Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jxg (talk | contribs) at 18:28, 13 June 2004 (→[[Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

If the latest nominations appear to be missing from this page, please purge the cache.

Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait seven days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:

More information.

Things to consider:

  • It is important to read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page.
  • Use the "what links here" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Wikipedia.
  • Please familiarize yourself with some frequently cited guidelines, in particular WP:BIO, WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC and WP:COI.

AfD etiquette:

  • Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment.
  • Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~.
  • If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.
  • Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
  • Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.

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

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


13th 12th 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 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 someone actually from or living in 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)
  • Keep. Agree with JFW. --Woggly 06:24, 13 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)
  • The box has been copied directly into Taipei and is now orphaned. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:29, 12 Jun 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)
  • If he had made RSA insecure, people would have heard of him. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ObjectWeb

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

  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 18:50, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It's had plenty of time to be made not-an-ad. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:32, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an obvious ad Peterb12 23:59, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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 [1] 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 [2]. 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)
  • You guys are no fun. Personally, I'd love to hear more about Quoblinball. As for Box Battling, I'll be sorry to see it go. Maybe someone can create an article about New sports as an excuse to link to this and others (such as Quoblinball, and the various real-life versions of Quidditch and Calvinball that people have tried to play).--Woggly 06:36, 13 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)
  • Keep stub, Wikisource decision. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:34, 12 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)
  • Keep. A legitimate and genuine measure of technology. Without gadgets, WalMart and Radio Shack would not exist in their curent incarnations. Denni 00:02, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kinda' interesting entry, although I doubt anyone would look it up for research. --Aaron Einstein 00:23, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. "gadget" was the name for the first A-bomb. Ancheta Wis 04:14, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting, has potential. --Woggly 06:39, 13 Jun 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)
  • Sorry about your loss. Seems harsh to say that I agree he's probably not notable enough. If and when this page is deleted, don't forget to delete the link from Predator. --Woggly 06:46, 13 Jun 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) with changes this is no longer idiotic. Merge with drinking culture. --Woggly 06:52, 13 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)
  • Keep with changes. Regardless of one's attitude toward alcohol, this is an excellent summary of the phenomenon of "free drinks". There really is nothing that says "friends" more succinctly than "want a beer?" Denni 01:23, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Keep. Free drinks are important to me Dmn 17:26, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • With changes, acceptable, though likely should go on Drinking culture instead. Rossumcapek 18:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with drinking culture and leave direct. Fredrik (talk) 09:25, 13 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)
    • No, but Wiktionary is. Esta est una dictionaire espanol?Denni 01:29, 2004 Jun 12 (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)
  • Delete. Excrutiating mixture of the really bad, the really boring and the completely inappropriate. Rossrs 08:20, 13 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)
    • "Random professor" test is "Is this person more notable than the average random college professor?" -- Cyrius|✎ 05:49, 12 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)
  • Keep - a published author, Wikipedia is not paper and hard drive space is cheap. What's the point in deleting? 203.219.188.15 10:58, 12 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)
    • Silly you. You take pickles, roll-mop herring, and extra-aged cheddar cheese, and coarse-chop them in a blender for thirty seconds. Add two raw eggs and spices to taste and blend at low for an additional thirty seconds. Pour the mixture into a regular pie shell and bake untopped at 175°C for about 45 minutes or until the cheese crust is golden brown. Invite over a whole bunch of people who you don't like and serve warm. I am, of course, making this up as I go. What in the name of all that's sane is a pickle pie? Denni 01:42, 2004 Jun 12 (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)
  • A little bit more notable than the average professor, but not much. That "posted with permission" at the bottom bothers me too. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:52, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cornell University Hangovers - Glee club part 2

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)
  • Living to 99 does not warrant an encyclopedia article. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:57, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course not. But being named a town's oldest person on the occasion of its centennial might. Everyking 21:43, 12 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)
    • Looked at it again after these changes that are supposed to render my vote inapplicable. It's still personal promotion, still delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:11, 12 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)
  • Delete. Not yet notable. After they have successfully expanded, an article might be appropriate (but it would be far more credible if someone else wrote it). Rossami 02:19, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Seeing that the article has changed from what it was initially, the reason for deletion is no longer valid. Keep.--Noromaru 11:46, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Noromaru's sole edit is this comment. Sockpuppet. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:11, 12 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)
  • Delete personal neologisms. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:57, 12 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 [3] 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 [4]. 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: [5] 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)

  • Sometimes I'm ashamed to be a Wikipedian (yeah, I know - some of you guys are ashamed to be associated with me. No comments from the non-paying customers, please). This is so patently a hoax that the solemn tones of skepticism from some here cause me to wonder if you do not take even such an august and noble effort too seriously. I think this is a great article for an alternate universe Wikipedia, and should survive in BJAODN if nowhere else. I regret that I must recommend we delete it here. Denni 02:21, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)
    • But there were complaints on the mailing list recently that people on VfD were mocking the authors of articles-to-be-deleted. Hence the solemn tones of skepticism here. :-) —Stormie 04:55, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • If the article eventually is moved to BJAODN, take this debate along with it.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 03:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ugh, it's disinformation spam for one of those damned artsy hidden link and cryptic flash movie sites [6]. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:26, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • JNEBTHOS -- I apolgize for my lack of editing knowledge of this site... Firstly... I had no idea a site like this exsist I find it to be a novel concept... Secondly, I had no knowledge of the posting of the article in question, which was posted by one of our more "over zealous" members of WIJN; I told the WIJN community about it because I found it rather humorous... So, please do not feel this was a selfless promotion gimck. =] Anyways... I understand you all try your best to purge false articles, and props to you... it must be a hard job... But I would like to ask you visit our site and see whats going on there... And possibly leaving this article in your wikipedia, for the simple reason, That on the Internet, John Nebthos does exsist and does have a history. I would also be open to the alternate universe proposal by Denn, if this can not be done... Reguardless... Im going to had your wonderful website to our link directory and inform the community of this site's exsistance... And in turn I would hope this article could remain on the wikipedia with some proper additions to the article to make it more valid for your wikipedia.... thank you for your time... JNEBTHOS -SITE ADMIN "WIJN"

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)
  • I'll abstain from voting to let others decide but I think it's now close enough to a stub to stay until I can fix it up. Telso 01:37, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd say it's worth keeping now. MK 03:11, 13 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)

Speedily deleted. That should not have lasted as long as it did. Guanaco 01:54, 13 Jun 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)
  • Keep as modified Denni 02:42, 2004 Jun 12 (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)
  • Harmless redirect, keep. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:30, 12 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)
  • Not even a good dicdef. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:32, 12 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)
  • I thought this had been deleted before. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:33, 12 Jun 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)
  • I've been teaching math at the 5th/6th grade level for 10 years, and I've never run across the term before. Joyous 02:55, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - the concept is valid, but nobody's using the term. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:34, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I thought it was pretty funny, so BJAODN, and delete. Dysprosia 08:20, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have received an email from Andrew Cairnes asking me to support the inclusion of the term 'lecnac' in Wikipedia. He is correct in stating that our material is used in over 10,000 schools - in fact it is more like 12,000 now as the claim to which he refers is about a year old. These are mainly schools in the UK although we have sold quite a lot of our material abroad. Schools have been purchasing MathSphere material for about 5 or 6 years so a conservative estimate would mean that at least one million UK children have now come across the term 'lecnac'. We meet many British teachers at conferences and exhibitions. It would be churlish of me to pretend that we have asked thousands of teachers if they use this term, but those that we have asked agree that it is very useful. I have added a little to the article to show how it is used in practice. This is a concept in mathematics teaching that was long overdue for a name and at last one has been found. Having cancelling without lecnacing is rather like having multiplication without division, clockwise without anticlockwise or differentiation without integration. Please keep this term. MATHSPHERE.

