Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ian Maxwell (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 15 August 2004 (→[El Guapo]] -- [[/El Guapo|Add to this discussion]]: Typo in code). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

More information.

Things to consider:

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

AfD etiquette:

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

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

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


15th 14th 13th 12th 11th 10th- 9th 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 1st 31st 30th 26th

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:Pages on votes for deletion

Decisions in progress

August 10

Supercilious -- Add to this discussion

Dicdef. Transwiki'd to Wiktionary. --Diberri | Talk 00:39, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Concur- kill it. -FZ 00:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is so beneath me to comment upon. However, if those people insist on putting definitions in an encyclopedia, what can we say? (Kidding! Dictdef, common.) Geogre 01:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Utcursch, August 10, 2004
  • Delete. Transwiki (obviously). Skyler 01:18, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

In perpetuity -- Add to this discussion

  • dictionary definition - Mattingly23 01:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wiktionary and delete. --Diberri | Talk 01:11, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Again, I don't think Wiktionary really needs it, esp. with that link to another online dictionary that this was derived from. It's a dictdef, though, so it's gotta go. I don't really see a way for it to improve. If others do, we can all revisit our votes. Geogre 02:08, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree 100%, but as Wiktioary doesn't interest me much, I leave those sorts of decision up to the Wiktionary folks. If somebody notices the transwiki'd dicdef and sees hope, they can rework it into a proper definition. If not, no skin off my back. --Diberri | Talk 04:06, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry I couldn't find that term at Wiktioary so I've entered it - but is that OK? I'm a little confused here on how I enter information that isn't on Wiki anywhere but it is available elsewhere on line? I'm supposed to reference sources and yet because I did its going to be deleted? -- Fee | Talk
    • Hi, and thank you for that. The question really isn't the quality of your work or whether or not you gave a reference, but just which project handles which thing. In Wikipedia, we delete all articles that are merely dictionary definitions, just because it's an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. In addition, we have the Wiktionary project for dictionary references. This particular article in Wikipedia needs to be deleted unless it becomes encyclopedic. In Wikipedia, we ask contributors to give references (just because of the encyclopedia format), but not in Wiktionary. If you have entered the word in Wiktionary, then the deletion here won't affect that whatsoever. Geogre 12:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • If you want to make an encyclopedia form of "in perpetuity," for example, the best way would be to discuss the origins of this legal term, give examples of how the term changes meaning in different contexts, any historical uses, etc. Please don't worry about our excision of this entry from the Wikipedia, because it won't affect the work you do for Wiktionary. Thank you for contributing, and please, please don't let this discourage you. Geogre 12:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Transfer to wiktionary is OK. Now delete it. - Utcursch, August 10, 2004
  • Transwiki to wiktionary if not expanded. I do think that there's something interesting to say about "in perpetuity", but the present version doesn't say anything. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • OK Thanks for your help Geogre. Perhaps an administrator could delete the page as I can't. Thanks again for your patience. -- Fee | Talk
    • We've all got each other's backs here, Fee, even if it looks like there are knives sticking out from time to time. :-) There is no need to take any more action. At the end of the VfD voting period, the article will be deleted if the vote remains "delete." Again, be bold in your edits. This is, hopefully, the only page where you will see negativity. Geogre 01:21, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This could have good value as an entry of encyclopedic content. I think it should be expanded, but even if it is just edited to a stub format, it should be kept for Wikipedians with legal interest (like myself) to expand in the future. Skyler 01:28, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Skyler. --Dittaeva 20:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary then delete. - UtherSRG 20:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Skyler and Dittaeva. This has the potential to evolve into something along the lines of Time immemorial. Wikisux 02:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Abu Shusha massacre -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Re: Abu Shusha massacre
