Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you want to nominate an article for deletion, please read this carefully first.

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

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

More information.

Things to consider:

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

AfD etiquette:

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

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

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


29th 28th 27th 26th 25th 24th 23rd 22nd 21st Template:VfD frontmatter VfD was archived on 28 May. If you need to look at old history please see the history of Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_May_2004. Note that listings more than five days old should now be moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old.

See also Category:Votes for deletion

Decisions in progress

July 24

Nereus_infotek — Add to this discussion

Ad, non-notable firm providing software to the mortgage intermediary market place. Few google hits. Ianb 00:01, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: It's a substub about a company that provides a specialist piece of software to a very specialized industry in only one nation. The article conveys no notability for a product that is niche. Geogre 03:48, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • They might be notable in their extremely limited market. As the article doesn't scream "ad" like so many have recently, I'm just going to be neutral. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:02, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 04:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alimentos La Giralda — Add to this discussion

Untitled

From VfD:

"a Venezuelan Company that imports, produces and distributors: Capers, Pickles, Olives and Canned Vegetables, among other foodstuffs". Ad, unencylopedic. Hope they're not behind the fighting thingymon vegetables. Ianb 00:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Doesn't read like an ad, but appears non-notable. SWAdair | Talk 04:43, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's not really the kind of business that generates a lot of google hits. And Ianb forgot to put the VfD heading on it. Neutral, and don't bite the newbie. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • there now. I think there was a software error the first time I posted it. Ianb 07:56, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I was the one that put it there. I honestly don't mind if it's deleted. I am quite new to Wikipedia and have been entering articles on and off, about different subjects. I put this because recently I met somebody that used to work there and one day, for no reason, I decided to make an article about it. Sometimes, I am entering articles to see if they "develop further". And regarding the Google Hits, most companies outside industrialized nationes don't seem to generate too many google hits. As a curiosity...How many google hits would make something a good article? AAAAA | Talk 11:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I hate to do this, but...it depends. For something like this (a company w/o a huge internet presence, from a not-completely-industrialized country), I would say pretty low. The best thing to do is to hang out on Votes for deletion, which should help you reach your own conclusion about what stays and what goes. Hope to see you around, and keep contributing. Neutral on this article, btw. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:21, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)
    • Hi AAAAA. I put the deletion notice on. It's nothing personal - it's just that the article as I saw it wasn't very "encylopedic", only a very basic statement of fact. It didn't tell me how significant Alimentos La Giralda is : is it someone's uncle's business being run out of a shed in Caracas, or is it a large business which has, say, a major role in Venezuelan trade? I see a lot of new articles like this which don't convince me of their significance, and often remain as unloved "substubs" for a long time, making Wikipedia into an elephant's graveyard for contextless information. I'd rather see them deleted; quite often the listing for deletion can save an article, as someone will provide the salient facts; if not, and the subject is important enough, it will be recreated sometime. Regarding google hits: I am sceptical about their worth as a measure of notability. This is how the text of the article would ideally be; then I would know roughly what kind of company it is, and be happy for it to hang around even as a stub:
      Alimentos La Giralda is a Venezuelan trading company that imports, produces and distributes foodstuffs such as capers, pickles, olives and canned vegetables. It was founded in 19xx. As of 2003 it had a market share of xx%. It is part of the XXX Group / It also owns a number of subsidiaries such as .... Ianb 18:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Again, I am neutral. But I did enter a tiny extra bit of information and I believe the company is the leader (in Venezuela) in what it does AAAAA | Talk --AAAAA 06:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep stub. If it can not be expanded, I would also be comfortable merging the content into Fierro Group and redirecting. Rossami 22:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Mm, yes. Shunt the content into Fierro (which can itself use some substantial rewriting), and redirect. DS 14:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Will_to_Power — Add to this discussion

Delete - dupe of info on Friedrich_Nietzsche -quotes better on wikiquote Sc147 00:28, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Has spent months on Cleanup with little improvement, is of dubious copyright, and is not very informative. Unless this is turned into a decent article in five days it shouldbe deleted. - SimonP 00:37, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I worked on it on Clean Up, and I was really worried about the copyright on the translation. Further, the Nietzschean philosophy probably isn't the term that would be desired for a search. Material in Nietzsche is much, much better, so no merging. Geogre 01:13, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Friedrich Nietzsche. SWAdair | Talk 04:37, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Friedrich Nietzsche. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:03, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Friedrich Nietzsche. Arevich 21:16, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ranjan Agarwal — Add to this discussion

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

See note for Jason Brent above. Note that page was previously nominated for deletion in July, and the consensus was to delete. Current article has a creation date of September. Bearcat 02:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete; appears non-notable. Samaritan 06:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Abstain for now, waiting on further arguments/hopefully consensus on notability of world-ranked university debaters. Samaritan 21:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. His competitive achievements make him far more notable than just the office of CUSID president. Not all presidents of CUSID are listed with their own entries, only those who were also competitive debaters of international note. Being one of the world's top debaters makes him notable to anyone researching debating and debaters, just like famous athletes. Fenster 10:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
comment: says nothing about him being one of the world's "top debaters".--Ianb 12:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
One of the top debaters in North America = one of the top in the world. "Agarwal was one of North America's top-ranked intervarsity debaters in the 1990s. He was named top speaker at the 2001 North American Debating Championship and also won the 1999 Canadian National Debating Championship." Fenster 13:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
so has he participated in any world debating contests? --Ianb 19:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
well, not withstanding that being first in North America places you among the top in the world, yes -- he was ranked 6th at the world debating championship. [1] Fenster 19:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we can start a category for Sixth Place Finishers in global competitions? Sorry but this really isn't signficant enough to justify an encyclopedia article. Should we also have articles on the runnerups in World Scrabble Tournaments?AndyL 22:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
He's a national champion and best in North America. Perhaps we should delete all NCAA tournament winners because that's a US-only league as well? -- Fenster 22:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: At present a perfect merge and redirect, but the article to which it should be merged does not exist yet, so I am left only with "delete," despite the worthiness of the figure. Geogre 16:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, as above. Lord Bob 18:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. DCEdwards1966 04:34, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Academic Challenger 00:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems non-notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notableAndyL 20:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:07, 24 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.


Castlemilk glasgow — Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Delete -was on cleanup, better article at Castlemilk Sc147 01:19, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree. Delete. The content that it is possible to merge is about other housing developments, not Castlemilk. The rest is already covered at Castlemilk. SWAdair | Talk 04:12, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of redirecting to Castlemilk. Keep harmless redirect. Rossami 22:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved dicussion

Template:20cen — Add to this discussion

Let's not get started with that. There are thousands of common expressions that could be abbreviated with templates like that, e.g. {{bush}} for [[George W. Bush]] but then the article source texts will become unreadable. Gzornenplatz 03:05, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Process issue: IMO this should proceed, but Templates should not in future be listed on VfD, and instead be treated separately as Redirs, Copyvios, etc. are. Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Votes_for_deletion#Templates for deletion? --Jerzy(t) 15:35, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

    • You're supposed to read the article, not the markup; it's easy anyway to refer to the article in the midst of editing, when confused by the markup. (Maybe i'm odd, but that's how i learned the markup, not via tutorials.) --Jerzy(t) 15:35, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
  • Delete - it won't even work right in cases where having an abbreviation is useful due to the template inclusion limit. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Frankly, i may be the only one using, and it is only using it as transclusion that might boost use to point where it's a problem: think of calling it by transclusion as a public-service announcement ("You should Sup-case your centuries; here's how to make that easy") toward the point where the problem is real. Then the problem can be solved by starting to use the subst mechanism with the same template (see markup below). How about a __FORCE SUBST__ operator built into abbreviation templates once they become popular (and into the VfD template: read the Template:VfDFooter). --Jerzy(t) 15:35, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
  • (Template creator, so is this not a vote?) Should be kept. Create a mechanism for alerting users to use it as {{subst:20cen}} , which will let it work just fine. Avoiding the long, finicky syntax can alleviate the tendancy to code simply 20th century, without everyone having to copy the syntax into their own cut-and-paste library of some sort. Also can be enhanced via parameterization to work with any century starting with 4th century, saving 15 other templates. --Jerzy(t) 15:35, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
    • But "20th century" is perfectly correct. It is not a good idea to get unnecessarily fancy by superscripting the "th". Most people do not and will never do that anyway. Also, when it's part of an underlined link, the underline under the "th" will be superscripted too, breaking the line. Gzornenplatz 18:25, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 04:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alicia Battinelli — Add to this discussion

Vanity page for non-notable individual. - Kenwarren 03:39, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. SWAdair | Talk 04:31, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:52, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity (student radio station functionary). Geogre 13:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mon Chérie — Add to this discussion

From VfD:

This seems to be an Italian advertisement for a particular brand of chocolate covered cherries. (Though my Italian is execrable these days, I don't think I'm all that far off...). Advertisement, not encyclopedic. - Kenwarren 04:31, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • My Italian is non-existent, but a Babelfish translation leads me to a similar conclusion. Delete ad - do not translate, do not send to Italian Wikipedia (unless I'm horribly wrong about the advertising content). -- Cyrius|✎ 04:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I checked Babelfish, as well. Agree with Cyrius. Do not translate. Simply Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:57, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • this is a widely marketed brand in Europe and is probably notable in the same way say Pringles is. Delete as per usual procedure for non-English if no-one can make anything out of it though. Ianb 08:02, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • delete: I have translated (see page). Its a very obvious ad, and a very cringe making one at that. Giano 14:07, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC) comment moved from main vfd page. Rossami
  • Keep (and move back to Cleanup). Delete. Correct spelling is "Mon Chéri". Famous brand name of one of Ferrero's confectioneries. Did a stub under that name. --Palapala 17:14, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)
  • This is just an ad. Delete it. If someone wants to write a serious article on this chocolate one day, they may; but this just needs deleting. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 11:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't see any article on one specific brand of one specific type of confection ever being encyclopedic, unless the entire type of confection were usually referred to by the name of the brand (think Kleenex brand facial tissues). I've also listed Mon Chéri for deletion for that reason. - Kenwarren 18:57, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mon Chéri. If that article is deleted (but I'll be voting keep) then this becomes a redirect for deletion. Andrewa 19:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • They are extremely popular, and do occasinally turn up with pop-cultural references... delete & redirect to Mon Chéri. -FZ 13:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I have taken the liberty of redirecting to the correct spelling - Mon Chéri. Keep harmless redirect. Rossami 22:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Still say delete. It is a sweet, not even marketed world-wide. Are we going to have pages appearing and disappearing every time a company commercially launches or removes a product from the market?Giano 08:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Why would removing a product from the market result in its disappearance? Instead would the page not just say "This product ceased to be sold in 2005" or similar? I think brands should stay if people can provide relevant information about them that amounts to more than a simple ad.nach0king 22:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

I'd Hit It — Add to this discussion

dictionary definition. - Hephaestos|§ 04:57, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • dicdef, delete. Ianb 09:43, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: slang fad dictdef. Geogre 13:27, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Just terrible. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This joke is ubiquitous on fark. It still doesn't need an article though. Isomorphic 06:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, come on. Delete. -Sean Curtin 03:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed. I know people who use this joke, but it doesn't warrent an entry. Sunfist 14:26, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Klippel Trenaunay Weber syndrome — Add to this discussion

note

from VfD:

Dicdef. Was listed for Speedy Deletion by Lucky 6.9. Not a candidate for Speedy Deletion, so I'm listing it here. If anyone would like to expand the article, a good start can be found here. No vote. SWAdair | Talk 07:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I've replaced the dicdef with a stub. - TB 09:48, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Good stub! Keep. I added the reference above; is that what you used for the article? -- Creidieki 08:05, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Physicians desk reference - I suspect the web-site referenced uses it as a source or at least shares a common source with my book. - TB 20:09, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent stub! Thanks, TB. Keep. SWAdair | Talk 09:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly. No reason this should ever have been listed, speedy or otherwise. Jgm 14:26, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent work team. Agree it shouldn't have been listed for any sort of deletion, but no process works 100% and this one has delivered the goods on this occasion. And we've all learned things I think. Andrewa 19:08, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Four words does not an article make. Keep new stub. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:31, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Valid subject, useless substub and listing it here gave us a great new article. Keep! - Lucky 6.9 18:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: FWIW, here's the total content of the original anon contribution: Blood vessal formation problem. - Lucky 6.9 18:11, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I take your point. My thoughts were and still are that it would have been less work IMO to have stubified it in the first place than to have listed it here, and that it wasn't ever a candidate for speedy. But once it was listed for speedy, listing it here was a good move IMO. This isn't intended to be an attack on anyone, just a reflection on how things can work better. Andrewa 20:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Again, I agree. Except for the wiki, it looked like another one of those damned vandal bot listings that aren't anything more than a title and a body either with the title repeated or some ridiculous two- or three-word statement. - Lucky 6.9 22:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Well im a 15 year old girl who has had to deal with it. And I hate how people who have it say they can't play sports. Thats a lie. I play softball,football,basketball and throw discuss

Reforming this article to be accurate and up-to-date, and also renaming to match the proper naming of the syndrome

Facts:
A. There isn't any "Klippel Trenaunay Weber" syndrome. It is simply Klippel Trenaunay Syndrome. Doctors have been misdiagnosing this for quite a while. However, it is agreed upon by most doctors, including those found at the Mayo Clinic, Boston Children's Hospital, Cincinnati Children's Hospital, and at the Klippel Trenaunay support group website. The Weber portion is actually part of a separate syndrome.
B. The symptoms are far too inaccurate. My guess is that the article only represents possibly half, or even less of KTS (Klippel Trenaunay Syndrome) affected people.
C. The treatments provided are sorely out of date, inaccurate, and possibly biased. Sclerotherapy, while a relatively new procedure, is only applicable in specific cases, and is not a cure-all for the syndrome, not by a long shot. Also, "debulkings" have had a decent success rate, especially as technology has improved over the past couple decades. There are also other non-invasive treatments that are not even mentioned.
D. The article itself is fairly old and needs a lot more content.

As such, I'll be making my best effort over the coming weeks to improve this article, and also to move it to its proper place. If you have any comments, questions or wish to help out, let me know!

Cool Matty 13:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding reference: "Terminology

The medical community at times has used the terms Klippel-Trenaunay Syndrome and Klippel-Trenaunay-Weber Syndrome interchangeably. The consensus today is to distinguish K-T as hypertrophy and varicosity associated with port-wine staining; K-T-W ( more correctly called Parkes- Weber Syndrome) is similar but includes significant arteriovenous malfomations with shunting.

PWS can refer both to port wine stain, a component of K-T, and Parkes-Weber Syndrome." [1] 66.91.252.11 (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://k-t.org/?page_id=28

Images

Does anyone have access to some images we could put up on this article to use as examples (ie, images of hypertrophy and/or port-wine stains that do not show the person's face)? --Politizer (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I might have access to two images; stay tuned. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs (formerly Politizer) 13:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcings

An interesting subject, but an article that could do with updating. This is a rare condition, so little to be found by way of reviews and other high-quality sources. Here are some:

  • PMID 9781914 is a large case series (1998)
  • PMID 14961121 identification of VG5Q (2004, Nature, doi:10.1038/nature02320), undermined by PMID 16443853 (2006) which casts doubts on the mutation
  • PMID 15741381 management of pain (2005, doi:10.1542/peds.2004-0446)
  • PMID 15905966 molecular pathogenesis (2005, doi:10.1007/s00018-005-4523-7)
  • PMID 16490119 pregnancy (2006, doi:10.1097/01.ogx.0000201924.87671.90)
  • PMID 16911369 review (dermatology, 2006, doi:10.1111/j.1365-4632.2006.02940.x)
  • PMID 18274338 review (phlebology, 2007,
  • PMID 18216519 review (plastic surgery, 2008, doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e318062abc1)

For anyone who wants to take this forward. JFW | T@lk 11:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Klippel–Trénaunay syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Klippel–Trénaunay syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ovulation — Add to this discussion

Merger

From VfD:

)

Yes, you are right. wiki articles are intended to be approachable by a general audience. We need to work on addressing this issue. Thanks for bringing this up. Chaldor (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follicular and luteal phase length variation

The recently added (and reverted) comment, "length of follicular phase is more variable than the luteal phase so the length of the menstural cycle in days minus 14 gives the most likely day of ovulation is true. The length of the follicular phase can vary by many weeks - it is more variable than the luteal phase. And subtracting 14 days from menstruation is a more accurate estimate of ovulation than assuming ovulation on day 14 of the cycle. Nevertheless, a luteal phase is considered normal anywhere from 10-16 days, so even retrospective day-counting estimations are frequently going to be off by several days.

I support the removal of the sentence, because it's not useful in the context of that paragraph. Sources could easily be found to support its assertions, but that wouldn't make it any more relevant to this article. Lyrl Talk C 01:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mature Graffian follicle.jpg

Image:Mature Graffian follicle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long does a ovulation take?

The duration of ovulation should be mentioned in the introduction. --93.223.20.79 (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agric science

Ovulation and parturition 41.190.30.63 (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Questions — Add to this discussion

This is not an encyclopedia article.RSM 07:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: Hmm... any worthy topic included here is likely to have its own article, meaning this page will only duplicate information we already have specific articles on. With the proper format, I could see this being an interesting article... Ohhhh... Undecided. If kept, it will probably need a different name. I would never have searched for "Everyday questions." SWAdair | Talk 10:03, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is really close to the proposed Wikitrivia. I love the idea of the article. It needs, however, to be done more for the novice users' benefits and made notable to all Wikipedians, so that folks contribute readily & new users find it easily. Geogre 13:25, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a useful organizing principle for an article. Is this basically the same topic as David Feldman's "Imponderables" books (Why Do Clocks Run Clockwise? How Do Astronauts Scratch an Itch: An Imponderables Book (Imponderables Book); When Do Fish Sleep? And Other Imponderables of Everyday Life; Do Elephants Jump? (Imponderables Book))? All together now, in four-part harmony:

      Tell me why the stars do shine,
        Tell me why the sky is blue,
      Tell me what makes the ivy twine,
        And I will tell thee why I love you.

      Fusion reactions make the stars shine,
        Rayleigh diffusion makes the sky blue,
      Auxins and tropisms make the ivy twine,
        Gonads and hormones are why I love you.
Dpbsmith 22:21, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • if Wikipedia were a paper encyclopedia, this kind of article would find a home in a bonus volume for the kiddies. It's an interesting approach but doesn't work as an article. Summarizing / paraphrasing other articles is not a good idea either. There might be potential for a List of Common Conundrums though. Ianb 22:41, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This topic is not cohesive enough to merit a separate article of its own. Delete. Psychonaut 23:57, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Rename everyday questions to list of everyday questions, which should have only links to relevant articles. E.g., "Why is the sky blue? See: Rayleigh scattering. Chicken/egg? See: paleontology." Etc. Fwiw, Wile E. Heresiarch 02:16, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) Revised vote below. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anyone looking for those answers will search for those questions. This article adds nothing to the encyclopedia. It is just another overhead page needing maintenance. Rossami 22:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cassandra Claire — Add to this discussion

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Chicken Tonight — Add to this discussion

Untitled

From VfD

Reads like an ad. Blue Mask 14:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: I think it's factually incorrect, as well, but, whether it's accurate or not, it's a single food product that isn't really a cornerstone of cuisine or international. Geogre 15:21, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it should be kept but improved. (We use this frequently at home, with the accompanying comment, "Shall we have Chicken Tonight tonight?") Deb 15:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I feel like Chicken Tonight, like Chicken tonight, like Chicken tonight, (accompanied by flapping of arms) — except I'm vegetarian; minorly notable I suppose, atleast in Britain. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:04, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This American has heard of this product, god knows where. Deserves an article, cleanup. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:14, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)
  • Keep. I guess if we have vegemite and Big Mac articles, there's no philosophical objection to this one. Someday we'll need a policy on food items and brandnames, we obviously don't want articles on every package on any supermarket shelf anywhere. Some straightforward wikifying and copyediting would make it a good stub, so it's a good cleanup candidate IMO, with a note that it's already survived VfD assuming it does and that this work hasn't already happened when it does. Andrewa 18:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Hideously well-known and popular in Australia. Keep, could probably do with cleanup - David Gerard 19:50, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've heard about Chicken Tonight in Finland even though they don't sell it here. bbx 13:43, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I remember this ad campaign. True, I don't think they've had Chicken Tonight in the United States since 1993, but it did make a splash. IIRC, it was even parodied on The Simpsons. Keep. Mike H 16:40, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have friends who still do the stupid dance *sigh*. -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:17, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • There used to be a Southern California restaurant chain called "Chicken Delight" that delivered chicken dinners to your door. Gawd, I remember the jingle from age 8 as something like "No cooking tonight...call Chicken Delight!" This obviously isn't the same, but it sure seems notable enough to keep. - Lucky 6.9 21:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It was national, and it was "Don't cook tonight / Call Chicken Delight" -- Jmabel 00:14, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable product because of notably inane commercial that has permanently nested in our pop culture subconscious. Postdlf 04:15, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's very well known in Australia. And what about Dickhead Tonight? :) -- Chuq 07:42, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Fair use rationale for Image:2d 1.jpg

Image:2d 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 link removed - Tv advert - No indication from clip information or uploader profile that the uploader had rights to the footage concerned, or was connected with the production entities responsible for it. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Van der Bergh Foods Ltd

On label from NOV/2000 coded jar -- Brooke House, Crawley. RH10 2RQ -- Made in The EU ~~ 03:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.171.53 (talk)

Where, if anywhere, is Chicken Tonight still sold?

After listening to a British Twitch streamer make a joke about the old adverts for the product, I mentioned that I remembered it too (from the US), and then I noted that according to Wikipedia, it was still sold in the UK, New Zealand, Australia, and the Netherlands; then he said that he hasn't seen it in the shops, and I decided to look into the history of that poorly sourced (and awkwardly phrased, according to MOS:RELTIME) claim. It appears to have been most recently added around February 2011, based on the actions of a bot that were later reverted, but variations of it were around since 30 July 2004 and were rarely properly sourced. Maybe someone from those areas might be able to say whether the product is still being sold there, and if not, some estimate for when sales ended; at worst, the current sources may be sufficient to back up a claim that as of 2011 or so, the products were still being sold there. Julyo (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still appear to exist, as they have a UK website [1], but like you, I haven't seen it in shops for years. Culloty82 (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tesco in the UK still sell three varieties of it. Here's one: https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/274219622

References

  1. ^ https://www.chickentonight.co.uk

Budlah — Add to this discussion

User:DarkFantasy told me on IRC that he had created this article as an "experiment to see how long it takes" for someone to VfD it. And now it's bloody well being VfD'ed. Perhaps I could have SpD'ed it? DF, please don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Delete. - Cymydog Naakka 16:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Seems speedy for nonsense/vandalism (defacing a site to make a point). Geogre 17:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I took the liberty of adding the vfd notice. Ianb 18:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete garbage. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete patent nonsense. SWAdair | Talk 00:29, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I have speed deleted it as nonsense & vandalism. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:29, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Haidee Aquino — Add to this discussion

Orphaned article on a school teacher in China. 7 google hits, one is a Wikipedia mirror, the other news reports about her nomination. Might be vanity, maybe was intended as the user page of User:Apei, who was the main contributor (but also his/her sole contribution). Delete or move to User:Apei. andy 18:14, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • not sure what you mean by nomination, but I see no evidence of notability here. I too know a few words of Chinese and have taught English in a foreign country. (As always - it's nothing personal). Delete. Ianb 18:50, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to user page as appropriate. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:36, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to User:Apei. See also User talk:Apei. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Julie Robichaud — Add to this discussion

Non-notable maybe ex-bassist and, umm, maybe actress, maybe garbage truck racing documentarian. "Maybe" because I can't find any reference to her at all by the name Julie Robichaud. - Kenwarren 18:34, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Article by anon user; no links from main article namespace. No google hits for "Alaxy and the Galaxies", which is apparently "defuct" (sic). Delete if not found to be notable. Ianb 18:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I hate it when I get defuct. Anyway, the only potentiality on the article is "Fast Trash," but no evidence that it has been released or entered into competition. Geogre 20:25, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence of notability transpires. (Lookit! Lookit! I just used the word "transpire" correctly!) Dpbsmith 02:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mon Chéri — Add to this discussion

should be added "boero" reference https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boero_(dolce) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.20.114 (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


From VfD:

Mon Chéri is no more notable than any other type of candy. - Kenwarren 18:53, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Also delete Ferrero Rocher, and Kinder Egg. The Ferrero company should know better than to peddle their cavity causing products in an encylopedia. PP Jewel 19:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: we'd better remove all articles about unhealthy things and their producers then. Ianb 21:17, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fascinating stub (and delicious product), and this one at least was not created as an advert. Deal with the others by normal processes. I suspect the eventual result may be to merge them all to Ferrero (chocolate) as redirects, we will see. Such merges with redirect do not require a VfD listing, of course. If treckies can have their pages, I don't see why we chocoholics can't have ours! Andrewa 19:31, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are plenty of aticles on other products/brands. Such articles at the very least present a reference for those outside the culture familiar with the prodcuct who may have seen reference in a movie or literature. Additional infomation then provides wider information to students of business/maketing and anyone who may just be interested in the origins or vaireties of a product they use.
  • Keep. References for some claims would be good, but it's not an ad - David Gerard 19:51, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-known, established product, plenty of precedents Pringles, Mars_bar etc. Ianb 21:17, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - the OP's reason for requesting deletion is correct but not valid. - TB 22:11, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite. The Italian version was a copyvio, BTW. And my wife loves these things! - Lucky 6.9 03:37, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay, I missed something, I think. Are you saying that every brand name of every product is encyclopedic? I'm looking at What Wikipedia is not, and I would think that goes against item 2 (for starters) in the section What Wikipedia entries are not, because right now Mon Chéri is nothing more than the product description equivalent of a dictionary entry, and I don't really see any way for it to ever be more. I'm willing to change this opinion with a bit of persuasion, but nothing above is at all persuasive. - Kenwarren 03:44, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Or, to put it another way (and steal a phrase from a different discussion) I don't see any way that an article about a single brand of a single product can ever be a verifiable, neutral non-stub, unless that brand has reached the status of a generic term for the entire product family, i.e. kleenex. - Kenwarren 04:02, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • I'd have to question why not? It seems to me that the facts in that article are neutral (it certainly doesn't have the ring of advertising, nor does it make claims as the the quality of the product); it seems verifiable (by people going to the movies in europe); and it's not even that stubby. What's wrong with the current entry? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:18, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
        • I don't expect to open an encyclopedia and find every brand of candy known to man in it. If this one is in, then so should be every other candy, which will amount to thousands of articles about candies. Including too much marginal material runs the risk of diluting the content of Wikipedia to the point where it's no longer useful. - Kenwarren 12:55, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
          • I disagree. It's very hard to see what kind of damage this is doing; disk space is cheap, and there's nothing else with this name. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:11, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
  • Keep. bbx 13:40, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. delete Mon Chérie FiP 09:46, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can hardly believe I'm reading this. nach0king 14:01, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've been looking into Mon Chéri. I found out a couple of things. First, it's a brand name for an entire line of chocolate confections, not just chocolate covered cherries. So the article as it stands is somewhat inaccurate, since it represents Mon Chéri as a specific chocolate confection. Second, as far as I can tell, at this time the chocolate covered cherries aren't available worldwide. I certainly can't find a source for them in the US, and a local independent high-end chocolate shop says that the only way they can get them is ordering them from a European distributor in October. - Kenwarren 12:55, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Food is encyclopedic. Academic Challenger 00:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved dicussion

Pop culture reference

The link from a type of chcolate praline to Home Alone 2 is so tenuous as to be non-existent. There would be one incredibly long list if we include all mentions of "mon chéri/ma cherie" in popular English language culture. Funny anecdote? Yes. Relevance = 0!

Ferrero Mon Chéri is a registered product and comes in two versions one for the US and another for the ROW. It is not a line of chocolates. Thus it is a particular product in the US and a different particular product in the rest of the world. A line of products would be Ferrero's Kinder line (Kinder Chocolate, Kinder Surprise, Kinder Bueno et al).

85.22.2.25 16:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stores

where can i find mon cheri hazulnut.love them and cant find them around where is live is there a chain store that cares them in amarica,usa

rockker65@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockker65 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mon "Cherry"?

