:45, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • This entry seems to have disappeared from vfd for no reason, readding. Thue 21:55, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This article is not about the drive from Hitch-Hiker so redirect is not appropriate. The current content, though verifiable, is trivial. It should be moved into the main article about this flash movie. Having said that, I can not find any such main article. If the movie is not important enough to already have an article, then I vote to delete. Rossami 22:35, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I really really want to say keep since the flash game this comes from is an evolved version that has become popular and well known. In addition, The drive from HHGTTG would be worthy of an article - Tεxτurε 22:37, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Awful article....very very very very small. I've seen the flash movie, and it's simply a reference to Hitchhiker's. Delete. --Fu 00:33, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I never realised that the device was a refrence to Hitchhiker's guide, and I must admit that this a waste of bandwidth to have. So I apologise for writing the article in the first place... I Should of done further readings into a topic before publishing the article. Perhaps I should do an article of Madness Combat first. Anyways I will Have to vote for the deletion of my own article (kinda' ironic). --Aaron Einstein (Creator of the article)
  • Redirect to Infinite Improbability Drive, it's a reasonable place for it to go. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:03, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insignificant. Chameleon 10:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is misleading. Do your research, Einstein! Just kidding. It's good to see someone owe up to their mistakes.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 16:33, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Suggested above (see entry for Ideological assumption.

  • Appears to be a personal essay aka original research. Rossami 23:21, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I thought the guy was off his bean with Ideological assumption, but this is even more off the rails. It's rambling, illogical, and apparently a tease for the author's vision of the hidden (but revealed to him/her) truth.151.196.174.56 00:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, POV. But, worst of all, The Logic of Scientific Discovery happens to be a very famous book by Karl Popper. Any article with this title ought to be about Popper's book. Dpbsmith 01:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
And I have therefore completely replaced the former contents with an appropriate stub. It's possible that the article should just be a redirect to Karl Popper. However, The Logic of Scientific Discovery could easily be the topic of an article all by itself. (I'm not the person to write it, however...) Dpbsmith 01:36, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as an article about Popper's book. Andris 03:25, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, same reason as Andris, but maybe rewrite for NOPV -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep new stub. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:02, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now good stub. Andrewa 10:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep stub. -Sean Curtin 10:36, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the article on Popper's book. Average Earthman 16:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a great stub. --Starx 02:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bill Drake

As it stands, the article is extremely un-encyclopedic. However, it seems like too obscure a topic to ever become a useful article. Acegikmo1 23:30, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • It's a copyvio from [23]. The guy just did a cut-and-paste job, and not a very good one. - Lucky 6.9 00:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Chameleon 10:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 3

Shayna Fox

I have had it with this in-DUH-vidual. These TV and movie sub-stubs which are devoid of content come in on a daily basis but from different IPs, maybe from a library. All have the same attributes, namely the article's title being repeated in the edit summary, verb tense conflicts and no more information other than a brief cast list or credits. I've tried to contact this person...no response. I've voted speedy delete...and have been asked to bring the debate here. I've listed these on the RC Patrol page as well. I'm not all bad as I've tried to edit a few. So have other users, to their infinite credit. Still, I feel that ALL of these should be speedy deleted on the same grounds as the Guelph botany department article. - Lucky 6.9 00:39, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Acegikmo1 02:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd say keep--even these sub-stubs are better than no article at all. Agreed, however, that the person who adds them should include more info and format it correctly. Meelar 04:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Better than nothing. Everyking 04:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subtrivial, complete waste of time & resources. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete if not expanded to a decent stub. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I would not mind if these were deleted on sight. If this contributer wants it included then he should at least write a proper stub. Thue 09:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Current stub looks good. Since the current entry shows lengthy filmography I don't see a reason to delete just because the initial user did a poor job. - Tεxτurε 15:36, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've made a good faith effort to expand the stub a bit myself. Looks good in its current form. - Lucky 6.9 16:05, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that the substubs are annoying, but instead of listing them here, list them on Cleanup. RickK 19:43, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • "Cleanup" it shall be. Two more of these came in, namely Rob Roy (movie) and Fluke (film), but I fixed them myself. If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? - Lucky 6.9 20:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Eric Stoltz

Same reasons and same user as above. Said user has no other prior edit history, at least until he or she logs on to another public computer. - Lucky 6.9 00:48, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. This should be able to grow into a reasonable article. Acegikmo1 02:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've expanded it slightly. Chuq 03:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Google search shows over 55,600 entries for "Eric Stoltz" [24] including a sizable IMDb entry [25] indicating a lengthy acting career.Seaeagle04 03:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Certainly keep. Everyking 04:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks great now. My concern centers around how many of these we're going to have to fix. I can just imagine what this person would do with, let's say, Judy Garland: "Judy Garland is an actress who stars in movies like The Wizard of Oz and Meet Me In St. Louis." How useful is that? - Lucky 6.9 04:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, let's image there is no Judy Garland page, and someone comes around and creates a one-line stub. A few minutes later, Lucky 6.9 comes around, places in on VfD, and in due time, the article gets deleted. Then Wikipedia is left with no page at all about Judy Garland. How useful is that? Full articles are better than stubs, but IMO, stubs are better than no articles at all. Abigail 12:45, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you didn't read my other comment. I voted to keep the article in its current form. And, while I wholeheartedly agree that a stub is better than no article at all, no article is better than a useless stub from which another user would have to start from scratch anyway. We're discussing that same subject in regards to the Guelph botany article. I should also point out in light of your current tone that I've tried everything I can to help, not hinder this person and that a sysop politely suggested posting these on VfD. If the general consensus is to keep and expand these as they come in, that's perfectly acceptable. - Lucky 6.9 15:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Further comment: If this was just about one or two articles, these wouldn't be here by my doing. These stubs come in on a regular basis. - Lucky 6.9 16:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Since Lupin has turned it into an article, it looks like a keep (assuming she played a significant character in at least some of the things on the filmography) Average Earthman 16:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. List on Cleanup. RickK 19:46, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Starx 05:00, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion archive May 2004

I don't see the point of this. Where's the discussion that led to the creation of this page? The title is also misleading, considering that entries last for only 5 days.--Jiang 01:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Johnleemk 06:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • You've misunderstood the purpose of the page. It has the history of VfD (at least for May - not sure how far it goes back), which was getting *very* long, making maintenance (database upgrades etc) more difficult, so the technical experts tell us. I think we should keep because of the history, but maybe blank the five days there right now, and just leave "Click "history" to see Vfd history for May 2004". We shuold do this every month to prevent histories getting long. Pcb21| Pete 08:38, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Pete but suggest it could be renamed if the above name is not accurate. But we should preserve the edit history as much as possible. -- Graham  :) | Talk 09:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jason James Richter