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)
    • Because, in general, the location is registered as such with whatever government agency oversees such things. Presumably Studley has the largest population in the UK of all population centres classified as villages. Either way, it's a real place, people live there, etc, so keep. Rhymeless 03:17, 12 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)
  • Cingoz the Saint Cat caused the delete votes of the nonbelievers to disappear. However, with the protection of the power of Ralph the Holy Budgie, I declare this article deleted. Denni 02:55, 2004 Jun 12 (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)
"Squee" is also the sound uttered by dying evil robots in some long-ago, far-away science fiction comic book series I once read. So it does appear to be a word which has been about for some time. However, in its present context, it is suitable only for an alternate universe Wikipedia unless the current comic book series extends beyond four editions. Denni 03:11, 2004 Jun 12 (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)
  • Keep. Of course it's POV, but that's the entire point. Jxg 18:28, 13 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)
  • Keep, even if stubby, it is worthwhile.
    SimonMayer 03:27, 12 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)
  • Delete - vanity. Doubt this is a joke - jokes require an element of humor, of which this has not a particle. Denni 03:15, 2004 Jun 12 (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)
    • I do not understand the last comment. The article does not imply anything: it gives examples of the Bible prescribing to murder under numerous circumstances. And I don't see any significant relationship with either apostasy ot Imperialism topics.
My comment about the Bible not being a person was based on this line (no longer in the article): "There are many places in Bible where it urges believers to commit attrocities or where biblical heroes or even God himself commit attrocites." The rewrite is a big improvement, and I will contribute a bit to the article over time. Fire Star 19:25, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)"
  • Comment. The article was completely rewriten on 6/11/04. Some of the concerns above were adressed (many more examples, less quoting, and, I think, better organized and less POVish).

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)
  • Roeschter's contribution above is 99.9% better than the article itself. At the very least cut and paste it into place, if not: delete. Fire Star 01:57, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep. I copied Roeschter's definition into it with a few modifications. Jsan 05:39, 12 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)
  • Keep. This would not be the first time that it turned out that the works of a famous man were actually the works of an unknown woman. This site is legitimate enough to me that I believe this article worth a spot. Denni 03:28, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)
    • The wikipedia article is essentially a cut-n-shunt. It's taken a real, but very minor, architect (who seems to have designed one house (her own) and a couple of churches (plans that weren't used, it seems)). Then it's shunted on the notable works of a large tranch of notable architects, and welded the lot together with an evidence-free conspiracy theory. This rivals "Arborialoids" for incredibility. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a hoax (or someone's vast conspiracy theory). This article itself says she isn't listed in any architectural texts. She's not mentioned in Bannister Fletcher, and the buildings the article claims she's credited with are all unambiguously credited to real architects (I checked all the scottish ones, and a couple of the others, in detail). It claims she tutored Wren, but there's no evidence of this. It claims she designed a bunch of Wren's buildings (hoping to hijack the altogether more credible theory that Robert Hooke deserves more credit for the output of Wren's office than he gets now). It claims she was the brains behind a dozen or so of Britain's leading architects, and that she's the most prolific architect who ever lived. These are vast, astonishing claims, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - yet none whatever is given. No sources are cited. This sounds a lot like "Bonnie", the fictious inventor of calculus (predating Newton & Leibniz by a century) that someone cooked up before. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:46, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:06, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definite conspiracy theory - the same user edited Christopher Wren to assign the credit for most of his buildings to this individual, which (to say the least) is not a theory supported by any reputable source. -- ChrisO 09:07, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete—appears to be bunk. —No-One Jones 06:13, 13 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)
  • Appears to be a neologism. And, SWAdair, perhaps people do want to know what this neologism refers to. There is entirely nothing non-famous about Piss Christ by Andres Serrano, which (correct me if I'm wrong) so profoundly offended the conservative senses of middle America that it received the full sanctification of a TIME cover. Helen Chadwick's work with meat, flowers, and her own body cells, and her Piss Flowers bronzes were enough to earn her a nomination for the Turner Prize, a prestigious enough award. Delete, because it is a neologism, but shame on those of you who went "ewwwww." Looks like Serrano and Chadwick got exactly the reaction they expected. Denni 03:48, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)
    • Yes, the vote to delete was because it is a neologism. I don't let personal taste affect my decision as to whether or not something is valid. The parenthetical aside was meant jokingly -- maybe I should have included an emoticon. Oh... I still say "ewwwww."  ;-) SWAdair | Talk 10:28, 12 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)
  • 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 HAVE DELETED IT.Kurt

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)
  • Delete, recipe has been transwikied, no other content. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:21, 13 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 [9]. 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 [10]. 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)
  • Keep new disambiguation page. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:20, 13 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)
  • Keep. Acegikmo1 01:52, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A self-serving intellectual endeavor. While some works, the Bible and Qu'ran, for instance, may be seen by many as seminal works, the consensus decreases rapidly from there. What is a seminal work to one is not to another. Have any children found the passion to become environmentalists from "The Lorax?" So where is it on this list? "Seminal" could be anything from a Billy Joel song to a page from Mother Teresa's diary. It is individual beyond words. Denni 05:27, 2004 Jun 12 (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.
  • Delete all. Wikipedia is not for advertising. Rossami 02:13, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is sad beyond words to unwrap the most inviting gift and find the box empty. Denni 05:33, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Not NPOV: Jonathan M. Sweet reads like an About the Author page, the others read like jacket blurbs. Dpbsmith 01:42, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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)
  • Delete, unverified/able. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:18, 13 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)
  • I tried to overhaul this up but there may not be that much to say and I'm not that great a writer to begin with. I'll leave voting to others who are probably less biased than I am. Telso 00:17, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The new info added by Telso convinced me. Definitely notable. SWAdair | Talk 23:22, 12 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)
  • Move info to List of Nokia Products and delete original article. DS 00:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to List of Nokia products or Nokia and delete original article. To me, this is just like the SoBe flavor articles (except even less difference between models than the flavors). A single article highlighting the differences would probably interesting/encyclopedic, but individual articles that are a dump of product specs aren't very useful, as they drown out the important/notable facts. And yes, Nokia 3410, Nokia 7610, and Nokia 9500 all still have VFD tags. Niteowlneils 04:20, 13 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)
      • This is sorta off-topic, but a few years ago I had a 'fixed-gear bike', I do like my mountain bike more though. Ilyanep 00:40, 13 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)
  • Dont delete: this could re-direct to bicycle brake systems G-Man 14:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Its been re-directed: I dont think this needs to be here anymore. G-Man 14:38, 13 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: [11] [12]
Jorge Stolfi 01:02, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • That cinches it for me. Close your eyes, assume the lotus position and repeat after me: Deeeeleeeete...there! Don't we feel better? - Lucky 6.9 02:51, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Self-promotion -> Isomorphic votes to delete. Isomorphic 03:06, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - for above reasons - Tεxτurε 14:22, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fire Star 14:44, 11 Jun 2004 (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
  • Welcome back to Wikipedia, Kurt. We still remember you from the last time you tried to promote your creed here. Delete. DJ Clayworth 19:07, 12 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 [13]. 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) Andy Mabbett
    • Done, but I still recommend deletion. 11:34, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This content clearly does not fit in the History of Birmingham and clearly deserves its own article. For anyone not following recent developments, this is clearly moivated by Andy Mabbetts grudge against User:Nick Boulevard. G-Man 15:04, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Another piece of misinformation from G-man (who has just reverted my merging); there being no such grudge. Quite why a short piecce on the history of one part of the economy of Birmingham does not fit on page on the history of Birmingham is not apparent. Andy Mabbett 18:32, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Either leave as is, or merge the first sentence/paragraph, but NOT the lengthy list of external links--all but the Transport Museum link are company/product-specific, and have no business being on the general History of Birmingham page--if anywhere, they should be on the company-specific Wikipedia pages for the respective companies listed, and linked to, in the paragraph. Niteowlneils 03:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy to merge the content, and move the page to "List of Transport Histroy links for Birmingham, England", or somethinkg like that. Andy Mabbett 10:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I've also replaced the VFD notice, which G-Man removed. Andy Mabbett 10:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Im sorry but the paragraph in question still does not fit into the History of Birmingham page. I have tried to fit it in and it simply does not go anywhere. G-Man 14:22, 13 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)
  • Keep. It does need a major overhaul in organization and NPOV. Acegikmo1 01:49, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • It was listed on cleanup for a month. No one's taken up to the task. We can't allow this disgrace to be sitting around any longer. --Jiang 04:49, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It's had two months to turn into a real article. Delete if not massively improved. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:13, 13 Jun 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)