Is there no connection, however tenuous, to the use of "Mon Chéri" as the brand name for the confection and the fact that the filling is cherry? Or is this simply a cross-language coincidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partnerfrance (talk • contribs) 14:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mon Chéri. 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) 06:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Marple-Cantrell — Add to this discussion

First deletion debate

From votes for deletion:

  • Sarah_Marple-Cantrell doesn't seem to be anyone who warrants an encyclopedia entry. Timo Honkasalo 15:49 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Apparently she was a twelve-year-old girl who shot herself. I suspect that's pretty unusual, even for Texas (although for some reason there seems to be a dearth of online news reports), and so therefore perhaps worthy of note. -- Oliver P. 16:53 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree with Oliver. If she was on the news, then she's worth noting. I mean lets face it, we've had people on the news for less important things (read: the woman who claims to have had an affair with President Kennedy). Now, to my business in this page....Antonio Unhibited Martin
    • As about 60% of suicides in US are done with firearms, I see no reason to assume that they are not used by girls. As for the news, only thing Google could come up with was five hits, three of them pointing to same article in dallasnews.com. Local news, that is. - Timo Honkasalo 17:26 20 May 2003 (UTC)
      • Local news for local people? Well, Wikipedia is for everyone (even local people), and Wiki is not paper so we have room. -- Oliver P. 18:12 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • With all due respect to Sarah and her family, Wikipedia is not a landscape for honorary pages. Every human death is significant, but wikipedia cannot compile the billions that occur. There exist elsewhere tribute pages for Sarah; those are more appropriate sites for Sarah. The wikipedia article should be deleted. Kingturtle 16:48 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Second deletion debate

From VfD: NOTE TO ADMINS: This article (Sarah Marple-Cantrell) was up for VfD in May 2003 and survived. Before deleting, please review the deletion policy. I can't find anything on the policy regarding re-nominated articles. Can article be renominated? I think deletion of this article should be delayed until an already written policy on this issue can be found or we can come up with a fair policy. Kingturtle 00:34, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You raise an excellent point. Please post here where this discussion will be held because I think there are some cases where re-nomination should be allowed and perhaps even encouraged. (For example, did Wikimemorial have critical mass back in May? Would the same people with the same facts about the article reach the same conclusion today?) Rossami 14:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
There was no Wikimemorial back in May. In fact, from what I can tell, there still is no Wikimemorial for non 9/11 victims. Anthony DiPierro 17:46, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I supported deletion in May, and I still support it. But there don't appear to be ground rules for re-nominations. Maybe we should take this to the arbitration committee? Kingturtle 00:54, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is anyone actually disputing the fact that articles can be re-nominated? I voted keep, but if consensus is reached that this should be deleted (it hasn't been), then the fact that it was nominated before is irrelevant. We should try to reach consensus on the re-nomination issue before just taking it to the arbitration committee. That means discussion, a vote, etc. Anthony DiPierro 17:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In any case, the reason this is being held is most likely not due to it being a re-nomination but due to the fact that there was no consensus (3 keep, 5 wikimorial and delete, 2 delete) and that the majority vote is not possible at this time, since there is no wikimorial for this to be moved to. Anthony DiPierro 17:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I interpret the results as 7 Deletes, and 3 Keeps. The info should be removed from Wikipedia and to another host. That is why I raise this question about process. Kingturtle 01:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually one of the 2 deletes was an extra vote from someone who voted wikimorial and delete as well, so it would be 6 deletes, 3 keeps, which is not a concensus. And what other host are you going to move it to? Anthony DiPierro 01:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Sarah Marple-Cantrell Looks like a personal page SD6-Agent 13:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Doesn't look like a personal page. Anthony DiPierro 15:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I feel really bad about this one. She's not an encyclopedia subject, but she certainly deserves to be remembered somewhere. Wikimorial and delete. Meelar 16:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • This was already listed in VfD back in May, 2003 (see Talk:Sarah Marple-Cantrell). I supported deletion, but there were not enough votes to delete. Kingturtle 21:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Not encyclopaedic - are we to have a page on every kid who's ever comitted suicide? What makes Sarah different? Delete. (Also support move to Wikimemorial) PMC 23:07, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Sad, but not encyclopedic. Isomorphic 01:03, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Twelve year old shooting herself with a firearm. Kinda spectacular. Enough for the news, enough for WP. See the that page's talk page for more argumentation. BL 03:23, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • move to wikimemorial and delete.--Jiang
    • move to wikimemorial and delete. Davodd 09:16, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to wikimemorial and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - we have articles about notable murder victims, we should have articles about notable suicide victims. I presume all the information in it is verifiable.—Eloquence 10:37, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • If we move it to Wikimemorial, then of course the page should redirect, so there would still be no actual deletion. Thus nobody has to wait for a vote (or a sysops) to get this move going! (I should note that Wikimemorial is not yet set up to handle more than just September 11. So we would have to edit, at the very least, its main page. That doesn't require an admin either.) -- Toby Bartels 07:15, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I fail to see the consistency here. If we allow articles like Carlie Brucia and Samantha Runyon on Wikipedia, why not allow suicide victims who have for some reason received media attention? Someone researching mass media or suicide motives might find the article interesting. The fact that another Wikimedia project is planned that might have some overlap (personally I see a memorial as clearly distinct from an encyclopedia article) is not sufficient reason to start moving stuff arbitrarily over there, just like the existence of Wikiquote is hardly reason to get rid of all quotes within Wikipedia, or the existence of Wikibooks reason to eliminate all procedural knowledge.—Eloquence 07:34, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
        • Actually, I'm not arguing in favour of such a move -- merely explaining what it would entail to do it right (a fair amount of work, but nothing requiring Sysop Superpowers). Actually if you get right down to it ... I vote to keep. Anybody that wants to get rid of it needs to start by making Wikimemorial hospitable to it -- and then bring up the move on Talk:Sarah Marple-Cantrell. -- Toby Bartels 03:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. wiki is not paper. Optim 20:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Del - there's nothing that makes this inherently more notable or historically relevant than any of the other thousands of suicides each year that aren't memorialized on Wikipedia. Bearcat 09:44, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. There are hundred's of thousands of sucides each year. If there MUST be an article, have a 'List of children who have committed suicide' and put her name in it, linking to an EXTERNAL site. Oberiko 16:32, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Be gone. Cute-girl-loving American cry babies: read an obituary, read Iraq casualties, read 25% HIV in Africa, read deaths out of food. P0lyglut 05:54, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

Third deletion debate

  • Delete: This girl is only notable thing is committing suicide. Though it is sad, are we gonna have a page for every person who commits suicide? That would be hundred of pages. Saopaulo1
    • Comment (?): So what if we have hundreds of pages? A hundred pages at 30kb a page is 3 megabytes. Geocities gives more than that much storage space away to anyone who asks for it. -MTh
  • Keep. Her age makes a biiig difference. And what about the discussion about gun control? --Palapala 20:53, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)
    • Com: What about it? Did this suicide have a significant effect on the debate / on policy? It's a sad case, but not evidently notable. (Maybe there could be a memorial Wiki akin to the 9/11 wiki?). Ianb 21:12, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: putting "Sarah Marple-Cantrell" brings up exclusively this article and copies on Wikipedia clones. "Sarah Montgomery Marple-Cantrell" brings up the site listed as an external link as well. I see no reference to the case in a wider context. Ianb 23:02, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Com: Today Rep. Todd Tiahrt's son committed suicide at 16. Should he have an article about him? I'm not being cold, just being practical. If pages like this isnt deleted it opens up a flood gate of other people who commited suicides. Maybe a wikimemorial is needed for suicide victims. Saopaulo1
      • Com (their 2nd presumed one): YES... Open the floodgates! I have a feeling all the deletionists hang out on VFD; that's why we get a disproportionate number of delete votes on anything. -Mth
  • Comment, this has been listed on VfD twice before on May 2003 and February 2004, both times the decision was to keep, but by a close margin. - SimonP 21:10, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Perhaps because of a change of vultures here at VfD or a change in Wikipedia itself, but the age at 13 doesn't really make that much notability. Unfortunately 13 year olds do commit suicide, though it is unusual for a girl to use a gun for it. I agree that her suicide brings up issues that society needs to address, and it's a poor testimony to Texas, but that discussion might be a topic for an encyclopedia, while this particular case does not, as written. If it read, "The suicide of Sarah Marple-Cantrell was instrumental in renewing calls for gun control in Texas after she...," it might have a chance, as that would indicate notability. The poor little girl by herself does not. Geogre 21:18, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is factual and I can see someone looking this up. - TB 22:06, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Simply shooting oneself would not make one notable enough for inclusion, but receiving a certain amount of attention for doing so would. I'd imagine that, given her age and the fact that it happened at school, it received a fair amount of attention, but if so the article says nothing of the sort. Everyking 23:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Com: I checked with Lexis Nexis and EBSCO using Marple-Cantrell, and found nothing. Saopaulo1
      • Com: Google finds almost nothing, once Wikipedia clones are filtered out. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:37, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - tragic yes, notable no. Adolescents attempt suicide with alarming frequency, and when doing so use firearms about half the time [2]. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. I support the idea of having a general WikiMemorial to send articles like this (having just the 9/11 one seems a bit US-centric to me). Niteowlneils 03:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Kp: Her age and gender actually make her fairly unique. Suicide statistics for 2003 in the U.S. aren't available yet, but the National Vital Statistics Report Deaths: Injuries 2001 report gives us an estimate.
  • There were 30,622 suicides in 2001, of whom 16,869 used firearms. Firearm rate: 55.1%
  • There were 5,950 suicides by females, of whom 2,111 used firearms. Firearm rate: 35.5%
  • There were 272 suicides by youth aged 10-14 (both genders), of which 90 used firearms. Firearm rate: 33.1%
  • Of the 272 suicides aged 10-14, 65 of the 272 were female, and 10 of these females were aged 10-12. Since being female and being aged 10-14 are both predictors for low firearm use, we expect very few of these 10 suicides to use firearms; at most perhaps 3.5 of the 10.
So, we expect fewer than 4 suicides of 12-year-old and younger girls through firearms, per year, of which this was one. This suicide occured at school, putting it in the larger context of school violence and safety. She was the child of a noted academic, which may be of interest to the gun control debate.
Sarah Marple-Cantrell is one of the 4 12-year-old youths who were the youngest at-school suicide victims listed in the National School Safety Center's School-Associated Violent Deaths Report (of which there was one male hanging, one female hanging, one male shooting, and one female shooting). The report covers the 1992-1993 school year to the present; both firearm suicides of 12-year-olds happened in the 2002-2003 school year, relatively recently. She may be the youngest female to have committed suicide with a firearm at a United States school.
So, while her death received little news attention, I believe she was noteworthy. Keep. -- Creidieki 10:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • If you add in enough specifics you can make anything seem unique. She was probably the only 12 year old girl to commit suicide in 2003 with a firearm in a school bathroom. Still, an adolescent committing suicide is tragic, but not notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and that is what this article is. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. bbx 13:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tragic but non-noteworthy. Denni☯ 19:17, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
  • Delete. I googled, and found only two hits that weren't Wikipedia mirrors. One was an old Excel spreadsheet from her school. The other was some girl's web diary. Isomorphic 19:32, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sad, but not encyclopedic. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:23, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tragic, but insignificant in the endless flow of time. Jeeves 23:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not noteworthy. Joyous 00:42, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sets a precedent that we just don't need here. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Extended the article a bit. Didn't say she was "notable" on a worldwide scale, but still think that her case is "symptomatic"; (and btw, I'd trade at least one Pokémon character for a human any time). --Palapala 17:18, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
  • Del: Sad but ultimately not notable. Delete. Would be an appropriate candidate for a non 9/11 section of Wikimemorial if anyone ever creates that. Rossami 23:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 19:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I heard about this case in the news before I read it on Wikipedia. In my opinion, if I hear about something in the news before I read it on Wikipedia, it's probably significant to be in Wikipedia. -Mth
  • Keep. Agree with MTH. Academic Challenger 00:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Postdlf 04:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Non-notable. Obviously enormously significant for those close to them or the situation, but not to the body of WP users. BTW the claim that the influential family will make it significant, backed up by lk to father's WP bio, is a fraud; that bio is new, and he's an above-average academic but not notable. (Bio now on VfD as it deserves.) BTW, no evidence has been presented that they are or will become activists on this, and no respect is being paid to the probability that they just want to be left the f. alone, get on with their lives, and see to the now more urgent needs of their probable 1.3 other children. --Jerzy(t) 15:49, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
  • Comment: voting as of 16:10, 2004 Jul 29: Del 14, Kp 6.
Add further votes below, unless you update the voting count.

Ish — Add to this discussion

Speedily deleted, none of those in a straw poll could see how it qualified a a speedy deletion, so undeleted. Listed here as required for an undeletion for an out of process deletion. This is neither supporting nor opposing the deletion of this article - it's purely due process. Jamesday 21:13, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Not sufficiently widespread for Wiktionary, not the primary topic for an encyclopedia article. A topic of censorship, euphemism, and "clean versions" might warrant articles & include "one slang term for 'shit' was 'ish,'" but "ish" can't lead the band. Geogre 21:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely not a speedy delete candidate. However, it does fall into the slang / dicdef / neologism category, and I concur with the statement from Geogre. Delete.Ianb 21:25, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • shit is mostly about censorship; merge and redirect. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:26, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This has been redeleted as an out-of-process undeletion. Consensus on Votes for undeletion was to keep deleted. RickK 21:59, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • For the record, delete slang dicdef. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:40, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • What Cyrius said: DDDS. - UtherSRG 03:36, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Safe_Act — Add to this discussion

Safe Act was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikisource. As of 17:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), the article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

copy'n'paste from here: [3]; delete (and move to Wikisource?) Ianb 21:42, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete & Wikisource: 1. It should be SAFE Act. 2. An overview would be a nice article that doesn't go to source. People could write an article about what it is, why it was proposed, how it reflected partisan politics in the US, why it won/lost, etc. 3. This is source material. Geogre 18:01, 25 Jul 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.

Holly Maddux — Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Non-notable on her own. Redirect to Ira Einhorn. RickK 22:44, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Same situation as other murder victims. I doubt that a redirect is needed, but redirecting would catch the few people who search fo information on her. Geogre 17:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I have redirected Holly Maddux to Ira Einhorn. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

MacImpro — Add to this discussion

Universty club formed in 2004. Ianb 23:11, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete organizational vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Eisnel 07:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Grogon — Add to this discussion

Vanity. Musician, can do xyz, link to homepage. Orphaned stub. Ianb 23:14, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete musical vanity. Possibly redirect to Gorgon as a transposition redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A redirect isn't a bad idea. There are going to be (are) characters in TV or movies that go by the single name of Grogan, but we can deal with that when it emerges. Geogre 03:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cheap ass gamer — Add to this discussion

Promotional, not notable. Only gets 86 hits in Google Groups. If it were a significant site I'd expect to see far more. Dpbsmith 23:23, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • ad, orphan article. Delete. Ianb 23:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The "Largest X on the internet" usually shows up more in searches. Delete ad. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:59, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: 18,000 registered users is usually a lot for, say, an art site. For a games site, not so many. Not really in the elite among sites. Geogre 03:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, well I gave it a shot, but it looks like its not going well. CheapAssGamer.com does have 3 magazine mentions and we will break the 10,000 mark in Alexa soon enough. Maybe next time!Thanks!
    • Good luck, and no hard feelings. If the page does get deleted, do wait a decent interval (several months) before trying again. When you try again, even if you are certain your site is notable, try to provide some evidence of notability in the article or on its discussion page. Dpbsmith 15:36, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ambiversion — Add to this discussion

dicdef. Had vfd added on May 23, does not seem to have made it here. Ianb 23:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andreas von Maltzahn — Add to this discussion

Vanity of the "my achievements at uni" type. Ianb 23:33, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Simple vanity. There's lots of student newspapers and radio stations out there, running one isn't anything worth spamming the world with. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: the radio station got to run for all of a month, and he's going to work for the company that analyzes all entrants to the US. Vanity. Geogre 15:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's like a resume. - Eisnel 07:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Irrevalent. In fact, list of officers at the UCL Union page should be deleted too - Pointless

Betty Hill — Add to this discussion

From VfD:

substub, contains nothing not already in Hill Abduction. Ianb 23:48, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed; Hill Abduction is enough for Betty Hill. Psychonaut 23:52, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Should be (and used to be) a redirect to Hill Abduction. If it's deleted, someone will just recreate it (and Barney Hill). If it's a redirect, they may have the sense to edit the article they're directed to instead of creating a new one. - Nunh-huh 23:56, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: neither are linked from Hill Abduction, a redirect might be confusing if there is another Betty Hill. Ianb 00:00, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've made it a redirect - David Gerard 00:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hill Abduction. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:15, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect to Hill Abduction. If and when we get another Betty Hill, then we deal with that by making it a disambiguation. Andrewa 07:09, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect. --Gary D 08:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Barney Hill — Add to this discussion

From VfD:

substub, contains nothing not already in Hill Abduction. Ianb 23:53, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I've made it a redirect - David Gerard 00:32, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:15, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect to Hill Abduction. Wow, this has been a battleground, it was originally a redirect to a page which now redirects to the same target, has been various bordeline stubs and badly formed redirects in the meantime. Hopefully it will now settle down for a while! Andrewa 07:06, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect. --Gary D 08:03, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Blaz — Add to this discussion

"an internet discussion forum in Brazil devoted to computers and technology." Yet Another Internet Formum. Delete, submit to dmoz.org. Ianb 23:57, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a web director. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:16, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Or a web directory. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:17, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Geogre 14:57, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blah. - Eisnel 07:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 25

Blue Neon Alley — Add to this discussion

another non-notable website. Ianb 00:05, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: What bothers me is that we don't have an article on Beat poetry, and the term doesn't redirect to The Beats. I wish we did, except that I have great antipathy toward them. Recommend that the information in this article be appended to The Beats as an external link & deleted. Geogre 14:54, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I took the liberty of adding the site as an external link to Beat generation. - Eisnel 07:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contextual Commisseration — Add to this discussion

Re: Contextual Commisseration
Advert, cleverly disguised. I know, it doesn't read like an ad at all. At first I thought it was a poorly worded attempt at an article. Then I checked Google. Exactly two hits for "contextual commisseration" and both of them appear to be deliberately misleading links. Read the text of the article, look at the web hits. "Contextual commisseration" indeed. SWAdair | Talk 03:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Ok, several people are passing on this one so maybe I should explain. A translation of the article would read "If I just gave you a link, you might ignore it. If I make you search for it, you might click on it. I get you to agree to something you wouldn't normally do by changing the context it is presented in." This neologism only exists in the summaries for two misleading web links. Psych major with too much time on his hands? It is worth noting that the author's username is User:Ipsyche. SWAdair | Talk 04:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unsure. This contribution is by a newbie with only a few edits, all of them yesterday. There have never been any external links, so it's not a website advert. I've left a welcome, and for the moment I'm going to assume good faith. Andrewa 06:59, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • comment (1): contextual and commisserate were created yesterday by an anon, but are now redirects. Ianb 09:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • comment (2): There is no such word as commisseration or comisserate. My old-fashioned Oxford English Dictionary does list commiseration, commiserate.Ianb 09:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, with nice words to newbie. Dicdef. Ianb 09:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Noisy 12:41, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is pretty idiosyncratic, if not private. I trust that people will be nice and encouraging to the newbie, but, without references and context of usage, there's no way. Geogre 14:51, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete strange and unverifiable dicdef. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, patent nonsense. I have to agree that the Google hits on "contextual commiseration" (not "commisseration") are very strange indeed, but I cannot bring myself to believe that it is a disguised advertisement. I don't think that many people would try to Google on the term. Is all a puzzlement. Dpbsmith 23:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Masticate, and think about it.
Psyc here, and I must say.. interesting. I see wikipedia as a cooperative system on which we, as individuals, can act in unision for the evolution of our language. I see no justification for duplicating our crude language. I do see benefit in refinery. A refinement has, by its very definition, greater depth(more detail).
References can be made for anything. I seriously question humanity's obsession with looking to the past. If we don't look to an evolved future, what will prevent us from crashing?
You are quite correct in the observance of my naivette. What's wrong with a fresh face to the future(today & tomorrow's)? I'm adapting to Wiki usage, and am a bit impressed by the fact that we finally have a decent socialist stage.
Let the rusky flamings begin!
This system might benefit from relative, rather than absolute, posting mechanics. Continued development of Wiki is a nice thought, and nice action.
It's up to you during the determination of wikipedia, because that's the whole point of collaborative definition. Live well, flame gently, and bring your own beer. I may have breached protocol in this post; guess which is my dominant Myers-Briggs type?
  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox, for changing the language or otherwise. We also have a policy of no original research. And Jimbo, our founder and benevolent dictator, gets a good laugh out of people calling the project socialist. This is not the place to try to change the world, except by educating it. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete I concur with popular opinion. Swoosh with nothing but net!
    ..psyc, Isaac Psyche 17:21, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
  • Del. Sigh. --Jerzy(t) 16:23, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

Aslami — Add to this discussion

The briefest vanity page I've seen in a long time. "Zohreh Aslami" gets zero hits. SWAdair | Talk 04:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: I expect we will be deleting this and also Hashem, but I notice that the creator has made only three edits including these two, and the first was only 28 minutes before this one was listed for deletion. IMO we should take just a little time to contact such newbies before listing their work on VfD. Speedy delete as a test is an option, but must be accompanied by an appropriate non-confrontational message. No vote as yet. Andrewa 06:22, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. Original content was
Zohreh Aslami, Shiraz University, Physics Department.
-- Cyrius|✎ 19:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Inverted narcissist — Add to this discussion

Inverted Narcissist is a term created by the original poster, Sam Vaknin. IN is not in the DSM-IV, although the Narcissistic Personality Disorder is. He has posted this article in other reference sites as well. I cannot verify this term from sources other than Sam Vaknin.

This page is also has spelling errors, poor linking, and is over 30K.



If you disagree that the page should be speedily deleted, please explain this on the talk page, or at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. 68.122.226.228 07:00, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree... I think VFD is more appropriate. So I put it here. - UtherSRG 07:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. - UtherSRG 07:11, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a research article, not an encyclopaedic one, and it seems as if the only person who could effect the changes is the author. If he makes the effort by the end of the voting period, then I may change my vote. Noisy 10:51, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Didn't this go to VfD before, or was it just discussed as irremediable on CU? At any rate, it's a private theory. Geogre 14:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Ianb 16:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. This article should stay around for a while to permit comment by experts on personality disorders and the DSM-IV. Spelling and grammar mistakes can be corrected over time as can POV. Arevich 21:27, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: The article has been on Clean Up for over 3 mo. I seem to recall someone saying that it could not be found in the DSM-IV, that it was the author's own suggestion of something that ought to go in. (Can't remember if that was discussion on CU or in the Talk page for the art.). At any rate, it has been around for a while already. Geogre 23:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The local university has a copy of DSM-IV-TR. If I remember, I'll see if I can verify whether it's in there or not. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:46, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to create new words or concepts. - Tεxτurε 21:50, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-verifiable original research. (And thanks to UtherSRG for restoring it because it was not a speedy.) Rossami 23:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Attempt to disguise original research, and unverifiable. --Jerzy(t) 16:31, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

Solar Islamic calendar — Add to this discussion

I suggest deleting this article for the following reasons:

  • There is no such calendar name, it is a complete misnomer.
  • It is a small subset of the actual calendar system it tries to describe, the Persian calendar.
  • The main article (Persian Calendar) is written and enhanced by people who know and understand calendar systems correctly, including a review and contribution by a renowned authority on calendar system (Simon Cassidy, per history logs).
  • There is nothing "Islamic" about the Persian Calendar, other than a political decision made at the time of its revision to coincide its starting date with that of the Islamic calendar. Other than that, it is completely independent of the Islamic calendar and has no lunar calculaions. Any given date in history could be randomly picked as the starting point of this calendar system and it would work just fine.
Best Regards, Sergio Correa
  • Delete - Sergio Correa
  • Merge with Iranian calendar. I have seen the usage of "Solar Islamic Calendar", although it may be a misnomer. roozbeh 13:26, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
I have dedicated a good part of my life to studying calendar systems, and I have never heard of "Solar Islamic Calendar". I just did a google search on it, and all the sites with these exact keywords seem to be replications of Wikipedia articles, not that I am saying Google search results necessarily mean anything. What does "merge" in this context exactly mean? To invent a new name for a well-established calendar system and at the same time acknowledging that we know this is a misnomer? I certainly hope Wikipedia's goal is to inform people better not create confusion and misinformation. The article I have nominated for deletion has nothing that the Persian calendar article does not explain in more detail and correctly other than just one paragraph which is wrong information, i.e., it gives the reader the impression that the calendar is Islamic, when it is clearly not. Best Regards, Sergio.
  • Delete: Redirect, for those who decide that they have to search by this way. Geogre 14:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Iranian calendar and drop a 1-liner there to state that the Iranian calendar is sometimes called the "solar Islamic calendar". I have reviewed solar Islamic calendar and Iranian calendar and I agree the former has nothing not already stated by the latter. However, a web search shows that "solar Islamic calendar" is indeed sometimes used, e.g., [4] [5] [6]. Incidentally, the last link there indicates the use of the calendar in Afghanistan, so it is not only an "Iranian" calendar. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Actually it is "Iranian". In the 10th century the calendar was revised but it's the continuation of the same calendar that existed long before it. All the month names are Iranian and were kept unchanged. It goes way way back in their culture, if I am not mistaken, at least as far back as the ancient Iranian sacred books.
  • Wile E. Heresiarch seems to offer the best solution. Redirect to Iranian calendar and drop a 1-liner there to state that the Iranian calendar is sometimes called the "solar Islamic calendar". Arevich 21:36, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I redirected it. If anyone minds that I didn't wait before doing so, then I apologize. Aris Katsaris 23:33, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Biggoron Sword,Bomb Bag,Bombs (Zelda),Bullet Bag,Darunia,Deku Nuts,Deku Shield,Deku Stick,Haunted Wasteland,Hover Boots,Hylian Shield,Ice Arrows,Ice Cavern,Iron Boots,Giant's Knife,Golden Gaunlets,Golden Scale,Goron's Bracelet,Goron Tunic,Fairy Bow,Fairy Ocarina,Fairy Slingshot,Fire Arrows,Fire Temple,Forest Temple,Kokiri Boots,Kokiri Sword,Kokiri Tunic,Know-It-All Brothers,Light Arrows,Mirror Shield, Navi,Shadow Temple,Silver Scale, Spirit Temple, Water Temple, Saria, Quiver (Zelda), Wallet (Zelda), and Zora Tunic — Add to this discussion

All of these articles are dicdefs related to the The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time video game. Many, but not all of them were created by Misery9944, who has since placed the information on these items in the main Ocarina of Time article. - RedWordSmith 07:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NOTE: An article The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time weapons and items was created on Aug 2. - RedWordSmith 06:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yath 07:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems the articles are completely redundant with the information on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:40, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aaargh. This must be someone's labour of love, but can one video game justify so many entries? Ianb 09:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Noisy 10:59, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the info, but suggest merging some of them into articles such as The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time weapons and items and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time places, or something like that. There isn't much to write about most of these. Maybe take the existent section in the main article listing all the weapons and items and replace it with a link to an article specifically devoted to that subject so as not to inundate the reader with detail. I'd oppose trying to squeeze all Ocarina of Time info into one article. Everyking 11:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Note that if new pages dedicated to specific aspects of the game are created, there are articles I have not listed here for deletion, either because they have a signifigant history, are in other Zelda games, or are not dictionary definitions, especially Skull Kid, Princess Ruto, Mido, Lake Hylia, and Epona. -RedWordSmith 17:50, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the info, what Mr. Everyking said above. bbx 13:24, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: One video game with, essentially, 2-3 subcategory pages? The video game entry ought to be able to easily contain this information via sections. Who is going to search "Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (weapons)?" Is there a reason that section breaks in the game article can't contain this info.? Geogre 14:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • No, but you search for the game and then see the link to the weapons/items article if that's what you're looking for. It's common practice, general overview in the main article and specifics in related articles. If all the detail we should have (and, I think, already do have with all these currently nominated pages) were to be packed into one article, it would be much too long. Everyking 15:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Fancruft. Complete waste of time & resources. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:40, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Heh. I'm pretty sure I've editted every single one of these articles (mostly because they pointed to the disamb page Link, instead of Link (Zelda)), rather than list them here, for fear of being accused of being a deletionist again (along with some others I believe should be included in the decision, such as Twins (Kokiri)). My view is very similar to Everyking's--I have no objection to Wikipedia having this information--but I am concerned about the level of granularity of individual articles. This is a good example of my general opinion that, if you have a bunch of related topics that can only ever have 2-3 sentences about them, put them in a combined article. In fact, I was already thinking of doing at least part of what Everyking suggests, although I was leaning towards, for example, putting all the boots and tunics in Link's clothing (I notice that Link (Zelda) (the main protagonist in this game, and near as I can tell, all the Zelda games) is not nominated), and many of the others in Link's weapons (with redirects, of course). However, since I actually have a !*@#($! job now, it wasn't going to be completed within the next 5 days. I would like to point out that, while there is significant overlap between the main Ocarina of Time article and these individual articles, there are numerous details in the individual articles that are not currently in the main article, so I would say Merge is more appropriate than flat-out Delete--the question being should they be merged into subtopics like weapons of..., characters in..., places in..., etc. or the main article, and I lean towards subtopics. Actually, I'd like to see the same principle applied to anime, manga, Charmed, LOTR, Star Trek, Star Wars, Pokemon, Digimon, comic books, etc.--for example, I'd rather have a comprehensive article about Objects in the House of Elrond (with a redirect from the name of each item listed) rather than having I don't know how many dozen 1-3 sentence articles about each item. I think we should be consistent--if we keep every single detail about all anime (which we currently seem to be doing), I see no reason to delete the details about this record-setting game. Niteowlneils 16:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but merge. - SimonP 17:41, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge all content with either Link (Zelda) or the game page and then delete. I can see individual articles on notable video game characters, but every single element from the game? No thanks. Maybe keep a few (those with special names such as "Biggoron Sword") as redirects, but not all. Postdlf 22:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge per Everyking if kept, although I think most of it belongs in a Wikibooks game guide. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs, a strategy guide, or repository for rephrasings of game manuals. Jeeves 21:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree. We are not GameFAQs, and there is no reason for these articles. Sunfist 9:54, 28 Jul 2004 (EST)
  • Merge. It has good information about the aspects of the game, however I have only seen the Saria page and cannot say if the other pages listed here are horribly redundant.

Wikipedia:Wikipedist — Add to this discussion

The page as it stands contains basically a copy of the preamble to Wikipedia:Wikipedians, plus some content which would be better suited at Meta, plus a not quite NPOV example of an incident which happened to the author. I don't think the content is appropriate. Move the content for Meta to Meta and redirect, or delete. Dysprosia 07:40, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

yeah, what he said! 138.88.173.188 07:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page bothers me. As do all sorts of vampire fruit fanpages. Yath 07:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (!) User can recreate it on meta if sie wants. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 07:44, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambivalenthysteria 08:36, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It wouldn't be appropriate on Meta either unless labelled POV. If it's to go anywhere, it should be a user subpage. Angela. 13:31, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a user in a snit that his insistence that vampire watermelons were a Pratchett invention was knocked back by people with actual references - David Gerard 13:47, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - reasons as stated above. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:41, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not useful. Dpbsmith 00:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Skunk Rock, Müdmen — Add to this discussion

Skunk Rock and Müdmen seem to be vanity pages for the Müdmen group. I can find no web presence for either in the context as stated, although there is a record label 'Skunk Rock' in London, and a number of bands from around the world use the phrase, presumably using Skunk Anansie as their standard.