Another sub-stub, same conflicting verb, different IP. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 03:17, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:17, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) Rewrite is good, keep now -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:18, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • An obvious keep. Famous actor. Instead of nominating these, why don't you expand them into decent stubs? I just cleaned it up a bit and added his birthday. Everyking 04:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Believe me, I've expanded those I've known anything about and put others up on the RC Patrol page. Sure, the guy's famous. But if someone wanted to do a real article on him, what information in the original posting is really useful? I'm 100% for keeping and expanding stubs, but these postings are nuts. - Lucky 6.9 04:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • "Famous" is stretching things. The only stuff he's been in that I've heard of are the Free Willy movies, and I didn't even know they got up to a third one. However, given that Free Willy actually was notable, and that having this isn't actively detrimental, an unenthusiastic keep. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Haha. "...I didn't even know they got up to a third one." Lucky you. I wish I could say the same. Yeah, keep, I guess. blankfaze | •­• 14:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • His 'fame' appears to rely entirely on one series of films, and so I personally don't feel that he is separately worthy of an article. Delete. Average Earthman 17:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • More than doubled the article in less than 5 minutes...it's not that hard. Keep. (the original article correctly stated his name, the fact his is notable for being an actor, and the three FW movies he is most noted for. We've had articles that started with just a person's name (who it turned out was a member of the US Congress)). FWIW, we've voted to keep an article on an actress that has but one film role, a small role in a movie written, produced, and directed by her husband (for the record, I voted delete). Niteowlneils 17:10, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep easly. --Starx 17:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Should have been listed on Cleanup. RickK 19:37, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Much better. I guess I'll just have to buck up and either send these out for cleanup or fix them myself. The guy uses a different IP every day, so it would be futile to block him. For the record, I still feel strongly that vacuous sub-stubs like this should be eliminated on sight, fact-based or not. I didn't use anything from the two I just fixed. - Lucky 6.9 20:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Republic of Talossa

Micronation (a fictional nation invented by a group of people), founded yesterday. Delete as non-notable. Andris 03:23, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unfortunately, even if Talossa were to regard this as an act of war on the part of Wikipedia, we still won't get into the record books, I think the shortest war lasted only 38 minutes. Andrewa 06:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:16, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although this group has actually been around for nearly a quarter of a century it's already mentioned in the micronation article, and is otherwise not notable.--Gene_poole 04:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete (along with all other so-called "micronations"). Maximus Rex 04:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity fiction. Or fictional vanity. Whatever. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has already been speedily deleted twice this week. -- Graham  :) | Talk 09:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete for the third time. Has already been deleted twice, should consider protecting the page. Or possibly redirect to micronation, and then protect. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dunc Garris. Chameleon 10:51, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to micronation, and then protect, as suggested by Dunc Garris. I'll put in the redirect right now. Protect later if that's the consensus. Dpbsmith 13:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redir. Protect if necessary. Niteowlneils 17:10, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Runnin (Dying to Live)

Lyrics only. Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:31, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree. Delete. Johnleemk 05:28, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not encyclopaedic, it's surely a copyright problem, and it has already been speedily deleted once. --Stormie 06:09, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Lyrics are copyrighted, does no one remember when Lyrics.ch got shut down? Listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy Atkinson

Not notable. Delete. Withdrawing; page was cleaned up. Johnleemk 05:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I renominate - page was cleaned up but still no mention of how he is notable IMO. Delete unless his fame is made clear. - Tεxτurε 16:10, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Created by anon user, who also made a probably copyvio cut-copy to Tim Hagans, but responded very well after being contacted on User talk:24.171.140.72. S/He got a login as user:Ftblguy now and has re-created all his contributions again from scratch. I just dropped a welcome message on his talk page. -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • On second thought, agree with Cyrius below, delete, not notable. Keep Tim Hagans, though. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:49, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Still doesn't look notable. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. --Starx 04:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Sims Makin' Magic

  • Delete. Doesn't add anything. The expansions should be left to The Sims page and don't need their own pages. Saopaulo1
  • Keep. I'd like to see enough info on these expansions to warrant individual articles. Everyking 04:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is valid; I believe there's a precedent such as with the expansions for the games in the Age of Empires series. Johnleemk 05:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possibly create a page for all The Sims expansions, and redirect to there, or simply redirect to The Sims itself. Age of Empires is not actually a precident, no page has actually been created for an expansion in that series. The other pages are actual sequels and separate games. Game expansions add so little in terms of functionality and story to games that they should not be separated out in Wikipedia. This reflects a disturbing trend in Wikipedia in general to over-separate small articles. I hope I don't sound unnappreciative to the dedication some have made to creating these pages, because the information itself is certainly important. However, navigation of Wikipedia becomes tougher on the user when content is over-separated. As I stated at the start, perhaps in a game like The Sims case, a single page could be dedicated to all of its expansions with redirects for the individual names. siroxo 15:52, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hm...you're right. My bad. Withdrawing my vote. I do not vote delete, however. Several expansion packs for the Sims have added a lot of features not available in the original - for example, more neighbourhoods. I do not own this expansion pack and thus am not fit to judge; however, other expansion packs have indeed radically changed gameplay, perhaps with the exception of House Party. I am not averse to putting all expansion packs on one page, but I do believe it would be rather large and cumbersome. Who can tell? Anyway, I am neutral for now. Johnleemk 16:02, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since you cannot use this pack without the original Sims game, it shouldn't have an article to itself. Average Earthman 17:07, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Expansions to a game are encyclopedic, assuming they meet other criteria. Agree with Everyking. Meelar 20:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. DJ Clayworth 21:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If there were enough content there could be an article. But right now there isn't, so this should be just a mention at The Sims. Thue 22:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect -- Stevietheman 03:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another one for the fan sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think your faith in fan sites is very well-placed, personally. Everyking 06:48, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Nothing inherently wrong about having a page for this, but this page has very little content, and the other add-on packs are not listed... so I say delete unless there becomes enough content to justify it. (StuartH 09:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC))

Yucca Valley High School

Not notable. Delete. Johnleemk 05:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, important to thousands of people. Everyking 05:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, only public high school in Yucca Valley, California so it is very important
  • Keep - TB 06:03, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Add it to Moronogo Unified School District, that way the other high schools in the district can all be on the same page. The district has Twentynine Palms High School, and other continuation schools. [26]Saopaulo1
  • Merge with other such schools. Chameleon 10:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Either add some historical or cultural significance or delete. We don't have space for every high school around the globe. Famous alumni don't count.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 11:05, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Put your thoughts in at WP:WIWO in the Schools section. I have no idea whether there is now, ever was, or ever will be consensus on articles on not-very-notable secondary schools, but let's try to find out. Dpbsmith 13:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I live in the area. The school is anything but notable. Withholding vote until we figure out what to do with these. - Lucky 6.9 15:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's encyclopedic about an ordinary high school? -- Stevietheman 03:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of adding it to Morong Unified School District. User: Elpenmaster