  • The spellings Czech krona and Slovak krona are understandable typos, since the Swedish krona is spelled this way. So making Czech krona and Slovak krona redirects to Koruna seems like a reasonable thing to do. I have therefore done so :). Thue 12:00, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirects. Andrewa 17:42, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirects. I am Czech; the word "Krona" may sound OK in Russian. --Lumidek 23:48, 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)
    • Comment: If merged, it should become a redirect. Merge and delete is not a valid option, see Wikipedia:deletion policy for why not. You're not the only one, this is the most consistently overlooked part of the whole policy. In any case, there seems no reason not to keep this as a redirect. Point taken about the photo, it was originally part of the traffic calming article, I hadn't noticed that. But no change to my vote, in fact the now expanded article is great IMO. Andrewa 01:30, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've added a bunch of stuff. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:37, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good job on the expansion. --ssd 16:50, 13 Jun 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 [14]. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not satisfactory at present, as there is no link to this from Raisa Gorbacheva nor from its talk page, so the history is not in practice preserved anyway. I'm not sure how to handle it either. Andrewa 23:52, 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)
    • I've also just noticed that the highest one - 1E19s is actually 1E19s and more (even going up to 1E(10^76)), so maybe any content on these pages can find a home on the smallest reasonable time. StuartH 04:28, 12 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)
    • This is odd: I left a note on the contributor's talk page, User_Talk:Schneelocke, about three days before listing on VfD, asking whether the material wouldn't have been better placed in a single table on one page. I never got a reply. However, on going to that page now, I do not see my note on the page or in the history of that page. I can't explain this, except to wonder whether it could have been lost in the database problems earlier this week. So, although I did not mean to list it here without giving the contributor prior notice, it appears that that's what happened. My apologies. I'm not aware of any prior discussion. How much time do you think is needed? My suggestion would be that you propose a date and that I add a note at the top saying that I am requesting that the VfD discussion time be extended to that date before action is taken. Dpbsmith 16:50, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If they have nothing, they should be deleted. But all those long times should stay on one page.

Harry Potter and the death of Harry Potter

  • Stub for fanfiction. Rmhermen 16:48, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 16:58, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shameless advert. Andrewa 17:47, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. RickK 22:41, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Aaron Einstein 00:19, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. —Stormie 02:04, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Aaron Hill 05:48, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable shameless advertising. If it were a famous parody of Potter, maybe. But it isn't, so kill it quickly. PMC 06:39, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the above.--Woggly 07:00, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Antiprocess

  • Delete - dicdef (two nouns and one verb) - Tεxτurε 16:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Neutral - Andrewa has a point. Surely this can be an article. - Tεxτurε 18:58, 12 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)
  • I am currently in discussion with two Wikipediographers about the article. After reading their advice, I expanded the entry to downplay the dicdef aspect. I will also look more closely at the advice given here. Having said all that, I wish to make it clear that if the article is deleted I will not take offense. --Timothy Campbell 16:24, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Oy. This is... this is very good, but... well, I vote keep, because it can be fixed. DS 00:40, 13 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)
  • Keep - This is another revenge posting from the wording and the grouping - Tεxτurε 04:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like it makes the cut, if not necessarily by much. Keep. -- Jmabel 07:06, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

David Pearce — Discussion

David Pearce was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

I know that this article has been listed on VFD twice already, but you guys need to understand what is going on with this article:

This article is obvious googlebombing with the links, each "article" is really a link to one of the many thousands of domains this guy owns. These links are also found in many other related articles. Im sure David Pierce or an associate himself has been adding most of these links.

This guy owns these domain names: http://www.hedweb.com/paradise.html

By owning such a gigantic amount of cross linking domain names, his websites dominate many drug searches on google. David Pearce thus then might be notable enough for these facts, but these facts were removed from the article.

edit by the guy who put this on vfd:

Don't believe this guy is notable because of articles or interviews mentioned here, notice that most of those are hosted on his own websites so they are questionable. He might very well be notable for the gigantic amount of domain names he owns, all with some form of original content on them, which tend to dominate many search results, especially for obscure drugs. The problem is however, it is very likely him or a friend who created this article, or added the links to it, so its always a very potentially dangerous article.

  • (Above unsigned entry is from User:67.180.61.179).
  • David Pearce is a British visionary...bwhuaahaa...oh vanity alright. Delete. Wyllium 19:58, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
  • Delete or edit down to stubbitude. --jpgordon{gab} 19:11, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • As it is, it's nothing but a link farm. Delete. DS 19:30, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. silsor 19:41, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotional. Slightly off-topic, but people might want to take a look at Talk:American World University#Handling promotional links. I'm suggesting that whenever someone has qualms about the promotional effect of a link but wish to preserve it as a service to readers, that it be replaced with a substitute from tinyurl or similar services. To my surprise, this is a controversial suggestion, but I'd like to explore it further or see whether others have better ideas. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Hooooooo boy those are some links! Putting nowiki in front of all of them works well, and while the article is on VfD, we're supposed to do that anyway. I'd almost have seen this speedied for patent nonsense. He wants to "abolish the chemical substrates of suffering?" What? I suffer, but I'm not sure it's on a chemical substratum level. Geogre 20:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • "the abolition of the chemical substrates of suffering in all sentient life.". Um, okay. Even if we got rid of the excessive links, this language itself makes it delete-worthy. Delete. RickK 20:58, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --DMG413 22:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Jayjg 12:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, Promo --Improv 15:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity, promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since Pearce is obviously a notable figure, the most sensible thing to do would be to shorten the bibliography section and delete all its links, which I have done. Loremaster 20:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • What is your evidence supporting the judgement "obviously a notable figure"? I'll admit that I don't see it and consider this currently a delete candidate. Rossami (talk) 06:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • As a leading figure in a movement that is getting increasing media, academic and political attention, Pearce should have an article. And, since the controversial content has been edited out of the article, this dispute is now moot. Loremaster 16:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if I would call Pearce a "obviously notable figure", but his major work, The Hedonistic Imperative, is well-known within transhumanist communities. -- Schaefer 20:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, this was quite likely created as a vanity page, but if the links can be kept off, it shouldn't be a problem. I'll admit that his only well-known writing is The Hedonistic Imperative, so while there's no profound need for a page just about him, the page has been edited to the point where it's no longer just blatant self-promotion. -- Schaefer 20:36, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this was created as a vanity page, it was not done by David Pearce or his associates - I know this fact personally. Some people are quick to play down the notability of others for obvious reasons. Given that there is no such thing as an unbiased attribution of value or notability - we should instead thank this fellow for his pioneering and visionary work. Ask yourselves if the abolition of suffering is more important than one's contribution to an impossibly "unbiased" collection, life is short.Sean Henderson 22:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Note that Sean Henderson is the name of one of David Pearce's associates (as mentioned in the article)67.180.61.179 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I find a great deal to dispute with the man and most of the Transhumanist movement I think at least from with in the movement his works are discussed and he's moderately well known. Notable? I hope not, but I wouldn't make that judgment for anyone else. —Florescentbulb 02:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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 [15]. 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)

