Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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


11th 10th 9th 8th 6th 5th 4th - 3rd


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.


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)
  • Is this real? I tried searching on google for "Zvitko Barkanovic", "Ramzan Rovic" and "Jibril Pasha" and did not find anything about any of the three. I know google is not perfect but it looks suspicious if I can't find anything mentioned in the article. Could be misspelled, could be someone playing a joke on Wikipedia. Andris 19:45, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • "Mount Tadmus" also cannot be found. Andris 19:53, 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)

  • Merge and redirect, and no need for the VEHEMENCE! it's NOT FRIENDLY! thanks. - Fennec (さばくのきつね) 02:36, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It looks like everything here is covered in more detail in Transporter (Star Trek). Joyous 02:44, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect and possibly merge to Transporter (Star Trek). -- Cyrius|✎ 02:44, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've read the article and I've read Transporter (Star Trek) and frankly nothing needs merging. I'm going to do a redirect. --Starx 04:44, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the redirection. --Zigger 08:11, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
    • D seconded. Who needs this redirection? --Woggly 11:13, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Transporter accidents are a rather interesting topic.

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)
    • Comment: Noted. Hopefully... No, I won't say it. Andrewa 20:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Andris 19:37, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably vanity. --Woggly 11:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Definately vanity - pointless, delete. Maestrosync 11:54, 11 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)
  • Keep redirect to Transporter (Star Trek). -- Cyrius|✎ 02:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as the redirect. --Starx 04:37, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect, unless it's not a beam, in which case delete. Anybody visited this universe lately? --Zigger 08:08, 2004 Jun 6 (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

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)
  • Appears to be nonsense. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds very suspect and no corroboration was provided. I tried googling, but found nothing. If this was reported in a (serious) newspaper, it should go (in a much shortened form) into the Prevlaka article. Zocky 22:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. Delete. -- ChrisO 11:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, etymology(ies)

Deletion Tools

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Al-Andalus, etymology(ies)


The Scary Sleepover

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

  • Keep - wiki is not paper. If this is an actual author with actual published works who are we non-germans to claim that it is not valid? - Tεxτurε 17:59, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Texture. Everyking 18:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Lean towards delete. The English translation has Amazon sales rank 1,760,778 which does not look significant. Andris 01:51, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless anyone can show some cultural significance somewhere (like in Germany: it could be encyclopedia-worthy even in the absence of an English translation). -- Jmabel 07:24, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, Texture is right. Meelar 20:29, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And I say so only because there is no mention of the books importance. I don't think wiki needs plot synopsis on books. If it has a synopsis along with a discussion of the books importance then great. But not just a synopsis. --Starx 00:29, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the book's worth translating into several languages it's worth an article. MK 06:53, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category:Dead people

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

  • Anyone else think it's hilarious that the complete list of Dead People consists of the following: Fanny Blankers-Koen, Fred Davis, Joe Davis, Walter Donaldson (snooker player), Mary Dresselhuys, Max Euwe, Florence Griffith Joyner, Rashad Khalifa, Hannes Kolehmainen, Albert Mol, Jesse Owens, Shirley Strickland, and Leon Stukelj. MK 06:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Anyway, i posted this here, drop dead moved it, where it was honored by another of Abigail's filibustering attacks, and less than a day later, it disapeered from categories for deletion. This *interesting* and *usefull* category is still on the loose. Sigh, Muriel G 08:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Disrespectful, utterly pointless, and so incomplete that to describe it as "boggles the imagination" boggles the imagination. Denni 23:07, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)

Citrix MetaFrame

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

  • Delete. Clear advert. Andris 17:48, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but cleanup as an article about the actual citrix metaframe protocol, which is widely used, most notably as the backbone for Microsoft Windows XP's Remote Desktop Protocol. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:49, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've rewritten the article as a stub for the actual Citrix Metaframe protocol. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:13, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert. very much a candidate for deletion. Not a useful article about the protocol but just and advertisement. - Tεxτurε 17:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten article - Tεxτurε 18:17, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewritten article. Andris 19:25, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Thanks DDG. I am removing the VfD notice. Yaron 14:50, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)


Inferior

Dicdef. - Fredrik (talk) 18:05, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not sure why this would ever be considered needed. - Tεxτurε 18:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - aren't pure dicdefs speedy deletion candidates? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:25, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, no. Delete. RickK 18:49, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xevi 21:01, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


The Fish Brothers

Insignificant local Brighton band. All music guide doesn't know 'em, nothing at Amazon. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Sitting on the fence. Google search on the Fish Brothers [1] although that also includes a UK Mitshubishi dealership. I note that the Levellers website notes that they are that groups faourite support band. May be significant within genre and All Music Guide not as comprehensive outside the US.Capitalistroadster 23:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete for now. Slight vanity. --Quagga

Nap

Herefordshire (disambiguation)

Both disambiguated links redirect to the same page so it's not disambiguating anything. -- Graham  :) | Talk 20:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Ahaha, how silly. EXTERMINATE! Philwelch 23:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Someone needs to make an article for the traditional county. A good example would be Yorkshire. --Quagga
  • Delete. The areas covered are practically identical. Having seperate articles about the modern county and the traditional county (but none for the former admin. county?) is POV nonsense. Morwen 07:35, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • And further to that, if we were to split it as suggested, we would have no page to note that e.g. Hay-on-Wye was considered part of Herefordshire in the Domesday Book. Morwen 08:11, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless at present and unlikely to become useful. Warofdreams 13:14, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arighi Bianchi

Furniture shop, but is a grade II listed building. Worthy? Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:19, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • It seems to have a claim to fame, and is called a local landmark, so keep. Everyking 23:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't find anything in the deletion policy that I'd feel comfortable deleting it under. Keep. blankfaze | •• 23:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Need I say anymore? --The guy who Wik hates, Quagga
  • Keep (but did you really expect me to vote any other way?) :-) — Wikisux 07:30, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I love that shop. It is very prominent as you travel through Macclesfield Dmn 18:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Graham  :) | Talk 23:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It sounds like a notable landmark not without a lot of fans. - Lucky 6.9 00:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Danny Davini

Does not seem to be an influential painter yet. --Zigger 22:24, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

  • Yeah, looks like vanity. Delete. blankfaze | •• 23:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious vanity. --Quagga
  • Smells like vanity. Google hits appear to be self-promotion. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:22, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with reasoning. Andris 06:20, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Endar Spire

Name of the ship that the game Knights of the Old Republic starts on, which crashes shortly into the game. Don't think that it's article-worthy on it's own. --Andrew L 23:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 5

Building A Computer

a partial how-to guide, not an encyclopedia entry. Maximus Rex 03:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Kill it, DIY guides are not encyclopaedic. It might, however, be a good idea to link to sites offering such guides on the personal computer page or somewhere similar, or maybe even change it to a more encyclopaedic article on the phenomenon/hobby of building PCs and put links there. StuartH 04:42, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • DIE, DIE, DIE! blankfaze | •• 05:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikibooks and delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:14, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Phoenix-Songstress

makes no sense, gets no google hits. Maximus Rex 03:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Ah, I dunno. It looks like it could possibly have the possibility to be encyclopedic. That is, if it's true, and if it gets a substantial amount of work. I'll abstain for now. blankfaze | •• 05:12, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep...if someone gives a verifiable source. He gives the woman's true name as Souke Anyama, but I don't get any Google hits on that name (though I do get some for her alleged husband, Sanada Yukimura, but haven't found any info at all on his wife). Is this from fiction? Jsan 07:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:20, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Google turns up nothing. Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 05:45, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Kill it, kill it now. Ambivalenthysteria 08:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Policy conservatism

Seems to be a neologism created by a Washington Post article. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:08, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Seems worthless to me. Delete. blankfaze | •• 05:08, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neologism, near-dicdef. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:20, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rag-chewing

Dicdef. No website I found had any information that could be used to develop an article. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:20, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If valid, put into a new page with other morse code terminology, which I'm sure there is other terms to add to. Dysprosia 04:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agree. blankfaze | •• 05:07, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gee, if it's not on the internet, then it musn't exist! Common sense, right?  : ) har har har! --64.231.158.220 13:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How is rag-chewing not on the internet? I've heard of it. Then again, I'm a ham, so... Basically, it's valid, but I don't hink it deserves it's own entry. Scott Burley 06:09, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
It seems the anon misunderstood my initial statement. I didn't say it wasn't on the net, just that there was insufficient information on the net to develop an article. SWAdair | Talk 04:55, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's certainly a term familiar to (especially older US) amateur radio operators. However, its use was in no way restricted to morse code operations. In fact, it was far more common to hear the term rag-chewing in relation to voice operation. I think it's far less used today though and it certainly does not need its own article. A mention under Amateur radio (perhaps in section 3) would suffice IMO. de NG3K Bill 23:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Northgate Shopping Centre

Deletion Tools
  • You could read the wikipedia articles of Hobart and Tasmania, they both indicate Hobart's population is about 200,000)

Northgate Shopping centre is not the biggest shopping centre in Tasmania - Eastlands is. It Could be said that Channel Court Shopping Centre Will so be Tasmania's largest shopping centre -- Wiki ian 10:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit other users comments (below) - I was being cautious quoting the 180,000 figure. Do you know where there are any stats quoting the relative sizes (area/no. of stores/etc) of the shopping centres? -- Chuq 07:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From VfD

  • Extremely obscure and small, not a topic for an encyclopedia. There are 7 shopping centres within a 15 minute drive of my house that are bigger than this place. Vast majority of hits on Google are addresses. - Aaron Hill 04:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This is one of the three biggest shopping centres in a city of 180,000. Chuq 07:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Haha. Who has time to create a page about a shopping center? Why not Wynonna Judd even? Delete. blankfaze | •­• 05:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC
    • Haha. Who has time to creat a page about Wynonna Judd? (Whoever she is) I created it because it took two minutes, and I had referenced it in another couple of articles. Chuq 07:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not even a unique shopping centre - there's a Northgate near where I grew up (Hornsby, northern suburbs of Sydney). p.s. I have added Wynonna Judd to Wikipedia:Requested articles/music for you, blankfaze. ;-) —Stormie 06:16, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • :-P haha blankfaze | ?­? 23:29, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Then disambig, not deletion, is the solution to that particular issue - if you wanted to create an article for the other Northgate, that is. Chuq 07:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Whew! At first I thought this was an article on the Northgate Shopping Center near me that is being demolished. Either way, not noteworthy. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 07:14, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I may be biased as the creator of the article. I've posted replies to specific comments above. Should every other articled linked at List of shopping malls be deleted as well? Chuq 07:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • What?! We actually have a List of shopping malls? Oh, no. Ohhhh, no. Ohhhhhh, no. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to mention everything, but everything of note. This general trend needs to be addressed before it becomes a massive cleanup project. SWAdair | Talk 07:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep 2 Questions: Is this article correct/verifible? I would answer yes. Does it really hurt to have it? Not really. [[2]] - who cares if we have a factually correct article about every mall in the world. Harddrive space and bandwidth are cheap. (of which this is consuming much of neither). Burgundavia 11:30, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Unless its a particularly notable shopping center, i'd say delete. I've personally been to "Northgate" malls in 3 different states in the US, unrelated to each other (I belive) none of which were significant. I guess this really decision depends on the direction people want Wikipedia to take in the long run. siroxo 11:42, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, factual, verifiable, and important to many. - SimonP 14:13, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not every fact is a significant fact. Indeed, it does hurt to have a solo entry on "Northgate Shopping Center," as there is not a single one. Disambig to every one? We're talking about thousands, not dozens, of verifiable places. If the shopping center has been mentioned in previous articles, then isn't it possible to fold appropriate information about it into those articles? Every town and city I have lived in has had one "Northgate," and some have had more than one. "Northgate Shopping Center, Melbourne" or "Nothgate Shopping Center, Springfield, Ohio" might be possible, if it's significant. Geogre 15:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insignificant wikicruft. WP is not a gazetteer. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment This is an example of what I'm calling a local interest article." For the time being, I'm declining to vote on these articles, on some not-yet-well-articulated point of principle. But I sure wish people would only write them if they know the place and could include a bit of local color, or a snapshot, or something. Can't we at least have consensus that inclusion of some local knowledge about this mall would make it a much better article? Dpbsmith 18:20, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's actually the largest shopping centre in the largest city in Tasmania. Should mention this in the article. --Gene_poole 22:16, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not noteworthy. If it is decided to keep, it has to become a disambiguation page. RickK 22:34, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I only have a problem with these local-interest articles when they don't have any context. This one's mentioned in the Glenorchy, Tasmania article, and even described as a "major indoor shopping centre". That's enough of a context and justification for inclusion for me. Certainly this shopping centre is also much more significant than many of the U.S. towns with 15 inhabitants we currently have data dumps about (and no, I don't mind those either). Fredrik (talk) 00:01, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Wasn't going to vote at first, but if Gene Poole speaks the truth when he says it's the largest shopping center in the largest city on Tasmania, that's good enough for me. Keep. Everyking 01:21, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that this was the largest shopping centre in Tasmania and after discovering that it is I think the article should remain, but it must establish that it is a relatively significant shopping centre. - Aaron Hill 11:26, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. To update the discussion above, Northgate Shopping Centre is now a disambiguation page, where other Northgates can be listed. I changed the link in Glenorchy, Tasmania so that it now points to Northgate Shopping Centre, Tasmania. If there are so many other Northgates around, does maybe Wynonna Judd shop at one of them? JamesMLane 13:04, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm no inclusionist, but I can't see any reason to delete this. Could easily be of interest. Ambivalenthysteria 08:04, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I support keeping major shopping centers and malls, but strip malls are not worthy of inclusion. If this is a major shopping center, keep. Meelar 13:56, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support people. I'll endeavour to get more information, and maybe a photo, on this shopping centre. Btw, Northgate Shopping Centre looks silly as a disambig page with only one link, so the people above who said they knew of bigger and better ones.. please add! Chuq 06:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Police Training Exercise