Brendan Kibble

Not notable. Google turns up 10 hits for "Brendan Kibble". Delete. Johnleemk 05:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • KEEP I found the Bam Balams history in Wikipedia and the Navahodads. Brendan Kibble was in with the bands he was in Nanker Phlelge I found on Wikipedia. I have told my friends about this information, when I looked again I saw his name was in deletion. It shoud be on your site. Thank you Jorge C Spain
  • Keep and clean up. If this article didn't exist it'd be on my "create" list (Australian indie rock). I'll see what I can do with it. - David Gerard 08:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • BTW, one of the reasons this stuff doesn't show up in Google is that there's approximately bugger-all about Australian indie rock on the Web. It's all still in paper fanzines or in people's heads (e.g. mine) - David Gerard 18:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Jorge - I've done some work on the Bam Balams article. Have a look at that and Died Pretty for an example of the style that'll tend to keep a band article in. You might also want to look at List of Australian independent bands, 1976-1992 and see what gaps you can fill. I should probably start a Wikiproject on the subject. Particularly if I ever get my 1/3 ton of vinyl records moved from Perth to London ... - David Gerard 11:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've done quite a cleanup on the article. What do you think now? - David Gerard 15:32, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's looking good since David's cleanup, and at least the Gun Club and Rob Younger are significant enough that I wouldn't call someone who played with them "not notable". —Stormie 02:55, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • ahem, read the article - not that Gun Club ;-) - David Gerard 07:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh, well, if he hasn't played with that Gun Club, he's a nobody! Delete! (just kidding) —Stormie 08:35, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Keep ! I agree with "Stormie"..."Not notable" ??? Obviously "Johnleemk" hasn't any idea about Aussie Indy Rock...Well done David Gerard for getting on the case. Cheers Julie (A Bam Balams & Navahodad fan)
    • Considering the article's state when I first put it on VfD and a cursory Google search, you can't blame a Malaysian 14-year-old for thinking it was just another vanity page, especially since we have so many other small-scale rockers making their own vanity pages all the time. Johnleemk | Talk 07:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep, I have all the Bam Balams records, and now I know more about the songwriter - Brendan Kibble (his other bands etc.) I'm sure there's other people out there who'd dig the article. Troy (Melbourne,Australia)

Somalian National Anthem

  • Delete. Lyrics only.

[[27]]
I created this page on my first tour of Wikipedia and it has no value. I am still tying to learn how to format a page let alone delete one. Great website, but very complicated. I dont even know for sure if this request is in the right place! Cheers: AF.

  • Keep, valid article. (that is assuming that national anthems can't be copyrighted) but cleanup. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:06, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can add commentary, history, an explanation, etc. And are those the entire lyrics? It seems awfully short to be a national anthem. Meelar 13:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant & has potential for expansion. PS to original author: keep the original version but also provide an English translation, thanks. PPS: Agreed w/ Duncharris that we need to establish the copyright status of the lyrics. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a bit difficult. it appears that the Somali government doesn't exist, [28], but that the anthem was replaced in 2000 with a worded version that I can't find the lyrics to. This is need of attention though Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Anthems doesn't seem too helpful. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:07, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a valid article though could do with some content other than just the lyrics. About the copyright issue, I suppose it depends when and by whom the national anthem was written though I shan't imagine a copyright case would be pursued for a country's national anthem... -- Graham  :) | Talk 19:10, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Age of Empires dreams

  • AFAICT, this is made up. No relevant google hits. Also get the related Perldreams. Meelar 15:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is a real phenomenon of after-images and such, but this seems like private mythology. Geogre 16:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • And did you see the Wikipedia:Wikidreams article? "Private mythology" is right. I can't recall a single dream of mine involving Wikipedia! Nightmares, maybe.  :^P - 216.116.240.142 17:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonsense - Tεxτurε 17:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Shoot 'em ups give me dizzy dreams, but delete Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:29, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, although it is hilarious. I think a general article on this phenomenon could be worthwhile, but I don't see the sense in having individual articles about its effect on players of particular games. Everyking 19:33, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. I had a dream about Age of Emprires last night. Eerily ironic. Acegikmo1 20:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not ironic, it's coincidental. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • A trivial example of the interaction of rehearsal and sleep in the development of long-term procedural memory. It happens to all people all the time. You just usually don't remember these kinds of dreams. Delete or redirect to the right psychology article. Rossami 20:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete substub, made-up term. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CustomizedGirl

Spam ad, methinks. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(added note) The second paragraph of the original version was also a copyvio.Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Geogre 16:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its a legitimate company. 16:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) (anon IP)
  • Delete - vanity/advert - Tεxτurε 17:05, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this advert. Andris 17:10, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - blatant advert. Bill 19:25, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ad, site won't even load for me. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Andy Hagans

Classic vanity by User:66.151.49.196 User talk:66.151.49.196 contribs again. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From the same stable as Tim Hagans and Jimmy Atkinson Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Andy's only claim to fame is that he is the roommate of Jimmy. Jimmy's only claim to fame is that he is the roommate of Andy. - Tεxτurε 18:25, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Starx 04:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Forest Temple

Besides saying that it is a maze in a game, a fact which on its own isn't worthy of a separate article, this article contains nothing but opinions. - Fredrik (talk) 17:36, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • delete--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 18:28, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • It almost reads like a review in a gamer magazine. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 19:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'll work on it a bit. The temples are linked from the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time article, and I think a complete description of each temple would be too much for one article, considering that the article is already fairly large. Everyking 19:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subtrivial pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not subtrivial and it's not pseudoinformation. The game is of cultural note and therefore deserves to be properly covered. Everyking 06:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Raw

Dictionary definition. - Fredrik (talk) 18:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Springfield Paradox

Non-notable, trivial, non-encyclopedic crap. Philwelch 19:45, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - nonsense - Tεxτurε 19:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- but possible BJAODN candidate Dukeofomnium 19:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't really think it's THAT funny. Just pretty stupid. That's my 2¢. Delete. blankfaze | •­• 20:24, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Not even funny. Delete. DJ Clayworth 20:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ha, ha. Send it packing. - Lucky 6.9 23:16, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and smack the author. --Starx 02:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: the funny thing is that this is a joke told by a stand-up comic as part of his routine, and someone liked that joke enough to think it deserved an encyclopedia entry.
  • Uh maybe all of you people shuold stop bashing these articles and actually see that this is a theory developed by some people in the Flat Earth Society. I mean you're supposed to consider all opinions and theories and that's what an encyclopedia is for right? See the references on the page and you'll learn it's encyclopedic.The ONE and ONLY SOILGUY 16:18, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Beaver