Hollywood Left — Discussion

Hollywood Left - is this real? I can't find anything about it searching for "Hollywood Left" "mailing list" on Google. The inclusion of "see alsos" to October Revolution and Leni Riefenstahl makes it suspicious. RickK 23:38, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. The mailing list is explained e.g. at [16]. --Lumidek 23:45, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • That article says that the people mentioned in the article went to a screening of Fahrenheit 9/11. There is no mention of a mailing list. RickK 00:03, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • O'REILLY: Who is them? I don't think they faxed Tom Selleck and Bruce Willis. I don't think they faxed Clint Eastwood and Kurt Russell. There must be a little list or a big list of people that they think they can mobilize. ... HAMMOND: There is a list but there's also an article that appeared ...
  • Sorry, that's not proof. RickK 00:12, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: O'Reilly, following Drudge, *alledges* that there is a mailing list (as in a USPS mailing list), then that there is a fax list. They were picking up political blog talk of a few Hollywood organizers who use their Rolodexes to gather up politically motivated folks. I.e. this is speculation, political, and highly POV. It's along the lines of "liberal elites." Geogre 00:13, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • HAHAHAHA. I watched this segment on O'Reilly last night. I never thought somebody would make a Wikipedia article about it. WOW. Ridiculous. Delete. blankfaze | •­• 00:56, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A great many people watch O'Reilly, so why shouldn't we cover the ideas he comes up with? It's easily famous enough. Everyking 02:03, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. O'Reilly alleges something for two minutes and its gets a article? No, sorry. If this were a recurring theme of his (and if said theme went by this specific title), then maybe keep. -Sean Curtin 03:34, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a one-off allegation with nothing to back it up. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:07, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree, not a significant catch-phrase of O'Reilly's, delete. Meelar 06:04, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Of course Hollywood liberals have their friends' email addresses, of course they sometimes send out anti-Bush emails, and of course they know not to include the conservatives. As one of O'Reilly's guests asked him, "Well, Bill, is this a shock to you?" The Hollywood conservatives also have lists. People in other fields have lists. I get anti-Bush email, though admittedly not from any movie stars. Delete as nonencyclopedic. JamesMLane 07:17, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Discussion closed.

RESULT: No consensus to delete, keep.

DJ Clayworth 20:17, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete.... Please, really, we're regurgitating Bill O'Reilly's bitpieces now? I agree with Sean however, "If this were a recurring theme of his (and if said theme went by this specific title), then maybe keep." - Aaron Hill 10:51, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • (Keep, already voted.) The reason why The Hollywood Left should be kept, and not exterminated, is that in democracy, even the people with stupid political opinions have the right to live! ;-) Well, The Hollywood Left certainly is a recurring theme of O'Reilly, and not only him. Google returns 3670 hits for "The Hollywood Left" and about 300 pages containing both "The Hollywood Left" as well as "O'Reilly". I can't imagine that you will eliminate The Hollywood Left - well, you can stil change its defition, but I think that the "mailing list" is the most accurate definition haha. --Lumidek 13:46, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikispeak — Discussion

Wikispeak - move to meta. RickK 23:56, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Disagree - these are terms that get used on Wikipedia project pages quite frequently and can be a little impenetrable to new users. The page should be moved to Wikipedia:Wikispeak instead. -Sean Curtin 04:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That's what "move to meta" means. :) RickK 05:04, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Four of the terms are just Wikimedia project names, and the rest are self-explanatory. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:01, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikify and Stubify and even Wikimeet are not at all self explanatory (before reading it, I thought it meant somehow "meeting" on a wiki), and the rest are certainly useful for new users. And besides, there is plenty of info in wikipedia that is "self explanatory," it does not hurt to centralize common knowledge though... Agree with proposed move -- siroxo 12:57, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: It's interesting IMO that the definition of Wikify currently listed differs significantly from the one first proposed (by a relative newbie) and apparently accepted by several experienced hands who visited the page along the way. It's not just useful to newbies IMO, I've learned from it already. Andrewa 14:39, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia:Wikispeak, not to Meta. It's not the same thing at all, you need a separate signon for the Meta and it serves all the Wikipedias and some related projects. Certainly needs some work but I think it's a great idea. Andrewa 05:16, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • This glossary is valid for more than just en.wikipedia so meta is much more appropriate. Separate signon is a not a big deal - new account creation takes about 10 seconds and then you can forget about it. Pcb21| Pete 13:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Could also merge with Wikipedia:Glossary, as Cyrius pointed out the overlap -- siroxo 15:12, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Terms here should appear in the Wikipedia glossary too, certainly, and the pages should each link to the other, but this page has a narrower focus. Possibly the lists should be merged. I do notice that the author of this page seems not to have known that the Wikipedia glossary existed, and following the link they gave to glossary, which redirects, there's a link to the Wikipedia glossary but it's right at the bottom of the page. Perhaps this link should be promoted, especially since there's currently no article on glossary as such. There are good links elsewhere to the Wikipedia glossary. Andrewa 00:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 12

Stain Internet Cafe — Discussion

Update: I count 7 votes to delete and 3 to keep. I'll now delete Stain Internet Cafe. -- Wile E. Heresiarch 07:40, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Advertisement for a minor company; goes as far as to list prices. A line like "The cafe features local artwork at the behest of Pascal Osti, but he doesn't want to stop locally" suggests that this was written by Osti himself. Bamos 01:39, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not an advertisement. I wrote it, and my name is Marlowe Revilla, I've prevented creating a user login because it is frowned upon where I am right now. I used to go there and thought if anyone was searching for an example of an internet cafe this would be a good one. I can remove the prices if it really offends you so much.

Still a no go hey? Okay, well, I guess I'll just bite the bullet and create a user. Could you maybe post a link to a wikipage that has a list of rules for good site contributions?

  • Sounds like an interesting place, but if that article was allowed, it would be a slippery slope letting everyone advertise in the Wikipedia. That's really the main reason articles like that are taboo. You might want to check out How to write a great article and Wikipedia:Style and How-to Directory. You write well and seem to have handled this experience quite well. I hope you do continue to contribute and I hope to see you around the Wikipedia. SWAdair | Talk 03:52, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this is one of the big internet cafes in Victoria where I live. Burgundavia 07:35, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Wyllium 12:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete EddEdmondson 12:42, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the original poster or someone else removes the puffery and admiring comments and makes it a truly NPOV description, in which case I would probably be inclined to change my vote to Keep. Addendum, I also think the article name should be changed to Stain Internet Cafe (Victoria, BC) and Stain Internet Cafe made a redirect, both to be more informative and for possible future disambig, in case there are or may be others.
  • Keep and improve, interesting as example of an internet cafe, or move bits in generalized form to Internet cafe.--Patrick 15:28, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep gets my vote. The guy who wrote the article is obviously a genius and deserves recognition for his work. --Marlowe 00:05, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • This comment was made by Destinova who claims the page as his own contribution. For future reference, trying to call yourself a genius generally makes you look like a fool. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:09, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, there's nothing seperating this from the masses of other internet cafes. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:09, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ha, I forgot to put my timestamp on that comment there. I'm a relatively new user and this has been known to happen with just about all the comments I've made anywhere on Wikipedia. However, I believe you are quite wrong in your observation, sir. Not to argue semantics, but I wasn't trying to call myself a genius. I did call myself a genius. The reason, most obviously lost on a humourless goit like yourself, was to add a certain levity to the situation in which I was felt some levity was needed. I have been corrected in my err and was performing a jest to draw attention away from the fact that I made that site (which I now know I shouldn't have) in the first. Now, not quite sure if it was merely because I forgot my timestamp or because you like making piss-poor observations where they are very unwelcome and extremely unwarrented, but it would be appreciated if you keep your pithy, obnoxious and poorly-written tripe to yourself. If you're unaware how, try searching yourself as a user and clicking "discussion" whereupon you can make as many dim-witted comments as you want. --Marlowe 00:05, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