  • Dear lord, not another one. I'd like to see a band that says "We fit exactly into this existing well-established genre" just for the originality of it. Delete both as self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Self-promotion. SWAdair | Talk 01:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yath 07:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete 'skunk rock' - the article states that it is confined to one city and not successful. The Mudmen article as it stands gives no indication of significance, so delete unless verifiable facts indicating importance or influence are added to the article. Average Earthman 12:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

West Bank israeli annexation - Add to this discussion

This page is based on a false claim. Israel did not annex the West Bank in 1980. It is also biased and will lead to problems. Delete. Danny 19:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, I agree, delete. Plus bad capitalization, and contains no information that was not already included in West Bank. (I was just coming here to add this.) RickK 20:43, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. NPOV info already available in Wikipedia. Probably not possible to write a NPOV article with this title. Arevich 21:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. SWAdair | Talk 01:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's junk. --Zero 02:53, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's a political diatribe, not an encyclopedia article. --Jll 11:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AFC Central — Add to this discussion

Untitled

From VfD:

An article about one division in the NFL information can be founed on the main NFL page, Smith03 14:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep even if content is entirely duplicated, it is easier to find in its own article rather than redirecting it. It could do with a list of winners though. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Proposed merge with AFC Central 1970-2001

While this division doesn't exist anymore it does have a history as shown on AFC Central 1970-2001 which seems encyclopedic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smjg: This is a legitimate merge proposal. I understand this page is currently a redirect but I am suggesting it should be an article instead. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Merge means to combine two things into one. We can't combine a redirect and an article into a single entity. Changing a redirect into an article does not constitute merging. Are you wanting to move AFC Central 1970-2001 to this title, or to write a whole new article about AFC Central? — Smjg (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smjg: The content from AFC Central 1970-2001 should be moved here. Given that this is an article, albeit a redirect, I thought doing so with discussion before doing the move (and histmerg) was proper. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The information on this page is already covered on the AFC North page in full, as the AFC North is recognized by all competent authorities on the subject, including the league itself, as a continuation of the AFC Central (same with the NFC North as a continuation of the NFC Central). This article, whose title is completely out of line with the titling policy, should be completely and speedily deleted as a redundant article (WP:A10) whose title is not an acceptable redirect. oknazevad (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bird — Add to this discussion

Do we list everyone who fought in WWII? jimfbleak 15:15, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Someone called Tom Bird has been awarded the Legion d'Honneur [7], but is it the same one? Rank of leftenant isn't high enough to be notable otherwise, and he appears not to have won the VC. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:37, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • No. Delete if no evidence of notability found. Also delete from List_of_people_associated_with_World_War_II, List of people by name: Bi Bird (disambiguation). Ianb 16:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It'd take 264,000 articles just for British soldiers who died in WWII. Delete unless verified as being the Légion d'honneur recipient of the same name. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:03, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The Tom Bird who received the Legion d'Honneur in May of this year was a Major in the 2nd Battalion of The Rifle Brigade in 1942. Since the article only describes a Lieutenant Tom Bird, I'd suggest replacing the article text with verified facts about Major Bird. Average Earthman 12:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zionist views on Israel's borders — Add to this discussion

This page has no useful purpose except that some anon wanted somewhere to put stuff that kept getting reverted (by multiple editors) when he tried to add it into Israel. Anything that is actually significant on this topic should be in Israel and can be discussed on the talk page there first. --Zero 16:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree with Zero. Arevich 21:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Yath 21:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems very familiar. Didn't we delete something similar to this a few months ago? I think it was from a Palestinian perspective and also was an attempt to avoid being reverted. Postdlf 22:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's not even well-written. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:04, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. SWAdair | Talk 01:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia doesn't allow both sides of the conlict to voice its opinion. It only puts the Leftist point of view/Arab point of view when talking about Israel. Zionist views on Israel is from a third person point of view and gives the Arab and Geneva Convention side too and not just the Zionist side unlike the Pro-Arab sensors. How would you like if I went to the article on Jordan and say Jordan is an illegal country that is part of The Land of Israel? Zionist views on Israel wouldn't be necessary if you would use terms like liberated instead of occupied and not act like the liberated territories border Israel when they themselves are really themselves in Israel. ERETZ YISRAEL LE AM YISRAEL VE RAK AM YISRAEL. AM YISRAEL CHAI! POSHEI OSLO LE DIN. anon comment moved off main vfd page. Reminder: anon comments are steeply discounted in the discussions on this page. Please log in and then sign your comments. Rossami
  • Delete. This page is overly simplistic and appears to be a particular person's POV. If you picked a random sample of Zionists and asked them to acheive consensus on a description of "Zionist views on Israel's borders," you'd get something far more complex. The proper place for discussion of the views -within the Zionist movement- on Israel's borders is within the Zionism article. -- anonymous Zionist 27 Jul 2004

Noarch — Add to this discussion

Reads like, and probably is, a pasted help file for the rpm (Red Hat package maganger) software. "noarch" is just a string that appears in some file names to indicate "no architecture". This "article" is not even about "noarch" in particular; that's just one of many possibilities discussed. Josh Cherry 14:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • The source is from an email: http://www.aplawrence.com/Bofcusm/2104.html. "noarch" can be explained in a few words in an article on RPM, it doesn't need a whole article. Delete. Ianb 16:47, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, even emails are copyrighted. Also not an article and unneeded. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:06, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Elitesecurity — Add to this discussion

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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 Speedy deleted as a recreation of a previously-deleted article. RickK 00:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Elitesecurity

This has been deleted before (see below); still can't see what's notable about this (non-English language) forum Ianb 18:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ad for yet another internet forum, in Serbian (?) only. Ianb 16:56, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not a web directory. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The site is the number one hit from Google, but Alexa traffic is 23,839. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 01:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Andris 09:57, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • (no vote) The largest and most well-known Serbian IT forum. What are criteria for inclusion of sites? Is being the most significant site about a topic in a language or region not important enough? Nikola 15:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: there is no place in Wikipedia for general web-directory style entries. Any site that is included should have an article about the site, its history, what makes it notable etc.. This article does not, which is why it is listed here, and as this is an English-language site, the vast majority of contributors (including myself) can only judge on the information available. It is of course possible that relevant information is added during the vfd period which can have a positive effect on the outcome. Ianb 16:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The above has disappeared from the vfd page but the article Elitesecurity remains with vfd tag and is protected. Not sure what's happened here. --Ianb 08:19, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • No vote: Unjustified protection removed from page. Davodd 16:01, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, this is a result of my foul up. When I went to delete this page I accidentally hit the protect tab, but still filled in the comment as though I was deleting it, and then removed the page from VfD. I have now deleted the page, as it should have been long ago. - SimonP 16:30, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • You get the Wonderfully Human award for the day. :-) Davodd 17:03, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • Seconded :-). Thanks. --Ianb 17:14, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as a recreation of a previously-deleted article. RickK 00:34, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

Col Bishop — Add to this discussion

Orphan page on a successful local businessman, not notable outside immediate geographic area. Ianb 17:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree with what Ianb said. Delete. Josh Cherry 19:00, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is still just a stub. Arevich 21:41, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: More information on Colin Bishop can be found in the Coolangatta Estate article. Not sure if Bishop is worthy of a separate article. Assuming, for the moment, that Coolangatta Village would be worthy of an independent article, that doesn't mean the owner should get his own article. Maybe redirect to Coolangatta Estate. SWAdair | Talk 01:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Universal Videogame List - Add to this discussion

Link to an external web site. Also delete UVL, which redirects to Universal Videogame List. - Kenwarren 18:08, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ianb 18:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Josh Cherry 19:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a web directory. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Alexa traffic 406,541. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 01:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Google.

Apple timer - Add to this discussion

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

Similar to Clockwork orange (see history before it was a redirect, not Clockwork Orange), this article is nonsense. Ironically, the earlier versions were less nonsensical. --ssd 19:47, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Eequor is behaving rather strangely. Delete strange article that wasn't much of an article before it was strange. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:24, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    I almost wonder if Eequor added strageness just to get this worthless article noticed and deleted. --ssd 04:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm hearing the music from The Twilight Zone. Odd... can't even revert as earlier versions aren't worthy of keeping, either. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 01:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Heh. I said previous versions were less nonsense. I didn't say they were more worthy of keeping. Otherwise, I might have considered reverting. --ssd 04:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: And this, friends, is why they call it "dope." Geogre 03:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: If this is deleted, Category:Pomology should also be deleted, since this is the only article in it. Actually, Category:Pomology should probably be deleted anyway. Isomorphic 05:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I didn't realize quite how strange the world is until I found Wikipedia. Ianb 05:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • "Do you like apples? Well I've got a delete. How 'bout them apples?" - UtherSRG 01:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • We already have "Apple Timer" on BJAODN: An apple Timer is a bright red mechanism that goes tick. You turn the top half of the mechanism and it turns starts the mechanism going. At the end of a period of time it dings. No room for two nonsense articles on the same subject. - Lucky 6.9 22:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    If you look far back enough in history, you'll find the above still there. It has just evolved beyond that BJAODN into total weirdness. Either the orignal was not deleted, or was undeleted and added to. --ssd 03:24, 30 Jul 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.

Strategic luck — Add to this discussion

Idiosyncratic term. It's not used in formal game theory. A google search suggests it's not in popular use, either. That leaves... nowhere, as far as I can tell. Isomorphic 19:00, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: idiosyncratic neologism. I haven't seen this term in print, and a Google search doesn't substantiate it. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:36, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Appears to be a neologism from an OCT 2001 Mississippi State University report on "The War on Terrorism." Three years later "strategic luck" still only gets 26 hits. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 02:43, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Occasional use before that (I found it in a Ueenet archive discussion of Robert Jordan's books in 1999... definitely hitting the big time, here)... but it doesn;t seem worth keeping. Delete. -FZ 14:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: What?! It appears in games such as Magic: The Gathering and Puerto Rico? Puerto Rico is a game? It's lucky? What? Make it go away. Geogre 03:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Strategically duck and delete. Ianb 05:53, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've played Puerto Rico, and there's strategy and pure luck involved, not strategic luck. Seems like a load of rubbish, stubbed up to look like a real theory. Delete. Wooster 19:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Peter Malkin — Add to this discussion

I don't think we need an article simply listing the alias of a person we don't even have an article about. Deb 20:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Redirect to [Mossad] and add the one-liner there somewhere. Arevich 21:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can't verify this. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:25, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: If it's true, then none of us can confirm it. Furthermore, the name does ring a bell, but not as any Massad agent. Geogre 03:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Cyrius, that was coffee you almost caused to cover my screen. Seriously, though, this seems to check out. See [8] [9] [10]. The first of those mentions a memoir by Malkin, "Eichmann In My Hands." This checks out on Amazon. Looks like a sub-stub with potential. Keep. SWAdair | Talk 05:31, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Once there was an article about the real person, then this could be a redirect, but otherwise no need to keep it. RickK 05:44, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • See "Gideon's Spies" by Gordon Thomas. EDIT: There are two people in the Israeli government named Rafi Eitan. One is Peter Malkin/Rafi Eitan of Mossad, the other is a normal political official. Geogre: He's retired from Mossad (currently counterterrorism advisor to Ariel Sharon). Keep. Prospero
  • Agree with Rick. The content belongs at Rafi Eitan. Rossami 23:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

West Bank israeli annexation — Add to this discussion

This page is based on a false claim. Israel did not annex the West Bank in 1980. It is also biased and will lead to problems. Delete. Danny 19:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, I agree, delete. Plus bad capitalization, and contains no information that was not already included in West Bank. (I was just coming here to add this.) RickK 20:43, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. NPOV info already available in Wikipedia. Probably not possible to write a NPOV article with this title. Arevich 21:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. SWAdair | Talk 01:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's junk. --Zero 02:53, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's a political diatribe, not an encyclopedia article. --Jll 11:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cap N1ne — Add to this discussion

Non-notable musician. Name only gets two Google hits as a musician and one as an album cover designer. RickK 20:51, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete musical vanity/self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. SWAdair | Talk 02:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Since bands are all out of business and rappers and DJ's are in business, I suppose that means that we'll be getting 4 times the number of these articles, now. Geogre 03:31, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I listed it as a speedy since this same article was deleted a couple of months ago. Can we make it go away again? - Lucky 6.9 18:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Metapad — Add to this discussion

The article is advertising. It may be advertising a free product, but I still don't see how it belongs in the Wikipedia. Or does anyone think otherwise? Ropers 20:37, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • if it is the drop-in replacement for Notepad (e.g. what Firefox/Mozilla is to IE), then probably notable. Otherwise: the world is full of text editors. Move to recycle bin. Ianb 20:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The web page has got a pile of "top pick" banners on it, but the program hasn't been updated since 2002 and its yahoo group hasn't had a post since. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Advert for a non-notable program. Delete. Spectatrix 01:49, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. SWAdair | Talk 02:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • <humor>I'm using it to edit this vote!</humor> delete - UtherSRG 16:11, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a nice program (I use it instead of Notepad) but it's not encyclopedic. Delete. --Fastfission 16:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oath of Scholars — Add to this discussion

This is either a copyvio (though I can't find from where) or original research. RickK 22:02, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • The last two items are rather amusing in the context of RickK's comment. Delete original research. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Main reference to "Oath of Scholars" is a Magic: the Gathering card by the same name. Delete. Spectatrix 01:46, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
  • Hehe... Delete. SWAdair | Talk 02:50, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Uhhhh, they never made me swear. They just whipped me every time I plagiarized. Let's call it original research. Geogre 03:25, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I promise to uphold the Principles of the GFDL and to delete all original research... - UtherSRG 16:09, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fifty tallest buildings in the USA (no table code) — Add to this discussion

Although I can appreciate the sentiment (trying to edit the table at Fifty tallest buildings in the USA can be a daunting task), we shouldn't have duplicate articles just because of the diffculty of editing. RickK 21:10, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Delete. Postdlf 22:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spectatrix 01:39, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 02:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • "...Able to leap tall buildings in a single delete..." - UtherSRG 16:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • & if you want to edit but find the table code too daunting, put your remarks in the talk page & someone else will presumably insert if they are appropriate. -- Jmabel 00:43, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Chuq 07:59, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- The idea was in case people had a problem with the table format- bad idea. Greyengine5 07:49, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Protecus — Add to this discussion

Delete this advertisement. Lupo 21:50, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Yet Another Internet Forum. Delete. Ianb 21:55, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a f'n web directory. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:43, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Alexa traffic 154,453. Folks, a site has to be notable, and for the English Wikipedia, preferably in English. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 02:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • An advert for a minor internet forum in German? This has no place in English language Wikipedia. Delete. Average Earthman 12:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)



Metal Hammer forum — Add to this discussion

Advert for some magazine's chat forum. Delete this plus the redirect Metal hammer forums. Lupo 22:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • dunno whether it is intended as an ad, or just some ardent user's enthusiastic description. Whatever - YAIF - Yet Another Internet Forum. Ianb 23:34, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Damned forum vanity. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Someone's hobby enthusiasm. Geogre 03:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok, from now on if Alexa traffic goes over 50,000 (this one is almost four times that), I'm not even listing it. Is there a way to search the database for all mentions of the word "forum?" Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


July 26

Mx700 — Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Entire content is: "The mx700 is Logitech's flagship wireless mouse. It uses the MX Optical engine, has 7 Buttons, and uses RF technology." Listed for speedy deletion, but I don't think it is, quite. I'm going to start a section in Logitech called ==Products== and put this line in that section. I think it is not notable enough to warrant its own article, and should be deleted—after appropriate deliberation. Dpbsmith 00:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) P.S. The product name appears to be MX700, upper-case letters. I moved the (delete-worthy) article to Logitech MX700 optical mouse. Dpbsmith 00:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: As you say, a section/mention in the Logitech article is sufficient. Geogre 03:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. - UtherSRG 11:43, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. I also think their flagship wireless mouse is the mx900, not the mx700. Thue | talk 23:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Thank you for not allowing it to speedy. Rossami 23:36, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion


Images of Saddam Hussein — Add to this discussion

I count 6 delete, 4 keep and 1 no vote. Rossami (updated by +sj)

It doesn't seem you counted my vote, then. from anthony
Comment: Actually, I interpreted your vote as delete since the discussion on the related talk pages did not seem to favor merging and since a redirect would create a circular link. Furthermore, since deleting the page does not affect the underlying images, no GFDL history is lost. WhisperToMe was the "no vote" in my tentative count. If I interpreted your vote incorrectly, please clarify it. In either case, as I said in the edit summaries, I've now voted in this particularly contentious debate and have recused myself from making the decision. Rossami 02:29, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK, I must have miscounted something else then. anthony (see warning) 11:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I moved the page to Wikipedia:List of images/People/Saddam Hussein and removed the fair use images, since it is against the policy on Wikipedia:List of images. 172 reverted me a couple times, even removing {{images}}, but he later gave up.

  • This was your first mistake, Guanaco. You shouldn't have moved the page in the first place, as both articles are quite different. Images of Saddam Hussein is for ALL images of Saddam which are not in the Saddam article, and Wikipedia:List of images is ONLY for public domain images. As I couldn't revert the mess you had made (ie. moving the page), I had to copy and paste to get the original page back. Guanaco, you have to calm down. Such unilateral acts are not permitted in Wikipedia. --Cantus 09:46, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Cantus copy-and-pasted the old version back into Images of Saddam Hussein, calling me a "paranoid assh*** [sic]" in the edit summary. It is pointless to have a gallery of images that cannot be freely reused. When fair use images are used to illustrate an article, they are not the most important part of the text. If they were, they wouldn't be fair use. It is ridiculous for us to upload various images from various sources and claim "fair use" so we can put them in our gallery.

Images of Saddam Hussein should be deleted and redirected to Wikipedia:List of images/People/Saddam Hussein. Guanaco 01:43, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Just delete, no redirect. It's a clear violation of what Wikipedia entries are not item 19: A collection of photographs.... I see there are currently both VfD and copyvio notices on the page. One is wrong, I suspect that it's not really a copyvio which would refer to the text of this page, rather it's the images that are alleged to by in copyright violation. What a mess. Andrewa 02:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The copyvio notice refers to the copy and paste move of the way the images are arranged and presented. Guanaco 02:44, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: That's not what the copyvio process is designed to deal with. Cantus has now removed the copyvio notice, I suggest we leave it off. Andrewa 20:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Item 19 actually says: A collection of photographs with no text to go with the articles. Apparently, there is plenty of text in Saddam Husein article. Nikola 06:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia:List of images is a better place for the free ones and we've got too many fair use images of Saddam as it is. Something needs to be done with the delinked non-free images though. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The images are taken from old regime footage. Saddam Hussein isn't going to sue Wikipedia. 172 09:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • More to that point, he can't. Iraq does not have a copyright treaty with the United States. anthony (see warning) 23:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      That's a good point. Would that make the images {{PD-US}}? I still stand by this listing and the copyvio listing, because this is about what Wikipedia is not and the terms of the GFDL. Guanaco 00:02, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
      If you can show that the images were first published in Iraq, yes, they'd be PD-US. I don't understand your point on the terms of the GFDL. A list of 5 or 6 links is not copyrightable. I've asked on your talk page for you to explain it to me, though. anthony (see warning) 00:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page is different from the page at Wikipedia:List of images, which only lists Public Domain images. Thus this gallery is quite necessary, as it lists images which are not in the main Saddam Hussein article, which would otherwise be lost. Guanaco is on a nasty crusade to remove all non Public Domain-only images from the face of Wikipedia. --Cantus 09:27, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:List of images lists more than just public domain images. I don't think it's very fair for you to accuse me of being "on a nasty crusade".
  • Delete. I agree with Andrewa. This is a gallery of images. No matter the fair use/public domain debate, it doesn't matter, as this page is invalid. Lyellin 14:04, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Saddam Hussein and redirect. Alternatively, delete. Please don't create a cross namespace redirect. We should be doing so only with extreme caution. anthony (see warning) 23:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The main reason this was created was because 172 was objecting to having a huge amount of pictures in the Saddam Hussein article. WhisperToMe 03:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Creating an article which violates what Wikipedia is not is not a valid solution to an article dispute. If we added a significant amount of text about the images (the images themselves, not what is depicted in them), this would become a legitimate article, though. anthony (see warning) 10:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. How is this different than images of sheep or gallery of flags? Images of sheep is even mentioned on Wikipedia:Image use policy as an example of a way to use images. Nikola 15:33, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Good points. Gallery of flags (which is actually a redirect to Gallery of national flags BTW) is a different issue IMO, in that the article presents encyclopedic information in a purely graphical form. Images of sheep is a bit more complex, and currently also redirects to Wikipedia:List of images/Nature/Animals/Sheep. The Wikipedia:List of images project is in the project namespace, not the article, so there's a bit more leeway as to content. I was leaving the question as to whether this is itself valid until we decide on this page, because IMO if we keep this page, the image lists project clearly stays too. If we keep any of them, then IMO we need to change the image policy because Wikipedia will then include a gallery of images. No change of vote. Andrewa 21:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • List of images is a valuable project, and as you said it's not in the article namespace, but it serves different purpose: collecting of free images; if I understand it well, for example, it might even include images of non-notable people or places, if they are free. Now, Images of Saddam Hussein is in article namespace and has a different goal: illustrating the article about Saddam Hussein. The images are various, depict Saddam in various ways (Saddam in civillian clothing, in uniform, in propaganda, on a banknote...), perhaps one or two of them are redudant, but the bulk add to readers' knowledge about Saddam. Someone who reads article on sheep, has never seen a sheep and wants to know how a sheep looks like, should be presented with various images of sheep: ewe, ram, lamb, a flock of sheep, white sheep, black sheep, white and black sheep, various sheep races, depictions of sheep in art. Such images add vastly to his or hers knowledge on sheep even if not accompanied with a lot of text. Saddam is no different.
      • I have Opća Enciklopedija, an encyclopedia published in Yugoslavia; as examples, article about mushrooms has two pages of color pictures showing edible, unedible and poisonous mushrooms; article about illumination (art of beautifying handwritten books) is actually a three-sentence stub, but has a color page showing various illuminations, in addition to four black&white illustrations near the article itself; article about Greeks has two b&w pages showing Greek art; article about renaissance has two b&w pages showing renaissance architecture and art. Apparently, encyclopedias do have such a contents.
      • To sum all of this: IMO, both pages should stay. List of images/People/Saddam Hussein should contain free images of Saddam Hussein, for the purpose of having free images of Saddam Hussein at one place so that they could be easily found and used wherever needed. Images of Saddam Hussein should contain characteristical not-neccesarily-free images of Saddam Hussein for the purpose of informing readers of Saddam Hussein article how does Saddam Hussein looks like without cluttering the article. Nikola 06:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this article - Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not item 19. Pictures should add to the article, not be the article. Note that deleting the article will not delete the underlying images. They are still available to anyone who wants to use them in an article that meets the standards. If you're that worried about losing track of them, I suggest creating a list of links (but not a gallery) on the main article's Talk page. Rossami 03:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep/move. VfD is not a place for working out policy disputes. No suitable alternative page been proposed for this full list of images; please work out where, if anywhere, this page should move to, on the article Talk page (perhaps Saddam Hussein/Images?). +sj+ 02:10, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Bells — Add to this discussion

Older AfD

From Cleanup: The Bells - source text (imported from Cleanup by SimonP) 

   * Wikipedia is not the Collected Works of Edgar Allan Poe. 00:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Newer AfD

Listed for speedy deletion, but I think it should be handled here. - UtherSRG 02:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Transcribe to WikiSource. - UtherSRG 02:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not sure about Wikisourcing it, as it contains errors and odd formatting. Geogre 03:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok... so cleanup before transwiki. Wikisource? WikiBooks? - UtherSRG 11:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Note this article has been through the vfd process before, and was awaiting transwiki to wikisource. Although looking at the last deletion debate you'd be hard pressed to say it reached any form of consensus. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • For the record, I was the only one to vote last time around, and it wound up locked when I tried to relist it, so I shunted it to speedy. Even though that didn't work, at least now it's gotten noticed. DS 14:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and start from scratch. Gamaliel 15:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I have got to say that would be no loss. It's not really central to the Poe canon, and it's not a tremendously studied poem. Geogre 03:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Annual percentage rate — Add to this discussion

Statutory EU formula - minor point

Would it not be better to use a different letter to represent the powers on the two side of this equation? For example, if the first advance occurs on a different date from the first repayment, then t1 takes on a different meaning on the lhs than on the rhs. Should one or other be changed to T or t', or something? —62.77.181.1 (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suggest removing the assertion at the end of the list of terms below the formula that t1=0, which is often not the case. —62.77.181.1 (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not have a different letter. tn must be identical on both sides for any instances where tk and tl represent the same date. If the dates of advance and repayment are different, you are merely saying that at that point, k ≠ l.
t1 always equals zero by definition. Interest does not start until some cash flow occurs. Rossami (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But your assertion does not make sense in the normal meaning of subscripted terms in mathematics. t2 on the left hand side refers to the date of the second advance; t2 on the right hand side refers to the date of the second repayment. Therefore it is clearly possible for t2 to be representing two different numbers in the same equation. Take the example of a regular loan consisting of a single advance being repayed with three equal annual instalments, the first repayment being made one year after the advance. In this case, you have t1 = 0 on the left hand side, and on the right hand side you have t1=1, t2=2 and t3=3. You're clearly then using t1 to represent two different things. On my second point, the EU directive defines the zero date for calculations as the date of the first advance. And, since this is not necessarily the same date as the date of the first repayment, t1 as used on the left hand side is always 0 by definition, but t1 as used on the right hand side is not. If one were to use, say, Tk instead of tk on the right hand side, then the ambiguities would disappear, and one could then legitimately retain the assertion that tl=0. —62.77.181.1 (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point. k=2 and l=2 may represent different dates but they're both on the same timeline, t. The normal mathematical convention is to use the same variable with the two different subscripts.
On your second point, you are missing the fact that this calculation can be run in either direction. The APR calculation works the same whether you are calculating a standard loan (where the first advance would be before the first payment) or calculating in annuity with balloon payments (where you might well make payments before receiving a payout). Rossami (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the calculations completely. I am unable to accept your assertion that a notation than leads to, for example, t2 taking on two different values in the same equation is "The normal mathematical convention" and am unable to find examples of this in a reputable source in any other context than in this formula. I stand by my position on this matter. I also stand by my position that, if t1 is allowed to represent the date of the first repayment, then it is incorrect to assert that t1 always equals 0. I understand the different contexts in which the formula can be used, and perfectly comfortable with the possibity of negative values for tk on the right-hand side. I merely pointed out that the EU directive defined time=0 to be the date of the first advance. Anyway, I leave the matter to rest and will not attempt to edit the main page. You are clearly knowledgable about this topic; if I have failed to convince you and the other major contributors to this article of the merits of the points I raised, then I'm happy to just let it go. (I believe this to be a technical inaccuracy in any case and don't believe that it will lead anyone who actually uses the formula astray, since they will know what was intended anyway.) [Comment from 2008]
The formula used by the EU standard was actually amended to fix this issue in 2008/48/EC. (Strangely enough, the document is dated just two weeks before the comments above were added, now 11 years ago!) The updated formula now correctly uses different symbols for each side of the equation so that, for example, t3 represents the time of the 3rd drawdown, and s3 represents the time of the 3rd repayment.
I agree with the original comment regarding the ambiguity and confusion from the old formula using t3 to refer both to the time of the third drawdown and the time of the third repayment. It is even more curious when you consider index one: the old formula used t1 to refer both to the first drawdown time (by definition, zero) and the first repayment time (possibly non-zero, either positive or negative).
Using a symbol for multiple meanings, especially within a single formula, is certainly not typical in typesetting conventions used in most fields of pure or applied mathematics, engineering or physics, and I presume not accounting/economics. Even in, for example, tensor notion used in relativity the use of different subscripts on a common symbol might represent different bases or coordinate systems, but the parent symbol (t) would still represent a single quantity (e.g. the coordinate independent quantity). Yet in the original EU formula from 1999 the symbol t was being used both for the drawdown time series (a vector, roughly speaking) as well as the repayment time series (a vector of different length). 82.22.66.201 (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

I've tagged this article with refimprove and confusing. The former tag is because the entire article is basically OR; there's only one reference given. All of the calculations, formulas, and so on are entirely unsourced. The confusing tag was added because I find the text of the page rather jumbled. To someone with little or no experience working with finance math, this article is obtuse. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've tackled the second section. I haven't added new references yet; I just reorganized what was there. Mebden (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effective interest rate, APR and APY

What is the relationship between effective interest rate, annual percentage rate and annual percentage yield? Finnancier (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#Annual_Percentage_Rate Sentriclecub (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
APR = (Per-period rate) X (Periods per year)
EAR =
APR = [1]
I'm going to look more into all this for you, and will have a full report back in an hour--it looks as though neither the APR nor EAR are independent of the number of compounding periods. The best way to interpret interest rates is with calculus. It appears that the APR and EAR are dependent on the number of periods per year, which bothers me. I'll re-read everything, and will also consult my HP-10Bii user manual, 2 feet away from me at all times. While you are waiting, check out Khan academy on youtube, this guy is a bona fide expert. The finance videos he has produced are wonderful. Sentriclecub (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Essentials of Investments, Bodie, Kane, Marcus

Disputed section

The following paragraph was added at the top of the Does not represent the total cost of borrowing subsection back in July. I do not think that it is appropriate in the encyclopedia for two reasons.

  1. The first sentence is factually incorrect. Mortgages do account for the length of the loan. And while an advertised APR can not account for an individual borrower's intent to prepay a loan, the basic calculations can be used by any borrower based on his/her own intent. That is not a failing of the concept of APR. Furthermore, lender rebates which are not passed on to the borrower have no bearing on the borrower's rates. Money out is money out. The rate they "qualify for" is irrelevant to the calculation of what they will pay.
  2. The second sentence comes across more as a spam link than as proper encyclopedic content. The Lender Police article was properly speedy-deleted back in July for a failure to meet even the minimum standards of an assertion of notability. All sources about this organization that I can find are self-published (their own website or republication of press releases, for example). The algorithm described is also not independently sourcable that I can find. It certainly doesn't seem to have attracted any attention beyond the company itself.

I am removing the paragraph from the page pending discussion here. Rossami (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

APR used for mortgages lacks several factors such as length of time the borrower intends to have the loan and lender rebates that a lender may receive and not pass on to a borrower by selling a borrower a higher interest rate than they qualify for. Lender Police Effective Annual Rate accounts for these factors and gives the borrower a true account of the rate of interest the mortgage borrower will be paying during the time the borrower plans to have the loan.

I was planning on removing that section too. See below... Sentriclecub (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, speak now or your content will be deleted

Content Issues

I'm doing a clean-thru and over the next few weeks, will tackle a couple paragraphs at a time, and will delete unsourced stuff which is bad for the article (the stuff which I believe warrants the two tags at the top of the article that say this article may be confusing or unclear).

I have already tackled and finished everything above the Contents_Box. I plan to use a different formula than this one...

because its not the best one for APR, as it is not 100% relevant. There is a better equation which I plan to substitute.

The "Failings" dominates the article and is 50% of the article on my screen resolution. I'll condense it to 3 well written, clear paragraphs (I too believe strongly in the content, i'm not defending APR, I actually have an issue that APR depends on the number of periods e.g. daily, monthly, biyearly). Also i'll keep that table, as it makes some very good points.

I plan on making a section purely devoted to UK style APR, instead of merging the two articles (as they are now) and trying to make them explained every other sentence. They are so core different, that it's easier to explain the US version one time, then make a section on the UK version. (may sound unglobal, but you'll see it's one of the reasons why the article is bad, its like talking about the Tampa Bay bucaneers and the Tampa Bay Devil rays, all in the same article, one section at a time, and trying to make it "flow" well in style, which is impossible. Just because the UK APR and US APR differ by only one letter, they are about as dissimilar as the two different sports teams.

I plan on cutting down all stuff about other types of rates. Let them be explained on their own page (main article... template).

Style issues

Seems like many different editors took turns submitting paragraphs. Look at the top two paragraphs, how I idealized the style, and texture of the should-be article.

Length I think ideally the article should be much smaller than its current size.

"In the U.S., the calculation and disclosure of APR is governed by the Truth in Lending Act (also known as Regulation Z). In general, APR in the United States is expressed as the periodic interest rate times the number of compounding periods in a year[1] (also known as the nominal interest rate); since the APR must include certain non-interest charges and fees, however, it requires more detailed calculation."