  • Delete - vanity - student newspaper and current staff names (staff names removed after VfD listing - only a couple lines about the school newspaper remain) - Tεxτurε 20:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, or merge with the School page and redirect -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:46, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with the school page. --Starx 04:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Leave It to Beaver and merge with school article. -- Stevietheman 05:37, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alykhan Velshi

  • Delete - vanity - claim to fame is that he is on the staff of local student newspaper The Beaver and the student run Hayek Society along with normal student activities. - Tεxτurε 20:25, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if the paper stays, he goes. DJ Clayworth 20:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Vanity, and bordering on BJAODN given the fact that he starts each paragraph with his name. It's like he's running for a political office in the third person! - Lucky 6.9 23:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:44, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, bad... bad vanity. --Starx 04:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Michael Swindells

Expand or delete. A British policeman killed in the line of duty. Not inherently encyclopedia-worthy on that basis, but there could be potential if someone knows something that is not in the (stub) article as it stands. -- Jmabel 20:27, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • merge with others, list of British policemen killed on duty? including WPC Yvonne Fletcher, and the two guys that were killed near me a while ago. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) - info source at [29] Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there was actually a list of police officers killed in the line of duty then move it their I guess. But I don't really think we need such a list and I know we don't need an article on every one of them. Non-notable. --Starx 04:50, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CrypTool

Open-source software, the author posted the work. Seems insignificant for Wikipedia, but I would suggest move to openfacts. Needs tidy anyway. [30] Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Note we can't move to openfacts unless the author releases it into the public domain. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:47, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The software, the tutorials and the scripts are all open source, build by many people all over the world, mainly now coming from universities. It's used in many courses to get students a practical experience on how cryptography and cryptanalysis works.

So the text I posted is released into the public domain. What does "moving to openfacts" mean? What else do you need from me? Thanks for your help to me as a Wikipedia beginner. Best regards, Bernhard (User BE in Wikipedia) Bernhard 12:12, 4 Jun 2004 (CET).

Radium (SA)

Does not seem notable enough, se fx Radium "Something Awful". Thue 21:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Um, WOW THAT'S DUMB. Delete. blankfaze | •­• 21:31, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ouch. This is one of those times that "delete with extreme prejudice" is too kind. - Lucky 6.9 23:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough to salvage the article. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:49, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, idiocy. —Stormie 03:00, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. --Starx 04:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment Content was:
Something Awful Administrator, Currently responsible for looking after and developing the forum's servers. Has been ridiculed repeatedly by both the #shsc and #buttes communities on ZiRC for quotes such as the following: "Postgres is the only decent RDBM aside from MySQL, and I don't like it for web applications because all of its fancy features are things an efficient web application doesn't need anyway (ie, foreign keys, triggers, etc). If I was running a bank though, hey, Postgres all the way."
  • Deleted as arrant nonsense. This should have been listed for Speedy Deletion. I might be stretching proper Wiki-process by deleting it before expiration of this VfD discussion, but by reproducing content above I'm allowing the discussion to proceed. I'll watch the discussion and restore the page if there isn't consensus for deletion. Dpbsmith 14:48, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hippophilia

Talks about sex with horses, but the only reference I can find to that use via google is a woody allan quote. So the information is at least unverifiable. When that part is removed there is only a dictionary definition left.

  • Eww. Delete as unverifiable. This is one sick little puppy. - Lucky 6.9 23:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Icky... but real. See [31] --Starx 02:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • To me that just reads like someone who likes horses, as in platonic love. Your average horse-crazy girl. My reading of it does not imply sex, and it would be misleading to redirect to Zoophilia or Bestiality. Thue 13:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Zoophilia? -- Cyrius|✎ 02:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Zoophilia or Bestiality JFW | T@lk 12:01, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • "Bestiality" redirects to Zoophilia, so this should redirect to Zoophilia as well. WhisperToMe 13:12, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 4

Zvitko Barkanovic

Faulty information all around. Danny 00:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Seems reasonably important if someoen can fix it. I have no knowledge of the subject, so I can't state anything about the factuality.siroxo 06:31, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Transporter accident

Not article-worthy on its own. Possible candidate for speedy deletion. EXTERMINATE! Philwelch 01:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Brian Alkire

Appears to be a vanity page. A couple of mentions in Google: 1 a duplicate of information here; the other an honor roll list. Joyous 01:57, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Non-notable and appears to be unverifiable. Looks like his writing career is about to have a setback. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Starx 04:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Though it's nice to read about a teen with some real depth, assuming all this is true, please delete anyway as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 07:29, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, probable vanity, and unencyclopedic in any case. Unfortunately by an anon. Hopefully he will perservere. Andrewa 10:44, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • He's been doing a little bit of vandalism on the side. contribs. Delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Transporter beam

Again, not article-worthy on its own. Philwelch 01:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

redirected to Transporter (Star Trek) which is much more comprehensive. dml 02:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Communications in the Vatican City

  • Information doesnt merrit it's own page. Put into Vatican City page. Saopaulo1
    • You can do that. Merge the info and put #REDIRECT [[Vatican City]] into the above page and it will create a redirect. Ditto with one below. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:50, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Transportation in the Vatican City

"How The Amazon Has Changed"

Duplication of information probably already available. Merge and delete/redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • It's newbie nonsense. speedy delete it. I have greeted user. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neutral Territory of Prevlaka

Per Talk:Neutral Territory of Prevlaka, this should go. --Shallot 12:33, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, etymology(ies)

Nonsense, unencyclopedic. User:Casta attacked my personal page in response to an attempted speedy delete, so what do you folks think? Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:30, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Citrix MetaFrame

An obvious advertisement, and surprisingly, not even to Citrix MetaFrame! Yaron 16:06, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

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}} ~~~~

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}} ~~~~

credibility gap

An anon started this article, but it wasn't really clear, so I rewrote it entirely myself. However, I don't feel Wikipedia should have an article on this topic. We shouldn't have articles on every minor political slogan, just the big ones (e.g. compassionate conservatism yes, but not necessarily bring it on (at least in the Kerry usage). Thoughts? Meelar 20:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - your rewrite made it a pretty good article. Do we have an article on Where's the beef? - Tεxτurε 21:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Could probably still use some expansion, but it's a proper stub. And we've had Where's the Beef? for the better part of a year :) -- Cyrius|✎ 21:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- this phrase has a pretty long history (well, decades, anyway). Wile E. Heresiarch 22:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, well known catch phrase -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-known phrase with a lot of history behind it. What's there now is a perfectly good stub. Dpbsmith 15:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Most definitly keep. --Starx 02:21, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template:University of Oxford