Removed this section. Shameless self-referencing by news.com.au for un-noteworthy event. --Arrows98 (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenants list

Does this count as a sufficient source? A straight copy + paste sounds like a good starting, to ensure none are missed. I'll be sure to clean it up before posting. I'm mainly seeking approval that a) this should be done and b) that it's fine for me to do it. - Zergling_man 58.96.88.83 (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AT-PT

Fictional vehicle from some game or fictional universe. No idea which, though, the author doesn't say. Google shows it up as being a Star Wars thing, but that doesn't seem to match this article. —Stormie 05:21, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep but make it clear that it's fictional. Guanaco 05:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Starx 00:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I made some small changes placing it in the Star Wars universe. Besides, it's already being linked to. - Jsan 07:12, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the AT-PT is Expanded Universe only (i.e. it's not in any of the movies), but I'm not enough of a SW geek to know for sure. If it is, it should say so in the article. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 01:06, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You are correct, I've edited that point into the article. --Starx 03:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


List of internet emoticons and List of internet emotions

  • Isn't this the sort of stuff that can be found on hundreds of websites? Do we need it here? RickK 06:05, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, if there is anything there which can be added to Emoticon (which is a reasonably nice article on the topic), then someone may wish to do so. —Stormie 06:10, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need a list on this, there no standard definition of what emotions some of them stand for or how they are supposed to be represented (ie :) or :-)). The emoticon article (and wikipedia as a whole) is fine without this content. --Starx 00:08, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Emoticon is fine. Actually I find most such lists irritating because only a relative handful are actually used with any frequency; the rest appear only on lists of emoticons, need to be explained whenever used, and are used only in order to have the pleasure of explaining them. :P  :\ Dpbsmith 01:19, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Isn't that what encyclopedia entries are for? Voyager640 04:41, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • People not only say things should be deleted because they CAN'T be found on hundreds of websites, but also because they CAN? Seems kind of absurd. Keep. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:26, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are a few interesting ones in the Emoticons article. This further list of 15 is just a waste of space. It doesn't link back to the main article, it isn't comprehensive and it is already all over the internet. Michael L. Kaufman 05:09, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Airport Parkway, Bank Street, Brookfield Road, Donnelly Road, Heron Road, Hunt Club Road, Laurier Avenue, Main Street (Ottawa), North Gower Road, Preston Street, Preston Street, Riverside Drive, Sussex Drive, and the rest of the linkage at List of Ottawa, Ontario roads

Deletion Tools

Untitled

From VfD

I think all salient points can be covered in a single article (either the main 'Ottawa streets' article, or possible a 'description of Ottawa streets' article. Other than the 'Ottawa streets' article, many are orphans. Neither Alphabetical List of Hoboken streets, nor Alphabetical list of Santa Clara, California streets have links to the individual streets. Possible exceptions: Bank Street,Rideau Street. Many also hog very generic names for commonly used street names around the world. Niteowlneils 06:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • keep As I mentioned in the above debate about shopping malls, this a verifiable fact. In fact, where I live, there are 3 books of about 200 pages about why each and every street in Victoria, British Columbia is named that way. And when we need to disambiguate, we can. Burgundavia 11:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Sitting on the fence but tending towards keep. As a general rule I don't believe we should have articles on streets, roads, avenues etc unless:
    • the street is of historical, economic or cultural interest eg Wall Street, Fleet Street, Beale Street Memphis (birthplace of the blues)
    • the street is the main street of a reasonably significant centre or regional area or at least a significant street;
    • a famous person real or fictional lived there - ie Sherlock Holmes at 221B Baker Street, London
    • the street contains buildings of national significance to the relevant nation ie White House at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
  • Which leads to my concern as Ottawa is the Capital City of Canada we might delete streets containing the Canadian Parliament - I would suggest that we keep the streets in Ottawa that meet the above criteria and that we merge the others into the Ottawa article if appropriate. I would urge caution in case we throw the babies out with the bathwater. Capitalistroadster 13:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, as a former Ottawa resident a number of these streets are of national reknown and the others are major commerical centres. - SimonP 14:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. In Wikipedia:Your first article—under construction and in need of community editing and input—I define "local interest articles" as "articles about places like schools, or streets that are of interest to a relatively small number of people such as alumni or people who live nearby. There is no consensus about such articles, but some will challenge them if they include nothing that shows how the place is special and different from tens of thousands of similar places. Photographs add interest. Try to give local-interest articles local color." Dpbsmith 17:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please note that I am NOT suggesting that Wikipedia shouldn't have information/facts about these streets. My concern is whether it is necessary to have 146 separate articles, often using names used by streets in many other cities. Why not a single notable streets of Ontario (or whatever title people think is best) article? I basically agree with the guidelines above by capitalistroadster--there are probably a few streets in every country that deserve separate articles; I just don't believe there are dozens in every city. Also, since many Wikipedians mark anything that doesn't fill the screen as a "stub", I don't think it is in Wikipedia's best interest to create large numbers of articles that will probably be forever marked Stub. Finally, from an end-user perspective, I believe it is FAR more convenient to scroll thru a single article about all notable streets in a given city, than it is to click a street name, hit the Back button, click a street name, hit the Back button, click a street name, hit the Back button, ad nauseum. PS I have no problem keeping all the street names as redirs, at least until they need to become disambiguation pages. Niteowlneils 18:02, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • These are not encyclopedia articles, they are the geographic equivalent of dicdefs. Bank Street and Main Street (Ottawa) have the hints of real articles peeking through. Either delete or merge into one article. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:00, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all except Bank Street, Laurier Street, and Main Street (Ottawa). I agree on the whole w/ Cyrius and Niteowlneils. Some small number of streets deserve mention; for the rest, look in the phone book. WP is not a gazetteer. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:30, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: none of these entries have a vfd messsage. They should be added and the vote moved to the date they were inserted. - SimonP 22:16, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Ottawa, Ontario and delete. RickK 22:27, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Rick as you know and have been told many times, merge and delete is not a valid option. Please stop irritating people by continuing to suggest it. Pcb21| Pete 22:49, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I'm at a loss. I don't recall having ever been told this, and I completely have no idea why it is not a valid option. Please explain? RickK 06:08, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
        • Comment: I think Pcb21 is right on both counts. Anyway, please have a look at Wikipedia:deletion policy#commenting on a deletion request. Andrewa 11:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • Oh, I see what you're saying. Though I still deny that anyone has every told me that this was wrong, and Pcb's comment was irritating to me, by the way. Well, then, just delete. RickK 22:34, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 00:00, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • merge into one or delete. --Jiang 00:28, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- The reason why I created these articles is because I saw that there was a list of streets in London. These pages took a lot of time to write up, and I'd appreciate if my hard work does not go to waste. Earl Andrew 01:32, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - as long as it is (becomes) properly disambiguated, is factually correct, and affects a significant number of people (and I suspect tens of thousands of people per day use these roads, which is far more than see a number of operas and art pieces described here), it should not be deleted. I wouldn't encourage people to create them, but if the alternative is to have or not have, having is better. dml 03:12, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - more people live, work and travel along each of these roads than in most of the thousands of small towns and villages which have articles to themselves. They may also be useful as stubs, since there is far more that could be and hopefully will be written about them. I do agree about the name-hogging problem. Subsequent disambiguation mitigates the problem, but if articles about streets are to be widespread then perhaps there needs to be an agreed convention for naming them. This might also facilitate robot-assisted maintaining of the disambig pages. Cambyses 03:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Hi all

Please could you add references to the articles on Ottowa roads you have created. References (from reliable sources are required for all Wikipedia articles. I will check back in a month or so. Thanks. Proto::type 15:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of roads in Ottawa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Boulevard) (in Raleigh, North Carolina)

True orphan--doesn't even link from the related Interstate article the original contributor has worked on. I don't want to "bite the newcomer", but seriously, do we want tens of thousand of street name articles? I realize "WP is not paper", but I go back to my 'ratio of articles/Wikipedians argument', an addition of which would be that all the time spent by new WPers on 'killing street name red-links', would be better spent on articles with more broad interest. Niteowlneils 06:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I live in Raleigh, NC. Capital Boulevard is a major road in Raleigh, but it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, worthy of an article in the Wikipedia. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 07:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Lean towards keep. It is a major street in a major regional centre in North Carolina. In response to Niteowlneils comments, presumably the reason that newbies spend time writing articles on streets or shopping malls because these things are of significance to them. I remember reading an article in the Melbourne Age is that one of the strengths of the Wikipedia is its greater coverage of local features. We have thousands of articles on Star Trek characters, Pokemon characters, etc or indeed music articles which I tend to work on. Why is is it considered that shopping malls where thousands of people shop daily or major streets in our cities are of less interest than these other interests? One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it is written by ordinary people about things that are important to them. I am tending towards the view that important streets in cities should be kept. If it doesn't interest you, you don't have to read them. Capitalistroadster 13:46, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • PS. A Google search of "Capital Boulevard" North Carolina [3] comes up with over 7000 results.Capitalistroadster 13:55, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, with care: As the author of "Peachtree Street," I've been on the fence about this. If a street is historically important, known outside of its own town, or really the main street of a town (e.g. if you go to visit there, every direction you get from someone will start, "Well, you go down to X street, and then you..."), it seems significant. In this particular case, Capitol Blvd. is the main street of Raleigh in a peculiarly apt way. The article can explain the importance of the street. Geogre 17:25, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, every set of directions in Raleigh begins with the Beltline. Capital Blvd. is a very lucrative street as far as city taxes go -- lots of fast food restaurants, new and used car lots, etc. In other words, it is like tens of thousands of other streets -- not noteworthy of its own article. Either merge or delete. SWAdair | Talk 03:09, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. As above, I am NOT saying the street is not notable, nor that Wikipedia shouldn't mention it. I am simply questioning why it needs to be a separate article, instead of being part of the city's article? "Aurora Avenue" Seattle (THE main street in the north half of Seattle (where I lived 39 years, and still spend time); major commute route and commercial center) gets 26,000 hits, but I don't think it needs an article by itself. (BTW I only get ~5,700 hits for "Capital Boulevard" North Carolina--OIC 7,000 for '"Capital Boulevard" raleigh) Oh, and, while I appreciate having some LotR, Trek, etc. info, I think we have excessive granularity there, too. Niteowlneils 18:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the article is expanded to explain why it is notable. Being a long city road with limited access portions does not make a road notable. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:48, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Raleigh, North Carolina and delete. It can't stand at this title, as there are other Capital Boulevards around the world, I'm sure. RickK 22:32, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)


Techniques and resources for natural language processing

Currently just a list of links (with a bizzare wikilink to the irrelavent Introduction page. The links are relavent and useful for people interested in NLP, but the article is not really about anything. I see no need to have this as a page separate from Natural Language Processing. Cadr 20:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User silvermane

Mangled mess that has been awaiting translation for almost a month. - SimonP 21:51, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. RickK 22:30, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What, so you write garbage in a foreign language as opposed to English and it hangs around for longer? That makes no sense.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:54, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:50, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dpbsmith 01:28, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of assets owned by Clear Channel Communications

Substub, and all information is in Clear Channel Communications anyway. --Etaoin 22:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • It's not even a list. Delete. RickK 22:28, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • True or false: there is an advantage of deleting as opposed to keeping as a re-direct to Clear Channel Communications. 66.32.138.16 23:35, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And ^true. The current title serves no purpose, knowones ever going to search for that and not search for Clear Channel. --Starx 23:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete I really can't see an opulent future of expansion for this stub.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:52, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for good reasons noted by others. Dpbsmith 01:25, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Duncan Sheik

Article tagged for speedy delete by User:Duncharris. Not a speedy candidate, so I moved it here. Meelar 22:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • VERY MUCH a speedy delete candidate. I would have deleted it had you not moved it here. Delete. RickK
    • Vanity pages, even poorly written ones, are NOT candidates for speedy deletion. They have to go through VfD, because of things like this. A grammy nominee is certainly worthy of an article. Meelar 05:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • A great guy who spends his time writing music. He was born on November 18, 1969 in Montclair, New Jersey. He is married and loves to play the guitar. He's even won some awards and money for his music. is definitely worthy of speedy deletion. RickK 06:11, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
        • It does no harm to put these through vfd instead--and thus give them wider exposure, to see if an article is worth saving. Meelar 13:33, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete no comment--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:51, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, has an entry on All Music Guide. Subject for cleanup. Fredrik (talk) 23:54, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. It's been stubbified, not great but much much better. --Starx 23:55, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, new stubby version is fine, certainly notable. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Original version was garbage. New version needs help, but is a stub. Keep. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:00, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've certainly never heard of him, but if got a Grammy nomination, I think he's notable enough to have an article. —Stormie 00:10, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Depressingly, I knew who he was from name alone. Keep. Snowspinner 00:22, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Stormie's reasoning. Andris 01:02, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Google Search for "Duncan Sheik" gets over 37,000 hits [4]. I think that we need a new procedure where people should look at listing concerns about articles on the talk page/ and or the user page and wait for a response say for 24 hours before listing them here or on votes for speedy deletion unless it is obviously patent nonsense. I think that this would help sort out a lot of issues before they reach here.Capitalistroadster 12:39, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's pretty well-known for that song "Barely Breathing." For a while, you couldn't get away from it on radio. He's at least as well known as many obscure bands that are still here. Joyous 04:38, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
    This wasn't actually an unreasonable listing - look at the article history. It was patent nonsense when it first appeared, and gave every indication of being a vanity article - especially as the article was created by "Duncan Sheik." It just happened to be about a real person. Snowspinner 05:59, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree that the original listing was utter garbashky and deserved a speedy. Looking great now. - Lucky 6.9 08:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (of course). Another example of the danger of marking things for speedy delete when one has no knowledge of the subject matter. Don't bite the newbies. Wikisux 09:03, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. There are a lot of poorly written articles on legitimate topics. The policy should just be to stub these. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:26, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • It deserved vfd, but had it been speedied we would have lost an article. Meelar 13:30, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Not really. We didn't have an article on Duncan Sheik before the rewrite. We had an article titled Duncan Sheik, but it didn't really have any use as an article about him. If it had been deleted, we would have simply not had an article about him or using his name. No big. Snowspinner 20:05, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
          • And indeed, while it's obviously better to rewrite a worthless article than to delete it, I think it's better to delete it than to do nothing. Better to have a red link inviting people to write an article, than a blue one inviting them to click on it and find nothing but crap. —Stormie 05:36, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep current version. Fairly well known musician. -Seth Mahoney 22:20, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Lifnei iver