This section of the article does not belong at the bottom of the article, but rather towards the top or maybe I'll incorporate it into the intro. These are just after a 10 minute brainstorming. Ideally, I'm going to print the article, and use red-ink like marking up a poorly written essay by a classmate who procrastinated an assignment to write a wikipedia article and did it all the night before. Ideally guys and gals, I'm going to simulate that I'm on the tv show The Apprentice and I dont want to get fired, and my assignment is to fix this article. Collaborators, please drop me a note on my talk page (I work very slow, if left to do this alone) Sentriclecub (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.uncdf.org/mfdl/readings/EIR_Tucker.pdf Tucker, William R. "Effective Interest Rate," Paper, Bankakademie Micro Banking Competence Center, 5-6 September 2000.

Retrofit topic year headers/subpages

14-Nov-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2004" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. The topic-year boundaries were located by searching from bottom for the prior year#. Afterward, I dated/named unsigned comments & cut auto-signature comments.
Then I added "Talk-page subpages" beside the TOC. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archived 2004 to mid-2006

14-Nov-2008: I have archived 7 older topics (49%) into new archive page "Talk:Annual percentage rate/Archive_prior_talk" listed under "Talk-page subpages" at top (near TOC). -Wikid77 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added nominal APR & effective APR

14-Nov-2008: I am adding the main legal terms "nominal APR" and "effective APR" (used over 20 years in USA) into the article. I was very confused reading the article, due to lack of those 2 terms, which clearly separate nominal (simple-interest rate) from effective (compound-interest+fees), according to laws in the U.S. Without those terms, the article can seem very confusing for readers using USA meanings. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:48, 14 Nov 2008

Money factor

Due to its AfD resulting in a not-delete, I've merged money factor into this article. It's a very rudimentary merge (essentially a cut-and-paste, and some minor changes) so any help on cleaning up this section would be amazing. flaminglawyerc 01:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't include negative points

My experience has been that if you offset costs with negative points, taking a higher interest rate, the APR still includes the standard closing costs even though those costs are being paid by the lender. One would expect that if I had no closing costs at all, the APR would be equal to the interest rate (absent prepaid interest for partial months, or the like), but I noticed that the difference between APR and interest rate was the same as between an interest rate at zero points and its APR. Ex. 3% rate, $2200 cost, 3.125 APR | 3.5% rate, $300 cost, 3.625 APR. Is this just another instance of how APR fails to compare rates correctly, and should that be included in the article (or is it already and I'm just not seeing it?) 99.186.225.51 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Math in Nominal APR Does not...

Just reading over this I am not sure if the math is accurate, unless it is an issue with windows calculator and trailing decimals. Using the 'common credit card quotes at 12.99% APR compounded monthly, the one year EAR is ((1 + 0.129949/12)^12) - 1, or 14.7975%. I get .1379750 or 13.7975%. Then for a 42.99% APR compounded daily, using the above formula replacing the changed values of ((1 + .429949/365)^365)-1 I get .53679 or 53.67%, a far cry from the 13.87% listed there and counter to it's original purpose of showing an increased APR % with different compounded period of having a higher 'true cost'. I don't believe the issue is with my calculator as I do come up with the same values for the 29.99% compounded monthly. ~Edit forgot to sign 65.51.196.34 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)2/15/2012 David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.196.34 (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dependance on loan period

I am having trouble wrapping my head around the statement:

If the consumer pays the loan off early, the effective interest rate achieved will be significantly higher than the APR initially calculated.

This seems like the inverse. If I have a loan for N periods, and I pay it off after only a single period, I only pay interest for one period. For example if we use the example in the picture at the top of the page; if I have a loan for $100, with $10 in fees and pay it off in a single month, you will pay the $100 loan amount, the $10 fee, and $5.50 in interest (5% of the balance). This leads to a payment of $115.50 or $15.50 more than the loan amount. Using the equation from the image, Effective APR = (interest + fees) / loanAmt ==> Effective APR = 15.50/100 = 0.155 = 15.5% which is much less then the 49% shown in the image. If the formula in the box is correct, than this make the statement about rate being higher being incorrect.

Overall this page feels poorly written, and contradictory and could use the help of an expert, or at least someone with a decent text book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.252.14.13 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 15.5% interest you calculated above is a monthly interest (since you are paying off the loan in a single month). To annualize that rate, you must multiply by 12 for an effective annual rate of 186%. Rossami (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of this Article

I find the overall quality of this article on APR to be very low. The main issues are (1) it is predominately written from the perspective of US residential real estate lending, and this unnecessarily complicates the whole article and (2) it is just very porrly written.

It is possible, and it should be done, to define APR ignoring fees as just the annual simle interest rate. This is the way it is normally defined in basic finance textbooks. Then, if you want to include fees into the caculation then this should be done specifically in a discussion of how APR is caclualted for residential mortgages in the US, which also involves a discussion of the regulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.78.9 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not possible because APR is not the same as the annual simple interest rate. US residential real estate loans are one example but the concept applies to any loan with non-unitary duration and fees. Having said that, if you think you can improve it, be bold and make some edits. Rossami (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, 68.51.78.9. More work is needed. I renamed the "Failings" section which seems to speak about USA only (only that country is mentioned and none of that applies to EU) and moved it to the bottom together with the section on rate format which also seems to apply to some country only but who knows which. I also rearranged or removed some other confusing content and slightly updated the EU section. --Nemo 10:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of APR and APY

There is an article for annual percentage yield - equivalently, effective annual rate - which should be linked to in this article. Maybe, the two concepts APR and APY should be separated. The into is not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.10 (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Loan Figure Payment is Incorrect

In the section "Multiple definitions of effective APR" there is the following example:

"For example, consider a $100 loan which must be repaid after one month, plus 5%, plus a $10 fee. If the fee is not considered, this loan has an effective APR of approximately 80% (1.0512 = 1.7959, which is approximately an 80% increase). If the $10 fee were considered, the monthly interest increases by 10% ($10/$100), and the effective APR becomes approximately 435% (1.1512 = 5.3503, which equals a 435% increase). Hence there are at least two possible "effective APRs": 80% and 435%. Laws vary as to whether fees must be included in APR calculations."

The math is not totally correct. If the $10 fee were considered as well, it would be 100 ( 1 + .05) ^ 12 which is about $179.59, minus the principal ($100), plus the $10 fee. So the amount paid would be about 89 dollars on top of the 100 borrowed. Therefore it would be 89% APR.

The statement "If the $10 fee were considered, the monthly interest increases by 10% ($10/$100), and the effective APR becomes approximately 435% (1.1512 = 5.3503, which equals a 435% increase)." is totally bogus and doesn't make any sense.

The figure is incorrect because it follows the example, so instead of 39 dollars of compound interest it should be 79 dollars + the 10 dollar loan fee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:2A80:1BE:A409:F133:E0E1:F6BB (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the figure, the value of the loan starts decreasing after the first month, i.e. it is not $100 for the whole year. --Petteri Aimonen (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Confusion

It is clear that this term - the Wikipedia article and the comments outrageously evidence it itself even more - is in fact more confusing, misleading and deceitful than minimally helpful, as it is in general everything related to finance and the financial services industry. This indeed should be object of study (and of attention to Wikipedia) as well as all the legal loopholes, which always benefit (and lag behind) the corporations doing lucrative business from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.15.8 (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata

This article is linked to a Wikidata element with interwikis. Why does that have no effect on the article's page (no link to Wikidata, no interwikis)? --AVRS (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Annual percentage rate. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annual percentage rate. 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) 21:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate source for cited info?

In the section "Nominal APR dies not reflect...", the parenthetical note "(see ~credit card interest~ for the .000049 addition to the 12.99% APR)." doesn't actually explain anything, and the credit card interest page does not explain this percentage point discrepancy at all, as of today's date. Does anyone have an alternate, steady, source for this math? Trumblej1986 (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project loone

@Monica (my virtual assistant) 2600:6C40:6F0:A260:CDCE:7419:BB10:93FD (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potato pancakes — Add to this discussion

On 26 July 2004, Potato pancakes was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP and also to transwiki the article to Wikibooks cookbook section. Rossami 22:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's just a recipe. Transwiki to Cookbook and delete. --Ben Brockert 02:30, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, do not transwiki. The recipe is inferior & is not written in a proper format, not to mention the "potato's." Geogre 03:11, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Pleasure to change my vote to keep and transwiki. Geogre 16:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Dan Quayle, is that really you? Surely it could be cleaned up and transwikified, although my cooking skills, which have been the subject of UN Security Council resolutions, would stop me from doing this myself. Ianb 06:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I cleaned it up, including making some recipe adjustments based on similar recipes found in my own cookbooks and online. Review and transwiki. Spectatrix 06:39, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
  • Mmmm... damn.. I think I know what I'm gonna have for lunch today! transwiki. - UtherSRG 11:40, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)Hungrier today than I was yesterday, because Dpbsmith did an excellent rewrite. Keep. - UtherSRG 15:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm hungry, but this isn't an encyclopedia article, it's dinner. TW and Delete; redirect to... something? Might be worth having an actual article on someday, but this isn't it. -FZ 14:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment OK... so I've made a start on making it into an actual article. Antitrophodeletionists of the world, unite! Dpbsmith 02:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like the way the recent changes are going. This successfully followed the advice in #22 of What Wikipedia entries are not and is now a valid article, IMO. And it already looks nicer than fried rice. - Eisnel 06:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Ooh... I really like the background that Dpbsmith added. Changing vote to keep here AND transwiki to the Wikibooks Cookbook project. Spectatrix 15:05, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
  • We gots an article, we does, complete with history! Agree with Ben and Geogre that the original had to go, FWIW. Keep, transwiki to the cookbook and pass the applesauce and sour cream. - Lucky 6.9 16:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, is now far more than just a recipe. - SimonP 17:27, Jul 27, 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.

Enjoy Incubus — Add to this discussion

Fron Cleanup since June 9. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. 03:00, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: It's an album. I know people write album articles. I don't think they ought to, unless it's a landmark album. This is not a landmark album. Geogre 03:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear for all those wanting to keep it, it's an ep. EP's are usually listed in the "singles" sections of discographies. Secondly, the article was on Clean Up since June 9th. Third, for being such a famous band (and it is), none of its fans improved it in that month. Fourth, although there are many, many album articles, previous mistakes do not automatically justify a new one. Landmark albums and albums that people will search for without knowing the band are great keeps. EP's that aren't generally known to the band's fans? Since the CD, EP's have largely gone the way of the dinosaur. Geogre 19:52, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't think it would be a good idea to open the can of worms of judging every album article on Wikipedia as either "a landmark album" or "deletion fodder". —Stormie 03:57, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, its not even an album its an ep. Not a "landmark album" not a "landmark band" not even the most notable commercially or critically that this band has produced. Anyway this isnt the Utimate Band List, surely a Discography at the bottom of every band article rather than a seperate entry for each album ep or single release would be better suited to Wikipedia? --Sideshow 05:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, Incubus is famous, it makes sense to have articles on their albums. People want to know about this stuff. Makes little difference that it's an EP. Everyking 11:37, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gamaliel 15:57, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless somebody can add something substantial about the album's historical/cultural/artistic significance. As it stands, it's barely more than a track listing, and an encylopedia isn't the right place for track listings. The band's official web site is. Triskaideka 16:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, perfectly acceptable album stub. Jgm 17:44, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Fancruft. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Incubus is a famous band. There are many less famous bands who have all of their albums in the Wikipedia. This just needs cleanup, it shouldn't be deleted because it's a stub. As for whether albums should be on Wikipedia at all, there's a WikiProject Albums, so I think they're here to stay. - Eisnel 07:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, album is probably encyclopedia-worthy even if current article is just a stub. -- Jmabel 00:46, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, IMHO albums are encyclopedia-worthy - singles or individual tracks aren't. -- Chuq 08:01, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to cleanup. There are probably a number of Incubus fans who can fill in the blanks as to history and such beyond the release date and label. We should reconsider a delete vote if it doesn't improve in the next month or two, but it's pretty harmless as is. - Lucky 6.9 21:41, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

World Constitution — Add to this discussion

Not encyclopedic. - Kenwarren 03:41, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Original research. Delete -- Cyrius|✎ 04:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Original research or political idea with potential for major flamefest ("a program to address current World problems as a series of transformations of the Constitution of the United States of America"). Delete. Ianb 05:57, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Original research. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 06:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • ORD. - UtherSRG 11:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's also provincial (beginning with the US). Geogre 12:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, straight transcription with no discussion or analysis, nothing links to it. Triskaideka 16:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Chuq 08:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

CourtZero — Add to this discussion

Non-notable web site ad. (~150 google hits, none for this site) - Kenwarren 04:04, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • A few minutes ago (different article listing) I said I wouldn't mention Alexa traffic if it was over 50,000. Well... just this once... Alexa traffic of 5,717,495! Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • worthy, but... Delete. Ianb 06:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - UtherSRG 11:37, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Let it come back when there's a reason for it. Geogre 12:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Upsidaisium — Add to this discussion

On 26 July 2004, Upsidaisium was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was REDIRECT. After a review of the current state of both The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show and Fictional chemical substance, I decided that it would fit better as a redirect to Fictional chemical substance. Rossami 22:17, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From Rocky and Bullwinkle. Not notable enough to merit own article. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 04:22, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 05:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Irrelevantium is a material commonly found in the outlying reaches of Wikipedias. Merge, bury rest in deep mine shaft and delete. Ianb 06:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Hey, I remember the Upsidaisium epsisode! (Or was there more than one?) Fun stuff. In any case, merge with Rocky and Bullwinkle if possible, and delete. Spectatrix 06:42, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
  • "Duuuh... Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a merge out of my hat!" "Again?!? don't forget to redirect when you are done!" - UtherSRG 11:36, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, and also with Fictional chemical substance, then delete. -FZ 14:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Mr. Peabody says merge & delete. Geogre 17:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I just can't resist: Nothing up my sleeve...presto! Merge and delete! Ooh, gotta get me another hat. Now, here's something we hope you'll really like! - Lucky 6.9 18:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Finn-Zoltan. Merge w/ The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show and Fictional chemical substance. --Rossumcapek 17:56, 1 Aug 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.

Teen Programmers Unite — Add to this discussion

Non-notable Internet group. RickK 05:52, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • So then I started this internet club with some friends, and then I changed its name cuz I wasn't a teenager anymore, but there were still some teenagers in the group, so they made their own page... Ah-hem. What I meant was, delete. Isomorphic 05:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A google search for "Teen Programmers Unite" returns nearly 5000 hits. The group has been around since 1996 and is quite established. mpnolan
  • Weak Delete. I tend to like the google test, but reading the history of the organization and looking at some google hits, make me believe that this organization was/is not of any consequence. Lyellin 11:01, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable due to the combination of its intentions, membership, and longevity. —siroχo 11:13, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Every Tom Dick and Jane group does not merit attention, regardless of number of Google hits - especially since Google will be biased towards online groups. - UtherSRG 11:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Given the fact that this is a group that has had 8 years to promote itself (since it calls for members), the Google hits are not that remarkable, and this is amplified by the fact that the members are programmers and energetic. The article, as it is, seems more link-intensive than information-dense. Indeed, this article helps increase Google profile. The information in the article does not provide much evidence of success in the world (esp. since it was disbanded, got rebuilt, and then schismed). Geogre 12:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd have no problem with an entry of this type if the article presented some minor way in which this group was notable, but as it stands it seems no different from my high school Computer Club. Gamaliel 15:54, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa Nusraty — Add to this discussion

Young person vanity. Ianb 06:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • POV article partially substantiated by a grand total of 7 google hits! Delete. Spectatrix 06:46, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
  • What do you get when you hold vanity up to a mirror? delete - UtherSRG 11:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you can call an article 'vanity' when it is describing someone as a 'noted loser'. Of no significance, Delete. Average Earthman 12:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Oh, come on. He's a kindly goofball. That's much better than most of the goofballs who write articles about themselves (and Lucky will be pleased to note that it starts with his birthday). Geogre 12:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Charming. Delete. Gamaliel 15:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Not very vain, but still very non-notable; delete. Everyking 18:10, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Shucks, the fact that he lists not only his birthday but the hospital itself is good enough for me to toss in a happy little delete! Remind me to list my birthday and hospital sometime. It's so enlightening. :^) - Lucky 6.9 18:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Infrastructure bias — Add to this discussion

This article appears to be part of 142.177's attempt to impress their idiosyncratic critique of science on Wikipedia, defining new terms as they go. Reference version: [11]

Googling for "infrastructure bias" finds lots of copies of this article in Wikipedia-clones, and a very few uses in other contexts, where it is used to mean things like

So: apart from this article "infrastructure bias" is not only not in wide use, it is apparently not in any use as a term in ethics or in the sense of this article. I suggest deletion on the grounds of Wikipedia:No original research, failing the Wikipedia:Google test, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

By the way; I'm not advocating that we suppress criticism of science in the pages of Wikipedia; there are many criticisms of science and its uses which deserve to be thoroughly covered in Wikipedia. What I'm advocating is that we apply the same NPOV approach to these articles as any other.

-- The Anome 09:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 10:25, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)) Not terribly keen on the page itself but the concept is sensible.

OK, I've replaced it with a very amall NPOV rewrite, with the politics and the idiosyncrasy taken out. Is this better? -- The Anome 10:29, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


  • Keep rewrite. Useful concept. (William M. Connolley 13:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC))
  • Keep rewrite. (We only measure cells after we invent the microscope, the questions we can ask are biased by the tools we've already made?) Geogre 14:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The rewrite is cogent and would make a good initial stab at an article ... if the phrase was in general (or even specialised) use to begin with. However, I don't think that has been sufficiently demonstrated. Noisy 18:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be a neologism that hasn't quite caught on. First three pages of Google hits are almost entirely WP clones. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Filtering out Wikipedia clones on google leaves very little in the way of verification. Call it a neologism for the time being and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:20, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I lean toward keep. I found several uses [www.uneptie.org/energy/act/pol/wokshops/bangkok/docs/roaring.doc] [www.ifgb.uni-hannover.de/institut/1_eue/lehre_eue1/skripte/Int_Org_iDev_SS04/Hannover%20slides%20Tim.ppt] [12] in serious context that match the definition given in the current version of the article. Google is probably biased against a term like this, since it's somewhat technical and isn't going to be used in casual conversation. (sorry, a couple of those links don't seem to work. Isomorphic 05:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The words may occasionally be used together to mean something like what the rewrite is saying, but "infrastructure bias" doesn't seem to be accepted as a term. -- WOT 20:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Corvis Corp — Add to this discussion

Ad. —siroχo 10:49, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, just barely. Doesn't read like an ad to me. It's a question of notability. this article gives this list. I think the numbers are numbers of subscribers (!)
U.S. providers of DSL service, not counting resellers:
SBC 767K
Verizon 540K
Covad 274K
Qwest 255K
BellSouth 215K
NorthPoint 100K +
Rhythms 67K
Broadwing 41K
Others including NAS, (11K), Alltel, DSL.net, New Edge (6K), New South, IP, and @Link, total less than 50K.
I've heard of Rhythms so it just barely meets my criterion for notability. Broadwing, which I'd never heard of, is in about the same category, I'd say it's just barely notable enough to keep. On the other hand... I see only ONE hit in "Broadwing" in comp.dcom.xdsl on Google Groups and that seems a little low. That article does describe Broadwing as a "tier 1 provider," whatever the heck that means. Dpbsmith 14:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Tier 1 providers own the major backbones used by the internet and phones. They are usually billion$ companies that spent many dollars building the infrastructure and many are not interested in dealing with customers like me or you. Their customers are Tier 2 providers and their customers are Tier 3 providers. They like to keep low profiles yet often have huge telecommunications influence. The Steve 23:04, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Surudi milli — Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Foreign language article. - UtherSRG

  • Judging from "What links here", this is apparently the national anthem of Tajikistan. Unfortunately, my Tajik is a bit rusty, and the page needs formatting as well as context and an English translation, but it "belongs" and should be kept. Smerdis of Tlön 13:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've added a few extra details I've managed to glean from google searches, but nowhere appears to have the English translation. Might mean an email to the Tajik Embassy in London, which I'm happy to do myself. In the meantime, a very strong KEEP. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Though sod's law reared its ugly head in my direction and there isn't actually an embassy for Tajikistan in the UK... So I've emailed the one in the US instead! Watch this space for response... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:02, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: surely this is a candidate for the {{notenglish}} procedure? I.e. listed for two weeks as needing translation before being summarily executed. Ianb 18:50, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Even if it was, is it likely that within two weeks someone who speaks Tajik is likely to stumble upon it by chance? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Good question. I was just worried about the sky falling down if correct procedure is not followed ;-). I do think a vfd listing is quite an effective way of perfoming Darwinian selection on doubtful articles though. Ianb 21:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as we now know what it is. Ianb 21:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

http://www.times.kg/country_guide/?D=kz&pub=kz001#anthem gives entirely different information on authorship: "The authors are poets Muzafar Alimbayev, Kadyr Myrzaliyev, Tumanbai Moldagaliyev and Zhadyra Daribayeva and composers Mukan Tulebayev, Eugeny Brusilovsky and Latif Khamidi." Since our current statement is uncited, I'm inclined to believe that site, but I figured I'd first put this up here to see if someone else knows more. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:34, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC) Never mind. Someone added a link to a translation of the wrong country's anthem! I'll fix it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:36, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Webinar — Add to this discussion

From VfD:

It appears to be a recognised term (435,000 hits on google can't all be wrong), but the question remains, is it really encyclopedic? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Currently a dicdef, but could be expanded (think history, pros and cons, etc). Keep and cleanup. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:50, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
  • Listed for deletion less than three hours after creation. Give this stub a chance to grow. (If it's still a stub in 3 months, I'll change my vote.) Rossami 23:46, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I waited until the last day of voting. There is some discussion in it, now, but it still strikes me as a nonce word. The currency of the term is questionable to me. Geogre 12:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • (weak) Keep, for now. The term is annoying, but that's just too bad for me. -- WOT 21:01, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

I find the mostly negative reaction to this entry fascinating. I came across the term in an email, didn't know what it meant, and finding it missing from Wikipedia, googled it. I then realized I had participated in two such seminars (dry as sun struck bone I might add), so I added the term. When I saw the votes for deletion, I tried to flesh it out a little, and believe me, couldn't care less if the entry is killed, just do not understand the criteria by which such things are judged. With all the gobbledygook like the Harry Potter lexicon on Wikipedia, it seems strange. Is it because it is an obviously slick coinage, too commercial, too new, (too boring!) or something else? --Jimaginator

Maybe it should be merged into web conferencing. Nurg 8 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)

"A webinar is 'live' in the sense that information is conveyed according to an agenda, with a starting and ending time." This seems dubious. Surely 'live' means real-time or synchronous or the like. Nurg 8 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)

Chesapeake Bay Bears — Add to this discussion

Chesapeake Bay Bears: an unnotable local social club for hirsute gays. Apparently added by East-r Br-dford because East-r Br-dford had himself been a member, and desired to "beef" up his own vanity page with links. -- orthogonal 15:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is not noteworthy. There are many other gay support groups that do not get an article. - Mark 15:43, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Swami says we will be seeing more of these pages soon. Geogre 17:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a What's On guide. Ianb 18:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is given. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:56, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
  • Delete: An article derived from a controversial self-promoter, and the membership is too small (no pun intended), so it's non-notable. Geogre 12:36, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • While I appreciate Geogre's zeal, I still don't think that justifies voting twice. :) -- orthogonal 17:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • D'oh! I figured I'd just cut out the step of creating the fake name for the sock puppet and just vote 2-3 times in my own name. People should imagine that the second came from User:Temporary and this one from User:Bobisbob. :-) Geogre 19:56, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Blue Sun Band — Add to this discussion

The bands own web page says they are local and have no released records. Not notable enough? Likewise the band's lead member, Fabian Doles and Shelley Doles. DJ Clayworth 16:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete all: Band vanity, plus a substub. Geogre 17:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Looking at the pages, these look like guys you'd book to play at your wedding / insert name of social event here. Put an ad in the local rags in Cologne, guys. Delete. Ianb 19:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • These all lead back to those doggone "Delk" articles that are already up for discussion. You'd think with a CV like this that "Fabian" would get a clue and read the rules. Delete all from anon user. Somebody needs to have a discussion with him/her. - Lucky 6.9 21:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Forbidden knowledge - add to this discussion

Relisting since the article was completely rewritten by User:Roeschter after all the below votes were cast —Stormie 06:54, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

This is more of a personal essay; even if this is an encyclopedia topic, which I don't think it is, this isn't the article for it. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:47, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

  • Delete: "Secrecy" and "Classified information" might be topics, but "forbidden knowledge" is a duplicate. Also, this is really just an expanded dictdef. Geogre 18:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry to say that I still cannot change my vote. It's not because the rewrite lacks value, but because I still think this is a duplication. I might move to abstain, after I look around to see if I can name some specific lemmae that duplicate this material. Geogre 13:25, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete strange essay. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Retain: The essay is balanced, neutral and useful. It is not personal. If it is short it should be expanded. The topic is useful. Me thinks the votes for deletion don't want this topic exposed. Moshiah
    Fake sockpuppet. User:Moshiah is not even registered. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, sure. True knowledge of the user is forbidden. This is all a conspiracy to keep forbidden knowledge forbidden. Geogre 19:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • So perhaps VfD should be on the list of methods used to keep "forbidden knowledge" forbidden? I think perhaps the people who forbade some such knowledge actually had a good reason. Please see my vote below, if it isn't forbidden.Fire Star 01:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't even know if "Forbidden Knowledge" is the best way to name this abstract concept. I think the concept is worthy of an entry, but it should use a standard term and better explain it. Tslag 19:19, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I forbid you to keep this article in its present form! Delete. Fire Star 01:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I completely replaced the original text with an expanded form (wasn't my origical article). Forbidden knowledge is indeed very diffrent from secret knowledge. While there is any number of good reasons to keep certain things secret, very specific political and sociological mechanisms are at work for forbidden knowledge. User:roeschter 00:00, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please place new votes below here

  • Keep: rewrite needs grammatical fixes and better wikification, but not deletion. -Sean Curtin 08:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the new edit. Keep. Rhymeless 16:54, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Alright. I have done some copy editing, and it needs more to be sure, but I can see there is enough potential to keep it around for now, at least. Fire Star 03:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Could be better written, maybe could be better named, but as it is at least a weak keep.
  • Despite the history and the editor, the article looks valid. Test is, can content be merged and article redirected? If not, weak keep Cutler 13:52, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pjacobi 14:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant - Centrx 17:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kirkperson — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kirkperson

Kirkpeople — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kirkpeople

Delk News Quarterly — Add to this discussion

Friends, we have a Wikipedia first: A vanity disambiguation page! An article on Roger Delk was listed as a copyvio, another article on Delk which should be speedied is a disambiguation page to the Roger Delk article and this article...which also mentions Roger Delk. Confusing, but true. - Lucky 6.9 18:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I think I shall print this one out and have it framed. After that, feel free to delete. Ianb 18:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I warned you all. Once the genealogists find a place, they fill all voids. Private, non-notable, website. Geogre 19:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete 'em all. In fact, I'm going to use the term 'delk' to mean just that! - UtherSRG 19:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all three - (However, Delk is not a speedy delete candidate.) - Tεxτurε 21:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delk all three! So Roger Delk is just "some guy" from the 17th century? - Eisnel 06:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. However, Roger Delk may be marginally significant since he was elected to the House of Burgesses. A link to the Delk News Quartlerly [[14]] would then be a suitable external link for that article. If the Roger Delk article was created as vanity, and contributor understands the GFDL, then Roger Delk should stay, albeit with cleanup. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:52, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Invision Power Services — Add to this discussion

July 2004

From VfD:

Producer of Invision Power File Manager, Invision Power Board among others. While the products seem to be quite popular, the and would be better served by an external link from any notable products it might have. Ianb 19:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. The entry isn't intended as an ad and surely doesn't appear to be one. It was created as a stub to encourage an informal development of a company history, background, etc. for those who may not be familiar with it. --Zach A 19:15, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
  • Keep if the "ad-speak" is removed within a reasonably short period. Needs an emergency POV-ectomy. - Lucky 6.9 21:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and possibly merge with the other two. Zocky 03:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep assuming that it will be cleaned up. The company has its own merit as an article. (Are we VingFD of the other two articles? They don't sound like they need to be deleted, but expanded as they are stubs right now.) [ alerante | “” 12:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) ]

end mvoed discussion

IP Dynamic

I think that the description for Invision Power Dynamic should be changed. --bdude 08:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Download Manager

This is not an official product yet, surely? 68.249.148.211 keeps on adding it. --Phatmonkey 18:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grrrr. I'll jjust make a new heading for unreleased products to make this dynamic IP user happy! --PhatmonkeyTalk 18:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP Wiki

Added this section because it is in a similar status as the Download Manager...glad we have a section for unreleased products because they have a lot of them. Compguy11 05:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info on 3rd Party IpbWiki

I'm curious to see what people think about this. There are hundreds of components made for IPB. Do we really need to advertise IpbWiki? Even if you argued that it relates to a current product in development as a 'alternative', there is also alternatives to Invision's Blog system and their gallery system. Should we mention those too? I just think it's free advertising for the creators of that component. (Just checked, and the person who added that is not a registered user..so..hmm) Comments, plz. Compguy11 09:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to learn about the alternatives for Invision Blog and Gallery.
A bit unreleated, but I also just visited you're site Compuguy11 and I see that you have started a petition about the fact that Invision Power Services removes posting access from people on IpsBeyond, I would like to see added that petition (in link form or as section (might need editing to let it less refer to you)) to this article as well, it is a much heared complaint and putting it here might be ideal to reach the target of IPS actually changing their policy in that regard. After all articles on Wikipedia are presumed to be objective, so we should show both sides of the medal if possible. Tasja 17:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting...I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia(long time reader..recent contributor)...I'm glad you mentioned the petition...the petition is here if people want to read it and consider whether we should show the good and the bad of this company..I don't know how that affects NPOV...also about the alternatives for IPS products..should be make a new section for alternatives, or is it not relevant. I would love some more input. Compguy11 06:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ineo and IpbWiki needs removal. Neither are related to IPS. They are modifications / bridges for IPB not officaly supported by IPS (so what if a staff member at IPS / IPSBeyond made it - its not an offical product. End off) therefore, are spamming the thread. The articles on IPS - not other modifications related to one of IPS Products (either officaly or unofficaly). Either way, they gotta go. 194.46.176.4

I went ahead and removed refrences to ipbwiki and ineo. I did leave that ineo was transferred to a different company since there was no real press release or anything stating that, so maybe some people still need to know. If anyone has a real problem with removing ipbwiki/ineo refrences, talk about it here. They are not official IPS products, and so therefore they don't belong here. There are hundreds of unofficial products made for IPB...we either list all of them or none of them. That's the closest you can get to NPOV. Compguy11 07:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok, makes sence, since it's about IPS products, I've removed reference to ineo company, to pertain the NPOV. Tasja 16:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ineo

Has ineo actually ever been an ips product? Ineo is from a 3rd party vendor called Veriea, I can not remember a release of ineo under IPS's name. Besides the fact that ineo is being used on the ipsbeyond site, there's no connection at all... Do we want to have listed on this page all tools that are being used on official invision site and all it's sisters sites (ipsbeyond,...) or do we want this page to cover products IPS develops? Tasja 13:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed the ineo section as it isn't a product from ips. Tasja 11:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connect and Converge

I updated information on connect because current information wasn't very helpful to anybody reading the article. I discussed what the purpose of the project is and it's current "unknown" state. Converge was also added to the list by me. Although it is a small project, it is important to some users that this will be available at some point. Any suggestions for these bits are welcome. Compguy11 00:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP.Nexus/Dynamic merge

Okay sorry this is my first time posting in a discussion page so forgive me if I make a mistake or two.