  • Replaces with a category. — Timwi 21:14, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. See Cambridge comments. Lupin 21:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could come in handy and a lot of clicking would be required if this page was eliminated. Johnleemk 06:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • To be precise, to go through the category would be two clicks instead of one directly. Please can we have a general discussion on whether we want the "all to all" linking model or the "hub and spoke" linking model, instead of going through the purgatory of listing every darn page here. (Comments also applies to Cambridge below). Pcb21| Pete 08:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template:University of Cambridge

  • Replaces with a category. — Timwi 21:14, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Why not have both? It's handy to have a list of colleges on the article page; the category could potentially become a lot more unwieldy and requires active clicking to bring up. Lupin 21:43, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • See my Oxford argument. Johnleemk 06:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Improbability drive

A specific effect from a flash movie. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia; "Madness Combat 3" "Improbability drive" gets 8 google hits. Thue 22:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • The improbability drive is a concept taken from The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In that sense it would probably be worthy of an article if anyone wanted to go into enough detail, but this version is unrelated. Delete unless replaced with the H2G2 version - Rory ☺ 22:45, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • This entry seems to have disappeared from vfd for no reason, readding. Thue 21:55, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This article is not about the drive from Hitch-Hiker so redirect is not appropriate. The current content, though verifiable, is trivial. It should be moved into the main article about this flash movie. Having said that, I can not find any such main article. If the movie is not important enough to already have an article, then I vote to delete. Rossami 22:35, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I really really want to say keep since the flash game this comes from is an evolved version that has become popular and well known. In addition, The drive from HHGTTG would be worthy of an article - Tεxτurε 22:37, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Awful article....very very very very small. I've seen the flash movie, and it's simply a reference to Hitchhiker's. Delete. --Fu 00:33, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I never realised that the device was a refrence to Hitchhiker's guide, and I must admit that this a waste of bandwidth to have. So I apologise for writing the article in the first place... I Should of done further readings into a topic before publishing the article. Perhaps I should do an article of Madness Combat first. Anyways I will Have to vote for the deletion of my own article (kinda' ironic). --Aaron Einstein (Creator of the article)
  • Redirect to Infinite Improbability Drive, it's a reasonable place for it to go. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:03, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insignificant. Chameleon 10:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is misleading. Do your research, Einstein! Just kidding. It's good to see someone owe up to their mistakes.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 16:33, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Suggested above (see entry for Ideological assumption.

  • Appears to be a personal essay aka original research. Rossami 23:21, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I thought the guy was off his bean with Ideological assumption, but this is even more off the rails. It's rambling, illogical, and apparently a tease for the author's vision of the hidden (but revealed to him/her) truth.151.196.174.56 00:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, POV. But, worst of all, The Logic of Scientific Discovery happens to be a very famous book by Karl Popper. Any article with this title ought to be about Popper's book. Dpbsmith 01:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
And I have therefore completely replaced the former contents with an appropriate stub. It's possible that the article should just be a redirect to Karl Popper. However, The Logic of Scientific Discovery could easily be the topic of an article all by itself. (I'm not the person to write it, however...) Dpbsmith 01:36, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as an article about Popper's book. Andris 03:25, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, same reason as Andris, but maybe rewrite for NOPV -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep new stub. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:02, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now good stub. Andrewa 10:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep stub. -Sean Curtin 10:36, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the article on Popper's book. Average Earthman 16:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a great stub. --Starx 02:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bill Drake

As it stands, the article is extremely un-encyclopedic. However, it seems like too obscure a topic to ever become a useful article. Acegikmo1 23:30, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • It's a copyvio from [32]. The guy just did a cut-and-paste job, and not a very good one. - Lucky 6.9 00:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Chameleon 10:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 3

Shayna Fox

I have had it with this in-DUH-vidual. These TV and movie sub-stubs which are devoid of content come in on a daily basis but from different IPs, maybe from a library. All have the same attributes, namely the article's title being repeated in the edit summary, verb tense conflicts and no more information other than a brief cast list or credits. I've tried to contact this person...no response. I've voted speedy delete...and have been asked to bring the debate here. I've listed these on the RC Patrol page as well. I'm not all bad as I've tried to edit a few. So have other users, to their infinite credit. Still, I feel that ALL of these should be speedy deleted on the same grounds as the Guelph botany department article. - Lucky 6.9 00:39, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Acegikmo1 02:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd say keep--even these sub-stubs are better than no article at all. Agreed, however, that the person who adds them should include more info and format it correctly. Meelar 04:21, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Better than nothing. Everyking 04:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subtrivial, complete waste of time & resources. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete if not expanded to a decent stub. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I would not mind if these were deleted on sight. If this contributer wants it included then he should at least write a proper stub. Thue 09:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Current stub looks good. Since the current entry shows lengthy filmography I don't see a reason to delete just because the initial user did a poor job. - Tεxτurε 15:36, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've made a good faith effort to expand the stub a bit myself. Looks good in its current form. - Lucky 6.9 16:05, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree that the substubs are annoying, but instead of listing them here, list them on Cleanup. RickK 19:43, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • "Cleanup" it shall be. Two more of these came in, namely Rob Roy (movie) and Fluke (film), but I fixed them myself. If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? - Lucky 6.9 20:35, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Eric Stoltz

Same reasons and same user as above. Said user has no other prior edit history, at least until he or she logs on to another public computer. - Lucky 6.9 00:48, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. This should be able to grow into a reasonable article. Acegikmo1 02:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've expanded it slightly. Chuq 03:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Google search shows over 55,600 entries for "Eric Stoltz" [33] including a sizable IMDb entry [34] indicating a lengthy acting career.Seaeagle04 03:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Certainly keep. Everyking 04:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks great now. My concern centers around how many of these we're going to have to fix. I can just imagine what this person would do with, let's say, Judy Garland: "Judy Garland is an actress who stars in movies like The Wizard of Oz and Meet Me In St. Louis." How useful is that? - Lucky 6.9 04:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, let's image there is no Judy Garland page, and someone comes around and creates a one-line stub. A few minutes later, Lucky 6.9 comes around, places in on VfD, and in due time, the article gets deleted. Then Wikipedia is left with no page at all about Judy Garland. How useful is that? Full articles are better than stubs, but IMO, stubs are better than no articles at all. Abigail 12:45, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you didn't read my other comment. I voted to keep the article in its current form. And, while I wholeheartedly agree that a stub is better than no article at all, no article is better than a useless stub from which another user would have to start from scratch anyway. We're discussing that same subject in regards to the Guelph botany article. I should also point out in light of your current tone that I've tried everything I can to help, not hinder this person and that a sysop politely suggested posting these on VfD. If the general consensus is to keep and expand these as they come in, that's perfectly acceptable. - Lucky 6.9 15:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Further comment: If this was just about one or two articles, these wouldn't be here by my doing. These stubs come in on a regular basis. - Lucky 6.9 16:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Since Lupin has turned it into an article, it looks like a keep (assuming she played a significant character in at least some of the things on the filmography) Average Earthman 16:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. List on Cleanup. RickK 19:46, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Starx 05:00, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion archive May 2004