An unencyclopedic priciple of Jewish law. Delete. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Given the support below, I'd like to add the following. Clearly, any principle from the Talmud will then gain its own article... There are literally hundreds of them. Are we waiting for ha-motzi me-chavero alav ha-ra'aya, teiku (tishbi yiftor kushiot u-ba'ayot), or the very parallel lo ta'amod al dam rei'echa? JFW | T@lk 07:09, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, bring 'em on. A subject that is large requires more space. Everyking 07:50, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it has info that isn't contained in 613 mitzvot. --Starx 23:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If it wasn't for the fact that there's 613 of the things, I'd say merge and redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:30, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Interesting and important concept (to me). This also appears in Cherem, but not by name. Are there any modern laws who's origin is this? Entrapment? There Might be a better place to put this, but I wouldn't like to see it deleted. Pud
    • Merge with a term from general law might be a good move. JFW | T@lk 07:09, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify (possibly merge with 613 mitzvot) -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could use some work, but being a principle of Jewish law makes it automatically encyclopedic. Everyking 02:40, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, along with any other of the 613 mitzvot, and similar components of other religious laws. Now wikified. --Zigger 03:05, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can't really judge accuracy but reads like a fine short article to me. Are jdfwolff's objections to the quality of the article or just to the subject? He needs to articulate this more clearly. Re "there are 613 of the things:" the article is about 1200 bytes long. Hypothetically, if each of the 613 mitzvot were to receive an article of similar length that would be less than a megabyte total. If that were to happen I would think it would be a great addition to Wikipedia. Note, too, that 613 articles would constitute 613/279454 = 0.2% of Wikipedia, which is a lot but hardly excessive. It's not as if that would crowd out other religions. Conversely, if this much information were moved into 613 mitzvot it would become a 700K article, which, interestingly enough, is much shorter than the article on "Bible" in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, but much too long for Wikipedia. Dpbsmith 10:41, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. An informative and interesting expansion of its one-line entry on 613 mitzvot. IMO, definitely encyclopedic and worthy of its own page. --Diberri | Talk 03:36, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. So what if there's 613 other possible similar articles? They'll be individually judged as they're written. Should we delete the article on Abraham Lincoln because there are several million other people born in Kentucky? MK 07:07, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. interesting enough. --Woggly 11:21, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 6

Pow Sows

It's accurate enough but is it really necessary in its own article? I don't really see this expanding further than the current sub stub foreign language dicdef. -- Graham  :) | Talk 00:19, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete unless expanded significantly -- user:chris 73
    • Agree. blankfaze | ?? 00:54, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Make sense to redirect, and define within the England? Its not just a standard dicdef. - siroxo 13:34, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. If this, why not Angleterre, Inglaterra etc etc? We can't possibly include all non-English-language names for everything on the English Wiki. If this belongs anywhere it is on a Cornish language Wikipedia (is there one?). Cambyses 13:59, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • O.K. I have now expanded it and translated it into Greek. I will add more information and translate it into French, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and Romanian shortly. I added it in the first place because it was not obvious what it meant and I had noticed that Alba the Scottish Gaelic name for Scotland is also an article.

James Hoare

His band was deleted for being unknowns, and the only other thing he seems to be known for is a few bit parts in TV movies. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:45, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. blankfaze | ?? 04:33, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a vanity press. - Aaron Hill 12:13, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • We just have to get this guy together with the idiot who keeps posting the TV and movie substubs I've been screaming about! Delete. - Lucky 6.9 06:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Patimokkha

This should really be at Wikisource Theon 04:35, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Wikisource and delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:43, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Moved to wikisource Theon 14:26, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Tmxxine, ProjeX, CurlChat, Quantum perception creation

I'm sure Tmxxine's bizarre contributions have been voted for deletion and deleted in the past, which I guess would make them candidates for speedy deletion, but I can't find the record of them. Anyway, looks like patent nonsense to me, from a user with a history of creating such stuff. —Stormie 11:20, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree completely with Stormie. Delete. JamesMLane 12:29, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Quantum-perception-creation (with hyphens) was deleted by VfD three weeks ago VfD Debate. Within that debate, someone mentioned that Tmxxine had been deleted before. Delete all. SWAdair | Talk 02:52, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Starx 03:41, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Tmxxine has definitely been deleted before. Delete all. RickK
  • Delete - More a link factory than an article - Any that have been deleted before are eligible for speedy deletion - Tεxτurε 19:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • As if by some time-flux discontinuity, these articles have appeared exactly as they were/will be/are at the time of their deletion. Are we messing with forces we don't understand? I propose an experiment: let's DELETE them again and see what happens. Denni 02:50, 2004 Jun 9 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. These have has been speedily deleted twice that I know of, and VfD'd at least once. Can we delete the author too please? - TB 13:22, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • We voted to delete them and now they're back. Delete and block user. - Lucky 6.9 16:07, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 8

List of bohemians

This list is highly subjective. The only article that links to it is Bohemianism, which states "...many of the most talented European and American literary figures of the last century and a half have had a bohemian cast, so that a list of bohemians would be tediously long." If it can be expanded it may have some merit, but I don't see how this could happen. Scott Burley 04:02, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Subjective, and indeed, going to be quite tediously long. Johnleemk | Talk 15:11, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 18:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subjective. Some of those people wouldn't have been happy to be so designated, perhaps. (Also, no clear DAB for Bohemia).Fire Star 14:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

obstetrics and gynaecology

This has been expanded into obstetrics and gynaecology. If we have the 2 articles, do we still need this one? Joyous 05:24, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. There's info here that doesn't fit neatly into either obstetrics or gynecology; it makes sense to me as a separate article. I'd link back to this one from the other two, though. (Incidentally, since when were we using the British spellings of anything?) :-) Wikisux 09:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Our policy is to use whichever comes up first, unless we have a reason not to. For example, since swing state is a uniquely American-related concept, we use U.S. spelling; similarly, British spelling goes on London. Meelar 13:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Deep. Yes, this is hard. You can't redirect to two different pages, can your? Keep but trim the article so the reader will move quickly to either element. JFW | T@lk 15:27, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with JFW. Diberri | Talk 03:42, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an unusual one, but it's a good subject and should have an article even if it's short and most of the material is in the other articles. Andrewa 12:11, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Satheesh

Vanity page created by an anon. →Raul654 05:53, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • For such a well-educated person, he's a bit unclear on the concept, eh? Delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:59, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think we can delete this one. —Stormie 06:04, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • but ... he created a MOSQUITO REPELLENT -- DELETE -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:14, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of CVs. Andris 06:18, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete resume/CV/vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I accept u friends.u may delete that page.But in future wikipedia can make a section for the presentation of CVs - satheesh.

Template:TaipeiSC

It's not relevant at the Houston article that San Salvador is also a sister city of Taipei. --Jiang 05:56, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Do we really need something like this? I don't think so. Delete. blankfaze | •• 21:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It no longer links to any article other than Taipei, which is relevant, and could also be useful to a holistic list of sister and twined cities. I created the message boxes after a week in which I had a total of 9 hours sleep due to prolonged severe weather. Linking them to all of the cities was not a good idea but after less than three hours of sleep each day for a week, bad ideas are bound to happen. JCarriker 20:25, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC))
    • If it's linked only at one place, then the point of having a template is defeated. --Jiang 21:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and I created the template. -JCarriker 23:18, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Terence Finnegan

Blanked by 129.215.16.12 who is the only author of the page, which is presumably a request for deletion. Also, appears to be non-famous, so delete. Angela. 09:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I say delete too.. I am highly suspicious of the claim that this guy "published algorithm rendering the RSA computer encryption algorithm insecure".. without there being a single google hit for "Terence Finnegan" and "RSA". —Stormie 11:33, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am very suspicious too. Andris 14:08, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 18:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Someone's blanked the page. That's good enough for me to vote delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a joke. Andrewa 12:14, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ObjectWeb

From Cleanup: ObjectWeb - unwikfied ad (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

Boiler Efficiency and Caliculation Routines

From Cleanup: Boiler Efficiency and Caliculation Routines technical manual for some boiler. (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

  • Caliculation Routines is a general prescription for assessing boiler efficiency. It turns out that this is a topic of substantial practical importance as many large buildings have one. However the article as it stands doesn't make an encyclopedia article -- move to Wikibooks but do not delete. Boiler Efficiency is copied in part from [5] and I suspect the remainder is copied from elsewhere as well (it says "Author: DSCL Energy Services" at the top of the article). I'm guessing that User:Kaupp who contributed these is an engineering student in India. That's awesome, we just need to focus his/her efforts. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bigfiber

From Cleanup: Bigfiber - ad (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 18:46, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. —Stormie 00:15, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Box Battling

From Cleanup: Box Battling - "Box Battling is an underground sport which was developed in Berkeley, California in November, 2003" not notable. (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

  • 95 google hits for neologism [6]. Delete. Meelar 13:20, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't get the external link to work either. Rmhermen 13:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • It just worked for me, and their hit counter read 1350. Meelar 13:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not what you'd see in the averge encyclopedia, but... - Tεxτurε 18:45, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I guess. Now I want to actually try this... Rhymeless 19:16, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep?! They have no relevant google hits, and one website which has about 1,000 hits! There's no way this is notable. Meelar 20:43, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable newly invented sport. Andris 21:29, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I seem to remember we deleted an article for some other recently created sport awhile back. I'm gonna go with that precedent. blankfaze | •• 22:01, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. →Raul654 02:54, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:10, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Less elegant than rhythmic gymnastics, but more of a sport. Delete until it makes it as a demo Olympic sport or Fox picks it up. Denni 02:56, 2004 Jun 9 (UTC)
  • Delete, idiosyncratic, vanity, nonnotable. When Fox picks it up we'll have an article. Sounds like a lot of fun! Wile E. Heresiarch 03:11, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • LOL! It does sound like a lot of fun. Still, delete. SWAdair | Talk 03:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Yo, sign me up when this hits Comedy Central! Delete with a smile in the meantime, - Lucky 6.9 16:40, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds like a sport made up by some college students, or something like that. I could write a similar, if less detailed, article on Quoblinball. I'll refrain though. Isomorphic 03:44, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Boynton v. Virginia

From Cleanup: Boynton v. Virginia - source text (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

  • Keep. I added a short stub describing the import of the decision as I understand it. Wikisource the rest of the text. Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep stub - Tεxτurε 18:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Brian Hickey

From Cleanup: Brian Hickey - 9/11 victim (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

  • Move to Memorial and delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:10, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to memorial, possibly an interwiki-redirect. JFW | T@lk 15:20, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Memorial and delete. Jeversol 18:41, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move and delete - Tεxτurε 18:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Burkay

From Cleanup: Burkay - we don't include last names (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

Gadget

From Cleanup: Gadget - dict. def. (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

  • Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see *potential* here. blankfaze | •• 22:07, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, I almost want to keep. What about a redirect to Widget? SWAdair | Talk 03:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has potential. (Don't redirect to gadget since widget really refers to an unspecified object.) Diberri | Talk 03:46, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Predator (Mike Carlton)

A google search shows hits for a Mike Carlton who's a radio host and newspaper columnist in Sydney, but I'm not sure if this is the same guy. Meelar 13:46, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I put this page up. He's not the same guy.--XmarkX 13:53, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure he's notable enough; no offense meant, though--I hope you continue your work. You seem to have been quite productive here since you arrived. Best, Meelar 14:07, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, you are completely right, I guess. Looking at it objectively, and looking at some other vfd entries, he's not an encyclopedic candidate. So I vote to delete my own creation! Ironically enough, the real guy is being buried tomorrow morning.--XmarkX 14:11, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • How mature of you. I wish that most vfd discussions were this civil! - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:25, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Free drinks

Just a dicdef of something that's pretty self-explanatory. The last sentence is already at BJAODN. Meelar 14:12, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Hmmm... I wanted to capture the essence of what it is to experience free drinks as a societal human being living in the 21st centry. I think this concept is dificult to grasp, and this is reflected in the poor quality of the article, but I am working on it :) --Dan 14:33, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete quickly - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:18, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete cbraga 14:31, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete! Now! JFW | T@lk 15:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • One of the best arguments for abstinence I've seen. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps merge with Drinking culture? --Dan 21:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I suppose a good article could be written about free drinks, but after the first paragraph or two this one gets just a little too weird. Delete if not significantly improved over the next few days. Everyking 22:32, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • How am I going to significantly improve this article in a couple of days? You guys are going to have to give me the weekend to make this happen, yes, the weekend and plenty of booze... (don't worry, I will supply the booze) --Dan 21:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or merge with Drinking culture. Probably just delete though. Russco 12:14, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Idiotic. --Woggly 11:24, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I cleaned it up, just for kicks, wondering if it's worthy of remaining now, though I won't be hurt if it goes either. Rhymeless 02:21, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Scientific romance