EDIT: Damn, I forgot the timestamp again. --Marlowe 00:05, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

    • Actually, you originally called yourself a "genious", my apologies for not getting that right. If you think referring to yourself as a genius is funny, then I suggest that you refrain from calling other people's senses of humor into question. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:17, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Heh, so, let's be clear on this, just for my benefit. You placate and insult me and now you're arguing me something I'm not arguing (what I originally wrote), and just for good measure you throw in one last insult and tell me not to bring your poor sense of humour into this? Any unbiased observer will remark that you're in the wrong. I did nothing to warrent your hurtful comments. I'm not looking for an apology however, so lets just end this before your preaching of foolish behavior makes you look any more foolish. --Marlowe 03:11, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's already a decent article on internet cafes out there. I'm not sure we need an entry on every single one individually. Joyous 19:52, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:59, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

W1k1p3d14 — Discussion

  • Uneccessary stub. Rhymeless 03:05, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This doesn't seem to have the potential to become an encyclopaedic article. Acegikmo1 03:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Personal neologism dicdef, and it's just lame. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:51, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Duh l33t. SWAdair | Talk 03:59, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirected to Wikipedia. Guanaco 20:12, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • but its too good for toilet paper! (vote affirmative to delete)Dominick 02:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's next? l33t Klingon titles? - Centrx 21:48, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's too much 1337-speak in the world already :D --212.120.126.4 17:04, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- pne 14:48, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Miriam Parrish — Discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Miriam Parrish

Synthesis:PokemonAttack — Discussion

  • By same author as W1k1p3d14 above, with about the same chance of viability, IMHO. Niteowlneils 03:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If anyone finds anything to redirect and move the info to keep, (I personally have no idea what this "move" is from), otherwise delete siroxo 12:17, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Chaz And Daz and PentaKackle Animation — Discussion

  • "Chaz And Daz" gets 2 google hits, "PentaKackle Animation" gets 1 google hit. The hit counter on the "Chaz and Daz" webpage is 297 as of writing this. Maximus Rex 06:10, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page. Meelar 20:09, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Church rank — Discussion

From VfD

All important information is already contained within Roman Catholic Church. A seperate article isn't really necessary, so delete. PMC 06:55, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - either redirect to Roman Catholic Church, or better still add info on other churches, either way there is no need to delete the article. theresa knott 22:34, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


It would be interesting to see rankings in other churches for comparison . eg Greek Orthodox, Angican, Lutheran, Methodist etc Lumos3 22:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

This article should be deleted, it contains numerous gross errors which would make it very difficult to amend. It is irresponsible to leave this posting in place. It reads as if someone who knows "something" -- but not much -- wrote this off the top of his/her head. Furthermore, "rank" is not a term that is used formally within the Catholic Church. The author is looking to make distinctions and classifications which the Catholic Church does not make in terms of "rank." Furthermore, the sacramental order (deacon, priest, bishop) should be distinguished from the honorific/jurisdictional (monsignor, archbishop, cardinal, pope).Michael Rosinski, SJ 23:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is extremely redundant and since three people on the talk page want it deleted Ive gone ahead an nominated it for deletion, --Riconoen 10:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folk Culture — Discussion

  • As far as I know, the term "folk culture" (no caps) has a perfectly good meaning, and this sure isn't it. I have no objection to one article on David Myatt, but we already have that under his own name. This (literally) Islamo-fascist does not seem to me to be a figure of such importance as to merit a slew of separate articles, especially ones that soft-pedal what he stands for. A merge may be more appropriate than deletion; I'm interested in hearing what others think. Jmabel 07:04, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can think of two more commonly used meanings of 'folk culture than this.--XmarkX 09:29, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Several independent google hits, for this particular concept. Keep, Clean article with background, and make more NPOV, move page to something different and dambig, perhaps combine with below (Cosmic Ethics) Not saying i support the idea, but it seems to have had a minor impact via the internet. -- siroxo 12:33, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Snowspinner 17:32, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this can be disambigged/NPOVd. Let's work hard to NPOV this by adding comment from sources other than the author, and making references to the authors other works. Made a start. DJ Clayworth 19:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Might be salvageable but surely should be elsewhere. It seems foreseeable that someone would link to "folk culture" not knowing they were linking to a page describing an idiosyncratic neo-Nazi manifesto. I'd merge this with the David Myatt page and for the time being redirect folk culture to folklore. Smerdis of Tlön 16:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How's about changing the title to The Numinous Way - or even the Numinous Way of Folk Culture as that's what Myatt using now?

I've altered the David Myatt entry to try and reflect this, and left The Numinous Way as a stub, so that the current Folk Culture entry can be moved over if it seems a good idea. Coolmoon 18:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Again, let me make clear: much of this material belongs in Wikipedia, I just think that over time we would develop the inevitably controversial David Myatt material more successfully in a single article. I think generally with topics that are simultaneously obscure and controversial, it's very bad to scatter them across multiple articles. -- Jmabel 04:39, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

OK, user Jmabel makes a good point, and if this is the concensus I'll alter the Myatt article, and delete the links to Folk Culture, and Cosmic Ethics - interested readers can find out about them by following a web-link, anyways. So, this means the entries for Folk Culture and Cosmic Ethics would be removed, right? Which is OK by me. Coolmoon 06:46, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would:

  1. move whatever material is worth keeping to the David Myatt page.
  2. make Folk Culture redirect to a new page Folk culture. #Folk culture would disambiguate Myatt's specialized usage (with a link to David Myatt) and the more normal usage of the term "folk culture", which deserves at least a stub.
  3. make Cosmic Ethics into a redirect to David Myatt.
  4. make The Numinous Way into a redirect to David Myatt.

If I've left something out, it was not intentional.

Does anyone have a problem with that? Or additional thoughts?

Coolmoon, I now understand that your intentions here were fine. Welcome, I hope we're not scaring you off, it's always tricky when people who are relatively new to this start off in controversial areas. -- Jmabel 00:50, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)


How's about changing the title to The Numinous Way - or even the Numinous Way of Folk Culture as that's what Myatt using now?