I don't see the point of this. Where's the discussion that led to the creation of this page? The title is also misleading, considering that entries last for only 5 days.--Jiang 01:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Johnleemk 06:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • You've misunderstood the purpose of the page. It has the history of VfD (at least for May - not sure how far it goes back), which was getting *very* long, making maintenance (database upgrades etc) more difficult, so the technical experts tell us. I think we should keep because of the history, but maybe blank the five days there right now, and just leave "Click "history" to see Vfd history for May 2004". We shuold do this every month to prevent histories getting long. Pcb21| Pete 08:38, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Pete but suggest it could be renamed if the above name is not accurate. But we should preserve the edit history as much as possible. -- Graham  :) | Talk 09:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jason James Richter

Another sub-stub, same conflicting verb, different IP. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 03:17, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:17, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) Rewrite is good, keep now -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:18, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • An obvious keep. Famous actor. Instead of nominating these, why don't you expand them into decent stubs? I just cleaned it up a bit and added his birthday. Everyking 04:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Believe me, I've expanded those I've known anything about and put others up on the RC Patrol page. Sure, the guy's famous. But if someone wanted to do a real article on him, what information in the original posting is really useful? I'm 100% for keeping and expanding stubs, but these postings are nuts. - Lucky 6.9 04:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • "Famous" is stretching things. The only stuff he's been in that I've heard of are the Free Willy movies, and I didn't even know they got up to a third one. However, given that Free Willy actually was notable, and that having this isn't actively detrimental, an unenthusiastic keep. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Haha. "...I didn't even know they got up to a third one." Lucky you. I wish I could say the same. Yeah, keep, I guess. blankfaze | •­• 14:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • His 'fame' appears to rely entirely on one series of films, and so I personally don't feel that he is separately worthy of an article. Delete. Average Earthman 17:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • More than doubled the article in less than 5 minutes...it's not that hard. Keep. (the original article correctly stated his name, the fact his is notable for being an actor, and the three FW movies he is most noted for. We've had articles that started with just a person's name (who it turned out was a member of the US Congress)). FWIW, we've voted to keep an article on an actress that has but one film role, a small role in a movie written, produced, and directed by her husband (for the record, I voted delete). Niteowlneils 17:10, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep easly. --Starx 17:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Should have been listed on Cleanup. RickK 19:37, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Much better. I guess I'll just have to buck up and either send these out for cleanup or fix them myself. The guy uses a different IP every day, so it would be futile to block him. For the record, I still feel strongly that vacuous sub-stubs like this should be eliminated on sight, fact-based or not. I didn't use anything from the two I just fixed. - Lucky 6.9 20:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Republic of Talossa

Micronation (a fictional nation invented by a group of people), founded yesterday. Delete as non-notable. Andris 03:23, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unfortunately, even if Talossa were to regard this as an act of war on the part of Wikipedia, we still won't get into the record books, I think the shortest war lasted only 38 minutes. Andrewa 06:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:16, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although this group has actually been around for nearly a quarter of a century it's already mentioned in the micronation article, and is otherwise not notable.--Gene_poole 04:20, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete (along with all other so-called "micronations"). Maximus Rex 04:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity fiction. Or fictional vanity. Whatever. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has already been speedily deleted twice this week. -- Graham  :) | Talk 09:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete for the third time. Has already been deleted twice, should consider protecting the page. Or possibly redirect to micronation, and then protect. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dunc Garris. Chameleon 10:51, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to micronation, and then protect, as suggested by Dunc Garris. I'll put in the redirect right now. Protect later if that's the consensus. Dpbsmith 13:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redir. Protect if necessary. Niteowlneils 17:10, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Runnin (Dying to Live)

Lyrics only. Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:31, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree. Delete. Johnleemk 05:28, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not encyclopaedic, it's surely a copyright problem, and it has already been speedily deleted once. --Stormie 06:09, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Lyrics are copyrighted, does no one remember when Lyrics.ch got shut down? Listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy Atkinson

Not notable. Delete. Withdrawing; page was cleaned up. Johnleemk 05:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I renominate - page was cleaned up but still no mention of how he is notable IMO. Delete unless his fame is made clear. - Tεxτurε 16:10, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Created by anon user, who also made a probably copyvio cut-copy to Tim Hagans, but responded very well after being contacted on User talk:24.171.140.72. S/He got a login as user:Ftblguy now and has re-created all his contributions again from scratch. I just dropped a welcome message on his talk page. -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • On second thought, agree with Cyrius below, delete, not notable. Keep Tim Hagans, though. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:49, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Still doesn't look notable. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. --Starx 04:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Sims Makin' Magic

  • Delete. Doesn't add anything. The expansions should be left to The Sims page and don't need their own pages. Saopaulo1
  • Keep. I'd like to see enough info on these expansions to warrant individual articles. Everyking 04:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is valid; I believe there's a precedent such as with the expansions for the games in the Age of Empires series. Johnleemk 05:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possibly create a page for all The Sims expansions, and redirect to there, or simply redirect to The Sims itself. Age of Empires is not actually a precident, no page has actually been created for an expansion in that series. The other pages are actual sequels and separate games. Game expansions add so little in terms of functionality and story to games that they should not be separated out in Wikipedia. This reflects a disturbing trend in Wikipedia in general to over-separate small articles. I hope I don't sound unnappreciative to the dedication some have made to creating these pages, because the information itself is certainly important. However, navigation of Wikipedia becomes tougher on the user when content is over-separated. As I stated at the start, perhaps in a game like The Sims case, a single page could be dedicated to all of its expansions with redirects for the individual names. siroxo 15:52, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hm...you're right. My bad. Withdrawing my vote. I do not vote delete, however. Several expansion packs for the Sims have added a lot of features not available in the original - for example, more neighbourhoods. I do not own this expansion pack and thus am not fit to judge; however, other expansion packs have indeed radically changed gameplay, perhaps with the exception of House Party. I am not averse to putting all expansion packs on one page, but I do believe it would be rather large and cumbersome. Who can tell? Anyway, I am neutral for now. Johnleemk 16:02, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Since you cannot use this pack without the original Sims game, it shouldn't have an article to itself. Average Earthman 17:07, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Expansions to a game are encyclopedic, assuming they meet other criteria. Agree with Everyking. Meelar 20:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. DJ Clayworth 21:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If there were enough content there could be an article. But right now there isn't, so this should be just a mention at The Sims. Thue 22:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect -- Stevietheman 03:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another one for the fan sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think your faith in fan sites is very well-placed, personally. Everyking 06:48, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Nothing inherently wrong about having a page for this, but this page has very little content, and the other add-on packs are not listed... so I say delete unless there becomes enough content to justify it. (StuartH 09:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC))