Just another name for science fiction and would do better at that page, IMO. The name is hardly ever used now. Mandel 16:00, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect. Rhymeless 19:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe the term science fiction or possibly scientifiction wasn't coined until the thirties or thereabouts at the time when the great SF pulp were launched. That leaves quite a long period of time before that when people were writing the stuff and had to call it something else. That includes Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, Arthur Conan Doyle (Professor Challenger, etc.), a good dozen stories by Jack London, and many others. It's true that the name is hardly ever used now, but the page says it's archaic, and it seems to me that it would be a fine jumping-off place for an article on SF pre-Gernsback and pre-Campbell. Dpbsmith 19:20, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it be strange if, when reading on science fiction, one has to jump over to scientific romance for the pre-30s history? Why not just make a note of this name and usage in the sci-fi article? Is there a distinction between the two? Mandel 23:38, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't redirect be better than deletion? DJ Clayworth 19:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect unless seriously expanded. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:04, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep where it is. There is plenty of time for this to expand. Rossami
  • Merge and redirect. SWAdair | Talk 03:40, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's a wealth of detail to cover. Rossumcapek 21:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Comprehensive Corporate Power

This section disappeared at 19:35, apparently due to software mistake and has been just restored. Andris 21:48, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic. There are no google references for the concept, and it is not used in any large degree by anyone I know. Roadrunner 16:49, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • When I look at this page, not only is it deleted, but there's no "view or restore X deleted edits". What happened? Meelar 16:52, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote. Request posted to the original author's page asking for verification of usage. Rossami 22:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Vocabulary builder

Advertisement, delete. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:59, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - Tεxτurε 18:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but remove spam, or add competing links. Meelar 18:39, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks very non-notable. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:45, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What would it take to keep? Replace the word "software" with "method," remove spam, rename the article, make sections expounding on each method... and it would still be not much more than a "how-to" article. All because someone wanted to advertise. Nope. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 03:47, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You're right, somebody can start from scratch if they start an article. Meelar 13:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PhpAdsNew

  • Delete - advert for advert software - Tεxτurε 18:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. DJ Clayworth 21:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:45, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to cleanup. It's a well-known piece of software, with Google returning nearly 35000 hits. We had an article on a Linux user group which got 6000 hits and thus stayed. I don't see why this is any different except somebody wrote a piece of advertising for the article instead of encyclopedic material. 09:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of Spanish Verbs

  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fredrik (talk) 19:00, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - No little squiggly required. - Tεxτurε 19:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. WINA(S)D. DJ Clayworth 21:01, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Limehead

Band vanity page (zero google hits for it) mixed with patent nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:41, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I wish we could speedy delete these things. Delete ASAP. blankfaze | •• 22:17, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Really bad vanity page. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 05:04, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as both non-notable and as patent nonsense. Not funny enough for BJAODN, IMO. - Lucky 6.9 05:27, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fire Star 14:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kyle Goslin

Some kid who says he's in a band. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:41, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • According to the extenal link, the band Dropout has had 7 small gigs, 1 cancelled gig, no recordings. The other external, for the band 88 Precautions, has no content other than "Site under construction." The only Google hit for "Kyle Goslin" is a post he wrote to a message board. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:14, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unpublished bands with few gigs aren't notable. Meelar 13:41, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Ronald L. Iman

Doesn't seem to pass the "random professor" test. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:41, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - I was thinking about this one too. - Tεxτurε 22:07, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Undecided Delete, apparently not notable. Amazon lookup on "Modern business statistics" shows that it's out of print, NO reader reviews, NO other reviews. "A Data-based Approach to Statistics" is also out of print, has a "book description" but again NO reader reviews and NO other reviews. Unclear why [User:Rossumcapek] inserted the article. Dpbsmith 00:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What's the "random professor" test? If this person has published a couple of scholarly books, then someone might want biographical information on him. For books of this type, I don't see Amazon as an important resource. Keep but I'm willing to be persuaded if there's some established policy that calls for deletion. JamesMLane 11:13, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I threw this together based on spotting a requested article for Latin hypercube sampling. Admittedly, there's not much here. Seems as though since someone requested the original article, a bit more biographical data on its creator might be welcome. I vote to keep this, but I have no real attachment to the article or the subject matter. Rossumcapek 20:42, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It probably should include a--I've just put a--link back to the Latin hypercube sampling article; that at least makes it clear why this article was included. Dpbsmith 00:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
An oversight; thanks, Dpbsmith. This maybe a poor forum to ask, but is there a good way to contact the original Latin hypercube sampling] article requester for their opinion/contribution? Rossumcapek 05:24, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep - he does seem to be a published author, and to have made some contribution to something someone has written an article on - why not? Mark Richards 06:51, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of American recipes

Not a list of recipes but a list of food items. A list of recipies links to wikibooks (And therefore does not belong here). short and orphaned --Jiang 00:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • They aren't even all distinctly American. At least one (Mincemeat tart) is something I've never even heard in US usage. Articles on food topics should link directly to wikibooks recipes as appropriate, which leaves the list as a simple incomplete categorization. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What in the name of all that's sane is "pickle pie?" Delete. - Lucky 6.9 06:48, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 9

CyberX

From what little I and the BabelFish can discern, this is about an administrator from a German game. This game is so unremarkable that it doesn't have an article, and produces exactly no hits on Google. So why do we have an article on one of the admins? PMC 00:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - there's a lot of games out there and a lot of admins... - Tεxτurε 01:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Aren't foreign-language articles candidates for speedy deletion? blankfaze | •• 01:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Depends on the article. If it's a worthwhile article, it should be listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English in the hope that someone will translate it. That page says "if someone speaks the language the article is written in and can state that it is not worth translating, the item should be moved to VfD", which I guess is the case hhere. The only case listed as a speedy deletion candidate is if someone copies an article from a foreign-language Wikipedia to the English one. —Stormie 01:55, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • Ohhh. Thanks for clarifying. I vote delete, btw. blankfaze | •• 03:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Having read the Google-translation, and noted that the website mentioned in the article doesn't even exist, I think this should certainly be deleted. —Stormie 03:16, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as is. I thought this was going to be about the Japanese trance band Cyber X. RADICALBENDER★ 13:44, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Christine Lee Hanson, Chris Mello, Carol Flyzik, Christine Snyder, Brady Howell

These individuals did nothing of note to warrant inclusion on wikipedia. --Jiang 00:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Move to memorial and Delete - Tεxτurε 00:51, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Memorial and delete. All otherwise non-notable. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Memorial and delete. PMC 02:17, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Added VfD header to these. Add Sue Kim Hanson and Peter Burton Hanson to the list. All are old entries and pre-date the creation of Wikimemorial. Move all to Wikimemorial and delete. Rossami 02:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Sokol - Glee club part 1

  • Delete - vanity - local professor at Cornell - from the gleeclub website - Tεxτurε 00:50, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cornell University Hangovers - Glee club part 2

  • Delete - vanity - more from the gleeclub at cornell university - Tεxτurε 01:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Space Madness

  • Entertaining nonsense. A candidate for BJAODN. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:36, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Amusing, but delete. (The suggested article on Hollywood distortions of diseases might be encyclopedic, though.) Rossami 02:12, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Haha, BJAODN and delete. "Some fine text book examples..." I love that part. blankfaze | •• 03:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Definite BJAODN, and I'm a total fiend for the original "Ren and Stimpy." Delete and redirect there. - Lucky 6.9 05:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Glad to have amused you guys... I guess I should calm down and stop making posts like this, however, looks like it had some merit. Hears to free drinks! P.S. Is this where I vote to not delete? Or did I just do the opposite? --Dan 20:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • This is the place to vote for either deleting or keeping articles. Posting here does not count as an automatic vote for deletion (except for the first post). MK 19:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Ta--Dan 20:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete to BJAODN David Remahl 22:46, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template:Aotd

Also the redirect MediaWiki:Aotd. Not updated and used only on Sennheiser's user page. Likely to confuse people who come across it thinking it really the article of the day when it isn't. Not updated since February. Angela. 01:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:16, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Minnie Gertrude Matthews and R. G. Edwards

These two people don't seem to have done anything noteworthy, but for living for a long time in the same place. Neither of them lived for an exceptionally long time or in an exceptional place (I've never been to Brampton, Ontario, so I'm guessing its not exceptional). I know they have been created seriously, but I don't think they have any encyclopedic worth. Joseph Philipsson 02:50, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Marginal keep on MG Matthews, since it seems like she may have some significance to the local history. It would be great for Wikipedia to have well-done articles on interesting bits of local history like this. No vote on RG Edwards, though. Everyking 04:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Frank Holwell

Australian primary school teacher. College professors get articles, but certaintly not primary school teachers! blankfaze | •• 03:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Non-notable, mostly unverifiable, probably vanity. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:14, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • 5 google hits for "Frank Holwell" Sorrento , delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, positively delete. This would be the start of an exceptionally ugly trend if allowed to stay. - Lucky 6.9 05:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 12:54, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough, sorry. Meelar 13:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Synthesis (newspaper)

someone is trying to find investors to expand a newspaper they started in high school. The article is full of potential possible future plans. 'Synthesis + "Aaron Kao"' (the founder of the newspaper) gets 2 google hits. Maximus Rex 03:28, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Borders on self-confessed vanity. Non-noteable. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Personal promotion. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:11, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The entry has been edited to a point that this vote for deletion no longer applies. It is now merely a report of its history and future. Keep. -- A7Zulu 11:31, 10 Jun 2004
  • Simply a history of a newspaper's development and future. Keep. -- RebelGuys2 12:54, 10 Jun 2004
  • Ooh, my sockpuppet sense is tingling! Delete on grounds of near non-existence. - Lucky 6.9 23:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Biomatics and Bioinfotronics

  • Idiosyncratic neologisms coined by Jong Park whose vanity page was recently deleted. Google hits are WP, mirrors, and Jong Park's web sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:44, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I could have tolerated it a little bit, but then I realised it was an acronym. Delete! Rhymeless 03:54, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Biomatics was coined eight years ago and still not in use by anyone but Jong. What do you call a neologism that isn't new? SWAdair | Talk 03:59, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • DELET (Disappear Entirely, Leaving Ephemeral Talk), for good reasons given by others. Dpbsmith 14:32, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

John Nebthos

reads like nonsense (i.e. "opium laced cheese"). Can't verify via google. Maximus Rex 04:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree. Sounds like nonsense, 8 google hits for "John Nebthos", the link provided is highly suspect, etc. Delete unless someone can verify this in more detail. -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's a cleverly disguised advert. At the external link we learn that Josh H. Betonn (anagram of John Nebthos) is the creator of the site. On a subpage [7] we learn that this is a riddle that is supposed to be solved, and looks like pre-release hype for something. Delete advert. SWAdair | Talk 06:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Interestingly, the article content doesn't match the history given at the external site. I was able to find a few people, and one ship, named Ivan Nesterov, but none match the article content. SWAdair | Talk 07:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • And for the finale: the article states that Nebthos submitted the copyright symbol in a US-government sponsored contest around the year 1841. Actually, UNESCO introduced the symbol in 1952 at the Universal Copyright Convention [8]. The symbol was later adopted by the US when the US codified its own copyright laws. This article is complete nonsense. SWAdair | Talk 07:35, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I live in the Louisville area, and I suspect that if there was a local historic brothel keeper who invented the copyright symbol, I'd have heard of it by now. Smerdis of Tlön 14:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like fabrication. Delete and BJAODN unless someone confirms this. Andris 00:16, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Someone just attempted to remove the vfd tag from the article. Andris 01:55, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • He also removed the external link, and now he's removed all reference to the copyright symbol. Looks like this guy is systematically removing everything which is being brought up here as evidence that the article is nonsense. —Stormie 02:34, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm convinced that it is nonsense. —Stormie 02:34, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Don't be so quick to rush to judgement. Nebthos is a very mysterious actual historic figure. Go to a library some time! —Wrendelgeth 02:45, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • You'll be providing us with some references then, I trust? —Stormie 03:05, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
        • I added a link to a page with some interesting information. The John Nebthos discussed on the page is the same person, even though it is contradictory to the wiki I wrote. I have been working on reconciling the information contained therein to my information that I retrieved from a book I picked up in a used book store in Turkey. It's called "Along the Volga" and is written in English and is about notable characters who grew up along the Volga river (obviously), but I can't find any ISBN numbers or anything which I suppose makes it suspect... I just found the character curious and made a wiki about him. And the website I assumed had something to do with him, though it doesn't explicitly say anything about his person. That is why I removed the link. Anyway, I'm trying to get a more accurate representation of who the man was... he's very fascinating. Wrendelgeth 3:25, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: [9] webmaster of whoisjohnnebthos.com encouraging community members to oppose this Vote For Deletion. —Stormie 03:09, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Someone deleted the VFD header. I've re-added it. RickK 05:03, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

List of non-Puerto Rican residents of Puerto Rico

Please. What's next? List of non-American residents of the United States? RickK 04:23, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Extensive farming