But anyway the IP.Nexus section of this article is outdated, Invision Power released a video preview of IP.Nexus, which is a business suite that contains products such as the one formerly known as IP.Dynamic.

Link: http://forums.invisionpower.com/index.php?showtopic=237153

I'm no Wikipedia article expert so perhaps it might be best if someone else updates the page, thanks. Akiratheoni 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Management

People have been editing and adding false employee's to this section. For a full reference of currently employee's you can see:

http://www.invisionpower.com/corporate/management.html

Ryan.Boyle (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Services

The services section needs to be totally re-worked or removed. It sounds like someone threw it together and its sorta like an advertisement.

--Ryan.Boyle (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Services

Removed the sleezyadvertisement

Balbylon — Add to this discussion

Looks like original research. Google returns very few hits, a couple related to the site listed in the article, the rest misspelings of Babylon. Ianb 19:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. I wish I knew how to say that in other languages. - UtherSRG 19:25, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Seth Mahoney 19:42, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Words werden vermicelli belly Danziger. BCorr|Брайен 20:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. Triskaideka 20:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: et ego in Arcade Judge Ito gefrunen. Geogre 22:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently there's only Russian and Hebrew. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:12, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Solstice BBS — Add to this discussion

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

Solstice BBS - see below

Yet Another Internet Forum. Guys - you have a listing here: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Bulletin_Board_Systems/Individual_Systems/ . Wikipedia is not the place to duplicate it. Unless you can measure yourselves with the likes of Slashdot. Ianb 19:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Is not just an advertisement, and is NPOV. --Merovingian✍Talk 12:14, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not an ad, it's not POV - it's just not notable. DJ Clayworth 16:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oooh, 3000 users, woooow. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:22, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Better to have a page that talks about BBS's on a high level then links externally to maintained lists elsewhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is high-level the actual content (source documents) are elsewhere. Like, the entry for the Constitution does not contain the entire Constitution in Wikipedia, it links to it. Stbalbach 08:13, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Would it be better if I had an entry for every BBS? --Merovingian✍Talk 07:59, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, Merovingian, but I have to vote delete on this. I do think, in fact, that we have had some years to separate us from the old BBS systems, and articles on those are interesting. However, an article on a current concern seems like boosterism, no matter how carefully written. To me, this seems like advertising, even though it attempts to be descriptive. The systems as opposed to a board, in other words, seem NPOV entities. Geogre 20:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article has popped unexpectedly back onto my watchlist. It seems to have been deleted per above, although there is no note of the deletion taking place, and has now been recreated.

Alas, however nice / worthy the site may be, it still does not appear notable in any shape or form and I see no reason for its reappearance in this online encyclopedia. I also not it has no Alexa ranking. Ianb 16:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Can't this be speedied? Articles that suddenly show back up after being deleted like this usually are. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 21:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I thought I had rewritten it to make it less advertisement-like. I guess we are basing this on encyclopedic-ness? It's certainly more encyclopedic than some other things that have been accepted into Wikipedia. What are the Alexa ratings of the other BBS's in Category:Bulletin board systems? If just one of them is as low as Solstice's I think we should examine all of them on an all-or-nothing basis. --Merovingian[[Image:Atombomb.gif|]]Talk 00:54, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems marginally notable. Rhymeless 02:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. 3000 users doesn't make it notable. I'd need evidence of some other form of notability. Average Earthman 08:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable BBS. — Gwalla | Talk 16:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert - no mention of any fame in the article even - Tεxτurε 18:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with haste. --Golbez 08:15, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rewriting adverts to make them less obviously adverts comes close to being sneaky vandalism. It is still an advert and still, as far as I can tell, no more notable than thousands of other internet forusm. Jallan 15:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

Craft's Journey — Add to this discussion

Vanity. Entry for a movie not listed in IMDB, with cast & crew not listed in imdb, and which only specifies that it makes "groundbreaking" use of depicting things as penises. Luvcraft 19:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't find anything about this on Google (except sites with mirrored data from Wikipedia). Also, if this is deleted then it's companion page RAT editing should be VfDed, I can't find anything on that and the name Fitzo McGriggen is completely fabricated. Avorcent Smythe and Fitzo McGriggen, what a pair! - Eisnel 06:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Talk about booshwah. Probably more BS from the jerk who hit us up with that "Hollywood Jam" crap a couple of months ago. "RAT editing?" One wouldn't "edit" to get that implied style of theirs. Patent nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 06:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is absurd as a joke. Delusional vanity. N.b. the "Alan Smythie" homonymn name. Geogre 13:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Put the camera down and hit delete. - UtherSRG 15:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Argh. Ianb 21:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Minorities in U S and IQ tests — Add to this discussion

This is completely duplicative of parts of Race and intelligence and in fact, it is based on an older version of that very article -- found at a mirror site here: http://www.fact-index.com/r/ra/race_and_intelligence.html -- This is a decent first try at creating an article, but I think it should be deleted, and any additional info that is NPOV (which I don't see myself) could be added to the original article. BCorr|Брайен 21:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I'd speedy delete it, but duplicate articles don't seem to be a valid speedy deletion reason. Odd that, so I proposed a new rule. Delete. - UtherSRG 20:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I thought that this was discussed and deleted once before. Anyway, you're right...delete. - Lucky 6.9 21:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: What a dreadful topic to even have an article on. Geogre 22:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Again. Put the stake in the *heart*! Denni☯ 01:36, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad — Add to this discussion

Copyright violation as documented on relevant Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad. This is a verbatim copy of another site[15]. I do not know the man to say whether or not he deserves an article but I am sure he does not deserve this one ... Refdoc 22:11, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I have put a copyvio notice on Mirza Masroor Ahmad and listed it on the copyvio page. Refdoc, for future reference, please list copyvios on the copyvio page. Thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poorly written, hard to decifer (who is he?), and a copyvio. Harro5 03:36, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

SAP NetWeaver — Add to this discussion

Substubby advertisment; delete. Lupo 22:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • wouldn't say it's an ad, but this article contains absolutely no information on its subject. Delete unless subject is notable (no idea) and article improved. Ianb 23:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The company is certainly notable, but this is not a particularly notable software package, insofar as I can tell. Might merit an additional sentence in the SAP (company) article, but this individual entry seems to have little value. Weak vote for delete. -FZ 23:48, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The company is notable, this product is not. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not an article. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:08, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Phuddi and Choot — Add to this discussion

WP is not a dictionary, and the image in Phuddi is a copyvio to boot. Delete. (Going to list the image on Copyright problems now.) Lupo 22:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Double-standards. How come Verlan isn't removed? What is particularly wrong about having Hindi slang in Wikipedia if you can have French slang, or for that matter, American slang?
  • Delete as slang / dicdef. But thanks for the expansion of my expletive vocabulary. Ianb 22:24, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, at the risk of being a phuddi duddy. Geogre 02:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Groans the jokes on here are getting worse... Somebody choot this guy... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, there are some images sensitive homosexual men just weren't supposed to see... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • that image has inspired me to create a new film editing style to complement RAT editing. Ianb 22:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete more foreign language slang dicdefs. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Metapsychology etc. — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Metapsychology etc.

Hezbollah (Pre-2000) — Add to this discussion

While Hezbollah does not rank among my favorite political groups of all time, this article is just rambling and POV. Even the title is clumsy. - Lucky 6.9 23:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

moved to clean up Hezbollah. 65.30.121.64 00:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • 65.30.121.64 is the anon author. If you want it cleaned up, you have a lot of work ahead of you. - Lucky 6.9 00:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Everyone wearing asbestos? (POV, private, rambling.) Geogre 02:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • This is basically paranoid ravings. This crap has been on VfD before, and is just a reposting, so can be immediately deleted before. 80.229.39.194 13:16, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Factual accuracy is very low. This all "article" is just bashing of Israeli officers. I am suspicious that the "author" of this was also responsible for incitement that was removed from article about Moshe Ya'alon (IDF chief of staff). See Talk:Moshe Ya'alon for more information. MathKnight 20:01, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is now closed. Result: 3 deletes, no keeps. Deleted. DJ Clayworth 16:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

July 27

TLAs from AAA to DZZ, TLAs from EAA to HZZ, TLAs from IAA to LZZ, TLAs from MAA to PZZ, TLAs from QAA to TZZ, TLAs from UAA to XZZ, TLAs from YAA to ZZZ — Add to this discussion

Was on VfD before, discussion from then follows. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 00:14, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC) moved from main vfd page. Rossami

  • TLAs from AAA to DZZ, TLAs from EAA to HZZ,TLAs from IAA to LZZ,TLAs from MAA to PZZ,TLAs from QAA to TZZ,TLAs from UAA to XZZ,TLAs from YAA to ZZZ - These list are of little use, and don't belong in an encyclopedia. —Noldoaran (Talk) 19:36, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep: Useful. Optim 19:40, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete: Useless because they dont organize these words they just list them. Bensaccount 20:23, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. These are useful for maintenance purposes, shows what TLAs are in use, makes it easy to get to "nearby" ones. I use these pages pretty regularly, and I think if other people used them more often, they'd be less likely to make hashed-up messes of TLA connections to articles. Stan 20:33, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Useful. Maroux 20:36, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
    • Keep. Really useful. Secretlondon 20:55, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Useless clutter. Everyking 21:05, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. --Wik 21:13, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Perl 21:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Move to Wikipedia: namespace. Useful for meta purposes. Anthony DiPierro 21:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Why? Because I like 'em. IMHO a very good example of something that's appropriate for a Web encyclopedia though not a print encyclopedia. Dpbsmith 01:15, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, just as useful as List of people by name etc. - SimonP 02:41, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. No case has been made for deletion. Just BTW, these articles represent a great deal of work by some valued contributors. Andrewa 15:10, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - next will be "list of all four-letter abbreviations", "list of all five-letter abbreviations", etc. This isn't a list of real abbreviations but any combination that could ever possibly be an abbreviation. Any reader looking for AAH will search for "AAH" and not "TLAs from AAA to DZZ" - Texture 16:17, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Useful administration tool. -- Graham  :) 20:59, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Votes or comments below this line

  • Why have you put all these comments about the four-letter acronyms into the VFD for the three-letter acronym pages? —Stormie 06:04, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know why the old discussion on 4 letter abbreviations is here either, but delete the 3 letter ones too. Wikipedia shouldn't be a database for all possible mathematical combinations or anything like that. How many three-letter combinations are possible with our alphabet is encyclopedic info, but I don't think these lists are. Everyking 11:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • TLAs: 17,576 with exactly 3 letters ignoring case, 46,656 if you include digits. FLAs: 456,976 and 1,679,616. Aren't you glad you asked? :-) Kenwarren 20:07, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • Probably not, considering that he didn't ask for this info. Re-read carefully :-) --Diberri | Talk 21:48, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting and useful. - SimonP 15:38, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joyous 15:42, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep though maybe move to wikipedia namespace. Also, I've replaced the old discussion above with the actual deletion discussion for these articles (from [16]). -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks Graham! —Stormie 00:36, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral, although tending towards deletion. Delete. How are these more useful than typing in the desired TLA into the search box? I agree with Everyking, plus I haven't seen any evidence of how these lists are useful (or interesting, for that matter). Also, how could these articles possibly "represent a great deal of work" by anyone (as Andrewa stated above)? A 30-sec Perl script could accomplish this quite easily. --Diberri | Talk 01:21, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cribcage 03:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Kenwarren 04:12, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Wikipedia: namespace. Given that the pages survived the previous listing by almost a 3:1 margin, I wonder how legitimate it is to relist them for deletion. -Sean Curtin 06:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Wikipedia: namespace. -- The Anome 09:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful. bbx 10:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Far more useful and informative than many of the inaccurate and incomplete lists on Wikipedia that are constantly in desperate need of cleanup. I've used these often once I discovered them and keep planning to pull out books with many abbreviations and update them. Jallan 17:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have used them as a resource before. Rmhermen 21:29, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. God knows acronyms are the bane of our lives - having a reference to determine what Mr. Smartypants was talking about in trying to impress me never hurts. Denni☯ 01:13, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly. Jgm 03:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:06, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree with Diberri, char a,b,c; for(a = 'A'; a <= 'Z'; a++) for(b = 'A'; b <= 'Z'; b++) for(c = 'A'; c <= 'Z'; c++) fprintf(fp,"%c%c%c",a,b,c);. Very useless list since TLAs are created all the time, and anyone who wants a TLA lookup will search for it.
  • Keep - David Gerard 12:37, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. For those of you who think searching replaces these, they are also useful for a negative search. IE, I have invented something or started my own company and want a TLA that isn't being used. Just look at the red links.The Steve 14:17, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Results: concensus to keep. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mandar Wavde — Add to this discussion

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

Another computer tech, another self-aggrandizing and even sanctimonious vanity article. What is it with these guys? - Lucky 6.9 01:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, not encyclopedic - Mandar, why don't you create an account and put that text on your user page? —Stormie 02:45, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid he doesn't list which hospital he was born in, so this will have to go. Sorry to do this to a fellow "highly talented linguist", but 削除に賛成します! I mean, delete. Ianb 05:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe we could at least give him a link on the List of people who use the public transport article? Nah? OK, delete! - Eisnel 06:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Still not important. Delete. Average Earthman 10:05, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Break the vanity mirror. Delete. - UtherSRG 15:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, sure, air pollution he's against. Wikipedia, on the other hand. Delete: vanity. Geogre 16:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:32, 30 Jul 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.

Schoolboy — Add to this discussion

Cannot verify. (But it's hard to formulate an appropriate Google query for this). The only definition of schoolboy in AHD4 is "A boy attending school." Suggest deletion, unless the author or someone else can give a verifiable citation for this meaning. Dpbsmith 02:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • eh? What a sad, terminally unfunny prank. Sounds more like utter nonsense or something very local. Orphan article. Delete. Ianb 05:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • OMG, this happened to me in school! My assailants didn't call it "Schoolboy" though, they called it "Ha ha, you suck!". I searched Google too, to no avail. I agree with Ianb, unless some justification shows up, Delete. - Eisnel 05:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but ask contributor for some reference: This jape is old as the hills, has been featured in Three Stooges, etc. I don't know if it has a name. This would be a name for it, but I should like to see confirmed as in usage. Geogre 13:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Hey... I've got an idea. I'm gonna go over there and talk to that guy. You come up behind him a little bit later and kneel down. When you are set, I'll delete. - UtherSRG 15:05, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it is great! But it is a Dictionary entry not an encyclopedia article. Delete. Arevich 17:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't even make any sense to me. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nick Tahou Hots — Add to this discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptic (talk • contribs) 14:06, 13 October 2007


Pure advertising for a restaurant. Signed, --1pezguy 02:58, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid I must disagree.

This restaurant is a cultural Icon for the region that has been around for decades. Search Google for Nick Tahou and you will see many more entries for it than for your average hometown restaurant. This is attributable to the large student population from the city's half dozen 4-year schools including the university of Rochester and Rochester Institute of Technology.

Signed - Elton Ray

  • But is it notable outside of Rochester? If not, delete. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:10, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I note that "Elton Ray" (anon user 24.169.106.153, and I highly suggest he get himself an ID here, instead of editing anonymously) removed the VFD header just after he posted here. (I've taken the liberty of restoring it.)
    I think the article needs a POV-ectomy first, then we can see if what's left is encyclopedic. I would take a swing at it, but it's getting late and that actually needs to be done by someone familiar with the restaurant. Or I could always wax poetic about the Deer Park Tavern in Newark, Delaware, where many a University of Delaware student spent many a night...
    My vote is keep, cleanup, and reevaluate. - Kenwarren 04:15, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • It does get a fair number of hits. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the region (and the description of its most notable menu item has put me off visiting) - if notable, keep and NPOV. I would be particularly interested in a correlation with medical statistics (coronary disease, stomach complaints) in the area. If kept, merge info on Garbage Plate (do not read while eating breakfast) here. Ianb 05:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem to be much worse than that Bun Boy article I fixed up a while back. Needs the aforementioned POV-ectomy something fierce. Merge the "garbage plate" article while we're at it. Order up! - Lucky 6.9 06:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One final word on the restaurant's notability outside of Rochester and I am done proselytizing. The restaurant was featured in a Georgetown university newspaper in Washington DC, a blogger in Ontario Canada mentions his visit, Non-Rochester, New york web sites: roadfood.com, wanderlist.com, aaroadtrips.com, topazguide.com, www.travelconsumer.com. It is a bizarre regional phenomenon. if you browse: http://www.geocities.com/garbageplates, you will see around 80 area establishments that serve the dish. The food is quite unheathy. I believe one of these dishes includes over 100 grams of fat. Thanks, you folks are doing an excellent job. - Elton Ray

  • Keep. It is notable. I used to live in Rochester, and when I'd travel, folks would ask me how often I ate there. I've seen Tahou's soda mugs all over. It's one of those things that you notice when you know it, but don't when you don't. - UtherSRG 14:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. POV cleanup needed. Arevich 17:28, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd never heard of a "garbage plate" before and it seems to me that it's worth knowing about. Article in present form does not seem unreasonably promotional. However, I would caution User:24.169.106.153 that deleting VfD notices is very, very bad form and is not calculated to win Wikipedians over to your cause. Dpbsmith 17:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
P. S. Google search on "Nick Tahou Hots" in quotations and this comes up as the first link! Take a look. (Not quite safe for work). Appetite appeal! Dpbsmith 17:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kenwarren probably has it right: it needs a clean-up and reevaluation. I've eaten there a few times, and it's an experience. Finding someone who's been there and can still write with NPOV will be difficult, though. Ventura 17:50, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
  • Keep 'n clean. I think that if it's notable in Rochester then it qualifies. Afterall, I think it would be great if people traveling to a new city could use the Wikipedia to learn about that city's notable features. - Eisnel 17:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comment re notability. this site says:
Another somewhat unique dish that has received undeserved national acclaim, through the writings of Jan & Michael Stern, is the Nick Tahou "Garbage Plate." What you will find on the garbage plate is a little of everything: hot dog, cheese burger, home fries, macaroni salad, and baked beans, in various combinations if you wish. The problem is that none of the parts of the garbage plate are very good. However, that's not the point. Young men who like to have contests to see how much beer or food they can consume love the "Garbage Plate" as more of a ritual of rite of passage from boyhood to manhood. Others enjoy it simply as a form of culinary masochism or as a means of molesting culinary snobs. If you move to Rochester, go Nick Tahou's and order up a "Garbage Plate." This will help you assimilate and prepare you to answer questions about it from out-of-towners.
The reference is presumable to Jane and Michael Stern's book, "Roadfood: The Coast-to-Coast Guide to 500 of the Best Barbeque Joints, Lobster Shacks, Ice Cream Parlors, Highway Diners, and Much More." If, in fact, it is mentioned in this book, which I do not have at hand, then I would say that it has more than local notability. As well as intrinsic interest. Dpbsmith 18:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Another comment re notability. Searching on Google Groups for "garbage plate" in quotes yield 484 hits. almost all of them relevant, and most of them mentioning Nick Tahou Hots by name. In other words, the dish, while available elsewhere, is so closely associated with Nick Tahou that it is reasonable to have Garbage plate redirect to Nick Tahou Hots. 484 hits isn't too bad, although a fair proportion are in alt.culture.ny-upstate, some wny.rochester.freenet, and (for some reason I haven't yet determined) quite a few in rec.music.phish (and some other music groups). BTW I'm not shilling for the place, I don't believe I've ever been in Rochester, I hadn't heard of a "garbage plate" until yesterday, just trying to assess notability. Dpbsmith 22:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 19:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP definately a regional icon. as much as the Anchor Bar is for its invention of "buffalo wings". Currently I live in Maine... people up here have even heard of it. Alkivar
  • Keep. Definitely regionally notable in the Rochester Metro Area. Knowledge of it spread throughout the country via the many universities and colleges in Rochester.--Samuel J. Howard 17:03, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • If this is the birthplace of the Garbage Plate, keep. I've heard it discussed far outside the region. -- WOT 20:42, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP - First, this is not advertising for the restaurant. I started the Garbage Plate article because someone asked me what it was when I told them about it. I took a picture of it as well. I am from the Rochester area, so I don't know how well known Nick Tahous is anywhere else. It is probably one of the most known places around here though, you could probably mention it to 10 people and at least 9 would have heard of it although very few probably eat there. - martianpenguin
some of us eat there :) i made a 22hr road trip to get my tahou's fix one weekend out of boredom. - Alkivar
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Datayoung com — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Datayoung com

Mary Ann Ramirez — Add to this discussion

"A woman worthy of notable mention.". I disagree strongly with this statement, however pleasant she may be. Orphan article. Ianb 05:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

correction: I strongly disagree with this statement in the context of Wikipedia. Ianb 14:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, of course. It's touching that her student likes her so much. =o) - Eisnel 05:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The student whom wrote this also needs to see his/her English teacher. :-P
Not really. Writing clear. Telegraphic, though. Inappropriate for encyclopedia article. Dpbsmith 14:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Thankfully, the world isn't so short of pleasant people that merely being one makes you noteworthy. Average Earthman 10:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I hope the contributor finds a way to make Mary Ann Ramirez aware of the compliment before the article is deleted. Dpbsmith 14:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. 3rd person vanity. - UtherSRG 14:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Nice sentiment. Delete as suck-up. - Lucky 6.9 16:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • May Ms. Ramirez live long and prosper. There are few compliments so valued by teachers as those from students, and I believe Ms. Ramirez is indeed an exceptional and noteworthy educator. I regret that the noteworthiness does not extend encyclopedically. Delete. Denni☯ 01:22, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

Georg Reiff — Add to this discussion

About a young German professor who doesn't seem to have done anything of note. Most of the article seems to be from his faculty bio. Vanity page? A few Google hits, some are faculty info pages. He's apparently written a book or two, but I can hardly find anything about them. - Eisnel 05:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • the institutions mentioned don't appear to be part of the "academic mainstream". "Weston Reserve University" is based in Kuwait and was created in 2003, and "Prometheus College" lists as its address an office suite in London. For the one "genuine" place of higher learning mentioned, RWTH Aachen, there is no indication of a successful graduation taking place. I would want independent verification of notability before withdrawing my vote for deletion. Ianb 05:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
comment: the books mentioned are all "being worked on", "to be published". I think stripping this article down to the relevent, notable facts will result in a substub. Ianb 06:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: These U.'s can get added to the List of diploma mills, and this prof. can do something notable before writing an article on himself. Vanity. Geogre 13:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Then hunt him down and burn his diplomas. - UtherSRG 14:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I like the mini-biographies in Wikipedia, even self-published ones. But this one contains so much difficult to verify or impossible to verify information that it is useless. Arevich 17:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. "prometheus college" (website owned by reiff himself) advertises to german and austrian would-be students who can't enter university in their home countries because they failed their high-school exams. as for the other "university", see this post: New phony of the day: Weston Reserve University. btw the corresponding entry on the german wikipedia has been listed for deletion independently. regards, High on a tree 14:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Garbage Plate — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Garbage Plate

Burgmeister — Add to this discussion

Foreign word dicdef, which is also wrong: Bürgermeister is the German for mayor; Burgmeister is not a common surname. Burgmeister is probably also not a word in general use, although it could be translated as "castle master". Ianb 05:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. The Duden doesn't even list it. Definitely not a common surname. --Palapala 10:30, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two completely wrong language assertions in a row. Geogre 12:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a delete today. - UtherSRG 14:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete another useless non-english dicdef. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:44, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Errare humanum est — Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Contains nothing but translations of a Latin phrase into other languages. RickK 06:17, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: I'm going to get really snippy. The phrase originates in English, in Alexander Pope's Essay on Man, and this is therefore a translation of English into Latin and then into all kinds of languages. Grrrrr! Know thy Pope. Geogre 12:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Gotta say it: To err is human, to delete divine. - UtherSRG 14:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Latin phrases. Someone might type it in wanting to know what it means. Mark Richards 20:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not a Latin phrase, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to list of latin phrases. No, wikipedia is not a latin dictionary, but of course we have to have articles on common phrases like this. --Lussmu 20:13, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Latin phrases. Rossami 21:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

RAT editing — Add to this discussion

Patent nonsense from the Craft's Journey ding-dongs. - Lucky 6.9 06:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • "VFD editing is a method of wiki editing in which large, prominent votes for deletion are often portrayed in a phallic manner." As "Fitzo McGriggen" seems to be a mythical creature only known to Wikipedia clones, I think this one is for the chopper. Ianb 9:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete My omphalos says that this is prominent nonsense. Geogre 12:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. - UtherSRG 14:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of car models — Add to this discussion

A redundant (and orphaned) list. Only contains models in India. We already have List of automobile manufacturers and most manufacturers have a model list. [[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 09:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Well meant, I'm sure, but an easy delete. Geogre 12:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Run over it with a Fiat. - UtherSRG 14:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Back over it with a Mahindra just to make sure.  :^) Delete. - Lucky 6.9 17:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - redundant and terribly incomplete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep under new name. - SimonP 03:40, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. 5 delete 1 keep. Deleted. DJ Clayworth 16:34, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andy Davidson — Add to this discussion

If we don't know any more than this about him, is he worth an article? Deb 11:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • !noteworthy. kill -9. - UtherSRG 14:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, in Google searches he's usually the first name having to do with Worms history. However, it seems like everything notable about him could be just as easily summed up in a sentence or two on the Worms (game) article. If more data can be found about him, I'd say he has potential. But if not, I vote to delete and put this info in the Worms article. - Eisnel 17:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Relevant info is already in Worms (game). Just delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tray Surfing — Add to this discussion

I know I pulled some moderately silly stunts on the farm, but surely this is a joke? --Robert Merkel 14:28, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Kill it, or find an article to merge it into and redirect. - UtherSRG 14:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • "There are other, non-official ways...." Supposing, therefore, that there is an official way? Suggesting that there is a governing body and rulebook? No. People do dumb things. They sled on trays in dry weather. They put their tongues into electric fans. No article for any other form of self harm. Delete. Geogre 16:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't think it's technically a joke, in that I've watched plenty of drunken undergraduates do this; however, it hardly seems to rate an entry. Delete. -FZ 17:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • if How-Tos were encylopedic, I'd suggest creating an article along the lines of "How to successfully compete in the Darwin_Awards". Might be worth merging content in a putative Alternative Extreme Sports or something, which could include other such silliness (bookshelf bungee jumping comes to mind) in contrast to properly organised Extreme sports such as Extreme ironing.
  • Delete. Cribcage 03:18, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • We didn't keep Slicky boarding back in March, either, so delete this. Rhymeless 04:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not Jackass. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vodafonturm — Add to this discussion

From VfD:

  • I'm not sure about this one. Is there any particular reason why this radio tower is in any way significant? (posted by: Robert Merkel 14:52, 2004 Jul 27)
  • Comment: To begin with, its correct name is "Vodafone-Turm". That's where it should be moved, if there's concensus to keep. The only significant details about this communication tower might be that (1) it is built in form of a tripod (conventional ones have a simple cylindrical base) and (2) it was raised within a few days... --Palapala 16:59, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
  • The tower has an unconventional design and should so be placed in the Wikipedia! (posted by: 80.185.98.130 16:35, 2004 Jul 27)
  • Thank you, O Talking Hosiery. There's nothing notable about this tower that I can ascertain. The only notable towers that come to mind are Mount Sutro in San Francisco, the NHK tower in Tokyo and that 1200' monster out in South Dakota. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 16:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. But redirect to its correct name ofc. bbx 17:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's a tower. "How is this tower unlike all others?" Well, it's a tower. I agree that it's a marginal case. Some towers are quite notable, shadow their communities, are celebrated, etc., but, if such is the case here, it's not clear from the article. A photo of said tower might help explain its unusual structure. Geogre 18:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • this is marginally technically notable, mainly due to the short construction period. It would probably feature in any potted history of German broadcasting towers. On the other hand there doesn't seem to be a corresponding article in the German Wikipedia. Tentative keep. Ianb 21:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cribcage 03:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have articles on less important things. Gzornenplatz 23:58, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep ("...not paper..."). We have a lot of other articles on tall structures, especially in and near Germany, probably because someone active in the German Wikipedia has a fascination with them. Unless we wish to do something systematic about them, this should be kept like the others. -- Jmabel 01:22, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. [Insert usual digression about trying to avoid systematic bias on borderline cases such as this]. Pcb21| Pete 23:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is an interesting design. Carter 02:49, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved dicussion

Brendan Quarry — Add to this discussion

  • Delete. Vanity page. Matthew Simoneau 16:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I see no claim for significance. Delete. Average Earthman 16:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I just knew this was going to be either a college student or a computer tech. Delete as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 16:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I work in computers, where's my encyclopedia article? - Eisnel 17:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • it's quite simple: you write it yourself. Don't forget to include date and hospital of birth, and preferred mode of transport, if you have a cat whether it likes tripe or not, and don't forget the {{subst:vfd}} tag. Ianb 20:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Ianb 20:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete New to the Wikipedia — I wrote the article; I am not and have never met Quarry... but I can certainly see your point of view and I have no qualms about the article being deleted. 2004-07-29T00:18 (UTC)
  • Delete. He's a user interface consultant, big deal. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:34, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A Good Segment — Add to this discussion

More essay than encyclopedia article. Weird title, too. What would be left once this was cleaned up? - Lucky 6.9 16:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I feel like this could be merged with something, but I don't know what. Business? Economics? Industry? Marketing? I'd say [[segment]], but we don't currently have an article on the word in this sense. Triskaideka 17:17, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: "Market segment," but what on earth is it doing here? "Good segment?" "Good?" "Segment?" It seems clipped out of someone's text or textbook, and it's MBA English. I doubt anyone would find it as a copyvio from a web source, but it sure seems like it came from a book. Geogre 18:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This was contributed by anonymous user 202.59.128.7. I looked at five of the author's contributions: all appear to be copyright violations. See [17] for a list. The similarity of individual sentences and paragraphs with web sites suggests common copying from some original textbook source. I suggest all these articles be deleted, even if we can't find out where they are copied from. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more details. Gdr 18:53, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
  • Delete - given this user's track record, I don't think we should bet on the chance that it isn't copyvio. Also not an encyclopedia article. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:38, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tegel — Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Much as I admire speakers of other languages who attempt to write articles in English, this is completely incomprehensible in its present form. Deb 16:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep and list for cleanup. Seems sufficiently encyclopedic to me, and if we can make sense out of Battle of Vysehrad I bet we can handle this. Triskaideka 17:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I get the exact same result by running the german wikipedia article through babelfish. People should not paste machine-translated articles into wikipedia. If somebody wants to fix the article they can always start from the German original. Thue | talk 18:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and list on cleanup. RickK 19:39, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: the same anon user has evidently been doing the same with a whole raft of articles, many detailed articles on power line construction / electricity supply, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=80.185.105.163 . I think most are keepable, but there's a helluva lot of cleanup needing to be done. Anyone for Konti-Skan? It might be worth dropping an encouraging note to the author, hinting th articles would benefit from a more leisurely pace of addition. Ianb 19:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, I've cleaned this one up. People interested in the history of medium-wave antennas might want to re-add the reference. Ianb 20:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep revised article

end moved discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tegel. 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) 13:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Gilbert — Add to this discussion

Getting into an edit war over this with the anon who posted it. This is a character who appeared in a single episode of The Wild Wild West. Little to do with the character and reads more like a plot synopsis of the article on the episode called Night of the Steel Assassin which he wrote as well. Tried to redirect to main article...anon keeps reverting even after I left a polite note on his previously nonexistent talk page. Whatcha think? - Lucky 6.9 17:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Agreed, delete or at least redirect. It's interesting that the synopsis here is more detailed than the duplicate one in the Night of the Steel Assassin article. A redirect to that article would work, but I'm tempted to go for delete here (after moving the info over to the Steel Assassin article). I don't think that a character who was in a single episode is noteworthy, unless it can be shown that the character achieved some cult status or something. - Eisnel 18:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE. -- orthogonal 18:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft. Some people have way too much time on their hands. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fire Star 01:31, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm the anonymous poster of this entry. For me, Nina was one of the two most memorable characters from the Wild, Wild West series (the other was Emma Valentine, the match-maker from Hell). Not bad, after almost 40 years. The reason I created this entry was to provide background (and links) to the suggestion and hypnosis entries. The writer did a really good job of including these in his story. The entry for "The Night of the Steel Assassin" deals more with Col. Torres and his grievances. This entry deals more with Nina, who is barely mentioned in the episode plot summary. Hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from.