Yucca Valley High School

Not notable. Delete. Johnleemk 05:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, important to thousands of people. Everyking 05:26, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, only public high school in Yucca Valley, California so it is very important
  • Keep - TB 06:03, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Add it to Moronogo Unified School District, that way the other high schools in the district can all be on the same page. The district has Twentynine Palms High School, and other continuation schools. [35]Saopaulo1
  • Merge with other such schools. Chameleon 10:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Either add some historical or cultural significance or delete. We don't have space for every high school around the globe. Famous alumni don't count.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 11:05, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Put your thoughts in at WP:WIWO in the Schools section. I have no idea whether there is now, ever was, or ever will be consensus on articles on not-very-notable secondary schools, but let's try to find out. Dpbsmith 13:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I live in the area. The school is anything but notable. Withholding vote until we figure out what to do with these. - Lucky 6.9 15:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's encyclopedic about an ordinary high school? -- Stevietheman 03:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of adding it to Morong Unified School District. User: Elpenmaster

Brendan Kibble

Not notable. Google turns up 10 hits for "Brendan Kibble". Delete. Johnleemk 05:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • KEEP I found the Bam Balams history in Wikipedia and the Navahodads. Brendan Kibble was in with the bands he was in Nanker Phlelge I found on Wikipedia. I have told my friends about this information, when I looked again I saw his name was in deletion. It shoud be on your site. Thank you Jorge C Spain
  • Keep and clean up. If this article didn't exist it'd be on my "create" list (Australian indie rock). I'll see what I can do with it. - David Gerard 08:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • BTW, one of the reasons this stuff doesn't show up in Google is that there's approximately bugger-all about Australian indie rock on the Web. It's all still in paper fanzines or in people's heads (e.g. mine) - David Gerard 18:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Jorge - I've done some work on the Bam Balams article. Have a look at that and Died Pretty for an example of the style that'll tend to keep a band article in. You might also want to look at List of Australian independent bands, 1976-1992 and see what gaps you can fill. I should probably start a Wikiproject on the subject. Particularly if I ever get my 1/3 ton of vinyl records moved from Perth to London ... - David Gerard 11:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've done quite a cleanup on the article. What do you think now? - David Gerard 15:32, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's looking good since David's cleanup, and at least the Gun Club and Rob Younger are significant enough that I wouldn't call someone who played with them "not notable". —Stormie 02:55, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • ahem, read the article - not that Gun Club ;-) - David Gerard 07:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh, well, if he hasn't played with that Gun Club, he's a nobody! Delete! (just kidding) —Stormie 08:35, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Keep ! I agree with "Stormie"..."Not notable" ??? Obviously "Johnleemk" hasn't any idea about Aussie Indy Rock...Well done David Gerard for getting on the case. Cheers Julie (A Bam Balams & Navahodad fan)
    • Considering the article's state when I first put it on VfD and a cursory Google search, you can't blame a Malaysian 14-year-old for thinking it was just another vanity page, especially since we have so many other small-scale rockers making their own vanity pages all the time. Johnleemk | Talk 07:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep, I have all the Bam Balams records, and now I know more about the songwriter - Brendan Kibble (his other bands etc.) I'm sure there's other people out there who'd dig the article. Troy (Melbourne,Australia)

Somalian National Anthem

  • Delete. Lyrics only.

[[36]]
I created this page on my first tour of Wikipedia and it has no value. I am still tying to learn how to format a page let alone delete one. Great website, but very complicated. I dont even know for sure if this request is in the right place! Cheers: AF.

  • Keep, valid article. (that is assuming that national anthems can't be copyrighted) but cleanup. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:06, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can add commentary, history, an explanation, etc. And are those the entire lyrics? It seems awfully short to be a national anthem. Meelar 13:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant & has potential for expansion. PS to original author: keep the original version but also provide an English translation, thanks. PPS: Agreed w/ Duncharris that we need to establish the copyright status of the lyrics. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a bit difficult. it appears that the Somali government doesn't exist, [37], but that the anthem was replaced in 2000 with a worded version that I can't find the lyrics to. This is need of attention though Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Anthems doesn't seem too helpful. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:07, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a valid article though could do with some content other than just the lyrics. About the copyright issue, I suppose it depends when and by whom the national anthem was written though I shan't imagine a copyright case would be pursued for a country's national anthem... -- Graham  :) | Talk 19:10, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Age of Empires dreams

  • AFAICT, this is made up. No relevant google hits. Also get the related Perldreams. Meelar 15:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is a real phenomenon of after-images and such, but this seems like private mythology. Geogre 16:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • And did you see the Wikipedia:Wikidreams article? "Private mythology" is right. I can't recall a single dream of mine involving Wikipedia! Nightmares, maybe.  :^P - 216.116.240.142 17:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonsense - Tεxτurε 17:09, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Shoot 'em ups give me dizzy dreams, but delete Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:29, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, although it is hilarious. I think a general article on this phenomenon could be worthwhile, but I don't see the sense in having individual articles about its effect on players of particular games. Everyking 19:33, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. I had a dream about Age of Emprires last night. Eerily ironic. Acegikmo1 20:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not ironic, it's coincidental. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • A trivial example of the interaction of rehearsal and sleep in the development of long-term procedural memory. It happens to all people all the time. You just usually don't remember these kinds of dreams. Delete or redirect to the right psychology article. Rossami 20:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete substub, made-up term. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CustomizedGirl

Spam ad, methinks. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(added note) The second paragraph of the original version was also a copyvio.Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Geogre 16:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its a legitimate company. 16:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) (anon IP)
  • Delete - vanity/advert - Tεxτurε 17:05, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this advert. Andris 17:10, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - blatant advert. Bill 19:25, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ad, site won't even load for me. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Andy Hagans