Dictdef RickK 04:31, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. SWAdair | Talk 05:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • A very easy delete TPK 11:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 12:49, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that this article can be expanded to be very worthy of being on Wikipedia. Extensive farming is actually a very extensive subject. (Anon user)
  • Delete - very not encyclopedic - the article contains no reason for its existense - Tεxτurε 23:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • A good article on this subject would be worthwhile. But it's hard to say that this stub as it now exists would grow into that article. MK 07:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neutrosophy

Dressed to Kill (television)

  • Google doesn't recognize this as existing; neither does IMDB. Almost certainly made up. -Sean Curtin 07:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I hope that wasn't a real storyline. Sounds like a boy and girl passing a script back-and-forth, each taking a turn developing a story. And a bad effort at that. It's listed as an episode of My Life as a Teenage Robot, but it is strange that this one, well down the list, is the ONLY one to be developed. Unless someone can verify the article, I tend to agree with Sean. SWAdair | Talk 10:32, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Kiddie-wiki and nonsense. Pull the plug. - Lucky 6.9 16:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Should have been speedy deleted. Delete now. RickK 21:08, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Kiwi

I want this page deleted and rename Kiwi (disambiguation) to Kiwi. A disambiguation page should be the word that is in need of disambiguation. GerardM 10:22, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I made Kiwi into the disambiguation page by copying the text from Kiwi (disambiguation). Now the latter is a redundant page that can be removed. SWAdair | Talk 10:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Honestly why didn't you just leave things the way they were. This has been discussed several times over the years (see Talk:Culture_of_New_Zealand and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 3) the consensus was the article Kiwi should be about the bird and have a link to a disambiguation page. There are over 50 articles currently linking to Kiwi and the vast majority are for the bird. -- Popsracer 11:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. IMO Kiwi should be the bird, other meanings are derivative, as at the date of writing. But more to the point, the idea that all (disambiguation) pages should be removed would represent a major change of policy, and should be discussed in the appropriate places. Andrewa 13:29, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Kiwi as the bird. Rmhermen 14:50, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Kiwi should link directly to the page about the bird. Average Earthman 16:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it as it is, when one use of the word is so much the most significant (as in this case, where all the other uses are derived from the kiwi bird), it deserves the main page - the main page should only be a disambiguation when dealing with topics of similar significance. —Stormie 23:34, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oops. My bad. I wasn't aware of the previous discussions. SWAdair | Talk 04:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete (disambig) and move content to "Kiwi" ... as dismabiguation and not as a direct link to the bird -- this much confusion among WP editors shows the word's understood meaning is so in flux that it should, for clarity to the reader, be listed primarily as a dismbig page. Davodd 23:02, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep [[Kiwi]] as the article about the bird. Other uses of "Kiwi" are derivative and should stay on the (separate) disambiguation page. Rossami 01:47, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Logical. Moriori 00:07, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A disambiguation page certainly need not be the word that is being disambigged, and this is a clear case thereof. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:13, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dossier

Patrick van Katwijk

  • Delete. non-notable, un-googlable. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:46, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • He does seem to have been a photographer, and Google did return his website, but it's in Dutch. I'm not sure how notable he is/was. Not many hits other than his own site. Joyous 15:01, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Paul Gentle and Daisy Mctavish

I thought this was very amusing - perhaps people have missed the point? I suspect it is a very English type of humour.

Hancock Place

Redundant (with John Hancock Tower), and exceedingly editorialistic. What NPOV material there is has been merged into the other article. Furthermore the text already exists on an external site (a link to which has been added to the merged-into article). KeithTyler 04:36, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC) Oh, and maybe I should mention that the name is not an accurate one for the subject matter. KeithTyler 04:56, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC) (somehow this vfd entry got erased)

  • Now redirected. Keep harmless redirect. Rossami 23:38, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Morsels

Dicdef, cannot see any potential here... - Lady Lysine Ikinsile 17:01, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Pointless, delete. Wyllium 20:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Aggemam

Obscure Danish slang term. --Smack 17:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Fixed the vfd header which wasn't inserted properly. for future reference, it's just {{vfd}}. Delete, I guess. blankfaze | •• 17:55, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Niteowlneils 18:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can't see any encyclopedic value. - Taxman 12:24, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Lecnac

  • Almost a speedy candidate. m-w.com doesn't know the word, and no relevant hits--there are 2000, but they all seem to refer to a userID, or the fact that it is "cancel" backwards. Niteowlneils 18:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but searches on lecnacing, lecnac fraction, and lecnac fractions return a few mathematical papers from Mathsphere KeithTyler 19:54, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • There's a related subsub about Lecnacing that I posted as a speedy. - Lucky 6.9 22:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Andris 00:14, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
Please keep this entry. Granted it is a new word in the language, but these should be allowed when they describe a new concept or make an old concept clearer, surely. It is extremely frustrating when teaching fractions not to have a word to describe this process. We use the word 'cancel' to avoid, as far as possible, saying 'divide the top number and the bottom number of the fraction by 2 etc' as this can easily be confused in the mind of a child with dividing the actual fraction by 2 etc which is, of course, a completely different process. The same needs to be done for the reverse operation so that multiplying the numerator and denominator by the same number is not confused with multiplying the fraction by that number which again is a different operation completely. Any analysis of the processes involved in fractions will soon reveal that an understanding of equivalent fractions is essential to all operations. Lecnacing (although it has never had a name before) is the very process used to produce equivalent fractions. Children are most receptive to the idea as they feel comfortable having a name to describe a process.
I am familiar with the work of Mathsphere and they claim that their worksheets are being used in over 10,000 schools. This is proving to be an excellent vehicle for the transmission of this new idea in the teaching of mathematics.
The fact that lecnac is the reverse spelling of cancel is to be applauded as children love to see connections between ideas.
P.S. I have just registered. The above comment was written by me -Andrewcairnes. I have not yet created a user page.
Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for registering. Sorry that this is your first experience here. Your article is well-written, and you make a reasonably convincing case for the need for such a word, but, as you'll see below, I'm leaning toward deletion. Wikipedia is not trying to scoop anyone or be the first to document new "memes on the rise." Google return only two hits on the phrase "lecnac a fraction." It returns no hits on "Alan Young" lecnac. In my own opinion, what you need to do is to document that this word is seeing some real use. That is, demonstrate that you are recording an established concept, as opposed to promoting a word that you feel ought to become generally accepted. See Wikipedia:Your first article and What Wikipedia is not for more on our policies against personal essays and original research. I haven't searched around for Wikipedia articles on fractions and operations on fractions, but this might be more accepted as a comment within such an article ("this operation is sometimes known as lecnacing") than as an article in its own right. Dpbsmith 15:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for an intelligent analysis of your current thinking. If you can give me a little extra time, I will approach Mathsphere to see if they can give any idea of how widespread this concept is. With respect to the point about the time since 1980 and the word having had plenty of time to spread, I think it is only recently with Mathsphere and the internet that the word has had a chance to disseminate. It is unlikely, in reality, that anyone would have learnt this word at school and had time to grow up to include it in a textbook they have written. Andrewcairnes

  • Delete, unless someone can muster better evidence that the word is in real use. Dpbsmith 15:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, we already knew from comments above that it has been used by one educational publisher, Mathsphere. If it was coined in 1980 it would seem to have had plenty of time to spread. Indeed, children who learned it in school then could now be old enough to write textbooks themselves. Is there any evidence that the usage is, in fact, catching on besides Mathsphere? Dpbsmith 01:31, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Studley

What is this? I thought London was the largest. --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 18:28, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • It might be a question of legal distinctions--London might be classified as a city while this is the largest legal village, or something of that sort. No vote. Meelar 18:40, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, list on Cleanup. RickK 21:13, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ummm... rubbish. How do you know wht's a village and what isn't? The Land 18:02, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alcopunk

This looks like a neologism (see google), and therefore not something that should be in an encyclopedia. Thue 20:29, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: Unsure. I have heard this term used elswhere, despite its poor Google showing. But this isn't a good stub IMO. It seems to be part of a network of edits by user:Pepus, who seems to be a fan, manager or member of Destyl, allegedly an alcopunk band. The punk rock articles in general seem to be a hotbed of advertising and autobiography in fact. Andrewa 21:04, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I tried googling for Destyl punk, and found enough hits (in Czech, so I am not sure how relevant they are) not to list them on vfd. Thue 21:16, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I listen to a fair amount of punk, and have never heard this term before. Frankly, it sounds like Destyl coined a term for their music, then claimed a well-known band as a fellow member of the genre. A google search for "The Casualties" + alcopunk gets zero hits. Isomorphic 02:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cingoz the Saint Cat

No idea what this is. No google hits. Thue 20:49, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Should have been speedly deleted. Delete now. RickK 21:17, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • I voted delete as well, but my original vote seems to have vanished. Second time's a charm. - Lucky 6.9 22:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • And my vote to delete disappeared, too. Joyous 22:20, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • I had to revert to an earlier version of VfD because the page was duplicated. See the Talk page. RickK 22:23, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • For once, I agree--this was speed worthy. Meelar 05:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Squee

Dictdef of a made up non-word. RickK 22:09, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Also the name of a comic book, which I've added a stub for. -Sean Curtin 23:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep new stub.--Gene_poole 06:49, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep KeithTyler 18:50, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

  • A blatant editorial. For shame. Viajero 22:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The last failed attempt to VFD it was in May 2004. Note, the argument doesn't go further than accusations in POV or that the article simply "stinks". The facts must be analyzed in an encyclopedic manner. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I have removed the table of myths that caused the controversy. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • No way to be NPOV on this one. Delete. Danny 23:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • In my opinion there are a few traces of an NPOV article in here, sandwiched between huge globs of irredeemable POV. I vote delete, because otherwise I'll feel compelled to try trimming out the POV and no doubt get embroiled in endless argument over the drastic cuts I feel that would require. Bryan 00:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to keep, since someone else has kindly done the hard work for me. :) Bryan 03:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bryan that the article has a few salvagable pieces of useful content; however most of it is unworthy trash, especially the "Myths/Examined" table, which is just laughable (it reminds me of the old Myths over the GDR article, only with better formatting). has been removed, thank you Humus Sapiens. Delete or rewrite top-to-bottom. (Any volunteers for the latter action? Being on summer vacation, I'm sharing a dial-up connection with seven others and can't reach my university's library at all.) —No-One Jones 00:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd like to see this become a real article about news coverage of the conflict. I'm not ready to abandon the baby with the bath water. We don't normally delete articles because of conflict. - Tεxτurε 03:33, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 06:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wildly, irredeemably POV. The few residual facts to be found belong within whatever article we have on the Palestine-Israel conflict itself.--Gene_poole 06:49, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It must be one of the worst articles in the encyclopedia, with not even a whiff of NPOV. Yes, the topic could in principle be the subject of a good article but it wouldn't have a single sentence in common with this one and could be created afresh if someone came along willing to put in the work. --Zero 07:33, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oh, dear. Judging from the title, I thought at first the article would be an irredeemable flamefest. However, a closer inspection reveals salvageable nuggets of information (e.g. media outlets conflicted on what terminologies to use—this is a significant enough phenomenon to have been covered by the Economist and the Washington Post). I agree that it needs either a major rewrite or trimming with extreme prejudice, however. I would trim everything except the sections "Agencies and News Outlets" and "Terminology." The rest is better left to external links. Wikisux 07:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and...well, I certainly think this article needs a lot of improvement. It's quite POV indeed, but I think it's a valid subject. As Texture said, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Oh, and for the record, I started this article. It's not the stub it was when I last saw it, but this isn't exactly the direction I expected the article to take. There are nuggets of useful info, though - as Wikisux says, the terminologies alone are quite interesting and valid. So, again, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:26, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The phenomenon and the role of the press are well recognised. Add Palestinean POV, smooth out Israeli Media Watchdog POV. Lots of TLC, in other words. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't sleep, so I rewrote the whole article. I think it has a future as a decent NPOV reference, provided someone can add some more info from a Palestinian perspective. Wikisux 11:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Deep breath. I think it's best to perservere with this one. It has a long history and has replaced at least one with a POV name, the current name was I think first suggested on VfD in fact. Not an easy call, but some good progress being made IMO which swings it for me. Andrewa 01:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE. Article cannot be anything else than POV. Wyllium 20:58, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Peter Atkins

A one-sentence "bio"? Is this person encyclopedic? RickK 22:41, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Not in my book, at least not like this. - Lucky 6.9 23:04, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Google turns up 3000 hits for ""peter atkins" chemistry". Keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Atkins has become fantastically wealthy by publishing the UK's widest-used chemistry textbooks. I think he also has a famous wife, but I can't remember who. The article clearly needs expansion, but he's definitely article-worthy.Harry R 11:37, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I added some stuff. While I don't at all hold that every joe-schmoe college professor is encyclopedic, I'm confident this guy is. Keep. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:59, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah! We have a real article now, ladies and gentlemen. - Lucky 6.9 22:32, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good work. Andris 17:56, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Joshua Bryant

  • A {presumed} crime victim of no other apparent notoriety. RickK 22:45, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • The story has had massive media coverage (particularly in the south eastern US) since 2001 Zerbey 22:51, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Well-publicized crime victims are certainly encyclopedic. Keep. Everyking 03:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hatem Elmohandis

  • Vanity, pure and simple. - Lucky 6.9 23:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - possibly a joke - Tεxτurε 03:29, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - can't find any solid references to this person — Braaropolis | Talk 07:29, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Birmingham Motor History

New, then re-directed. Not sure how to VFD a redirect page, so I've only listed it here. Andy Mabbett 23:12, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Birmingham Motor History & Economy