I've altered the David Myatt entry to try and reflect this, and left The Numinous Way as a stub, so that the current Folk Culture entry can be moved over if it seems a good idea. Coolmoon 18:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cosmic Ethics — Discussion

More of the same as Folk Culture. -- Jmabel 07:07, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - this is an advert for Nazism masquerading as an article!!--XmarkX 09:32, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I repeat what I said in my objection to the objection about the Reichsfolk entry - if we desire to understand - and counter - such things, then such writers and :activists, and their ideas, should be studied, in a rational and unbiased way, and their ideas countered openly and rationally. Or, do you mean to imply that articles about such topics should only be written by an active opponent of those ideas? Which would, of course, not be unbiased. KEEP Coolmoon 10:36, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • "Coolmon" is the article's creator, which voids his vote. Wyllium 12:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, but not my opinion, I hope! Coolmoon 12:47, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • No vote, but being the article’s creator does not void his vote. Rossami 13:13, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • 115 google hits, most referring to this concept. Perhaps clean article? Give more background, strive for NPOV (wikipedia is not a soapbox), but overall a reasonable keep, perhaps combining with Folk Culture (not saying i support the idea, just seems to be of note) -- siroxo 12:30, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with siroxo about clenaing up the article a little - NPOV. This applies to the Folk Culture one as well. Coolmoon 12:47, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • 115 is not a significant number of hits. Delete. Snowspinner 17:32, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. RickK 22:50, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)


IMHO Google is not a true measure of a subjects worth or importance or even influence. There is a world, out-there. Coolmoon 04:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Reichsfolk — Discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reichsfolk


yf is what some fanatical neo-nazis use to date stuff. It's 112 years since the birth of Hitler - hence yf, or year of the Fuhrer (I think). I've deleted this from the article and also added another reference. Coolmoon 04:48, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cessna 182 — Discussion

Power plant

Which motor used in c- 182 2402:8100:3949:8DFC:3218:6C46:FF47:FAF0 (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the article states, early models were powered by a Continental O-470. Starting with the T182R, it was powered by a Lycoming O-540. Some specialized variants also had different engines, such as the J182T with a SMA SR305-230 diesel engine. - ZLEA T\C 15:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of credit unions — Discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of credit unions

Criminal Procedure Code of Japan — Discussion

  • Self-referential and counter productive (would be better if there was no stub). Amusing page history though :) Telso 07:44, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There may be a germ of fact in here, but if so the author is going to have to provide more detail; current version can't be cleaned up. JamesMLane 07:35, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

SDC Buggy — Discussion

  • Carnegie Mellon University's Buggy race might just make the cut, but one of the teams? Gimme a break. Delete, vanity. -- Jmabel 08:54, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:14, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Chute — Discussion

Chute (gravity)

The article refers too briefly to Escape Chutes. This product has become popular in a version that incorporates a spiral slide inside the main sleeve. The designer and manufacturer is Axel Thoms of Germany. URL: www.axel.thoms@t-online.de Designed for 2.75m to 112m and can be engineered for longer lengths on request.

Marketing is worldwide and very popular in Europe, Midele East, Far East, and South America. Recently introduced in India, and Indonesia.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chute (gravity). 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) 02:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chute (gravity). 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) 07:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goust story probably not true

The story on this page about the hamlet of Goust using a gravity chute to transport coffins is extremely dubious. I've added a CN tag, and followed up with the editor who added it, but if it's still unsourced in a few days from now I'd recommend deleting it. 185.37.136.73 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buggy race — Discussion

  • I'd delete on general principles to discourage this multi-article spam on something so trivial. -- Jmabel 08:59, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all the Buggy-related articles you listed. There's a paragraph on it in Carnegie Mellon University which contains all the information from all of the articles and more besides - I think that's all we need. --Stormie 10:54, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed, could certainly redirect though -- siroxo 12:22, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to Carnegie Mellon University#Buggy races. Rossami 13:22, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Perfect, I didn't realize you could redirect to sections! siroxo 14:26, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
        • Last I checked, you can't. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:56, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Under this version of the software, typing in a redirect to a section has the effect of a redirect to the top of the page. I've been optimistically putting in redirects to sections in the hope that someone will make the feature work soon (and because there is no harm in the meantime). Rossami 23:32, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • The section redirect works for me, thought you'd like to know (; -- siroxo 15:03, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Added VFD notice, which was missing. No vote. DJ Clayworth 19:22, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Trivia, delete. ping 08:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Trivia, delete. ping 08:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Steuard Jensen — Discussion

  • Looks like vanity to me. -- Jmabel 09:01, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Stormie 10:52, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've heard of him. I'd be surprised if he wrote it himself. Probably not notable enough to keep though. Morwen - Talk 12:42, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Someone who created an FAQ, not notable, delete. Question: How do people that apparently have the capacity to be at university think that articles like this belong in an encyclopedia? Wyllium 12:45, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I tenatively vote to keep. I know this seems like a stupid decision, but it may very well be that he is at the academic forefront when it concerns the analysis and commentary of his subject; possibly the most influential in its genre. I wonder if this topic would have been recieved differently had the movies not been made. However, I think it does need cleanup. Rhymeless 01:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: personal promotion. No evidence that he is notable in his technical field. A graduate student who likes Tolkien -- so what? Wile E. Heresiarch 04:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • For the record, I had no idea that any article about me had been added to Wikipedia (apart from my own user page here, anyway). Is there any way for me to find out what the heck was in the article in question? In any case, I would be the first to agree that I don't deserve a Wikipedia entry. Delete. (Yes, I know the decision has already been made, and that I may not even be eligible to vote on such things at this point, but I want to emphasize that whatever the page may have been, it wasn't "vanity".)--Steuard 18:43, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

RPM Live Linux CD — Discussion

  • Maybe belongs on OpenFacts, but seems wrong for Wikipedia: not significant enough. -- Jmabel 09:33, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Propose moving some of the more useful facts to Fedora Core under "versions" heading, and redirecting -- siroxo 12:21, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, move facts to its section in LiveCD. While valid, this doesn't merit a whole article. Rossumcapek 18:58, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Interesting project but not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:57, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Discussion now closed. Consensus to delete (3 for deletion, 1 for redirection). DJ Clayworth 16:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipolice — Discussion

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Wikipedia:Wikipolice.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

  • This article still has a VfD tag on it but the discussion appears to have been moved to Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/June 9. If the deletion debate is still ongoing, I definitely vote for its deletion; it appears to be a fact-free rant or at best an extended troll from an embittered ex-editor (at least, Irismeister says he's now an ex-editor). There may be a place for an article on the sociology of Wikipedia but this ain't it. -- ChrisO 12:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with ChrisO. There seemed to be consensus to delete, and if not there should at least be a prominent link to the archived discussion in the article talk page, and of course removal of the VfD tag. Andrewa 15:07, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It was unlisted by Wile E. Heresiarch from VfD/Old with the edit summary "Wikipolice -: unlist, deleted some days ago". I think he saw the main namespace redirect had been deleted and assumed someone had speedy deleted the actual page. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:55, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I have deleted it and the two images uploaded to illustrate it. There was a consensus to delete it at Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/June 9. Guanaco 19:03, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • It's just been re-created. Andy Mabbett 21:55, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Michael Angelo Benedetti, False pride — Discussion

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the pages entitled Michael Angelo Benedetti and False pride.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the articles.

  • Looks like a vanity page. No google hits for "Michael Angelo Benedetti". There are a number of other edits made by the same user relating to the same person :[17]. Thue 17:51, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and delete False pride as well. User overwrote Dreams Come True, which was a stub about a Japanese band, to promote himself. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:10, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks like a vanity page to me. StuartH 04:32, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree, Delete it
  • it was funny for a day but should be gone now
  • Could it be the author had the pianist Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli in mind??

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Binary tree (poetry) — Discussion

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Binary tree (poetry).