P.S. I'm not starting a war here. I just came back to look for the entry I'd just made and found it missing. Later I saw you had changed it to a redirect, but to the wrong entry. If you redirect to the Wild, Wild West, you'll really never find any information about Nina.

  • Good point, and I'm sympathetic to your frustration. Here's why I tried to redirect it: One-time characters, unless they've developed a sort of cult following, aren't particularly good subjects for an encyclopedia entry. It would be like writing an article about some "Star Trek" ensign who gets blown to smithereens five minutes into the show. Believe me, putting an article here is by no means a personal attack. I'm sure I speak for all present when I say thank you for your civility. We've gotten ripped from lips to hips in the past over less. Best, Lucky 6.9 16:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Anon, you mentioned that the Night of the Steel Assassin article didn't have an adequate synopsis. I encourage you to update that article. I agree that the synopsis you wrote for the Nina Gilbert article was more thorough, it would incorporate nicely into the Steel Assassin article. Then you could link things to the Steel Assassin article, or have links in the Steel Assassin article that go to pages on hypnosis and suggestion. And if you decide to stick around and make edits (if we didn't scare you away), create an account and then introduce yourself to the community at the new user log. - Eisnel 17:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I couldn't agree more. Heaven knows this site needs all the folks who act in good faith as it can get. PLEASE take a moment to create an account. - Lucky 6.9 18:00, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. I went ahead and merged the episode synopsis from Nina Gilbert to Night of the Steel Assassin, since it was far superior to the existing one. The Steve 10:18, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Concensus to redirect. DJ Clayworth 16:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How blackholes give information back — Add to this discussion

Original research. Also, misspelled title. Gdr 18:36, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

  • Agree. Ilyanep (Talk) 19:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Now if this guy had come up with driver software enabling me to use a black hole as a storage device, I would be otherwisely minded. As is: "I published a new analytic thought-experiment on blackholes, (...) 2004 in my actual website". Delete from actual Wikipedia as OR. Ianb 20:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but before you do, can somebody contact the guy and talk to him about how to contribute more effectively? Don't bite the newcomers and all. His website linked in the article has his email address. Sorry I can't do it, no access to email atm. - Taxman 20:32, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 23:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Dmr2 11:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Original research Delete. Average Earthman 13:22, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 29, 2004. Expose it to a serious review among all of you. My title is well choosen: It means to explain the derivations of how information can be given back from backholes as "dark energy". This is a hot issue in astronomy and physics, right now. Therefore read the press release on my website and study the derivation given in " thought experiment". And also "bijlage 1" (in dutch), referring to the formula I bring foreward in this dicussion, dated from 1999. You can reach me at the email-addres: [dan.visser@planet.nl]. Be aware: Hawking can't tell anything about "dark energy". And I bring up a relation between "giving information back from blackholes and "dark energy". Moreover, Hawking hasn't published his claim yet and I already did in my website and to this board of critici. Keep it in discussion and give it a chance in reviewing. Sincerely Dan Visser, the author of the article.

  • Delete - original research - Tεxτurε 20:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research and signed first-person essay. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:41, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Dan, it may well be that your proposal is sound and that your theoretical reasoning is on track. However, Wikipedia is not a place to posit. It is a place for =what is known to be true= to be published. Stephen Hawking himself could not post an article here on new thinking regarding black holes. Original research is precisely that, and it is not Wikipedia's job or desire to act as peer editor or referee. Please do not see this as a rejection of your work. It is not. It is simply that what you propose to place in Wikipedia is non-encyclopedic in nature. But it would be wonderful if you could submit an article on what is currently known and generally accepted to be true about our ability to derive information from a black hole. Denni☯ 02:04, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)

Josh Zee — Add to this discussion

There are 183 Google hits for "Josh Zee". Most of them are Wikipedia mirror sites. He's a member of the band Protein which seems to exist, but he doesn't deserve an article. Acegikmo1 19:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, Protein (band) is in allmusic.com and launch.yahoo.com, and they're a signed band (Sony), so they certainly belong. I'm not that familiar with the standards for Wikipedia's music articles... how popular does a band have to be for its artists to get their own pages? What bugs me is that the band's article is a stub, there's no reason why "Josh Zee" can't be a section in that article. His article could be turned into a redirect to Protein's article, and he could be given a section there, until such time as the info on Protein and him become abundant enough to warrant seperate articles. So I vote merge and redirect. No delete, because I think wiki links to "Josh Zee" shouldn't show up in red. - Eisnel 18:01, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Protein (band), and de-link the member's names from that article. IMHO, the standard for separate articles for members of bands would be a) if they are noteworthy for additional reasons, or b) if the band article is getting too large. Niteowlneils 19:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. Consensus to redirect. DJ Clayworth 16:43, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mikael Voss — Add to this discussion

some kid. Maximus Rex 19:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Date of birth. Check. Brother's date of birth. Check. Hospital of birth. Missing. Gratuitous mention of social worker's name. Check. Let's float this one down the Rhine. Delete. Ianb 20:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • What? How could he have forgotten the hospital? He gets points for wikis and having Christmas and his birthday at the same time, but loses them all because he doesn't read the rules and play well with others. Delete as vanity. Next time, put the hospital in. - Lucky 6.9 20:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: This seems like a plot for a Fassbinder movie. Poor kid. Vanity. Geogre 00:10, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The page has been blanked by the IP of the original author - I say we take this as a retraction and speedy it? - TB 14:34, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)


Ray_Bohlin — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ray Bohlin


World's Fittest Man — Add to this discussion

Merge with Paddy Doyle. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 20:25, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • agree. Ianb 21:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete after merging, unless a rewrite can be done to discuss the title and how it is determined in general, past holders, etc. Geogre 00:03, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with and redirect to Paddy Doyle. Redirect can change once somebody else gains the title. Spectatrix 00:05, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
  • Paddy Doyle is enough. "Fittest" is too subjective. Fit for what? I'm sure there are people in the world who can do many physical things better than this guy... Delete.Fire Star 01:27, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The title is apparently given to the winner of the World Physical Fitness Challenge, which Paddy has set a new record for. Change of suggestion: rename World's Fittest Man article to World Physical Fitness Challenge with history, prior title-holders, etc. if someone is willing to undertake the task. Spectatrix 02:25, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect somewhere appropriate. If "World's Fittest Man" is indeed the official title given by the World Physical Fitness Challenge, then this shouldn't be deleted altogether, just redirected to the appropriate place, which is preferably an article on the World Physical Fitness Challenge (as Spectatrix said), or, until that exists, to the article on the person who currently holds the title. Regarding Fire Star's comment about it being too subjective: this would be subjective if it were World's fittest man, but since it's World's Fittest Man, it's a title rather than a concept. - Eisnel 18:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah, yes, the distinction hadn't occurred to me. That makes sense. I'll change to rename (or at least point out the distinction a bit more), merge or redirect. Fire Star 13:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tredici — Add to this discussion

A card game invented last year. Not notable. Several Google hits, but they are Wiki-mirrors, or an inclusion on lists of invented games that direct back to the author's home page. I couldn't find any evidence that anyone outside his immediate circle is actually playing the game. Joyous 21:42, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • delete. Sounds interesting, but this is the wrong place. Ianb 21:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Direct author to pagat.com with best wishes. Isomorphic 04:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - original "research". -- Cyrius|✎ 02:02, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • And delete because of the copyright problem as well. Articles "used with permission" are not allowed. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:26, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep without reservation. Remember that other semi-obscure card game (last winter, or was it fall?) that turned out to be really worth keeping? 259 03:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice try, Mike, but Ambition's no more notable than this, and no more likely to pass VfD. Delete. Denni☯ 18:43, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
      • Who is Mike? 259 21:34, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm (presumably) the Mike that Isomorphic is referring to. I say: Keep. 1> This is a fairly well-known game, according to my research. 2> He's trying to contribute positively to society, so lay off his back. 3> Never played tredici, but we shouldn't assume (as the Wikipedia cabal often do) that it sucks ass just because it's obscure. Mike Church 22:35, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, but do let me add one caveat: Jordon Kalilich should know that anything on Wikipedia becomes open source; if he doesn't want to relinquish the copyright to his game, he shouldn't post the rules here, and should ask for his deletion. That in mind, I redact my vote: I choose to delegate it to Mr. Kalilich. If he wishes to have the article deleted knowing that, then I change my vote. If he does not speak, then I say keep. Mike Church 22:39, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, because it's not notable. It's irrelevant whether or not the game is good or not. Wikipedia does not seek to scoop other sites or be the first to report "memes on the rise." Wikipedia does not seek to discover and promote worthy-but-little-known things that deserve to be better known. Whenever Tredici becomes important, someone can contribute an article on it. I haven't found, nor has anyone presented, evidence to convince me that Tredici is important yet. [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:32, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Brian Caswell — Add to this discussion

Brian Caswell 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 rewrite the article about the Welsh author. Rossami 21:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - vanity/advert. - Created by Brian Caswell about himself. He refers in the summary that the article is about "me". - Tεxτurε 21:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • 16:43, 27 Jul 2004 (hist) Brian Caswell (me)
    • 16:37, 27 Jul 2004 (hist) Snort (add external link to the website)
    • 16:37, 27 Jul 2004 (hist) Shmoo Group (add me as a link)
  • beat me to it ;-). Merge any pertinent info with Snort, which is notable, though minus points for self-promotion. Ianb 21:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Lose all the self-promotional hoo-haa. - Lucky 6.9 22:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Rewrite as a stub on Brian Caswell, the Australian author whose books are studied in schools in at least one state here. Ambivalenthysteria 00:07, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The author of notable software is not necessarily notable himself. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-written articles aren't allowed on Wikipedia. If you're famous, someone else will write one for you. If they don't, well you're not famous after all. Average Earthman 13:26, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've been bold and replaced the vanity article with one about the much more well-known Welsh/Australian author. - TB 14:22, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep new stub. Ambi 07:20, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Rewrites like this are the reason I love this page. Keep great new stub. - Lucky 6.9 03:04, 31 Jul 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.

Snort — Add to this discussion

Snort 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 move the page to Snort (software) and keep. Rossami 22:00, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - vanity/advert. - Created by Brian Caswell (see self-titled article about himself) about his own website and project. - Tεxτurε 21:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. Snort is widely used and notable. Article might need expanding though. Ianb 21:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • At present, this reads like an ad write up. If y'all know it to be widely used and notable, then please move to Snort (software) and either send to Clean Up or clean it to ensure that it reads like a discussion and description rather than a blurb. Geogre 23:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable software. Rename to Snort (software). Wile E. Heresiarch 00:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 03:30, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Notable software. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:52, 30 Jul 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.

User:IndigoGenius/Micronation — Add to this discussion

User:IndigoGenius/Micronation

IndigoGenius has restored frequently deleted content on a user subpage, saying on his main userpage: "This is My Encyclopedia. I don't care what you think about my articles, and I don't care even if they are never published in the standard Wiki. I am my own Admin, and I don't need those human rejects. Geniuses don't learn much from others anyway, but mostly from themselves, their own experiences, intuitions, and research. So here folks you will find articles that belong in a Separate Volume, the volume being User:IndigoGenius/Novel_Subject." This violates the policies on userpages, specifically the one that states that using your user subpages as personal webspace is inappropriate. Snowspinner 22:15, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Which policy does this page specifically violate? Where is that policy written? When was it passed? Please provide a link, not more circular discussion. Zocky 13:57, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Also: "I don't work for Wikipedia anymore because they are a waste of time. Nobody is paying you for your time and effort here, and to make matters worse, nobody ultimately appreciates it either. Wikipedia has thousands of users and they are all volunteers, so even if you know how to make an H-bomb, these folks couldn't care less.". Suggest moving to geocities.com, don't hit the door on the way out, mind the H-Bomb by the bins. Ianb 23:17, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) (a one person cabal).
    • Oy. Move that last bit to BJAODN and delete the rest. RickK`
  • Blatant disregard for established Wikipedia policy: Delete. Spectatrix 23:53, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
    • Which policy does this page disregard? Where is that policy written? When was it passed? Please provide a link. Zocky 13:57, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambivalenthysteria 00:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Contributor cannot distinguish fact from fiction and disregards established policy.--Gene_poole 02:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and bomb his nation back to the stone age. Seriously, he needs some banning. - UtherSRG 03:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This guy has not done anything here except promote a personal agenda while griping all the while about how horrible this site is. Let's put an end to it here and now. - Lucky 6.9 03:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and ban user for abusing Wikipedia resources. -Sean Curtin 06:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Users have been permanently blocked for a lot less abuse of/disregard for the system than this. Delete and permanently block user. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:18, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • He calls it 'My encyclopaedia'? Either send him the bill for server space and bandwidth, or delete it. If you don't like Wikipedia, you're free to leave at any time, and you free to take your data with you. Average Earthman 13:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you don't like what he says on his user page, don't look at it. User pages are not expected to conform to same standards as articles or Wikipedia:. If you think he's comments are genuinely offensive, remove them. SO, he keeps his pet version of one article in his namespace. So what? Jeez. Zocky 13:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • You're wrong, Zocky. User pages ARE expected to conform to standards. Not the same ones as articles, but there are standards. And using Wikipedia space in order to run your own encyclopedia is not an acceptable practice. RickK 19:51, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • OK, let me spell this out:
        1. User subpages with versions of articles are commonly used as scratch pads.
        2. User subpages are not commonly touched, let alone deleted, unless they contain advertising, copyright violations or are really offensive, none of which is true for this page.
        3. This page is not linked from anywhere but his user page, so it's not disruptive to the encyclopaedia in any way.
        • Also (this goes for Snowspinner, not RickK):
          • If you have problems with his page calling his collection of subpages (1 so far) "his encyclopaedia" talk to him about it or change it. This is a wiki.
          • If you have problems with his behaviour elsewhere or with people he calls friends, come out and discuss it openly with him and others. Don't misuse VFD to get at users you find problematic. Zocky 21:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


  • I'm sure Mr. Genius, being a genius and all, and so far above the rest of us that we ought to be using his farts as aftershave, will be able to identify the common phrase containing these words: door, through, ass, out. Denni☯ 02:13, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a wiki hosting service. If he's such a genius, he should be able to set up his own Wiki where he can write whatever he wants. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎
  • Now everybody hang on to your hats here. Despite the inflammatory comment Snowspinner has quoted above, IndigoGenius has a single -- one -- sub page, which is not materially different from Micronation in the main namespace. What Snowspinner hasn't quoted is the header that introduces Indigo's screed, and which makes it far more forgivable: "This Area is Indigo Brainstorm Zone". So he wrote some inflammatory (and for all we know, tongue-in-cheek) rhetoric under that header, which Snowspinner quotes. Maybe IndigoGenius is a bit wacky, but he hardly seems malicious.
So what we have here is not Indigo's own website, encyclopedia, coup d'etat, or micronation: it's simply the guy's version of a sandbox. A single sandbox page. Just as most wiki users have a sandbox in which to work out articles or techniques (one of mine involves table formatting) for stuff they want to work on but realize is not yet ready for the main namespace.
And for a single sandbox page -- and a single admittedly inflammatory introductory paragraph, the usually fair minded Graham ☺ | Talk wants to permanently ban the poor guy? UtherSRG jokes "bomb his nation back to the stone age", and seriously recommends banning? Ambivalenthysteria, who has her own hilarious parody on her user page, User:Ambivalenthysteria/top_sekrit_sysop_kabal wants to delete it? Lighten up folks, lighten up. This is supposed to be a fun project, remember, not constant knife-sharpening and arguing and banning. Lighten up.
We gain nothing by being so heavy-handed as to delete somebody's sandbox, and it can't take up much more bandwidth that, say, Snowspinner's own "evidence" against Avala, also a user subpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snowspinner/Avala_Evidence (and also not ready for prime time, in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there). Let's try to spend more time on articles in the main namespace, and less time trying to police -- and politicize -- other users' personal pages.
This need to police others' personal areas strikes me as similar to rifling through the papers on a co-worker's desk, and seems as friendly. Lay off, and live and let live. -- orthogonal 21:21, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"I don't work for Wikipedia anymore because they are a waste of time." "This is My Encyclopedia." Doesn't look like an innocent sandbox page to me. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP When did we start telling people what they could put on their user pages? If IndigoGenius has a problem with the main wiki, I say let him write as many articles in his space as he wants. There is nothing here that contravenes any policy I found: related to the encyclopedia, not advertising, not copyvio, not offensive, not personal webspace. If he ever gets to a high enough number of such articles to be of concern (which I doubt), then it is time to think about a policy saying how many subpages/diskspace/whatever each user is allowed, and not sooner. The Steve 00:08, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep/Ignore: It's a user page. If IndigoGenius actually acts on these dangerous ideas and does something to harm the Wikipedia, he should face sanction. If he ceases to contribute edits and yet adds bulk to his user pages, then he's using Wikipedia for a webhost and should have his pages deleted. Griping about Wikipedia and Wikipedians on his user pages is different, first, and the pages, as user pages that do not advocate criminal acts nor rally disruptive behavior nor advertise, just don't belong on VfD. I do try to vote by silence, but the amount of vitriol involved here is just out of bounds. If folks want to follow IndigoGenius around and watch him for bad behavior, that's not a VfD matter. Geogre 12:52, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Funcrusher Plus — Add to this discussion

Nominated for VfD by an anon who forgot to list it here. About 3000 Google hits, but whoever wrote this took one too many hits himself. Might be salvageable, but there seemingly isn't much to save. - Lucky 6.9 22:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • when creating new pages, there should be a little dropdown menu entitled "please indicate whether you are currently under the influence of controlled substances, and if yes, which". Unfortunately I'm not a rap cat so not actually in tune with the fat beats, so to speak, but I suspect this is a rewrite-or-delete job. Ianb 23:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone deems the album in question noteworthy enough to rewrite the article. Spectatrix 23:41, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's stuff like this that gives massive LSD overdoses a bad name! (Nonsense.) Geogre 23:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • "a cultural milestone is this album." ... OMG, Yoda wrote this! Save this and its "messed up martian jazz rhythms" in BJAODN. If it can get a rewrite soon then reconsider, but until then delete (let someone more coherent re-add it in the future). - Eisnel 19:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not an article. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whoopsie daisy - Add to this discussion

Whoopsie daisy 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 ambiguous. After reviewing the votes and the relevant articles, I have made this a redirect to baby talk. This will at least be consistent with Wikipedia's treatment of other phrases such as the list of Latin phrases and military slang. Rossami 21:23, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. Funny, but nonsense. RickK 22:58, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • recently I have taken to saying "aw phuddi choot" in such circumstances. Merge with Upsidaisium and delete both. Ianb 23:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: More phuddi articles like this choot, which belongs in a dictionary, is just OOS. Actually, it's a harmless dictdef, but it's a dictdef. Geogre 23:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment Too short, but not patent nonsense and a legitimate piece of information which is not likely to be found in ordinary dictionaries, as it is basically baby talk. We do not seem to have an article on Baby talk. Baby-talk phrases are very odd in that there are many phrases that are in reasonably wide use—"whoopsie-daisy" is one of them—and others that are specific to a particular family. I guess I'm leaning toward "move and redirect to baby talk." If I can think of or find a few other widely used expressions I may actually do this. Dpbsmith 11:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • There are all sorts of infantile euphemisms. Even without getting into sexual euphemism for infants, there are all the scatological ones. Then there are the nonsense syllables. One could divide the article into inarticulate noises, the negative particle ("no," "no-no," "a doesn't," etc.), euphemism, which subdivides into scatology, anatomy, and interjections -- of which "whoopsie daisy" is one. Such an article would be good, since ESL folks in particular will be puzzled by the phenomenon. Geogre 12:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Baby talk. I have created an article on Baby talk for this very purpose. I'm somewhat concerned because I don't have any expertise in linguistics or child development, and I fear that I may have mixed up two different uses of baby talk (nonverbal noises and "nursery" words), but I guess I will leave it to Wikipedians to clean up any boo-boos, whoopsie-daisies or, in general, Wiki-ickies I may have committed. There is far, far less on the Web about baby talk than I could possibly have imagined, unless I'm searching on the wrong things. Dpbsmith 14:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) P.S. We need something like "superstub" to describe something that's longer than a stub but is still just a placeholder...
    • Good job on the Baby talk article, Dpbsmith. - Eisnel
    • I agree, good job. RickK 21:17, Jul 28, 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.

Offal - Add to this discussion

Offal 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 rewritten version. Rossami 21:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

dicdef Delete been on cleanup for a month Sc147 23:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Alternatively, merge with Garbage Plate. Just joking. Delete. KeepIanb 00:01, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not up to Wiktionary standards, just a dictdef. Geogre 12:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've expanded it, please look at it again. I'd say it has gone from a dic. def. to a stub... could still be expanded further and grow into a decent article. ike9898 15:20, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, now a valid stub. - SimonP 17:10, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this is starting to look good, keep. - Eisnel 19:22, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. bbx 02:23, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep new superstub. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this. -phma 22:31, 31 Jul 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.

July 28

Donald Pogreba — Add to this discussion

More vanity. - Lucky 6.9 01:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Vanity. Delete. Spectatrix 02:08, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
  • More vanity. Delete. Ianb 07:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I have a suggestion, though. Someone should write Vanity article, an article that explains why personal vanity and tributes are not appropriate uses of WP resources. Then we can institute redirects after deletion of some of the more well-meaning vanity articles. It might save time, and if Vanity article is written pleasantly enough, save some hurt feelings, too. Geogre 12:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. Arevich 15:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • keep...author was trying trying to add details for organizations that are accepted elsewhere in the wikipedia
    • comment: User 206.127.79.51 is the original contributor of the article in question.
    • Yup, I am the original contributor. But, I am not Don. There are several individuals in this database that have made way less contributions. Perhaps Wiki needs to take all of the biographical entries and make a WikiBio database. Again, no vanity intended (it's not me!), I was just being complete. Sorry. Delete it.
    • comment: User 206.127.79.51, you might want to read this page and this one too. It's great you're contributing articles on notable organisations, although bear in mind personal association from these doesn't necessarily justify an article on yourself. --Ianb 18:15, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some sort of notability can be shown. Even if Montana Forensics Educators Association is notable, that doesn't make its officers automatically notable. - Eisnel 19:38, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No more notable than any of the other high school teachers we've deleted in the recent past. RickK 21:20, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - by someone connected to the person - Tεxτurε 20:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Ambi 07:20, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First Gentleman — Add to this discussion

First Gentleman was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP as a redirect to First Lady. Rossami 03:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dicdef. Will never be more until a woman is elected President or VP. Merge the info into First Lady of the United States, remove the ilnk from there to first gentleman, then redirect. - UtherSRG 02:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Title is US-centric to boot. Agree with UtherSRG's recommendations. Spectatrix 04:11, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
  • might make a good general article, as there have been / are other countries with female presidents. At the moment everythinng that can be said about the subject is said in First_Lady, which would presumably be the target for the redirect. Ianb 07:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't know what kind of redirect or merge would be appropriate. These titles are traditional and derived from "first citizen," which is the Roman-derived concept Americans used, in the English manner ("first minister" = Prime Minister). Geogre 12:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have a sneaky suspicion that whenver there's a female President, her husband will be called "the President's husband", and not "First Gentleman". RickK 21:22, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete speculative dicdef. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:45, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Info: the term is sometimes used (maybe unofficially) in reference to the husbands of female U.S. state governors, i.e. the husband of Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm. (see [18]) --Arteitle 07:19, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into First Lady and redirect. --Benc 01:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Benc, merge into First Lady. --Arteitle 03:24, Aug 8, 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.

Nooge — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nooge

Invision Power File Manager and Invision Power Board — Add to this discussion

Yet another not noteworthy piece of software. - UtherSRG 03:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete both. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's a script for Pete's sake! Geogre 13:15, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Invision Power Board. Maybe merge with an article on the company. Do not delete: it has 1,300,000 Google hits [19] - whether or not they're from people using the software or talking about it, it's still very notable. No vote on the other one. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 03:14, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
  • Merge with the company article. Zocky
  • Strong Keep for Invision Power Board. I'm very well-acquainted with Internet forum software, and this is one of the leading software packages for building such forums. Of course, I still much prefer phpBB.  :) -- Stevietheman 23:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of Texas county name etymologies — Add to this discussion

This material has been incorporated into the individual county articles. Also includes List of Texas county name etymologies (A to J) and List of Texas county name etymologies (K to Z). - Kenwarren 03:51, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

List of Texas county name etymologies (A to J) — Add to this discussion

From VfD:

This material has been incorporated into the individual county articles. Also includes List of Texas county name etymologies and List of Texas county name etymologies (K to Z). - Kenwarren 03:56, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

  1. First, it creates a maintenance nightmare. Who's going to know to update both locations? Dralwik above probably won't bother with future edits, based on his comment. Once the information is out of sync, both sets of pages are, umm, screwed. The information is no longer trustworthy. To be blunt, this is a problem with Wikipedia in general; I've heard from several people who've uniformly said "Yeah, there's a lot of information, but I looked at 2 articles about aspects of X and they were contradictory. Which one do I trust?" (If this vote goes for keep, I feel strongly enough about this that I'll remove all etymologies from the individual articles for the same reason.)
  2. Second, it doesn't make the information easy to find, one of the primary purposes of an encyclopedia. (Wouldn't the Principle of least astonishment apply here?) If I want to know how El Paso County, Texas came to have that name, where would I expect to look? At the article about the county, of course. If I didn't find it there, why would I look at Texas to find a link to List of Texas county name etymologies? For the anonymous user who says "don't destroy my hard work" I would say it's not destroyed, it's migrated to where it's actually useful. And I was planning to do the same thing to Minnesota, California, Kansas, and Arizona.
Kenwarren 14:13, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Note for above: I AM going to continue editing and creating the afore-mentioned pages and I am creating links on each county page to the etymology lists. (See Anderson County, Texas, for example.) Dralwik
    • See my edit to Anderson County, Texas for what I think could be a good compromise; the information will live in the "List of ..." pages, a single location, but is easily available from the individual county pages. - Kenwarren 15:02, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the material that was completed was imported into the individual county pages, there was much left to do. The pages stated that they were a work in progress. These pages were VERY useful for those of us contributing the county name information as we could see at a glance which counties were left to do. Unfortunately, there were still a lot left to go and now we have to go look at each individual county page which is a much more tedious process. I wish Kenwarren would have discussed it a little further before he erased all the work we had done. I thought he was just going to copy the info. Once the pages were complete, then would be the time to transfer the information if necessary. Anyway, I think it's still interesting to see all the names at a glance. H2O 19:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Kenwarren's criteria for judging obscure lists. If the pages are useful to contributors, maybe they can be moved to some meta-space or a user's workspace? Incidentally, even if this is kept, couldn't it all fit into one article pretty easily rather than splitting it up A-J K-Z? -- WOT 21:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

List of Texas county name etymologies (K to Z) — Add to this discussion

From VfD:

This material has been incorporated into the individual county articles. Also includes List of Texas county name etymologies and List of Texas county name etymologies (A to J). - Kenwarren 03:56, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • KEEP! Now, I don't care if the information is incorporated into the individual county articles, but I DO care about deleting List of Texas county name etymologies (A to J and List of Texas county name etymologies (K to Z). What if you wanted to find all the county etymologies in one fell swoop? Look at List of California county name etymologies and List of Minnesota county name etymologies! I contributed much to the page, and I do not want my hard work destroyed. Dralwik
  • Keep. There are plenty of things that we have lists of and also have content elsewhere on. I agree with the above rationale (which should be signed, btw). Not doing any harm. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:42, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
    • I have two reasons for this:
  1. First, it creates a maintenance nightmare. Who's going to know to update both locations? The anonymous editor above probably won't bother with future edits, based on his comment. Once the information is out of sync, both sets of pages are, umm, screwed. The information is no longer trustworthy. To be blunt, this is a problem with Wikipedia in general; I've heard from several people who've uniformly said "Yeah, there's a lot of information, but I looked at 2 articles about aspects of X and they were contradictory. Which one do I trust?" (If this vote goes for keep, I feel strongly enough about this that I'll remove all etymologies from the individual articles for the same reason.)
  2. Second, it doesn't make the information easy to find, one of the primary purposes of an encyclopedia. (Wouldn't the Principle of least astonishment apply here?) If I want to know how El Paso County, Texas came to have that name, where would I expect to look? At the article about the county, of course. If I didn't find it there, why would I look at Texas to find a link to List of Texas county name etymologies? For the user who says "don't destroy my hard work" I would say it's not destroyed, it's migrated to where it's actually useful. And I was planning to do the same thing to Minnesota, California, Kansas, and Arizona.
Kenwarren 14:08, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Note for above: I AM going to continue editing and creating the afore-mentioned pages and I am creating links on each county page to the etymology lists. (See Anderson County, Texas, for example.)
    • See my edit to Anderson County, Texas for what I think could be a good compromise; the information will live in the "List of ..." pages, a single location, but is easily available from the individual county pages. - Kenwarren 15:05, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Kenwarren, on the above edit, I agree to that compromise. Proceed with the edits. Over and out. Dralwik
  • Keep - ditto what I said on A-J, but I'd also like to add that it is useful to see the whole list to get a feel for why Texas counties were named the way they were. It gives an idea of the kinds of people we Texans have felt were important to us. Same for California, Minnesota, or any other state. H2O 19:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's useful and precident exists for such pages. But regarding the recent edits to Anderson County, Texas, I disagree with the decision to remove the etymology info and instead link the user to the List of Texas county name etymologies (A to J) article in order to find out who the county is named after. It doesn't hurt to have the info in both places. You don't have to remove good info from the Anderson County, Texas article just to justify another article's existance. - Eisnel 19:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The information will only be good for as long as it takes someone to make a single edit to either a single county directly or one of the lists, without transferring it to the other location. (I figure that would take a week or so.) Then one location or the other is out of date, therefore wrong. Or are you volunteering to do a regular sweep of counties to make sure their etymologies and "list of etymologies" are up-to-date? This situation exists in numerous locations in Wikipedia, and results in people discounting the usefullness of Wikipedia. (This per a number of conversations I've had of late...) - Kenwarren 23:16, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
      • This doesn't make any sense to me. The information is either accurate, or it isn't. Just because the information agrees doesn't mean it is accurate. H2O 23:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (both lists). It's an interesting topic and a lot more sensible to organize this way rather than spread out across dozens of articles. I don't understand the concerns about this information being maintained or up-to-date - these counties have all been named and Texas isn't adding new counties, so once this list is done there shouldn't be any new information to add. MK 02:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Ambition (card game) — Add to this discussion

This article was started by Mike Church about his game. After a lot of bitter fighting, the page was reduced to just verifiable information, and made NPOV. Mike eventually left in disgust, and nominated the page for deletion. It survived. That discussion, plus an even earlier deletion debate, are archived here. More backstory can be found on Talk:Ambition (card game). Apparently Mike still wants the article deleted.