New, then re-directed. Not sure how to VFD a redirect page, so I've only listed it here. Andy Mabbett 23:12, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: You list it on Wikipedia:redirects for deletion. This is listed as a sister page to this one, in the header material above that starts out Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page. It's a little bit complicated as there seems to be significant history, but nothing that can't be overcome. Please take this comment as intended, but you're not the only one who needs to do this reading, and it will save the rest of us a lot of time if you all do it, which is why both the header and this comment are a bit terse and possibly testy. Oh, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Andrewa 21:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bergger

Can only be an Ad, even when fully cleaned up. Company has no obvious claim to fame. Awolf002 23:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep and move to cleanup. The company's notable as a manufacturer of photographic papers but the current article is awful. - Lucky 6.9 23:28, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to cleanup. 6000 hits on Google. Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bible atrocities

POV, only mentions one so-called atrocity, extensive Bible quotes. RickK 23:58, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. A discussion of of "Genocide in the Bible" might be able to pass muster, if someone wanted to write that, but "atrocity," is far too vague and value-laden a term to be functional in this context. On a side note, why on earth would you pick a passage prescribing the death penalty for heresy (a not-unheard of practice for any ancient culture) rather than one of the bits where god commands people to kill the entire population of a town or stone a child for being uppity? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It's certainly an interesting idea. I'd like to see it expanded and specified, maybe more like, instances of violence in the Bible. But as for now it can go. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:22, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but expand and write it properly! Mark Richards 02:23, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
At minimum it would need to be renamed. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 03:12, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Dang, and I was hoping for a real article. Not this mess. Kill it and allow the bits of the old article to soak nutrients into the soil for a new article to bloom come next spring. - Tεxτurε 03:25, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Such an interesting title and those were the only examples? Several more interesting ones come to mind. Oh, well. If someone wants to rename it and work on it, then keep. If it remains in current form, delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:24, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'm the original "author", so my opinion is biased :-). Anyway, I think that for an article like this, it is a reasonable approach to just quote the bible with only some very minor analysis. The idea is to let the Bible speak for itself. An alternative style would be to provide extensive hyperlinking to some (external?) bible source. Would linking (rather than direct quoting) be better?..I agree that there are more spectacular examples of atrocities in Bible.. Still I think that urging to kill one's son or daughter for herecy is well within "Bible atrocities" topic..And I did expect that many more examples would be added..
    • Our problem with it is that it doesn't really seem to be an encyclopedia article per se. If it's a "list of biblical atrocities", well, having such an article is POV, and if it's an article, then it doesn't pass muster for lack of content. Some of this might be applicable at problem of evil. Meelar 05:14, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, having spent some time on the academic study of religion, I have to say that "atrocity" is pretty meaningless in this context. All it can amount to is "Something that offends modern moral sensibilities," and that's just a given when dealing with classical materials. Something like "Genocide in the Old Testament" (all my favorite "atrocities" would fit here) or "Violence in the Bible" (you could cram a lot of other stuff in this) would have some coherent meaning with practical reference, and I would support such a page. And of course, "atrocity" is clearly POV, passing a value judgment on ancient civilizations and making an implicit judgment on certain modern inheritors of those traditions. But in any case, wikipedia articles are, as has been pointed, not intended to be mere aggregations of source material that "speak for themselves". And BTW, in my experience when people say something "speaks for itself," it's often a way of hiding behind superficial shock value to avoid getting into the nitty-gritty complexity, ambiguity, and problematicity that are the marks of reality. The page clearly betrays a juvenile and shallow approach to the study of historical religion that is lamentable. This is an interesting and rich subject that deserves to be taken seriously. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 07:48, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Bible isn't a person and can't form the intent to incite someone to murder as this article implies. Blatant POV. If someone wants to discuss specific issues of apostasy or Imperialism in the Bible there are other articles for this. See Documentary hypothesis. Fire Star 14:30, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 10

Wa (Japanese)

  • Sub-stub near-orphan dicdef for a foriegn word. --Robert Merkel 01:08, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - there have been good articles on foreign words but this is just a dicdef. - Tεxτurε 03:27, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Lord knows why a Chinese word is given an article title "Wa (Japanese)". The concept is actually culturally important enough that an article is imaginable, but as it stands this is a badly titled sub-stub. Just delete. -- Jmabel 06:20, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the keyword but delete (change) the inappropriate entry. Wa(和) is one of those few characters in Japanese language (or chinese), which are so commonly used as word components that they have become cultural concepts of their own. Wa(和) originally means harmony and balance but also commonly refers to Japan or something Japanese. In its original meaning it is a guiding concept in Japanese philosophy and culture with dozens of subtle diffrent associated meanings. In meaning "Japanese" is has, through the history of the 20th century, been a highly emotional and/or political concept. The word Wa(和) has been used, misused and abused in Japan almost as much as "national" has been in the west. In this context the keyword is good for Wikipedia and should have ample cross-references to Japanese history and culture pages. Note: My discription is a best incomplete and partially wrong, so somebody with some background in Japanese ethymology should write a proper article. Roeschter 00:01, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Terry Hart/Temp

Terry Hart has everything mentioned here. Was orphaned from the start. --Jiang 01:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - It appears that the article was tagged as a copyvio and someone began to create an alternate. Then the copyvio was removed but the temp was not incorporated. - Tεxτurε 03:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Elizabeth_Mytton_Wilbraham

This was listed on cleanup. I tidied it a bit, but it seems to me User:209.96.179.6 might be having a a little laugh, especialy as it says "she is not even listed in any architectural, art or biographical dictionary". On his talkpage I have invited him to comment on this page. Moriori 02:38, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Google returns one hit for ""Elizabeth Mytton Wilbraham"" and 136 hits for ""Elizabeth Wilbraham"". Johnleemk | Talk 09:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anti-hygieneism

As I said on the talk page, I don't see any evidence that this term is used by reputable critics. I suspect it to be a made up term. --Camembert 02:34, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Neologism. A total of 3 hits on Google (and you don't want to know what they are for). Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • And so soon after breakfast, too. Delete and send the poster a bar of Zest, some Head and Shoulders and a can of Right Guard. Throw in a loofah just to be safe. - Lucky 6.9 16:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism, unencyclopedic. Andrewa 01:58, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Revolt of the Three Feudatories

Sub-stub. (This listing was submitted by User:Jredmond. SWAdair | Talk 03:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC))

  • Keep. Checking the linked-to article indicates this one has definite potential. SWAdair | Talk 03:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Venezart

  • Delete - advert for advertising - "For more information visit us @ http://www.venezart.com" - Tεxτurε 03:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It doesn't get more blatant than that. Delete advert. SWAdair | Talk 04:07, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly promotional, no encyclopedic value that I can discern. If you remove the promotional language, you are left with "Venezart is a web design company." Dpbsmith 15:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Creed of Transcendentalism Today

Put quotes around "Transcendentalism Today" in the query, and those 14100 Google hits become 849, mainly automatic echos of Kurt Kawohl's posts. I now extend my "delete" vote to everything connected to this vanity cult. Jorge Stolfi 00:30, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Posted by creator = self-promotion = Isomorphic votes to delete. Isomorphic 01:45, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I love it when you refer to yourself in the third person. Seriously, delete all before this, uh, spiritual belief becomes the next Shawn Mikula or Robert Kyle Wilson debacle. Or even Bunboy. - Lucky 6.9 02:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - user has blanked page and indicated desire to delete article as well - Tεxτurε 17:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Doubly-special relativity

Original research. Article even states it is not accepted in the scientific community. Google returns 869 hits, including Wikipedia mirrors. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 03:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Haha. Delete. Maybe BJAODN? Johnleemk | Talk 09:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I should add that the reason for my vote was the few Google hits this article got - only a few hundred at the most. Upon closer examination about half of them are Wikipedia mirrors. The theory is mentioned on a few university/college pages, though. I'm withdrawing my vote, but not adding a new vote.
  • Keep. Good short article (more than a stub), fascinating topic. Article states that it's not taken seriously by most of the HE physics community, but at worst this puts it into category 5 (adhered to by a limited group) of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. Certainly, original research should not be published on Wikipedia, but sufficiently notable minority theories should be described if we have contributors willing to do the work. By an anon who is possibly the theory's author, but even if so he's done a remarkably good job on NPOV. Andrewa 20:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a common problem with non-scientific readers who misunderstand the distinction between "not serious science" and "not taken seriously". The theory if valid scientific speculation. As such (speculation) is valid science and accepted in the community. It is not considered a promising theory and therefore not take seriously by most theoretical physicists, but that doesn't mean its bad science.
    • Comment: That vote by Roeschter doesn't strictly count as it's unsigned. Please sign all posts to VfD, even if you are not voting and even if you have no username as yet. Signatures are a great help in keeping track of which comments are from contributors, and which are from the other sort of editor. Andrewa 01:24, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, just barely, mostly because the article in its present form, with the paragraph "Annotation for non-physicist readers" is so crystal-clear in identifying the status of the theory. That paragraph, for me, saves the article. Dpbsmith 01:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Roeschter, for the clarifying paragraph. I now agree this article should stay. Keep. SWAdair | Talk 05:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Surviving

Deletion Tools

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Surviving

Um, I rewrote the page so maybe the purpose of it is now more valid. Yes I did take some of this information from the all purpose survival manuel, but I also took it from Boy Scout training and numerous other sources. Er, I hope to add more to it and I've made logical internal links. I think once I redirect certain terms like "Survival" to it it might become more valid still. I think that once this grows it could become an invaluable reference. I don't know how to put down my user name but I created the article so you can talk to me through it.

List of Federalist Papers

This seems like just a TOC of the Federalist Papers. All of this information is already at http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm, which is linked to from our article Federalist Papers. Since this is basically a (partial) source document, why put it inside the Wikipedia? -- Jmabel 06:06, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Hmm... The page was just created and may be a precursor to an article on each Paper. Let's wait and see if it becomes more than a link to source material. Tentative keep. SWAdair | Talk 08:34, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tenebrous

Dicdef -- Jmabel 06:16, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Bulghur burger

Recipe with no other redeming value. has been transwikied to wikibooks. Gentgeen 06:22, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I see no article there, and no record of an article being deleted. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I have seen more deleted articles with no record of deletion. - Tεxτurε 15:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • oops, typo. The link should work now. Gentgeen 22:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Manbaby Fiestabadger 5

Hacker escapade. Looks non-encyclopedic to me. -- Jmabel 06:41, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 08:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Funny. Delete and BJAODN? Johnleemk | Talk 09:42, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I barely even understand what this is about, and I'm not sure I think it funny at all; nor is this useful information outside of a particular clique. --Woggly 11:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not funny either. Average Earthman 11:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This isn't a blog page. Speedy delete if possible. - Lucky 6.9 16:21, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hb0da

Non-notable IRC channel. Is there an appropriate place to merge or should this simply be deleted? SWAdair | Talk 07:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, probably. Looks non-notable. --Woggly 11:27, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete it. Johnleemk | Talk 09:43, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Large-scale

Dicdef sub stub -- Graham  :) | Talk 10:43, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Could possibly be interesting if content were added, but not as it stands.--Woggly 11:25, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


User_talk:82.34.83.208

Deletion Tools

OUT OF DATE, and distracting. I would also like to reccomend this page (votes for deletion) be sub divided as it is unwieldy and complicated beyond reasonable need. Faedra 12:07, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC), cheers.

This page is more of a memo than a page, I dont see it helps the database having these type of empty shells, or out of date comments rattling about the system, but appreciate the original use, now void.

New users to Wikipedia like myself should not immediately be expected to clean up such shells, but I will try to notify administators etc, to the odd ones I encounter or incur in my efforts to suppliment the project. How else can I assist?....

  • Keep. All anon user talk pages are automatically deleted by the system after 1 year of not being edited. Any anon user talk pages less than a year old should remain so that other users and admins can see whether there is a history associated with that IP. -- Graham  :) | Talk 15:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Incidentally I just speedily deleted the user page (as opposed to the user talk page) because it was created in error. -- Graham  :) | Talk 15:24, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Where is this documented? -- Cyrius|✎ 21:43, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - as above - and as for VfD - continue to use this alternate posting method to relieve the pressure. I, for one, like to be able to browse the entire listing but edit in separate pages, like this one. - Tεxτurε 18:34, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cap'n Jaspers

Though I could be wrong, this doesn't look noteworthy. Not brilliant prose, either. Fredrik (talk) 13:46, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Seems like an advert, esp. since it's "just a shack behind the glassworks". Meelar 14:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Reads like an ad, most google hits aren't "real". Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cross sex position

Appears to be rather procedural, Wikibooks? I can't believe I'm saying this... -- user:zanimum

  • What about List of sexual positions? Merge and redir. Meelar 14:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a copyvio anyway; from [12]. Lupo 15:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Same user has posted one other called Feet on his shoulders. Haven't checked for copyvio yet. - Lucky 6.9 16:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Yup, it's a copyvio from [13]. I've boilerplated it and move it to the copyvio page.
  • Comment: IMO it's better to avoid sex when you're cross. (;-> Andrewa 01:45, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • LOL! Rimshot, please! - Lucky 6.9 02:45, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Awakening

UFO-ology, I think. A common noun used in an insupportable manner to provide a platform for the author to urge "Otherkins" to know themselves.Geogre 15:50, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • delete. This is a metaphorical use of 'awakening' - 'awakening in most people's usage means when you gain consciousness after a period of sleep.--XmarkX 16:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The Awakening is a (fairly crappy) book by Kate Chopin--redirect. Remove this content. Meelar 16:09, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the existing content might be merged with Otherkin, where it might be more appropriate. This should be perhaps a disambig page pointing to the Chopin novel, the Great Awakenings, and sleep. Smerdis of Tlön 16:12, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seminal work