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

  • Idiosyncratic. Original research. Pointer to a geocities site. Self-promotion?
  • Delete: The article describes a real poetic structure, but not a real poetic form that I've ever heard of by that name. It could be novel or idiosyncratic. Had the author cited a example poems, listed authors who have used it, referred to a poetic lexicon, it might have been different, but a flat assertion that this is a form, when, if it is, it's so rare as to have escaped the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics? Geogre 19:04, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. http://www.geocities.com/binarytreepoem/ describes it as "an attempt to create an experimental poetic form." That, to me, says clearly that it is not a recognized poetic form yet, therefore unencyclopedic, original research, etc. The article can be reinserted someday when clear evidence can be presented that the experiment has succeeded, and that the poetic form is catching on. Dpbsmith 21:08, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

SymmyS — Discussion

  • Idiosyncatic. Original research. Pointer to website. Self-promotion?
  • Delete - advert/vanity - example: "See http://tommyrot.arrr.net for the symmys home page and a detailed explanation of SymmyS rules and examples." - Tεxτurε 18:56, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. This was one of the first pages I created, before I got to understand the culture here... as much as I like to think SymmyS deserves an entry, it's not far off the mark to call is a vanity page. There are only two or three people in the world who've ever written SymmyS, and I'm the only person to publish any. Tom 19:10, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, no hard feelings. Thanks for all your other work--we appreciate it. Meelar 20:06, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Manipulative therapy — Discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Manipulative therapy

Growgame — Discussion

A flash game. The current article version is 1) In Danish 2) Just a game walkthrough. No encyclopedic content. Thue 20:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • As the other language marker was only just added, I vote we wait a week or two to see if it does get translated and then delete it (if not). (If I get time, I might do it, as I have extensively played the game it is talking about) - Xgkkp 20:34, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I just used a few moments to translate it after listing it here. As you can see (now) it needs a rewrite. Thue 20:54, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I liked the game so much I improved the article. Check out the other game: Tontie - whack-a-mole with power-ups. - Tεxτurε 21:00, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You have just been responsible for me not editing wikipedia for 30 minuttes :). The growgame article still needs to describe why it is not just another random flash game. Thue 21:26, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • As cute a little game as it is, I cannot think of a single reason why it should merit a place in Wikipedia, unless we're also saving gum wrappers and dryer lint. Denni☯ 02:31, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:36, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • As the other language marker was only just added, I vote we wait a week or two to see if it does get translated and then delete it (if not). (If I get time, I might do it, as I have extensively played the game it is talking about) - Xgkkp 20:34, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I just used a few moments to translate it after listing it here. As you can see (now) it needs a rewrite. Thue 20:54, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I liked the game so much I improved the article. Check out the other game: Tontie - whack-a-mole with power-ups. - Tεxτurε 21:00, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You have just been responsible for me not editing wikipedia for 30 minuttes :). The growgame article still needs to describe why it is not just another random flash game. Thue 21:26, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Billboards of Lahore and Homes of Lahore — Discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Billboards of Lahore

Jules Ismail — Discussion

  • 9 hits for "Jules Ismail", 29 for kwestpets, none for "Another disk, another day". allmusic.com hasn't heard of him. Some admins would probably consider this a speedy candidate, but since I haven't been an admin very long, I figured I'd err on the side of caution. Niteowlneils 22:33, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, though you didn't go wrong listing it here. Meelar 22:39, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like some sort of anti-vanity page. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I disagree.

June 13

Peter Harrison — Discussion

  • In this article, created by User:209.96.179.26, there is no evidence supporting the claim that Harrison started his architectural training at age 12 at the hands of William Etty. Etty was an artist, not an architect. There are many odd claims, unsubstantiated, such as Harrison being largely responsible for America speaking English today and for India remaining in the British fold for 200 more years. I believe this is a deliberate hoax, with the perpetrator taking some facts and expanding them with imagination and myths. See 1. It seems to be the work of the same person responsible for Elizabeth Mytton Wilbraham which was placed on Vfd on June 10. The original Wilbraham entry, by User:209.96.179.60, has exactly the same peculiarly distinctive formatting as this Harrison entry being discussed here. I left a message on his talk page inviting comment, but that page has since been blanked and the edit history now shows nothing. User:209.96.179.150 has amended both the Harrison and Wilbraham entries with superficial edits. I suspect User:209.96.179.60, User:209.96.179.150 and User:209.96.179.26 are the same person. Neither of them has a previous edit history. Moriori 00:07, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Reads like a hoax. Delete unless substantially verified. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I rather doubt the accuracy of this. [|St Mary's] in Monmouth was restored in 1773 (according to their website), so Harrison couldn't possibly have worked on it as an apprentice. The [|website of the Redwood Library] (which he designed) says that Due to lack of sufficient evidence, no record exists on how or where Harrison obtained his architectural training.Average Earthman 06:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Had a further look on the web - according to [| this website] in 1744, the French had attacked the English fortress at Canso, and taken the inhabitants prisoner - and then released the prisoners a year later. So there were large numbers of English people who could testify to the weakness of Louisbourg. Average Earthman 07:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I rather doubt the accuracy of this. [|St Mary's] in Monmouth was restored in 1773 (according to their website), so Harrison couldn't possibly have worked on it as an apprentice. The [|website of the Redwood Library] (which he designed) says that Due to lack of sufficient evidence, no record exists on how or where Harrison obtained his architectural training.Average Earthman 06:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Had a further look on the web - according to [| this website] in 1744, the French had attacked the English fortress at Canso, and taken the inhabitants prisoner - and then released the prisoners a year later. So there were large numbers of English people who could testify to the weakness of Louisbourg. Average Earthman 07:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sardino — Discussion

  • No hits on Google about this constructed language, no links to this page from Wikipedia, almost no content explaining why it is of interest (e.g., publications about Sardino, web pages, philosophy behind its design or use -- no proof it even has speakers). On the off chance this subject is of importance & I just haven't kept up with developments, I'm listing it here for someone to rewrite or defend. -- llywrch 00:17, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • llywrch, all VfD listings have an implicit "I'm listing it here for someone to rewrite or defend." You don't have to say it. As it is, it's even written as personal research. Delete YA-conlang. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:19, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - YA-conlang, not particularly notable. -- pne 14:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It sounds more like a practical joke than a serious encyclopedia article. David Cannon 12:02, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User talk:Yaorao

I know that in general the deletion of users' talk pages is something to be left to the User, but this user curretnly has a 320 kilobyte translation of a BOOK on their user page. I don't know the copyright status of this translation, but just having something that large makes it impossible for anybody to talk to them. RickK 02:35, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • Checking his contributions, there's a small pile of alternate script test pages with large volumes of non-english material. What's really funny is it was all put in the better part of a year ago. Either move it to some user subpage, or delete. A talk page should be kept reasonably clear of things that aren't talk. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:10, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. While user pages should generally not be modified by anyone except for the user, in this case the page is excessive and unnecessary. blankfaze | •­• 03:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to a user subpage to allow creation of a proper user talk page. Then we'll see whether this user, who is again active after an absence, can explain what they are doing and perhaps take advice as to better ways. Possibly a copyvio; This link is provided on the user page in question too. Likely to be a delete but let's talk about it first. Andrewa 05:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • See also User:Yaorao/Twentythree, User:Yaorao/Twentytwo, User:Yaorao/Twentyone, User:Yaorao/Twenty, and User:Yaorao/One. This is almost certainly an account of User:Wanli, who has been banned for this sort of thing (using wikipedia for storage), and used an identical naming scheme. Maximus Rex 06:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adrastice