Classic vanity by User:66.151.49.196 User talk:66.151.49.196 contribs again. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From the same stable as Tim Hagans and Jimmy Atkinson Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Andy's only claim to fame is that he is the roommate of Jimmy. Jimmy's only claim to fame is that he is the roommate of Andy. - Tεxτurε 18:25, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Starx 04:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Forest Temple

Besides saying that it is a maze in a game, a fact which on its own isn't worthy of a separate article, this article contains nothing but opinions. - Fredrik (talk) 17:36, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • delete--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 18:28, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • It almost reads like a review in a gamer magazine. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 19:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'll work on it a bit. The temples are linked from the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time article, and I think a complete description of each temple would be too much for one article, considering that the article is already fairly large. Everyking 19:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subtrivial pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not subtrivial and it's not pseudoinformation. The game is of cultural note and therefore deserves to be properly covered. Everyking 06:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Raw

Dictionary definition. - Fredrik (talk) 18:14, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Springfield Paradox

Non-notable, trivial, non-encyclopedic crap. Philwelch 19:45, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - nonsense - Tεxτurε 19:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- but possible BJAODN candidate Dukeofomnium 19:57, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't really think it's THAT funny. Just pretty stupid. That's my 2¢. Delete. blankfaze | •­• 20:24, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Not even funny. Delete. DJ Clayworth 20:37, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ha, ha. Send it packing. - Lucky 6.9 23:16, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and smack the author. --Starx 02:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: the funny thing is that this is a joke told by a stand-up comic as part of his routine, and someone liked that joke enough to think it deserved an encyclopedia entry.

The Beaver

  • Delete - vanity - student newspaper and current staff names (staff names removed after VfD listing - only a couple lines about the school newspaper remain) - Tεxτurε 20:18, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, or merge with the School page and redirect -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:46, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with the school page. --Starx 04:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Leave It to Beaver and merge with school article. -- Stevietheman 05:37, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alykhan Velshi

  • Delete - vanity - claim to fame is that he is on the staff of local student newspaper The Beaver and the student run Hayek Society along with normal student activities. - Tεxτurε 20:25, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if the paper stays, he goes. DJ Clayworth 20:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Vanity, and bordering on BJAODN given the fact that he starts each paragraph with his name. It's like he's running for a political office in the third person! - Lucky 6.9 23:19, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:44, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, bad... bad vanity. --Starx 04:53, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Michael Swindells

Expand or delete. A British policeman killed in the line of duty. Not inherently encyclopedia-worthy on that basis, but there could be potential if someone knows something that is not in the (stub) article as it stands. -- Jmabel 20:27, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • merge with others, list of British policemen killed on duty? including WPC Yvonne Fletcher, and the two guys that were killed near me a while ago. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) - info source at [38] Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there was actually a list of police officers killed in the line of duty then move it their I guess. But I don't really think we need such a list and I know we don't need an article on every one of them. Non-notable. --Starx 04:50, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CrypTool

Open-source software, the author posted the work. Seems insignificant for Wikipedia, but I would suggest move to openfacts. Needs tidy anyway. [39] Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Note we can't move to openfacts unless the author releases it into the public domain. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:47, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The software, the tutorials and the scripts are all open source, build by many people all over the world, mainly now coming from universities. It's used in many courses to get students a practical experience on how cryptography and cryptanalysis works.

So the text I posted is released into the public domain. What does "moving to openfacts" mean? What else do you need from me? Thanks for your help to me as a Wikipedia beginner. Best regards, Bernhard (User BE in Wikipedia) Bernhard 12:12, 4 Jun 2004 (CET).

Radium (SA)

Does not seem notable enough, se fx Radium "Something Awful". Thue 21:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Um, WOW THAT'S DUMB. Delete. blankfaze | •­• 21:31, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ouch. This is one of those times that "delete with extreme prejudice" is too kind. - Lucky 6.9 23:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough to salvage the article. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:49, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, idiocy. —Stormie 03:00, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. --Starx 04:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hippophilia

Talks about sex with horses, but the only reference I can find to that use via google is a woody allan quote. So the information is at least unverifiable. When that part is removed there is only a dictionary definition left.

  • Eww. Delete as unverifiable. This is one sick little puppy. - Lucky 6.9 23:23, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Icky... but real. See [40] --Starx 02:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • To me that just reads like someone who likes horses, as in platonic love. Your average horse-crazy girl. My reading of it does not imply sex, and it would be misleading to redirect to Zoophilia or Bestiality. Thue 13:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Zoophilia? -- Cyrius|✎ 02:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Zoophilia or Bestiality JFW | T@lk 12:01, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • "Bestiality" redirects to Zoophilia, so this should redirect to Zoophilia as well. WhisperToMe 13:12, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 4

Zvitko Barkanovic

Faulty information all around. Danny 00:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Seems reasonably important if someoen can fix it. I have no knowledge of the subject, so I can't state anything about the factuality.siroxo 06:31, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Transporter accident

Not article-worthy on its own. Possible candidate for speedy deletion. EXTERMINATE! Philwelch 01:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Brian Alkire

Appears to be a vanity page. A couple of mentions in Google: 1 a duplicate of information here; the other an honor roll list. Joyous 01:57, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Non-notable and appears to be unverifiable. Looks like his writing career is about to have a setback. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Starx 04:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Though it's nice to read about a teen with some real depth, assuming all this is true, please delete anyway as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 07:29, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, probable vanity, and unencyclopedic in any case. Unfortunately by an anon. Hopefully he will perservere. Andrewa 10:44, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • He's been doing a little bit of vandalism on the side. contribs. Delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Transporter beam

Again, not article-worthy on its own. Philwelch 01:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

redirected to Transporter (Star Trek) which is much more comprehensive. dml 02:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Communications in the Vatican City

  • Information doesnt merrit it's own page. Put into Vatican City page. Saopaulo1
    • You can do that. Merge the info and put #REDIRECT [[Vatican City]] into the above page and it will create a redirect. Ditto with one below. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:50, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Transportation in the Vatican City

"How The Amazon Has Changed"

Duplication of information probably already available. Merge and delete/redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • It's newbie nonsense. speedy delete it. I have greeted user. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neutral Territory of Prevlaka

Per Talk:Neutral Territory of Prevlaka, this should go. --Shallot 12:33, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Patent nonsense. Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, etymology(ies)

Nonsense, unencyclopedic. User:Casta attacked my personal page in response to an attempted speedy delete, so what do you folks think? Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:30, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. I haven't studied the problem in depth, but the etymologies proposed there seemed about as plausible as any; sources are given for each. Some or all of them may be nonsense, but they're hardly patent nonsense. Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ulrich Karger

I smell a vanity page by a newbie. I suspect an non-significant author advertising himself. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Scary Sleepover

same as Ulrich Karger above. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category:Dead people

Moved to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:25, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

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=3935264"