I cannot see how one could ever actually compile a list of all seminal works, both because of the size of the task and because this task is not really NPOV. Pointless.--XmarkX 15:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Concur. Delete. -- Jmabel 17:26, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:59, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this can be worthwhile, and can be NPOV, if done properly. I think one can quite fairly say that between them Der Golem and Frankenstein have a seminal influence on dozens of subsequent "ohMyGodWhatHaveWeDone" works (including about a third of every hollywood SF movie), and similarly the influence of Jekyll&Hyde on just as many "EachManHasABeastWithin" works. But for sure if it's claiming works to be seminal it needs to make a decent case for it, and to list those works each has supposedly influenced. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Who, XmarkX, would ever want to do such an incredibly stupid thing as to compile a list of all seminal works? I guess all sorts of people come across Wikipedia: young and old, educated in institutions and educated through life, native speakers of English and "foreigners". Don't you think this list -- if we agree to keep it short (see Talk:Seminal work) -- might help quite a lot of people to understand the meaning of "seminal"? Don't you think it might help them to go on to all sorts of places, be it time travel or capitalism? Why delete? <KF> 19:25, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Undecided. I really don't much like the current list. Brett Ellis, American Psycho, pornography in mainstream literature? Gimme a break, unless someone is punning on the word "seminal" here. Tropic of Cancer or The Story of O have been far more, uh, seminal. How is a list of seminal works different, exactly, from Dr. Eliot's Five-Foot Shelf (Great Books of the Western World)? But maybe if we sit there and let it grow it will turn into something interesting. Oh, keep, I guess. Dpbsmith 19:44, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It seems I couldn't make myself understood. If you "let it grow" you might just as well delete it right now. Okay, American Psycho is debatable, but no one is claiming that it's the only "seminal" work in that -- well, um, category. I really like the idea of the pun, hadn't thought of it myself.
  • Delete. The project of listing all (or even most) seminal works is both useless and hopeless. There could be a useful article explaining the concept of a "seminal work." Such an article might pick a couple examples (whether or not from this list) of works widely considered seminal and show how each caused a significant change in the direction of its field; that discussion would be for the purpose of furthering the explication of the concept. This article doesn't even qualify as a stub of that one, though. In response to <KF>'s comment above, no, I don't think that a mere listing of a bunch of works would help anyone understand the concept. JamesMLane 07:32, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jonathan M. Sweet, Almasheol, Postcards of the Hanging, "Eve Bade Adam Eat"

  • Anon entry. Checked Google under "Jonathan Mack Sweet" per the article's opening statement...no hits. One hit for "Jonathan M. Sweet" listing him on a sci-fi fansite as author of one novel. - Lucky 6.9 16:49, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Can't find him or his two books Almasheol and Postcards of the Hanging anywhere on Amazon or the web. (The later is an album by someone else.) Appears to be vanity - Tεxτurε 18:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And "Eve Bade Adam Eat" should be included. RickK 19:21, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Almasheol is available at Amazon.com. Postcards of the Hanging is presently in galley form. It is due to publish in a few weeks, and will be available at Amazon by next month. --JMS
    • He's right about Almasheol, but I'm not sure if he's quite notable enough. It'd be nice if he could provide us with a little more evidence of notability, if there is any; I might be willing to vote keep then. Everyking 21:08, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. If these works are distributed by a major publisher, keep. These just happen to flunk the Google litmus test at present. - Lucky 6.9 21:41, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Xlibris Corporation is a "self publishing service" - see vanity press - Tεxτurε 22:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Then it's bye-bye time. This isn't eBay or even amazon.com for that matter. - Lucky 6.9 22:11, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I disagree. My post is perfectly viable and should be allowed to stand...as is my entry in Clark, Missouri. Just because I don't have as extensive bibliography as Stephen King is no reason to cut me. I have just as much a right to sell books and be recognized. You gentleman have me in a Catch-22: I'll never have the fame I want if I don't self-promote, but I have to be suitably big-name in order to self-promote. Why not by the book and read it, then judge if it's worthy of a Wiki listing? (JMS)
No, sorry. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for promotion of any kind. Find your fame elsewhere. Also, quit deleting other people's comments. It's considered rude. Isomorphic 03:05, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No..."rude" would be telling you to munch my rectum. See the difference? (JMS)
  • Delete. Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia that anyone is able to edit, but it is an encyclopedia, not a venue for your self-promotion. —Stormie 03:33, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • That probably destroyed any goodwill he might have possibly acquired with some people, including myself. Oh well. delete then.
  • Delete. I have four manuscripts. I don't use wikipedia to promote. Try the entry for USPS.

Frisee hall of champions

Doesn't make sense, or even define its terms. Cleanup was no help. DJ Clayworth 17:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, for starters, I moved it to Frisbee hall of champions, which was what was obviously intended. -- Jmabel 17:29, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - It is just a list of links. Is it going to be an article or just a link repository. (The links don't even exist yet.) - Tεxτurε 17:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's intended to be a list. Keep, possibly rename. Meelar 19:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I went searching for the winners/hall of famers, and Marc Fishman, e.g. shows up only as an RPG master or as a (dead, I think) actor. Is there a single Frisbee body? Which one made this hall of champions, and what was the contest? I thought there were multiple Frisbee sports with multiple tournaments. Geogre 01:37, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Cumulative Progressive Spiritual Intelligence of the Universe

Either merge into Transcendentalism Today or delete outright. -- Jmabel 18:56, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - Why should it be deleted? Should Brahman be combined with Hinduism? Just because the subject doesn't fit into your world view, does that make it unsuitable for Wikipedia? Is it inaccurate? Does it misrepresent the views of Transcendentalism Today (of which, BTW, I know absolutely nothing about)? Can you state a guiding principle, that when applied to this article justifies its removal? If not, I say keep. --Samuel Wantman 19:23, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep- Transcendentalism Today has expanded rapidly worldwide. (14,100 sites) See http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Transcendentalism+Today Kurt Kawohl
  • Delete. Put quotes around "Transcendentalism Today" in the query, and those 14100 Google hits become 849, mainly automatic echos of Kurt Kawohl's posts. (I had proposed to delete the Creed page only, now I think that all of them should go.)Jorge Stolfi 00:33, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. Not encyclopedic - SimonP 02:44, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion. Isomorphic 03:34, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just another wannabe philosophy. Denni 05:57, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my incompetence in incorrectly phrasing what Transcendentalism today stands for. I assure you that Transcendentalism is not a new cult or a new religion; it is an attempted rationality at religion.

I WILL DELETE.Kurt

Blogumentary

Blatant self-promotion. Unless someone wants to rewrite as an appropriate article, delete. -- Jmabel 19:15, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - Tεxτurε 19:22, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion -- Cyrius|✎ 20:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Carfree movement

  • Delete - advert - reads like a brochure and probably came from the website by someone associated with the website. - Tεxτurε 19:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It's certainly not very good as an encyclopedia article. But, the topic itself isn't unworthy. Keep it and let it be improved. Bill 19:50, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve - I have started... Mark Richards 19:59, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (and improve) - DavidWBrooks 20:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems like a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia article, provided it's not shilling for some group. Definitely improve and flesh out. --bceaglejoe 01:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've also tried to improve it a bit. JamesMLane 08:02, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Buddha Quest

  • Advert for a MMORPG which so far consists of a few posts on a web forum. -- DrBob 20:13, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete ad for non-existent game. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:42, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • No game, no article. I like the simple decisions in life. - Lucky 6.9 21:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Calculating the day of the week/Temp

Calculating the day of the week already has this content. Found this as orphan. --Jiang 21:07, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Celtic Frost/Temp

There's an article at Celtic Frost. This is just a discography. --Jiang 21:07, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Is Celtic Frost still a copyvio? - Tεxτurε 22:06, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Harvard National Model United Nations

Advertisement for school club. Possibly copyvio, but passes google test. --Jiang 21:25, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Sitting on the fence on this one. I fondly remember my days in the Model United Nations. If this particular one actually is "the oldest, largest, and most prestigious simulation of its kind," I could see it being notable enough to keep. At the very least, though, that last sentence ("This year...") has to go. No vote. SWAdair | Talk 08:10, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nokia 6230

Substub that defines 99 percent of all cell phones. I seem to remember that non-notable individual models were candidates for VfD. - Lucky 6.9 22:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I would have speedy deleted this one. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:14, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete? Wasn't an article like this kept not too long ago? It's plain factual information, anyway. I'd support keeping it if someone could add to the article any sort of significant differences between this model and others. These things are important to many thousands of people. Everyking 05:23, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bicycle braking system

BJAODN material that someone listed on the cleanup page. Ain't nothin' worth saving for a genuine article, but it's a funny read. Reminds me of a bike I once had. - Lucky 6.9 22:07, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Joke by anon, but not worthy of BJAODN in my opinion. No point redirecting, there's already a good description of bicycle brakes in bicycle, but the author of this doesn't even bother to link to it (or anywhere). Andrewa 01:02, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • When I was little, before I figured out braking, I always would stop the bike by applying feet to ground. This doesn't mention that. How sad. BJAODN, delete. Rhymeless 01:35, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. According to H. G. Wells, in either The History of Mr. Polly or his cycling romance The Wheels of Chance, if I understand correctly, some early bicycles did not have brakes, nor a freewheel mechanism, and the standard way to stop them was to apply pressure backwards on the pedals (which continued to rotate forward with the momentum of the bike). It apparently required a lot of skill and coordination to do this, skill and coordination which Well's protagonist lacked... By the way, delete. Dpbsmith 01:47, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Bikes like that still exist today, and, yes, they require skill. For that reason they're recommended by many coaches for training purposes. See this article and search it for "Carmichael." Wikipedia should have an article on fixed-gear bicycles. By the way, delete. JamesMLane 07:52, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delte ASAP. This is the stupidest article that looked like an article I've ever seen :( Ilyanep 03:15, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interracial

Dicdef. And an adjective, at that. -- Jmabel 23:06, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Someone tried cleaning this up, but you're right...it's still a dicdef. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 00:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot. Please refer me (a) to the policy that says that adjectives must not have articles in Wikipedia and (b) to the dictionary that has this "dicdef". Only then should you vote in favour of deletion. <KF> 05:58, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • An article about an adjective will usually just be a dicdef with a list of the uses, while the encyclopedic content will be under the specific uses of the adjective in conjunktion with the subject. In the case of Interracial this is a dicdef listing 2 uses of the word ("interracial marriage", "interracial sex"). So the "no adjectives" guideline follows from the "no dicdef" rule. I can't quickly find any dictionaries that list the "interracial sex" usage in pornography, but that just means they are incomplete dictionaries, not that the "interracial sex" usage is not a part of a dicdef. Thue 09:13, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • (a) What Wikipedia is not, number 2: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (b) Listed in the Meriiam Webster] online dictionary. Delete dicdef. SWAdair | Talk 08:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I say redirect to interracial couple, and make a mention of interracial sex there. The interracial sex remark is valid info to have, and by redirecting this way no info is lost. Thue 09:13, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Thue. Redirect / merge. SWAdair | Talk 09:52, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Inter alia

Dictdef. RickK 23:57, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

June 11

Numbness

Dicdef. (Maybe it could be more but I can't honestly think of anything.) -- Lady Lysine Ikinsile 00:07, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Only thing worse than a vanity page is a dicdef. Folks need to learn the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 00:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to paresthesia. Fuelbottle | Talk 21:37, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Transcendentalism Today

Appears to be an attempt to promote a one-man "religion", by the religion's founder. These links may be relevant: [14] [15]
Jorge Stolfi 01:02, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ronald_Raygun

  • Non-encyclopaedic. Perhaps merge with Ronald Reagan in a "criticisms" section or discussion of Cold War policy. --bceaglejoe 03:52, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Ronald Reagan. There's people that are going to search on this term because they don't like Reagan, and there's people that can't spell "Reagan". If I had to hazard a guess, the term originates with criticism Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative proposal. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it does, or did. Redirect. --Gary D 06:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Actually, he was called Ronnie Raygun when he was Governor of California. Delete. RickK 22:37, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Seen this one before [16]. Maximus Rex 05:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with redirect. And maybe add to list of presidential nicknames. -- Jmabel 07:00, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge with Ronald Reagan. It's not appropriate to turn epithets into redirects. It amounts to underhanded POV. If necessary, mention it in the main article in an NPOV fashion. Bill 11:25, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. If people are going to search for this term, redirect is helpful. Andris 17:51, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Mark Richards 18:41, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I understand Bill criticism but discount it because article titles are not very visible; people rarely browse by title, we have no good mechanism for that. Not worth an article because: though I occasionally heard him called that, but I always perceived it to be a casually insulting deliberate pronunciation without much political content. I do not remember it as ever being common or as part of any real political discourse. It has no resonance for me. The existing article does nothing to explain it or put it into context. It might have fit with SDI but I don't recall its being used that way. I don't recall opponents calling him that, or anything like that. Google gets about 1000 hits on "Ronald Raygun" in quotes, which to me confirms it as real but not very significant usage. If anyone can come up with a coherent sentence or two that fills in the blanks—he was called "Ronald Raygun" when and by whom and in reference to what—it can go into the Ronald Reagan article. Dpbsmith 23:16, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nuevo Rico

Not encyclopedic. It seems to be a disagreement with a piece of information in Tintin. Delete, or move to Tintin's Talk page. Joyous 04:23, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • I really wish people would add a "fictional" notice at the beginning of such articles. Non-encyclopedic content disagreement about a fictional nation. Move to Tintin's talk page. If the current article is not replaced with an actual Tintin related article (like the one about Borduria) within five days, delete. SWAdair | Talk 07:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category:Science

here
Template:Category:Science



Birmingham transport history

Fragemnt removed from History of Birmingham. Should be re-merged with that page. Andy Mabbett 08:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • go ahead, permission is not needed here to merge. --Jiang 09:42, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Post-war Germany vs post-war Japan