Isomorphic 04:15, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I didn't vote on the last one because I didn't feel strongly either way. —Stormie 06:57, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Premature at best. --Jerzy(t) 07:25, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
  • Delete. BCorr|Брайен 15:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not an article problem. I do not believe it is wise to delete an article that would otherwise be kept merely because someone is under politically-motivated attack. While there are valid questions regarding the relevance of the article, it clearly exceeds the de facto inclusion guidelines by a wide margin. UninvitedCompany 16:18, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Vfd is not a place to solve edit wars. --Starx 17:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Geogre 20:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mike Church's ego has been stroked enough. RickK 21:24, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's what I've wanted for a while. See more. Mike Church 23:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not only was this game deemed as uninteresting by reviewers who attempted it, it was also clearly notable only among the friends and acquaintances of the article's author. Delete again. Denni☯ 01:44, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
    • You're wrong. Said "reviewers" were merely the friends and acquaintances of one Wikipedia poster. That's not enough to judge a game as uninteresting-- the rules may have been poorly or hastily taught, the individuals playing the game may have not had much interest in card games at all, etc. All he said is that his friends didn't like it, not "uninteresting", and when I asked him to back it up with specific criticisms, he declined. Just setting the record straight for ya... Mike Church 13:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I note you have failed to address the second (and more important) point of my criticism. Delete as novelty. Denni☯ 02:21, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)
        • "Failed to address" in that I had about 5 minutes of time to spare that day. It's received several votes at Aaron D. Fuegi's top 100 games list (average rating 8.00/10, which is quite solid). Yes, one of the votes was mine, and a couple were my friends, but not all. I've also met people who've played the game not of my acquaintance-- for example, an incoming freshman at Carleton. Mike Church 14:16, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would want more independent sources before this meets my threshold for inclusion. --Michael Snow 17:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Elf-friend 16:12, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Andrewa 12:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with haste. Great game, and notable enough for inclusion, but Mike Church should not be an author of a page on his own accomplishment-- it's bad form and saps the page of any credibility. Let an Ambition page be written in six months or so, preferably by someone with at least 200 edits and no evident Churchian interests. (Nah, I'm not MC... I am choosing to remain anon. though.) 64.12.116.212 00:40, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Joseph DeLuca, Linda Gronlund, Louis J. Nacke — Add to this discussion

Joseph DeLuca, Linda Gronlund, Louis J. Nacke was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikimemorial. As of 17:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), the article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

Warehouse manager, compliance manager, and programmer who have failed to do anything of note to warrant inclusion. Transwiki to wikimemorial and delete. --Jiang 03:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep all three. Maybe someone should create a new entry for Wiki Troll to describe a person who spends inordinate amounts of time trolling Wikipedia looking for articles to delete. Arevich 15:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • This attack was inappropriate, and unnecessary. Please review the history of VfD and how we have dealt with such articles in the past. Your continuing attempt to retain any and all articles listed on the VfD page is going to make any comments you have to say be ignored. Oh, and transfer to wikimemorial, as is the appropriate thing to do with such pages. RickK 21:29, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Please ignore this troll. Almost all of his <100 edits have been voting keep and making inflammatory comments on this page. --Jiang 03:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to memorial and delete. - SimonP 17:07, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • transwiki as per established practice. Maybe there should be a seperate "Votes for Transwiki" page so that the negative epithet "delete" is not applied to otherwise perfectly good source texts. --Ianb 17:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete. Isn't it firmly established that Wikipedia isn't going to have an individual article for every person who died in the 9/11 attacks? Regarding the comment about Wiki Troll: there is an article called Internet troll, which is defined as "a person who posts messages that create controversy without adding content to the discussion, often intentionally." - Eisnel 20:06, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and "remove". -- Cyrius|✎ 03:55, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete. Elf-friend 17:02, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikimemorial all three. Rossami 20:57, 2 Aug 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.

Treaty of Taipei — Add to this discussion

Convert this into an article within a week or delete; transwiki to wikisource. --Jiang 03:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pumpkin scones — Add to this discussion

Two recipes. Nothing else. Joyous 04:15, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Transwiki and delete. Geogre 13:09, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Tasty but irrelevant. Send to WB and delete from here. -FZ 16:58, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Yum! Transwiki to wikisource, put a mention in scone (maybe in "further reading"), and delete from here. --Ardonik 06:41, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • I meant wikibooks, not wikisource. --Ardonik 19:59, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete. Elf-friend 17:04, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Freeinformationsociety — Add to this discussion

Vanity page. Delete. -- The Anome 09:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • as a member of the masses, I feel it is my inalienable right to have certain information withheld from me. Any deities wishing to contact me may leave a message on my talk page, or just send a bolt of lightning. Delete. Ianb 09:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: theamericanmassesdonotspeakGerman and donot use threewordcombiningforms often use. I don't want to know how average I am or how indifferent the government is to my existence, so I prefer to believe they're keeping things from me. Geogre 12:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Believe it or not, Googling on "freeinformationsociety" yields Your search - freeinformationsociety - did not match any documents. No pages were found containing "freeinformationsociety" But I am sure Google will soon yield dozens of hits to Wikipedia and its mirrors. Dpbsmith 21:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Started by 'god', eh? Non-notable, vanity, advertisement, substub. Why does this article still exist? Delete. --Ardonik 06:39, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Good question. "God" giveth, Wikipedia taketh away. Deleteth. - Lucky 6.9 22:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bludger — Add to this discussion

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 01:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bludger doesn't mean a 'lazy person', it means a person who gets by through other people's work. For example, a person who does no house work for their parents whilst staying at their parents house. Or a person who doesn't contribute to chores in a house shared with mates. Or a person who claims social security payments without attempting to find employment, enter training, or further their education.

Some accuse students of being 'bludgers' as many are on Centrelink (social security) benefits and only appear to do about 10 to 14 hours of contact at uni per week. People forget however, the personal study time that students must contribute to pass courses.

A person who is inherently lazy, but by their own means, is not a 'bludger', but would more likely be described as a slacker, or 'lucky prick'.

Bludger Australian slang

No its not slang, its a form of oppression used to make people without the ability to work go and commit suicide, those whom use such terms are generally attempting to incite suicides in the community.

'dole bludger' stereotype is a myth portrayed by the well-off (those with jobs) against the metal health of those in less fortunate positions of power. Another bit of slang used by such is 'no better dignitary then a job'.

Whats missing from wikipedia is a tally of people committing suicides after they have been somewhat 'brain washed' by the media, political parties, and the community whom endorse such statements with little or no realisation of the harm such statements have caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.91.167 (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Republic of Western Niger - Add to this discussion

This is a badly-written, badly-organized article about a non-existent country. --Sesel 11:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Some Nigerian secessionist's fiction. Gzornenplatz 11:29, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article seems to refer to the country commonly known as Nigeria, but according to the CIA World factbook, the conventional long form of the name is Federal Republic of Nigeria, not the title of the article. The existing Nigeria article already covers everything in this article, except the list of universities and sports stadiums.--MaxMad 11:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Agree with Gzornenplatz: This is a POV wish stated as fact. It's still one nation, not two. Geogre 12:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • If this is patently incorrect, shouldn't it be a speedy delete? Delete anyway. Average Earthman 13:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • No. Being incorrect is reason for someone to edit the article and fix it or, if it can not possibly be fixed, to nominate it here. This fits none of the specific categories eligible for speedy (though it certainly seems to fit the criteria for a normal delete). Rossami 13:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree with Rossami, but I'm not going to get into a war over it since it's obvious this is going to be deleted. It might even be a copyvio. But whatever, delete. RickK 21:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete fiction. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Flat Liner cocktail - Add to this discussion

  • Transwiki recipe. Exploding Boy 13:01, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list of cocktails is an ongoing project that's been around since the Wikipedia started. Periodically, however, they still turn up here. Smerdis of Tlön 13:27, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikibooks, which is where the whole bartender's manual belongs. - Kenwarren 14:16, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, cocktails are encyclopedic. - SimonP 17:04, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
    I see your assertion, but nothing to back it up. Why are cocktails encyclopedic? -- orthogonal 15:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to WikiCookBook unless historical or cultural information is added, or unless Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is changed to not disallow recipes. -- Creidieki 21:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reasons as Bourbon county cowboy. --Ardonik 06:33, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, delete. What Wikipedia is not. SWAdair | Talk 07:41, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, delete, unless SimonP comes up with a convincing answer to my question above. -- orthogonal 15:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Elf-friend 16:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki & delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki recipe Rossami 20:54, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you want to delete or Transwiki the list of cocktails, say so; arbitrary removal of individual cocktails merely impoverishes the cocktail list. Personally, I find the list of cocktails an interesting and useful read; I treat the list itself and the cocktails linked from it as a single item. Msahutty 22:00, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Pulp.Net - Add to this discussion

substub with a link to a website with no evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Robert Merkel 13:05, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Might be a useful external link on a literature-related page, but I have no idea which one. --Ianb 17:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement. The Wikipedia is not the place to promote this sort of website, however noble its intentions. --Ardonik 06:31, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a web directory. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:43, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is a notable resource and quite popular. It's serviceable and worthy. This article is not worthy, however, and an article on Online writing sites or Online journalism might well consider adding a link to Pulp.net as an external resource. An article on this particular web service that is jut a link is not helpful. Geogre 18:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Slippery Nipple - Add to this discussion

  • Transwiki recipe. Exploding Boy 13:05, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list of cocktails is an ongoing project that's been around since the Wikipedia started. Periodically, however, they still turn up here. Smerdis of Tlön 13:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, cocktails are encyclopedic. - SimonP 17:04, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Are they? How? Have you ever seen a recipe for a cocktail in an encyclopaedia? Exploding Boy 17:09, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is Wikipedia (dynamic and roomy), not Britannica (static/incremental). Arevich 18:31, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • *Transwiki to WikiCookBook unless historical or cultural information is added, or unless Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is changed to not disallow recipes. -- Creidieki 21:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same reasons as Bourbon county cowboy. --Ardonik 06:29, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mark Richards 20:24, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, delete. What Wikipedia is not. SWAdair | Talk 03:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 17:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm generally a supporter of putting things in the project where they belong, but I have to say I often find myself wondering what the hell's in this or that cocktail that people refer to, and would actually like to be able to look that sort of thing up in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, I doubt I would ever have cause to make, say, a Slippery Nipple. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 20:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Then put it in the Wikibooks cookbook! It is, after all, a recipe. Perhaps redirect this page to List of cocktails, which itself should be sent to the cookbook. Rdsmith4 | Talk 16:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone explains (not asserts, explains) why this is encyclopedic. -- orthogonal 21:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. -- WOT 21:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki & delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:03, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki recipe. Rossami 20:53, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Shandy gaff - Add to this discussion

Shandy gaff was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikibooks. As of 17:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), the article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

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.

Bourbon county cowboy - Add to this discussion

Bourbon county cowboy was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikibooks. As of 17:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), this article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

  • Transwiki recipe. There are dozens more like this on List of cocktails but Wikipedia is being very slow right now. They should all be looked at; most need to be moved to wikibooks. Exploding Boy 13:11, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC) moved off main vfd page
  • Keep. The list of cocktails is an ongoing project that's been around since the Wikipedia started. Periodically, however, they still turn up here. Smerdis of Tlön 13:29, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, cocktails are encyclopedic. - SimonP 17:05, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not specifically says that we are not a cookbook, and the article has no other content. I would be happy to change my vote if information about the cultural or historical significance of this drink was added. -- Creidieki 21:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, the User:SimonP in me says "keep it; after all, we have a million other cocktail articles already, don't we?" But the User:Creidieki in me says "we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to list every single foolishly-named random alcoholic concoction conceived by some drunken frat boy on a dare." To this, my inner User:SimonP retorts: "but the gates have been opened, and the damage has already been done." The User:Creidieki within ponders this for a moment, contemplating how much work it would take to transwiki all of the cocktail articles, and slowly hangs its head in defeat. Keep. --Ardonik 06:19, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not a good reason to keep. It may take a lot of work, but ultimately moving these cocktail recipes to Wikibooks where they belong is the best thing for the encyclopaedia. Once we start allowing cocktail recipes, then it's appetizers and party foods and the next thing you know we're a wholesale cookbook site. Exploding Boy 07:45, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, delete. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It will take as long to transwiki all the cocktail articles as it has to transwiki all the September 11th articles -- years. But it can be done at the same rate everything else is done: one article per article. SWAdair | Talk 03:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 17:20, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Slippery Nipple -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 20:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless someone explains (not asserts, explains) why this is encyclopedic. -- orthogonal 21:44, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to the Wikibooks cookbook. Rdsmith4 | Talk 16:07, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Good for Wikipedia, good for Wikibooks cookbook. -- WOT 21:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki & delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:06, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete. But I wish there was a better way to search all things Wiki so pushing stuff off Wikipedia didn't diminish it. Salasks 20:39, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki recipe Rossami 20:53, 2 Aug 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.

List of revolutionaries — Add to this discussion

One man's revolutionary being anothers terrorist, I suspect this list (currently containing only one entry) should be overthrown. - TB 14:40, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Inherently POV and contains very little information. Andris 16:16, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, isn't this useless. The peasants are revolting! :^)) - Lucky 6.9 17:33, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • "You're telling me!" Seriously, the article is not only inherently POV, but it's also too nebulous. We would have political, religious, scientific, and cultural revolutionaries. Further, each person coming to Wikipedia who searched for the term would be looking for revolutionaries of his or her own particular state; therefore, a master list would require lots of scrolling. Finally, lists are things that atlases and gazettes do. Geogre 18:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename (to "political revolutionaries"). Wikipedia has thousands of less worthy lists on all sorts of irrelevant pop culture topics. Obviously needs content, but the intent is clear.--Gene_poole 23:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • There are definately lists-of-particular-revolutionary-types to be compiled, but rather than throw this single-item list to cleanup, might I suggest that it be deleted to allow a more thiughtful editor a clean slate in deciding what they should be ? - TB 09:10, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nice idea. A more specific name change could help this grow beyond a single entry and we'd eventually have a rather important list. Keep if renamed. - Lucky 6.9 00:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for two reasons:
    1. Can you imagine how difficult it will be to decide what names to put on a political revolutionaries article while still maintaining a neutral point of view? How long before George W. Bush's name ends up on the list and an argument breaks out on the talk page?
    2. Nobody looks for a mere list of people considered revolutionary; they look for the movers and shakers in a particular revolutionary war. --
    • Comment: 1. Not difficult at all - eg Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg, Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung are all obvious inclusions for starters. 2. Nobody? Really? How do you know?.--Gene_poole 01:01, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ardonik 06:25, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Useful. Ambivalenthysteria 07:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - a one entry list is not useful, "revolutionaries" is both broad and vague. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Come and see the violence inherent in the system! DannyBoy | Talk
  • Delete, by the way. DannyBoy | Talk 16:10, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think that it would be near impossible to decide who to include. SamH 14:34, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although potentially useful, a nPOV will be impossible, and as said, 'revolutionaries' is too broad a term. Darksun 18:50, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ISO 8859-17 — Add to this discussion

An article about a non-existing entity, which more or less only states, it doesn't exist. -- Pjacobi 16:10, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. There really ought to be a written rule against place-holder articles. Jallan 17:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless. Ianb 17:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reminds me of a plaque my mom used to have in the kitchen, which said something like: On this spot in 1872, nothing happened. - Eisnel 21:02, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Besides... anyone old enough to remember the slogan "If it's not in the Yellow Pages, it probably doesn't exist?" A good way to document the non-existence of something is not to create a Wikipedia article about it. Dpbsmith 22:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. After reading ISO 8859, it's pretty obvious that ISO 8859-17 comes next. There's no need for another article to tell us that. (You should be encoding in UTF-8 anyway.)--Ardonik 06:08, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)


Yvonne Monet — Add to this discussion

Though I'm a bit uncomfortable nominating someone who works in the same industry that I do, this is just vanity, pure and simple. Sorry, Yvonne...but ya gotta go. - Lucky 6.9 17:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

concur. delete. --Terrapin 17:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Yvonne Monet - you are the weakest link. Goodbye. Ianb 17:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity pages are why God invented Friendster. Diberri | Talk 18:14, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • I hate to say this to anyone who has already suffered the indignity and punishment of living in Newman, GA, but delete for vanity. Geogre 18:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that the vanity stuff must go. However, she is a well-established and well-known DJ, and surely has other information about her what would be worthy of an article. Essentially, I agree only with the deletion of the vanity content, but not completely squashing the entire article itself. –radiojon 21:12, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
  • Vanity in its purest sense. Delete. If she deejays (I think that's the verb) for some radio station and it has an article, by all means add her name there. I considered deactivating the links, but this seems more like vanity than advertising. --Ardonik 06:03, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)


Anthony Rayson — Add to this discussion

Someone else nominated this but didn't fill in the discussion page. For the record, this guy is the founder of South Chicago ABC Zine Distro which is also up for a delete vote. - Lucky 6.9 17:51, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Yeah, well, i grind slowly, but i grind exceeding fine:

Re: Anthony Rayson
Del this 17-word stub, with a dead link (and both of its specific links dead 6 hrs from now: voting is 5-0 to delete the target of the 2nd); apparent self-promotion by figure whose only obvious significance is writing or "distributing" obscure literature locally. Informally proposed for VfD by the following 2 entries on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/South Chicago ABC Zine Distro:

By tomorrow, only link to it will be from List of anarchists, to which it was added in the same 9 minutes in which the user adding it also created the two VfDed articles already mentioned.
--Jerzy(t) 18:26, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

  • Delete: The ABC 'zine delete mentioned this one, too. The utility of a list of anarchists is questionable, but, in any case, this appears to be minor. Geogre 18:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. 200 hits on google. This page is at least cogent. Don't see the harm of having an entry on this guy. Vaguely notable. - Nat Krause 04:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:48, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

2443 — Add to this discussion

Stub with redundant information --Ianb 19:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. That The Simpsons mentioned something doesn't make it encyclopedic. --Ardonik 05:59, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Sweet zombie Jesus, delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The year 2004 is when this article will be deleted, according to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Geogre 18:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • What do you think of a re-direct to 25th century?? Any objections to a re-direct?? 66.245.81.19 12:41, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Page content not appropriate for the page, as non-historical - information already present at Timeline of fictional future events. -- Michael Warren | Talk 14:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Add this fact into a Futurama page, if it has an internal timeline then this would be the perfect place, if not then just add it in a trivia section or something. Then delete this article. Year pages should only contain notbale events and facts from that year, not notes from Cartoon series. -- Hackerjack 15:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It's already mentioned on the Futurama page, but a timeline might be useful to help keep these things from popping up again. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:43, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reappearance of stub with redundant, fictional information. Ianb 06:32, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Isn't recreation grounds for speedy deletion, if the article is identicle and no new relevance is added? Darksun 11:42, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've redirected to newly-created Timeline of Futurama to prevent this from being resurrected (haha!) in the future. —Rory ☺ 12:04, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - that is a most useless redirect. I'd rather fight the recreation. - Tεxτurε 20:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fart-eater - Add to this discussion

Not worthy of speedy deletion, but this doesn't really fit into Wikipedia's mission, it's a dictionary definition, and not really significant. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:58, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

  • when I was a kid we weren't allowed to say words like that. Can supply list of ones we did if interested. Delete. Ianb 20:18, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: dictdef, insufficient for Wiktionary. Geogre 20:21, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another insignificant neologism. There are much more vulgar and widespread insults that do not have their own articles. --Ardonik 05:56, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - quite frankly, it's just stupid. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:59, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Great Liberal Backlash of 2003 - Add to this discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus JoshuaZ 00:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase gets 39 google hits when you exclude Wikipedia and mirrors, and I don't think it's a significant enough slogan to make it in. Delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:16, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

  • Keep: I'm not fond of the name, which relies upon a knowledge and concern for Ivins's phrase, but a documentation of the coincidental welter of books is probably encyclopedic. Geogre 20:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Are we sure that there was a welter, or is this just Ivins' claim? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:58, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, except that this is a case where a strongly ideological president has drawn strongly ideological responses after controversial action. Again, I'm not happy with the title or the reliance on Ivins, but I do think that the cultural phenomenon of reaction to a strong political time is notable. Geogre 21:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Should title start with "Slogan:"? -- Jmabel 00:58, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, with fixes. The slogan was used by Ivins in an important editorial. However, the article has suffered "mission creep" by an unnamed very famous Wikipedian, so that it now includes a whole laundry list of all things liberal. That's going a bit too far. Fuzheado | Talk 01:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, "liberal backlash" gets lots of hits; besides, google listings are not the basis for keeping/deleting. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Delete. 39 hits? Cribcage 06:51, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Cribcage said. Ambivalenthysteria 07:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for op-ed pieces, personal essays. Merge content with the Molly Ivins article. 172 18:33, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe move the article to somewhere else if wording is poor.--Plato 03:41, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment/question: Normally I would vote to "delete neologism," but Fuzheado said this was used in "an important editorial." I have to admit I don't follow political news as well as some here do. I'm not familiar with the background on this one, so I won't vote. I just want to ask: Was the editorial important enough to make an exception for this term? SWAdair | Talk 04:06, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm very into politics, and I hadn't heard the term. Hundreds of phrases like this are coined each year, I don't think most of them deserve articles, especially with this few google hits, indicating that nobody else is really using it. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:01, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)
      • Here's my odd view - if the article remains the way it is (effectively a liberal soap box) then it should be deleted. The editorial heralded the beginning of a deluge of books, films, think tanks and political groups that emerged in 2003-2004 in direct response to the increased influence of conservatives in American politics and the media. It would be nice to have this covered somewhere in Wikipedia as an article. But this article is not the place. The VfD votes should be on the term itself, and whether it is of significance. I can reasonably see how it could be voted to delete, but it would be nice if a roundup of this could be somewhere in Wikipedia. Fuzheado | Talk 07:49, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, or at best turn into a more general article under a different title; Ivins' term is hardly notable enough for an article of its own. -Sean Curtin 04:11, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'd rather we had articles about the random phrases coming from Dave Barry. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:04, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Documents a genuine phenomenon, or at least what many people perceive to be a genuine phenomenon, and either way deserves to be documented. Gamaliel 07:37, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Name is bad, but substance is good, as Gamaliel said. -- orthogonal 03:30, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Rename. Salasks 20:44, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The phrase itself is not in common usage. One editorial is not enough. As a more general concept, it is unproven and not really notable because, again, it's not much discussed. I recommend that someone who cares about this article move it to their user space, then wait a year or three. If, with the hindsight of history, there really was a "liberal backlash of 2003", great or otherwise, the article can be re-added then. Rossami 20:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Snark out — Add to this discussion

Obscure dicdef with literary origin and seemingly no cultural significance beyond the definition. --Terrapin 20:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Gzornenplatz 01:15, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as slang, dictdef. Furthermore, "snark" is now a term (pioneered by the McSweeney's magazine folks) for a critical sniping comment -- a review comment that insults in a clever way (i.e. what a lot of us do with our VfD votes). Geogre 01:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete insignificant neologism. The first 10 google hits do not even consistently use this phrase in the manner stated by the article; e.g. "... I guess Kevin and Drew bring the snark out from everybody they meet," "...it won't take much to get some snark out of it." --Ardonik 05:54, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete slang dicdef. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:05, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • My gods... no one has ever written a Wikipedia article about Daniel Pinkwater?!?! This is intolerable, and must be immediately rectified! If an article on Pinkwater existed, I would urge Snark out be merged and redirected into it, but as the article does not yet exist... no vote. Kevyn 11:43, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Binrev — Add to this discussion

Presumptious definition of a jargon-type word aimed at promoting a website. --Ianb 20:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You seem kind of full of yourself. Link taken out. --Me Now, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Ha. This from the anon (ip removed) who created the article then deleted the vfd header with an edit summary that says "edited by Wikipedia staff". Good way of getting blocked from editing. Delete. RickK 21:35, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Google says 1940 pages contain the term www.binrev.com and the hits are distributed over a wide number of sites and look pretty relevant. In most of them, the context is lists of or directories to hacker (or do I mean h4x0r?) sites. One is a reply to a query from someone who says "I am only 17 and am still under my parents' roof. My dad has our whole house networked. He has a frickin' sonicwall firewall and has blocked anything that doesn't use standard ports(like HTML 80 for example). This means no Mirc, kazaa, or CVS." To the reasonable reply "cant you just ask your dad to open some ports?" he says "He did it on PURPOSE. I tried that when he just used it as a security precaution and just had normal firewall prefs. I wanted to be able to Host halo games but nobody would ever be able to connect and my dad wouldn't open the damn port. Thinks someone's out to hack us. But anyways, he did it so I would 'focus on schoolwork.' So I can't do jack now." A helpful respondent says "Try posting a request here. (http://www.binrev.com/forums) these guys are pretty l33t and may be able to help..." I'm not l33t myself but maybe binrev actually does have some notability among those who are? Dpbsmith 22:18, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I just rewrote it, hopefully to make it more encyclopedic. Just in case I made it worse, be sure to view the original as well as my rewrite when deciding what to do. I really think the biggest question to resolve is where the site falls on the notable/vanity spectrum. Do we have a relevant article on hacking and hacker websites into which this could be merged? Dpbsmith 22:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Clarification: A user from my site posted this entry. I understand if you want to delete it or modify it, I just wanted to clarify that it was not *I*, the owner of the site, who posted it originally. Do with it as you will. -StankDawg
  • Clarification: The IP posted above is the IP of my public shell proxy. ANYONE could have made that post. Since early today my traffic has spiked and become unusable due to abuse of it thanks to you publicly reporting a private system so I have taken the ip out of this page to protect my servers. Please do not add it again. From What I am aware of the site is of notable interest and the person who posted the page (starting a new page instead of defacing something else I might add) had a honest interest in helping people understand something. He then edited the page to take out the link as you wanted. From everything I have seen the poster was just trying to do something out of goodwill and got mad after he received a abusive response from the wikipedia staff.
1) There is (almost) no such thing as "Wikipedia staff," other than a few brave souls who I believe are actually Bomis employees, who take care of the servers and so forth. Another way to say this is that both of you are already members of "Wikipedia staff." You or anyone else may list articles on Votes for Deletion, just as you may edit articles. If you create an account, you can vote in Votes for Deletion and your votes will be taken into account. (Final decision is made by "rough consensus," don't expect pluralities or formal counts or quorum calls or anything like that).
2) To avoid publicizing your IP address, create an account. All this does is to create a username for you. You don't need to give out any personal information, not so much as an email address. Your contributions, log entries in History files, and so forth, will then be listed under your username, and you will be referred to by that username in any discussions. If you don't have an account, the system uses your IP address in lieu of a username, and in discussing your articles we need to call you something and the IP address is what we use. Creating an account also makes it easier to contact you within Wikipedia.
3) Attempts to use Wikipedia to promote websites happens so often that Wikipedians are apt to get a little brusque about anything that looks that way. We tend to be a lot brusque at attempts to game the system by removing VfD notices.
4) By the way... Welcome to Wikipedia! Dpbsmith 01:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Anon, I don't really think anyone is being treated badly here. We're trying to determine if this article is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. No one's being flamed or persecuted. All of us here have an honest interest in helping people understand things, there's no other reason for us to be here. I'm just a little confused when I see people get upset over open collaboration. I think this issue is still open, we need to determine how notable this binrev site is. - Eisnel 02:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously some ppl think it's important. Salasks 02:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Some people think a lot of things which have been deleted were important. That's not a criterion. RickK 19:16, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Around 2000 google hits, and they say they're published in 2600, but I am not of the opinion that these people deserve their own encyclopedia article at this time. Delete. To the anonymous user: if you're so worried about your IP address being publicized, you shouldn't have edited the page: all anonymous editors have their IP addresses recorded for all eternity in the edited articles' histories. --Ardonik 05:48, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Ambi 07:20, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Farthen Dûr — Add to this discussion

On 28 July 2004, Farthen Dûr was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Rossami 00:43, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What book is this from? And does it really need its own article? Mike H 20:39, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • [[Alaga%EBsia]]. No, at least not one like this. Ianb 21:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • keep following rewrite. --Ianb 03:21, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Whatever it is, it's a description/summary of something. It doesn't explain what it is or give any helpful information. Geogre 21:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I really do not like multiple breakouts of items in fictional mythologies. Since that door is open already, this is an acceptable article, and I will abstain. Geogre 13:03, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Edited out some of my screed that had nothing to do with this article and reflected ill temper on my part. Geogre 18:25, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • An anon created this article. As an initial stub, it's not bad. Eragon is the book. [[Alaga%EBsia]] is the land that the book (and its two as of yet unpublished sequels) takes place. I'll work on improving the article, and alert the other Eragon readers to help. Keep. - UtherSRG 22:11, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks ever so much. It sounded hobbity so I called my friend who was obsessed with Tolkien; she didn't know what it was either. Mike H 23:59, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do to fix it up. pie4all88
  • All right, I've spent some time cleaning it up, and it is relevant to the Inheritance trilogy. Can we take it off of the deletion list? Keep pie4all88 01:15, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • We can't do that yet, but since there is a big consensus to keep, it will be removed when the VfD period ends in about two days. Mike H 16:22, Jul 31, 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.