Yet again another nonsense micronation. RickK 02:54, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • Geez, can't these micronation people at least set up a crummy geocities website? Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't you have anything better to do than to go looking around wikipedia for entries you don't like? What's wrong with writing about our micronation? It exists and can be described. Cartainly if you can write entries about the representatives of every God forsaken U.S. territory and dependancy from here to Mars, then I can have a single entry about my little club.
    • Delegates, excuse me.
      • Don't you have anything better to do than try to get an article about your "little club" into an encyclopedia? -- Cyrius|✎ 05:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • No
  • MANNNNNNN, I wish we could make these speedy deletion candidates. Really. Axe it ASAP. blankfaze | •­• 03:37, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to write about their "little clubs". That's what livejournal is for. —Stormie 04:51, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - this place does not exist and never will--XmarkX 04:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a shame, it's well written but it doesn't belong here. Andrewa 05:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I find micronations—and the Wikipedia articles that so many of them seem to have—to be more amusing than annoying, nothing in here is verifiable. (And might I add, encyclopedia articles should never use the first person, except as part of a quotation.) —No-One Jones 06:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of Persian given names

Besides being nothing more than a list that could possibly be in Wikipedia, I doubt if this is the author's own work. RickK 03:02, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Doesn't look like an obvious copyvio to me, I assume anyone with a knowledge of Persian could draw up such a list. And if there's justification for articles like List of Hebrew names, this one is no less justified. --Woggly 06:19, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article doesn't look like much now, but it could be easily expanded into something pretty good (see Hebrew names). Exploding Boy 06:59, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Godlike27

A Google search shows the Geocities homepage listed in the extlinks of this article, and some Wikipedia derivatives. Has all the hallmarks of a vanity article. --ESP 04:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. Although Google comes up empty on searches for the discography, Dogpile [18] finds his Geocities site, one Yahoo group, the Wikipedia itself, and nothing more. Numbers three and four on the discography list come up with lots of hits, but none of them relevant. SWAdair | Talk 08:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Monic Tribes

Another borderline speedy. Ongah Monopa gets zero hits. "monic tribes" gets no hits. "monic tribe" gets no relevant hits. Unfortunately there a language branch named "Monic" (although it looks like the culture's name was "Mon") and a bunch of other Monic hits that don't seem relevant, but there's too many to really wade thru. Mediterra gets hits, but I think it is Italian(?) for Mediterranean (the languages are SE Asia). Niteowlneils 04:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: If this article is about the Mon culture, the most generic statements are true. It is where specific information is given that it seems unverifiable. That always makes me suspicious. If anyone wants to follow up, try reading [19], [20], [21]. SWAdair | Talk 08:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RookChat

Pure advertising, not enough Google hits to qualify as significant. -Etaoin 04:44, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

California 4th Grade Mission Project

I'm bringing this page up for discussion for the second and last time, I promise. It bugs me that this article is still up. It's not a useful page even for people actually working on this project: they'd be much better off going to California missions. This article is an orphan, and I can't see anyone running a search on this particular phrase. What is the justification for keeping this? Also, see my new comment on the talk page for the article. --Woggly 07:23, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The rationale for keeping it is that it's a verifiable, valid piece of culture that's shared by tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people. It contains information that, if put into California mission, would be out of place and irrelevant. Therefore, I say keep. And can we get a picture of one of those dioramas? Meelar 07:56, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
But how are people supposed to find this page? Can you really imagine someone typing "California 4th Grade Mission Project" in a search? (I discovered it through the "random page" button). And what information would these people gain by doing so? Even if it is a common cultural experience for many people (which I somehow missed when I was in 4th grade in California) the article contains no information in addition to what can be deduced from the title. It's hardly even a dictionary definition. I can just barely see justification for a list of common school projects and study topics, but I still don't think this particular article on its own is the least bit useful. Sorry I'm being so stubborn, I guess it irks me that I can't grasp what is considered "encylopedic" by other people here. --Woggly 09:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. My vote is based solely on the fact that this survived VfD two months ago, exactly as it is now. Articles should not, IMO, be brought back here that soon after surviving VfD. SWAdair | Talk 10:48, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alex Rider Character List

Non encyclopedic. ping 08:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Encyclopedic content, but should be merged with Alex Rider and redirected. Everyking 08:31, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Happiness by Miyu

A nice poem but not here. ping 08:17, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - not the proper place to post original poetry. Also, the article describes Happiness by Miyu as "A critically acclaimed feature appearing in DiSCORDER magazine," but I was unable to find anything about it at the DiSCORDER site. A Dogpile search for (DiSCORDER Happiness Miyu) came up empty. Remove the poetry and we still have material that doesn't seem factual. SWAdair | Talk 08:55, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's a pretty awful poem, actually. But anyway, delete.Harry R 11:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Make-A-Circus

Advert. ping 08:19, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete advert. "participatory circus theatre" -- hey, that sounds like where I work.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 08:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How to play the violin

wikibooks. wikipedia does not give music lessons. --Jiang 08:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Median number and Median prime

These may very well be real sequences that do possess the ascribed properties, but unless "median number" and "median prime", with this meaning, are the accepted terms in the mathematical community, these entries should be deleted as original research. No relevant Google hits for "median prime", and nothing on "median number" relating to this integer sequence from what I've been able to find (this one's tricky though, as there are lots of results unless you add modifiers). I'm also unable to find anything relevant about the discoverer, Paul Muljadi. - Fredrik (talk) 09:10, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Nothing on Mathworld. A lot reads like personal research, though. Delete Dysprosia 09:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with Dysprosia. Lupin 11:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It would be a pity to waste such a nice name with a trivial formula which appears to have nothing remarkable about it. Note than since n has to be odd one should replace it by 2k+1; then the kth "medial number" is (4k^2 + 4k + 1 + 1)/2 = 2k^2 + 2k + 1, an integer quadratic polynomial. Now, there are several other integer quadratic polynomials that are "prime rich" for small k, much more than this one. Jorge Stolfi 16:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Donald Spampinato, Alfred Marchand, Gerald F. Hardacre, Hilda Marcin

These individuals died a tragic death but did nothing significant enough during their lives to warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia. Transwiki to wikimemorial and delete. --Jiang 09:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree, transwiki to Wikimemorial. Fredrik (talk) 09:32, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


User:ProjeX

Those wacky Tmxxine guys are back again, using Wikipedia as a free Wiki hosting service. This is after having removing Tmxxine after VfD agreement to delete, and having it put back again more or less immediately. This user has not even attempted to make any encyclopedic edits. -- The Anome 14:29, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Katalyst

Spreadeagle

Dicdef; maybe if there were a discussion of police forces that use it, regulations of, etc., but defining it (with an eye toward bdsm) is just lexical.Geogre 17:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About gordon wilson

Non-notable (Google doesn't even put this guy at the top of its search for his exact name). The page should be Gordon Wilson if there is someone notable of that name. Only thing of note is that his daughter was killed by terrorists. --Rory ☺ 17:49, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

This section describes how to list articles and their associated talk pages for deletion. For pages that are not articles, list them at other appropriate deletion venues or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases. Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers.

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

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

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

The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear.

You can do it manually as well:

  • Click the link saying "deletion discussion page" to open the deletion-debate page.
  • Insert this text:
    {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
    Replace PageName with the name of the page, Category with a letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
  • Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion for [[PageName]]. Publish the page.
III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions.
  • Open the articles for deletion log page for editing.
  • At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:{{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}}
    Replace NominationName appropriately (use "PageName", "PageName (2nd nomination)", etc.)
  • Link to the discussion page in your edit summary: Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. Publish the page.
  • Consider letting the authors know on their talk page by adding: {{subst:Afd notice|Page name}} ~~~~
    If this is not the first nomination, add a second parameter with the NominationName (use "PageName (2nd nomination)" etc.): {{subst:Afd notice|PageName|NominationName}} ~~~~
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_September_2004&oldid=4073221"