Delete this if it is not converted into a real article in 5 days. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or debating forum. --Jiang 09:42, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed, it has spent some time on Cleanup with no improvement. - SimonP 13:00, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Czech krona and Slovak krona

Someone created these as links off Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. The correct currency name in each case is Koruna. The links have been corrected and nothing now links to them. These articles basically only contain their exchange rate to the dollar, anyway. -- Arwel 11:18, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Curb extension

Seems like a dicdef or at least an unimprovable stub. Its only linked to by a couple sites, perhaps merge with Traffic calming -- siroxo 12:40, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, it is a real concept and can certainly be expanded. Who developed it and when? What are the disadvantages? What are some major cities that use them? - SimonP 13:08, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good short article, complete with good properly released photo apparently taken by a Wikipedian especially for this article. Excellent work in all that should be encouraged not deleted IMO. Agree with SimonP that it can be expanded. Not a dicdef, not an orphan, and even if merged (which I'd oppose but which doesn't need VfD) it would then be a good redirect, so I really don't see any grounds for this listing at all. Andrewa 17:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The picture already appears in Traffic calming, which is a short article and could easily absorb the three sentences from this one. Nathan 21:02, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Vari, Varica

Appear to be about a non-existent place/language. Author has not responded to attempts to communicate. DJ Clayworth 15:46, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete disinformation. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:57, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Hang on, Vari is a real place in Greece. Just looked fake because the stub isn't very informative and by association with Varica. "[S]poken by more than 999 million people." Yeah, right. List Vari on cleanup and delete Varica -- Cyrius|✎ 16:04, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • My apologies, I listed Vari by mistake. I reverted the offending changes, and it should now clearly be kept. DJ Clayworth 16:14, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Varica - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:43, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Naplese, Naplese Langua Franca, Nova Lingua de Napleseo

By same author as Vari etc. Appears to be about the author's own made-up language. Exceptionally non-notable. A similar attempt to add to Wikionary was deleted in April. DJ Clayworth 15:46, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Redirect Naplese to Naples as a misspelling redirect. Delete the other two. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I say just delete them all, but if you want to do the misspelling redirect you can. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:34, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I'm skeptical that the author (or anyone else) has developed this language, as he or she didn't bother to describe it in detail or paste in any examples of its "poetry." Nathan 20:55, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Raisa Gorbacheva/old history

  • I'm not sure what we should do with this. Personally, I think it can be deleted. — Timwi 16:18, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's there to keep the page history around for some edits that were merged into the main article [17]. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1 E-26 s, 1 E-27 s, 1 E-28 s, 1 E-29 s, 1 E-30 s, 1 E-31 s, 1 E-32 s, 1 E-33 s, 1 E-34 s, 1 E-35 s, 1 E-36 s, 1 E-37 s, 1 E-38 s, 1 E-39 s, 1 E-40 s, 1 E-41 s and 1 E-42 s

Typical content is:

To help compare different orders of magnitudes this page lists times between 10-26 s and 10-25 s.

I don't see anything of any use here. So far I've only noticed two of them that have any actual content; 1 E-28 s lists "10-28 seconds after the Big Bang: start of cosmic inflation." Any content that belongs on these pages would, in my opinion, be better located on a single page in list or tabular format. Dpbsmith 16:29, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

P.S. No, I haven't got VfD notices on all them... will try to get them all before tomorrow. Dpbsmith 16:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
P.P.S. There seem to be more. In the positive direction, they go as far as 1 E19 s. Dpbsmith 16:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all - they have zero content - Tεxτurε 16:36, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    Delete any that are so short nothing has happened/can happen. Rmhermen 16:48, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep 'em. The fact that there is no content yet is not indicative of anything given that they were only created very recently. -- Schnee 17:01, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What's the advantage of doing it this way over combining them all on a single page and creating individual articles only when it is clear that the page is too long? Having them all on one page makes the relationships clearer. Dpbsmith 17:08, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't think any of these can contain much of use - the time intervals are already less than about a millionth the period of gamma rays, and I can't think of too much that falls within any of those orders of magnitude. Delete them unless someone adds anything useful to them, which I doubt will happen. StuartH 18:15, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is there any previous discussion on this? I think there should be before listing what's obviously a lot of work by a good contributor for deletion. I can think of many places it could happen, so has it? If so, where? (And it would have been good to link to it in the initial listing, but that's history now.) If not, I may well vote keep to allow it to happen. No vote for the moment. Andrewa 23:25, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the death of Harry Potter

Antiprocess

  • Delete - dicdef (two nouns and one verb) - Tεxτurε 16:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I came to Wikipedia because I found a reference to antiprocess on Google in a link entitled "Wanted Wiki Pages". I figured I should write something up. However, this is my first day on Wikipedia and I didn't want to compose a long treatment and then find out that I'd done something horrendously wrong. I will update the article within 2 days with more detailed information. --Timothy Campbell 17:21, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)
    • The best thing you can do for an article is make it encyclopedic instead of a dictionary entry. For example: Look up something simple, like Airplane in the dictionary and in an encyclopedia. In the dictionary it gives you a definition of the word and its usage. In the encyclopedia it shows you types, models, history of, famous pilots, etc. An article on Antiprocess should read like a textbook and not a dictionary. Does that help? - Tεxτurε 17:50, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Fascinating and well done, but it doesn't belong here. Maybe somewhere in Wikibooks? Andrewa 23:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shimizu Tetsuo

here
Template:Shimizu Tetsuo

Nick Bostrom

This guy's a postdoc with a website? Big deal. Not notable. Director of WTA? Gimme a break. How many ppl assign themselves as directors of their own societies? To my understanding, the WTA that he "directs" doesn't even have over 100 members. Sorry, but I don't see any reason for having this page unless you want to start having vanity pages for anyone with a website and who assigns themself as "director" of their own small "association". Tempest

  • I dunno. He seems kind of blah, ut he's a "philosopher at Oxford" which might just be notable enough for inclusion. I'll abstain for now. blankfaze | •­• 21:12, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (on procedural grounds). This survived VfD nine days ago. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:32, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

David Pearce

Clear vanity page. So what if this guy's posted some of his essays on his website? So have countless millions of other ppl just like him. What he's done is not notable. To my knowledge, he hasn't published any books or discovered anything or done anything that worth having a wiki page for his ego. Delete.Tempest

  • From your comments and your choices should I assume that someone listed an article you wrote for deletion and that this and the previous nominations are to exact some kind of protest? Are you just trying to make a point? - Tεxτurε 21:19, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Germany Must Parish — Discussion

Anything which is headed by a description of it as a "story" by the ICR (noted holocaust denial group), and has a misspelled word in its title ought to be suspicious enough. As it is, it contains almost no useful information, on top of all of that. Do they mean "prized" when they say "priced"? Who knows? In short: incoherent entry which has some unknown or loose ties to something published by a holocaust denial group. Taking up space. --Fastfission 21:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: I've corrected the spelling in the article title but not the rather peculiar method of listing on VfD (someone who understands it might have a go). The book does seem to exist, so the issue seems to be, was it really written when claimed? If so, keep and clean up. But the Google hits I investigated could all have been propaganda or naively based on propaganda. Andrewa 22:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: The link now added to edit the subpage makes this way of listing workable, perhaps even good. Glad I didn't try to fix it myself. Andrewa 22:21, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is still incoherent and probably propaganda at best. I'd say drop it -- if somebody out there thinks this is really important enough to warrant an entry then it will be up to them to fix it up appropriately, as it is stands the main hits it comes up with on on Google -- hell, the entire first page -- are all Holocaust Revisionist pages: www.codoh.com, www.ihr.org, www.ety.com/berlin/, www.radioislam.org/germany/, www.corax.org/revisionism/, www.resistance.com, www.stormfront.org, www.h-ref.de (and one list to a useless 'faqfarm.com' and a zshop on amazon.com). It's incoherent enough that I can't figure out entirely what their angle is (that a few Americans proposed and maybe even supported nasty eugenic solutions to get rid of Nazis? Would that further Holocaust Revisionism ideology somehow? Doesn't make sense to me, but whatever). As it stands I'd say there might be an interesting article to write about how Holocaust Revisionists seem to find this book significant to advancing their ideology, but that isn't the entry which currently exists, and it wasn't at all the spirit in which the current entry was submitted. I say delete it outright -- if someone wants to write that entry in the future, they'll still have the option, yes? --Fastfission 23:59, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Library catalogs show that the book exists, published in 1941. If it was indeed notable at that time (as the article says), it might be worth an article. Weak keep, since I have not verified anything expect existence. Andris 04:08, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • does it has an ISBN no.? I can't find that one. // Rogper 23:26, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: Probably not. ISBNs weren't issued before 1966, and none of the catalogues I've found it in provide one, nor do the political sites promoting it. But there's no complete online list of ISBNs yet, so it's hard to say. Andrewa 13:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now stubified. The original text was taken from political sites and largely unverifiable, and needed some major spelling and grammar work as the author is not a native english speaker. (However I found it quite coherent.) The fact that there is so much misinformation centred on this particular work makes our article especially important IMO. Google does not generally find library catalog entries (it found only one in this case). Andrewa 04:55, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Good work! I change my vote to "Keep". Andris 05:17, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • remove. Note: I started the article but regret it and I don't want to have my signature in the history on "Germany must perish". I have wrote some articles about the dark past in history (and was, in an ironical way, glad to find a anti-theory even if I wouldn't existed if it would have been set into practice.) But the source is not relaible; can someone state the ISBN no.? After trying to look up things, I can't find an official "anti-theory", nor I find the antropologist professor in Harvard that IHR refers to, thus indicating it have no impact on the research domain. The text on IHR must have been edited because "note 27" is missing [18]. Please remove my signature so that it cannot be associated with meit and paste it anynomously if it is going to be kept so my signature is removed. Am I the first person regretting an edit!? :-)

I don't want the article to remain with my signature. If wikipedia shall save this article, then I suggest you remove it and enter the new information. It is also so much change so that I don't want to be associated with it (see the GFDL text.) // Rogper 20:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is not a reason for deletion. I'm very sorry about the position in which this places you, although I also think you overestimate the likelihood that anyone will read the history and connect you with it. But it's a general principle of the Internet that you must think carefully before you write, because once you have sent or saved something it is quite possible it will become a permanent record. There are some valid reasons for deleting history, but a change of heart is not one of them. Andrewa 09:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't see that such arguing comforms to the GNU Document Free Licens, that covers modified versions. I wrote a fictious article about Germany must parish, not perish. This article was was a fable and according to the norms on Wikipedia, it should be removed. I think that its current version -- with new title and content -- does not clearly distinguishes it from mine, which is the GFDL agreements. And since it Germany must parish does not suite on Wikipedia, it must be removed. // Rogper 14:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mamasuga — Discussion

  • Delete - College student. (With this own theme song...) - Tεxτurε 21:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although now I want my own theme song. Joyous 23:15, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and I'm perfectly content not having my own theme song. —Stormie 02:03, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - What I want is a laugh track. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:02, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Someone showed me this link... I say keep it. Seriously, he is still a legend on campus. His name has entered the everyday vocabulary at the Clarmont Colleges, and I have heard it has spread to other schools nationwide. In fact, call the main campus to see that this submission was likely not intended to be a joke or vanity page. -- A Mudder 09:30, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Anon vote - same college student? - Tεxτurε 04:48, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep - Mamasuga, I named my firstborn after you! You're a god among men. I enthusiastically vote to keep this entry; it serves as an important living document on this great cultural phenomenon. --West Dormer '96. 09:39, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Anon vote - 7 minutes after the prior vote - Voting time is faked - Tεxτurε 04:48, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm really getting tired of seeing vanity page authors fake support for themselves (badly) three times a week. I guess it happens because they don't realize that we see this sort of thing all the time, and they have an overinflated view of their own cleverness. "I know, I'll write a Wikipedia article about myself. I bet nobody's ever tried that before! What? Listed for deletion? I'll just pretend to be multiple supporters, they'll never see through that!" -- Cyrius|✎ 04:59, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rebuttal -- This is ANON vote #1. ANON vote #2 was someone who I passed the link along to. Please be assured that I am NOT Mamasuga, and you would be surprised to see that "Mamasuga" is in fact a well known figure on the campuses of the Claremont Colleges. And the times were not faked, but are PST.

  • Not only was it faked but it was done badly. It shows as a day earlier than your first post even though the page history shows it as being 7 minutes later. - Tεxτurε 16:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, the first comment was made at ~9:30 pm PDT, if you adjust for time zones, and ignore the fact that they excluded the "pm" and "PDT" and don't seem to know what UTC means. The second comment is also at the roughly correct time if you take the 12th to be a typo. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:35, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A person contacted me via IRC claiming to be Mamasuga. The address used was in the 67.114.*.* range, which is outside the ones used for writing the article or making comments in this deletion discussion. He seemed embarassed by the whole thing and disclaimed responsibility for the article or the comments.
I don't know if he is or isn't the person responsible, but if he isn't, could the people trying to save this article please stop? You're making him look bad. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:34, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've said it before and I'll say it again: The worst vanity posters are college students. Oh, and I want not only my own theme song, but my own sitcom as well to go with it! Delete this one, BTW. - Lucky 6.9 06:11, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia != cheap personal website. Delete. -- EuroTom 11:25, 15 Jun 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}} ~~~~

*Move to WikiBooks and delete. Denni 22:43, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_September_2004&oldid=4043544"