Margaret Griffis — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Margaret Griffis


St Bernards Behavioral Health — Add to this discussion

Well. The title is wrongly un-apostrophized, so even if it stays it'll have to move. This is an article about a very small hospital, and whilst I don't have any objection in principle to articles about hospitals, it does seem rather like an advertisement. Deb 22:13, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. The homepage is at http://www.sbbh.com/, where one learns that it's a private non-profit hospital (in spite of the dot-com?) with a total of 3 doctors working for it and very few Google hits. I would not be opposed to adding it (and the external link) to some list of hospitals, though. --Ardonik 05:25, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for notability. (There are tons of non-profits that grabbed .com because of its popularity or because they took their hosting from an ISP, so that's not a flag to me.) Geogre 13:37, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fågelkatt — Add to this discussion

I have a fair share of knowledge of Scandinavian folklore and Norse mythology, but this page is nonsense. I wish we had any real knowledge of Swedish folklore in the 4th century.--Wiglaf 23:35, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Unless that's just some weird mistake, the 4th c. in Sweden was pre-literate. We have to rely on scant reports from Romanized Britons for anything to do with them at all. Perhaps this boogeyman is recorded much later and someone thinks it comes from the 4th c.? Extremely unlikely all the way around. (Her com tha fagelkatt in thaes tyd...?) Geogre 01:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only if someone can verify its relevance in Norse mythology. --Ardonik 05:26, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • I am from Norway, and I have never heard of this. I checked both Norwegian and Swedish Google, the only hit being this Wikipedia clone:[Wordiq].

Also note that in the article it says that the creature is a mix between a bird and a cat, but sometimes has the appearence of a "dalahäst", which is a breed of horse. I find this article very implausible, and vote for delete, if no more documentation is forthcoming.--MaxMad 09:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is worse than that. A Dalahäst is a small wooden red horse that Swedes sell to tourists as souvenirs. The contributor, User:Obli, just wants to mock the Wikipedia concept by adding silly information. He is a troll. Regards.--Wiglaf 10:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • My Swedish is limited to "smorgasbord," "ABBA," "Volvo," "SAAB" and "willing Swedish masseuse." That being said, if real Scandanavians say that this is real nonsense, it should be a speedy delete. I maintain that these kinds of bogus articles are extremely dangerous to this project. - Lucky 6.9 23:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Lucky. Mythology has included stranger creatures than this, but Wiglaf's comment makes me doubt the validity of the article. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:15, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am a Swede and this article is a mockery of Wikipedia. How long will it take before it is finally deleted?--Wiglaf 11:21, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, 2.5 days since you posted it for deletion, 5 day VfD period... at least another 2.5 days depending on sysop laziness levels? -- Cyrius|✎ 14:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Raluca Mamarutza — Add to this discussion

  • Vanity? Newbie error? Certainly nothing in what is written here to suggest why this person is worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. -- Jmabel 23:26, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Might very well be a newbie since there's a stub notice on it. If that's the case, someone at least read some of the rules. How about making this into a new user page? - Lucky 6.9 00:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • New user page for whom? The article's anonymous creator, or the second anonymous user who stubified it? Delete, I say. --Ardonik 05:17, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • FWIW the original IP is Swiss-based, the second appears to be from the UK, and seems to have done the odd bit of clean up on other articles too.Ianb 08:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Ianb 08:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Two anon tweaks equal one delete vote. Lose this. - Lucky 6.9 16:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 20:32, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • BTW, given that we seem to be headed for a delete, presumably remove her from List of Romanians as well. -- Jmabel 22:57, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

July 29

Annie Turcotte — Discussion

Also Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, and Maud Haviernick None of the articles makes any claim of notability beyond being unfortunate murder victims. Also de-link the 14 names in the list at École Polytechnique Massacre. Niteowlneils 01:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, by all means keep the list of names, just not linked, so they aren't begging to be re-created. Niteowlneils 03:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is old hat: murder victims are not exempt from the notablility requirement. (I can't help but feel that the previous sentence makes me look heartless, but I'm sure you all understand what I'm trying to say.) --Ardonik 05:16, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • my thoughts exactly. There's definitely a need for a memorial wiki. Delete. Ianb 08:59, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia has other murder victims biographies as well as Wikipedia administrators who have created a biography for themselves. I think,in fact, that an encyclopedia whose role is to inform, needs to tell who these victims were in a case such as this. However, rather than individual biographies, I took what I thought was the essential information from these victims biographies and pasted it into the École Polytechnique Massacre name list. Contributors can add anything relative at anytime. JillandJack 13:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Nice approach. I like the new numbering, as well (would have saved me from squinting at the screen, going "let's see, 3, 6, 9, ..."). Niteowlneils 16:32, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Nicely done, JillandJack. Thank you. Bearcat 07:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Arevich 18:59, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Wow. I'm not surprised. Radical inclusionist Arevich votes to keep. Why don't we just automatically add your vote to every VfD discussion, Arevich? RickK 19:41, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all - Tεxτurε 20:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all - tragic, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Military of Monaco — Add to this discussion

On 29 July 2004, Military of Monaco was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Rossami 00:38, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added the text in the Military of Monaco page to the Monaco page, as others had suggested in the Military of Monaco's Talk page Salasks 01:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I think you did the right thing—redirect to Monaco, preferably with an anchor to the correct section. That way, people searching for "military of" on random nations won't be disappointed when they try it on Monaco. --Ardonik 05:13, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect for consistency with other national articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Done Salasks 15:43, 31 Jul 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.

Drop Bear— Add to this discussion

On 29 July 2004, Drop Bear was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Rossami 00:33, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

MYTHICAL Australian marsupials, according to the article, but it also claims they fall on tourists and cause horrific injuries, images of which are suppressed by the govt. Yeah right. Supposed to be humorous, but seems a little juvenile. Needs work to survive IMMHO. Moriori

  • I've no idea if this is a "real" myth or not, but I'll note that we have a good article for Jackalope and a category:fictional species. Jgm 02:51, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Note that the article has been present since June 2003 and many editors have made contributions to it. It's an article about a joke, I think we have a few of them. (Keep) -- Tim Starling 02:52, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a well-known joke, amongst other things referenced (but not originated) by a prominent advertising campaign for Bundaberg Rum. Keep.--Robert Merkel 03:09, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's in Terry Pratchett's The Last Continent, if nowhere else. Haha funny. If the article makes it clear that this is a jackalope-critter, it can stay, but only with a clean up. Geogre 04:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • You know, I'm changing to flat out keep. All we need to do is edit very, very slightly. Geogre 13:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll have to abstain—I copyedited the article a few hours ago. But if you examine its history, you'll see that I, too, thought the article was a joke. --Ardonik 05:10, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Chuq 08:06, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a reasonably well known Australian legend, and a very funny way to scare foreign tourists. Ambivalenthysteria 13:33, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe there should be a common mythical creatures catagory to link this kind of article. I believe that as long as there is a legitimate, established legend/myth then it should stay (pending cleanup). Therefore, my vote is Keep— --tmoore 11:23, 29 Jul 2004 (EST)
  • Keep. Well known humorous urban legend. Article needs some cleanup though. --Gene_poole 23:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a real mythical creature. :-) p.s. I have made Dropbear a redirect to it, that's the spelling I always thought was correct, and Google suggests that both are widely used. —Stormie 23:35, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Juvenile but well-known. Even this ignorant Yank has heard of them. Keep. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:32, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The dropbear is a common myth here in Australia.
  • Keep. The page may never be very interesting, but it serves as a useful definition + explanation. I do like the "mythical creatures" page idea from tmoore above. DJP 02:10, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a humorous myth here in Australia, I think it would be a shame if it was deleted. --AxSkov 11:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is clearly linked from listings of joke animals: and it is indeed a real and common joke animal in Oz: not only used on foreign tourists. --GPoss 12:06, Aug 4, 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.


Silky's — Add to this discussion

Nonnotable, ad. google searches did not return many results. —siroχo

  • Delete. At best it goes in hentai, though my personal preference is /dev/null. --Ardonik 05:08, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't delete for lewdness, but delete because it's only known to Japanese people (87 sites link to it and they're all Japanese). Possibly candidate for a Japanese Wikipedia article. Derrick Coetzee 07:24, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's non-notable of specialist interest, and unlikely to be sought. Geogre 13:18, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:36, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Lots of not overly notable specialist pages are in the Wiki, how is this any different? Especially corporate pages. [20], [21], seem to have several Google links (in English), even though [22] has limited searches. As for it being deleted simply because it is hentai, that would mean that the Wikipedia will be forever incomplete, and highly skewed toward the ethnocentric bias of the most active editors, if we all just chose to edit for content deemed immoral by a group. Although I seem to be vastly outvoted here. It's the company that makes source material for many OAV that are distributed in North America, even if the original games are not. (Lessee if I did that signature thing right)

132.205.15.4 23:55, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. While I personally couldn't care less about hentai games, I disagree with the notion of excluding articles about non-mainstream subjects. Article text is NPOV, and the list of titles the company has produced is high enough to make the company notable. It's also listed on list of H authors. Until list of H games includes the author and publisher, I see no reason to outlaw stubby lists of H games by company... which is exactly what this article is. --Benc 02:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Brave Noodle Productions — Add to this discussion

A video game review site with a whopping 12 google hits. I wish there was something I could do to discourage people from adding articles like this. --Ardonik 05:06, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete! Self promotion of an non-notable company. I agree that there should be a way to discourage these articles Jaberwocky6669 05:44, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Yet Another Internet Forum and possibly film productions. Delete. Ianb 08:55, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - UtherSRG 11:59, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion. SWAdair | Talk 04:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

93_Feet_East — Add to this discussion

93 Feet East was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP based on the substantial changes made late in the voting. There is no reason given that would require the deletion of the page history. Note that this decision does not address the relative notability of the new subject of this article. That discussion should be reserved to a separate nomination if appropriate. Rossami 03:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

vfd notice added on the 28th by an anon user with a history of constructive edits (see [23]). Edit summary was: (VfD added. Appears as advert for a group.). I support this; non-notable local community site, text is evidently a c&p dump from their web page. Ianb 09:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. - UtherSRG 11:59, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete it a lot. I'd guess that almost all users of Wikipedia don't need to post community notices for Brick Lane. Geogre 12:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • "Welcome to the Brick Lane community site?" Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:39, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a web directory. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Useless as it stands, though possibly deserving of an article. Notable London music venue, interesting (1) as an architectural conversion of part of a brewery (2) as a meeting point of hip subcultural London & the younger part of the Bengali (and more broadly subcontinental) community centered on Brick Lane. On both counts, a good topic to use to elucidate the cultural changes of London's East End in recent years. Delete the article as it stands, but it could be a good topic for an article. -- Jmabel 18:03, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I replaced existing advert text with description by Jmabel above. Granted, it's now a stub, but it's a worthwhile stub. Salasks 21:01, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I so want to change my vote. I really, really do, if only because I think an article on the legendary club 688 would be worthwhile, too, but the rewrite removes the grounds for the delete vote without, still, really giving us notability. It's not a web ad, now. I just wish it explained more about how central it is to the community, how it organizes immigrant community life, etc. I'll change to abstain. The reason I do is this: This VfD debate has been about advertising. The article has changed. I feel that a re-nomination would be necessary if we were voting on notability. Therefore, I can't vote keep, but neither delete anymore. Geogre 16:44, 3 Aug 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.


Al Stiff — Add to this discussion

Currently a sub-stub ("Great driver from the late 80's on the WEG circuit.") by an anon user. I can't find enough (or indeed any) information about this person to improve the stub. Request deletion and let an expert on the subject re-create in the future if appropriate. - TB 09:29, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. - UtherSRG 11:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Niteowlneils 16:47, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete substub. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete subvanity page (not even good enough to be vanity.) --Ardonik 05:08, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Morbidity rate — Add to this discussion

On 29 July 2004, Morbidity rate was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Rossami 00:23, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dicdef. - UtherSRG 11:28, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: dictdef. Not sure if Wiktionary has it or not. One could broaden this slightly by talking about the medical uses, but it would be insufficient to salvage the entry. Geogre 12:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Could expand from stub if someone found reliable statistics on relative rates throughout the world. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep stub; suggest cleanup. Certainly a valid topic. Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid stub. - SimonP 19:14, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important topic. Should link to epidemiology. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since being listed it has been expanded into a good stub. SWAdair | Talk 04:58, 30 Jul 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.


Latitude and Longitude — Add to this discussion

On 29 July 2004, Latitude and Longitude was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. Rossami 00:19, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Latitude and Longitude (now Latitude and longitude)
Currently a disambig page offering a link each to latitude and longitude. Nothing links to it. I can't see any reason for it to exist. Delete? - TB 11:43, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. - UtherSRG 11:57, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this could be expanded to compare the two. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Plenty of people, confused, might enter the terms. Keep, and possibly add comparison as per Dunc Harris. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:55, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
  • OK, I've taken a run at creating such an article. Certainly not my best work, since, while my body may be awake, my mind is not yet fully, but I think it's a reasonable 'proof of concept' of what the article could become. To de-orphan it, perhaps Ptolemy, and possibly the subjects mentioned in it (equator, prime meridian, etc.), could link to it. I guess I vote Keep, but won't lose a lot of sleep if it goes away. I've added a redir so that someone typing "latitude and longitude" will find it. Huh, the more I think about it, the more I think this is probably the right place to house info on the development of the system, rather than duplicating it at latitude, longitude, equator, prime meridian, etc. Niteowlneils 15:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • That looks really good- I concur, this can turn into a good article on the history & ideas behind the system. Keep. -FZ 16:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree - the new version's a keep - good work. - TB 21:02, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Definite keep now, but needs copyedit, admin-move to correct capitalisation at redirect page. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:07, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep new version. SWAdair | Talk 05:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Kp. Not a typical title but (like my rename of Obverse to Obverse and reverse) a valuable way of specifying the natural scope of a topic. Hmmm. I was, IIRC, too much of an intimidated newbie, when i worked on North, to consider articles on North and south, and East and west, as my text perhaps invited. IMO, there should serious thought about how much refactoring w/ the related subjects others have mentioned should be done. --Jerzy(t) 18:02, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)
  • I don't see what the (new) article adds that is not already covered by latitude and longitude. Keep, but in my opinion, the article should just be a disambiguation page pointing to the two subpages. Perhaps its separate existence would be more justified if it talked about how the two measurements first came together. I dunno. --Ardonik 05:05, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree that the article is not finished; yr keep vote is justified by the fact that the vote is about the reasonable potential, not the current content, of the article. --Jerzy(t) 16:41, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)
  • Comment: BTW, this is a handy place to ask this question: can anyone justify the suggestion, in some Web stuff on Al-Khwarizmi, that he, not the early Ptolemy, invented this scheme? Hmm, and were Western and Chinese grids independently developed? --Jerzy(t) 18:02, 2004 Jul 30 (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.

Second Cold War— Add to this discussion

Second Cold War

This is the second time that someone has started an article on his own personal guesswork with this title ("Second Cold War"). Delete. 172 21:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 21:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • No references provided. Original thesis. Delete. Uncle G 00:52, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Megan1967 03:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, well-written original research is still original research. --Deathphoenix 06:14, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, deep thoughts. Wyss 07:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The concept of a second cold war is a genuine subject in the world today. -- Old Right 00:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a popular topic, especially since Americans are uneasy about losing their place as the world's sole superpower.
  • Comment The possibility of a second Cold War may not be remote. The U.S. government could be trying to cover up growing darkness in its waning economy and influence. 68.23.44.205 19:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This article may be useful later when the fate of the U.S. is decided.
  • Delete. It's original research/political commentary. If any of these things come to pass, then we can have an article about it. -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see any problem with putting a political theory in wikipedia. Perhaps the page could simply use a little editing to make it more relavent to the "real" world. -- Judson 06:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Planets orbit the sun to conserve total energy — Add to this discussion

Copyrighted. POV. Dubious science.

  • (William M. Connolley 13:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)) Delete
  • What a great piece. And by that I mean that it's one of those essays which is completely wrong, but you have to know some science to point out exactly where the author has gone wrong. This should be preserved somewhere. Not, however, Wikipedia. Delete. DJ Clayworth 13:46, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Contains copyrighted material - this should be pushed through the copyvio process to ensure its history is deleted also. I've copyvio'ed it for now, if the VfD proposer agrees I suggest that he unlink this discussion from the main VfD page. - TB 14:04, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Origin of universe — Add to this discussion

From the same user as the previous page, I think. Also copyvio and, um, dubious science... --Robert Merkel 13:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, though it may be then created as a redirect to something useful. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:09, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect Creation? Then we don't have to go through this. DJ Clayworth 13:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Contains copyrighted material - this should be pushed through the copyvio process to ensure its history is deleted also. I've copyvio'ed it for now, if the VfD proposer agrees I suggest that he unlink this discussion from the main VfD page. - TB 13:51, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Feel free to do so... --Robert Merkel 01:11, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


User:Plato/red faction — Add to this discussion

On 29 July 2004, User:Plato/red faction 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 consensus to keep. Rossami 00:11, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know that personal subpages are usually considered fair game, but this page overtly and maliciously advocates trolling and vandalism. 172 12:58, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete and sanciton. - UtherSRG 13:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is what VFD is for. This needs to go elsewhere, to the troll dealing page, wherever it is... Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • There is no "troll deleting page," so I think this is going to have to suffice. 172 13:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Recall the wikisex deletion discussion? That was on VFD, as have certain user pages (I think one of them in particular was the user page of a user who wanted to get the Wikimedia foundation in trouble for supposedly improper registation as a charitable institution- that one failed and the page was mildly clobbered with a notice from Jimbo, IIRC). It's not the normal fare of VFD, but it's certainly within its scope. Have an IRC channel quote. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 17:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • 13:04 < maximus_rex> sterlingda, information-ecologist, and wanli all had user subpages deleted against their wishes via vfd
  • Keep. It's a user page, users should have a very wide latitude in what they put on their own user pages. Furthermore, suppressing dissent only leads to the suppressed feeling more marginalized, and taking up their dissent in different and perhaps more anti-social ways. If you disagree with Plato's page, write a page refuting it. -- orthogonal 13:30, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Users should have control over what goes on their user pages, unless they are banned. If you think this is worthy of a ban, then take it up with the Arbitration Committee. I personally have great distaste for the idea of VfD being used as a battleground over users who may or may not be "trolls". This isn't a matter for VfD, and even if it were, orthogonal's points are well taken. Don't rise to their bait. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:53, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
  • Comment: Which of the parts of the rules regarding user subpages do you think this violates? Snowspinner 14:20, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dissent is not a bad thing, and it's certainly not grounds for deleting a User page. If a User actually does something bad, then deal with that. But I really don't see the vandalism aspect. It's antiauthoritarian, and it claims that trolls help Wikipedia. - Eisnel 14:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless there's some specific established guideline that this violates. This page helps us keep track of these people. Bryan 15:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I concur with Orthogonal's statements below. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Note: I argued to keep on principle, without reading the page in question. Having read it, it in no way advocates vandalism, and as far as trolling, it just acknowledges that that label has been applied and so embraces the label as a rallying cry -- much like gays have embraced the epithet "queer". Given that the page itself is so innocuous, I can't help but see this as simply an attempt to harass an "enemy". Wkipedia doesn't need to be wasting time on such juvenilia, and I call upon 172 to either justify his listing it on VfD or himself vote against its removal. -- orthogonal 16:20, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Even if the word "vandalism" is not used, 'trolling' is a form of vandalism. In addition, I'm hardly alone in using these two terms as one-and-the-same. 172 16:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Plato would be well advised to ask for deletion of this page now, while it's timely. If that is the case, delete posthaste. Otherwise... I really can't say. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 17:08, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think the PAGE advocates it, but the faction certainly does. This page provides support for the faction. Is that good enough reason to delete it? - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 17:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Since someone is making a Big Fat Deal about the grandparent of this comment on IRC, allow me to Clarify. I think that Plato should ask for it to be deleted. He's apparently toyed with the idea before, and this is the perfect opportunity to make it happen. It would help his cause- his recent (failed) RFA had several objections about "Cut out the Red Faction nonsense if you want support". The portion about "I really can't say" was not intended as a threat, but rather indecision on my part about whether or not I think the page should be deleted. I have thought it over, and now feel we should KEEP unless Plato agrees to deletion. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 23:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a vote really - why are we making such a big deal about this? It should be ignored, if anything should be done to it at all. Does anyone seriously believe that this group has any power or influence? Of course not. Plato is pretty clueless, and deleting the page would not stop any of the actual trolls listed there. Basically, it doesn't matter, it's not a threat, so why bother doing anything? Adam Bishop 17:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Arevich 19:03, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain very loudly. In the case of previous personal pages that made it to VfD, I recall that the reasoning was that they were using Wikipedia to essentially be a free web host or they advocated illegal behaviors. I try with all my might to stay away from administrative positions and positions on content that is antisocial or twitting. I.e. this seems to be a matter for admins to hash out, not VfD. Geogre 18:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Why should admins get any more say than other users over whether this sort of thing is deleted? It's a community issue; adminship should carry "no special decision-making power or authority". [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:58, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
    • I was trying to be polite too much, I guess. I was trying to say that I thought the nomination and much of the debate had more to do with a history that was private, conducted on meta and IRC, that was inaccessible to those who only write articles than to the merits of the pages. In other words, I thought that the whole community was getting asked to step into a contentious matter and that this was an issue for other forums than VfD. Otherwise, it's really clear that the pages should be kept. They're user pages, not ads, not hijacking of the project. They're a user's thoughts on Wikipedia matters, and it's not even a VfD matter. I just didn't want to get into all that animosity. I just like deleting stuff. Geogre 19:14, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and go look at some articles instead. Zocky 19:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's just a personal page, and is more discussable on RFC than VFD. I'm very much a fan of the "do not feed the trolls" policy, and deleting this page would be like supersizing their happy meal. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:13, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote, but I imagine that deleting this would create some major issues that would subsequently have to be addressed. The page in question seems to me much less offensive than the material found at User:Mr-Natural-Health, so we would then have to have referenda on that and similar items as well. "If it is weak, kill it or ignore it; anything else honors it." You can't "kill" open objection, so ignoring it seems to me to be a better option. Jeeves 22:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • How about just redirecting it to User:Plato as suggested at Wikipedia:User page#Removal? Angela. 01:13, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia:User page#Removal suggestions, guidelines, a proposal, or a policy? The page itself looks like a policy, but parts seems to imply it's a proposal or perhaps just a series of guidelines. Also, are you suggesting that User:Plato, the page "owner", may #REDIRECT the page, or that User:172, the user requesting its deletion, can or should #REDIRECT the page? -- orthogonal 15:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm not saying 172 can or should do anything. It was just a suggestion. It may be best for him to discuss it with Plato and ask Plato to remove it. If Plato fails to do so, gaining community support for the redirect at WP:RFC might be the next step. However, since this is now at VfD, perhaps this page could be used to see if there is sufficient support for redirecting the page. If Plato refuses to have it redirected against the will of the community, it could go to arbitration. There again, it could just be ignored. And Plato does not "own" the page any more than you own an article you write. Angela. 19:19, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
I meant "own" in the sense that Plato created the page and it's a sub-page of his user page, and as I understood the general consensus (policy?) is to let people do whatever is within reason on their user pages. Besides, wouldn't redirecting be, effectively the same as deleting it? The consensus on this page seems to be that 1) the page is mostly innocuous and 2) that if Plato wants keep it, the only harm it does is to Plato's reputation. And I may be being unintentionally unfair to you, Angela; it's sometimes hard for me to tell when you are speaking for yourself in your private capacity as a wiki user and when you are speaking for wikipedia in your public capacity as a wiki officer. -- orthogonal 19:38, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, there is a consensus that people can do what they like with their sub pages within reason. What this VfD listing is suggesting is that Plato has gone beyond what is reasonable. I'm not proposing anyone do anything against consensus. I don't advocate vigilante attempts to have the page removed, which is why my reply above mentions, more than once, the idea of finding out whether there is community support for such an action. Without that, the page should obviously stay. My suggestion of redirecting was page was dependent on there being community support for that action. Regarding whether or not I am speaking on behalf of myself or the foundation, please assume I am always talking on behalf of myself, as a normal user of Wikipedia, unless I explicitly state otherwise. Angela. (disclaimers) 21:52, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • If Plato had any sense, he would have requested speedy deletion of this page long ago. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:08, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Note that this isn't a delete vote. It isn't a keep vote either. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:57, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 17:38, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and request sanction against User:172 and is minion UtherSomething for: 1) trying to turn wikipedia into a fascist dictatorship; 2) abusing the use of VfD; 2) loosing their own time in provoking discussion; 3) harassing users; 4) being nosy. Why do they read the page in the first place, instead of editing zionism and the likes? Muriel G 13:05, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I am a Jewish social democrat whose grandparents died in fascist concentration camps, and I find your comment grossly offensive. I don't make any apologies for helping to curb the damage caused by Plato's "red faction" of vandals either. 172 13:31, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • So? You should know better than me, whose grandfather also died for similar reasons than yours, the price of repressing fundamental liberties. What should you care about what Plato writes there? He is not even insulting anyone, for heavens sake. Why dont you do something useful instead of preocupating yourself with nonsense like the red faction? Muriel G 14:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Why don't you do something useful instead of preocupating yourself with something that I have already done? 172 15:48, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry 172, but hasn't Muriel (or any of us) the right to question your nominations to VfD? I find her opposition very useful; "Fascist" may be over the top, but I notice that while you've taken offense at her tone and added fuel to the rhetorical fire by invoking your grandparents' murders (murders which it should go without saying we all decry), you have answered none of her arguments.
            • That was not a response to her "arguments." She implied that I was a fascist, so I stated otherwise. 172 15:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          To restate her arguments: why are you abusing VfD to harass users you have personal differences with? Why do you even care about a user page that merely states a particular belief about how wikipedia should work, and how is it that mere user opinion in user namespace -- opinion that you need not even read -- constitutes a "troll"? You seem to be alleging that advocating certain opinion, alone and without any action or even call to action, is in itself disruptive. Do you really think wikipedia is so weak that a user page will bring it down? Have you so little confidence in what we collectively have built here that you must seek out and delete any dissenting opinion, no matter how innocuous? -- orthogonal 19:07, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • I can see that you mastered the skill of begging the question. While I'll accredit you with that, my conversation with both you and User:Muriel Gottrop is concluded. 172 19:16, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as evidence aganist them.--Neutrality 19:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The page has plenty of attitude but no real call to action. It does not come remotely close to some pages I've seen (ie, User:Wikipolice) which represented genuine challenges to our community. Plato, at least to my knowledge, has not attempted to do any more than make faces on his user page, and if he were to do so within namespace, then it would be fair to bring out the VfD machines. I really think that at this point, this is undue harrassment, and his userpage is no threat to anyone. Denni☯ 19:13, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
  • Keep. I regard both the Red Faction, and the hysterical reaction to it, as a load of nonsense, but within reason, I believe that what users have in their own user space is their own business. I say "within reason," because the line has to be drawn somewhere. I find it ironic that people tolerated the far more offensive stuff that Wik used to have on his user page, for a much longer period of time, than this. Wik clearly crossed that line - and nothing was done for long enough. Plato has not, in my opinion, crossed the line - even though I find him somewhat annoying. We can all choose to ignore him. Yes, I once voted for disciplinary action against him, but that was on a separate issue - his nomination for sysop status by what I thought was a sockpuppet. I'm not so sure of that now. As for his list of Red Faction members, yes, there are some on the list that I would call trolls or even vandals, but there is also at least one name (Muriel's) that I have A LOT of respect for. That, at least, should be taken into account.David Cannon 21:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Users should be able to place whatever they want on their own user pages as long as (a) it is not illegal, (b) it is not offensive (foul language, sexually explicit etc.), (c) it is not used as a vehicle to attack anyone in any way shape or form. If a user or group of users are partaking in an activity that cotravenes Wiki's code of practice or similar then by all means remove the user entirely, however simply suppressing their user pages will only lead to a backlash that is simply not worth the effort. Keep until they have done enough to be banned, besides it could then be used as evidence if necessary. -- Hackerjack 15:37, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is obviously a personal matter. The page in question does not advocate harmfull behavior IMO, and as such should be under User:Plato's discretion.
  • Keep, looks like more of a fun parody page than anything to be taken seriously. Perhaps it could use a border of smiley faces to clue the humor-challenged. Stan 17:06, 4 Aug 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.

National credit union administration — Add to this discussion

On 29 July 2004, National credit union administration was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was REDIRECT to the correct capitalization and keep harmless redirect. Rossami 00:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I got the capitalization wrong. A bit later I put up National Credit Union Administration with the correct capitalization. Sorry. [moved from main VfD page]

  • I've made the lc version a redir to the uppercase version. I don't think this needs to go thru the full VfD process. Niteowlneils 14:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The downside that occurred to me is that the lc redir might make it a bit more likely another editor might link to it, not realizing it's a redir. If others believe that is a serious problem, then sure, delete it. Niteowlneils 14:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Keep. I think the lowercase is fine--someone could type it that way from the search box. --Ardonik 04:59, Jul 31, 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.


VARTV — Add to this discussion

News website for one particular state in the US. Nothing to suggest it's particularly important; likely an ad. TPK 14:13, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: I don't know how much of an ad it is, but I'm sure that it's just one more TV station out of tens of thousands. Geogre 16:31, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:11, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete substub; should have been a speedy delete. If VARTV truly is notable, someone else can come along and try to do better. Even a single paragraph would have been better. --Ardonik 04:50, Jul 31, 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}} ~~~~

[[da:Wikipedia:Sider der br slettes]] [[fr:Wikip&eacute;dia:Pages &agrave; supprimer]]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_September_2004&oldid=4902529"