This page is a stub and has not changed since December 2003. Due to lack of easily available information, it is likely to stay this way. There are many similar pages linked from List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, List of villages destroyed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and probably similar pages that I was so far lucky enough to not have run into. I chose Abu-Shusha as an example. Gadykozma 01:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, unless no useful information can be found. I don't think it is appropriate to list stubs on this page just because they are stubs. Cleanup would be a more appropriate place. --Zero 09:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) I changed my vote, see below.
    • I assumed all votes would appear on the subpage, but this one doesn't. Is that a bug, or just something I don't understand? Gadykozma 17:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Your entry and the one above it, which were part of the VfD page, have now been moved to this one. (There, only users reading the VfD page saw them along with the others; here they are seen by users using either method of reading this discussion.) You made the small, easy, and often harmless mistake of clicking on "[edit]" instead of "Add to this discussion". If you again click on "[edit]" in the section of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion where you posted, and read the whole edit pane, you'll find the following:
<!-- You are about to edit the main VfD page. Please go back and use the "Add to this discussion" link to add your vote or comment. -->
which is the markup for a Wiki comment. (Since it is a comment, you don't see it when you read the page, but only when you read the edit pane.) No one expects you to read all the markup in the edit pane, but usually people notice it when they are about to edit right next to it, and go back and use the other link. You were the victim of the person who edited it before you, and didn't notice and follow the link as we hope editors will do; once there was an existing entry between the comment and the bottom of the page (where you added your entry), it was almost inevitable you'd also not take the opportunity to go back and use the other link, so don't feel too bad. [smile]--Jerzy(t) 03:53, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
  • Keep: A stub by itself doesnt meet the criteria for deletion. Nor does it mean much that you can supernaturally predict that it will remain that way unto perpetuity. It may make sense to merge these into a single list, but then you have to accept the possibility that these will develop in to articles, sometimes slowly and at the author's pace. -SV 18:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge & Delete: I have no interest in the factuality of the entry. Rather, I think what stub information there is here should be merged back into a page that covers the whole list. (N.b. I'm in favor of allowing the NPOV information, but not having a series of stubs that don't reward clicking on them from the list. (E.g. If you're at "List of Intifada Battles" and click on "The Big Battle" and get text saying, "The big battle was a battle in the Intifada," there wasn't much point.)) SV and I are using the very same logic, I know, to reach opposite conclusions: I'd rather they stayed as paragraphs on a list until they needed to break out. Geogre 18:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I agree that the information should be merged, but I also think that the stub should remain. If a Wikipedian comes along who knows more about the subject, I think they will be much more inclined to expand on the stub due to the fact that it is a stub than undertake the (sometimes daunting) task of creating a new article. The stub has value. I think it should remain. Skyler 01:37, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. Cutler 23:05, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • I change my vote to Merge and redirect Gadykozma 06:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I changed my vote to delete after looking in the standard sources (Morris, Khalidi) for information on this subject. Abu Shusha was an Arab village of about 1000 people in Palestine until it was depopulated and partly destroyed in May 1948 by the Zionist/Israeli forces. A Jewish village was then established at that place. This much of the story makes it about the same as a couple of hundred other Arab villages. There were some reports that a massacre of Arabs took place there at the time of depopulation, but there doesn't seem to be the solid evidence that is required before one could definitely say that it happened. Therefore this page does not deserve to exist with this title. --Zero 11:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • In this case I'll change my vote again. Its either plain delete, or rewrite to reflect that these are rumors, merge with the list, and then delete. Gadykozma 15:08, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Controversy involves historically and culturally significant events. It is our job to keep its content NPOV through editing. Davodd 20:25, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Davodd. --Dittaeva 21:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. To someone coming to this topic with no knowledge, this articles offers no enlightenment whatsoever. To someone familiar with the incident, this article offers no new perspectives. Unless it does more than say "on this date, some (unspecified) event happened", I don't believe it merits space. Denni☯ 20:19, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

end moved discussion

action to be taken

Since the attempt at deletion failed, I propose to replace this article by one called just "Abu Shusha" with a mention of the claims about a massacre. The present name can remain as a redirect. I'll write a first draft today or tomorrow. If anyone has objections, please speak up now. --Zero 23:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You should somehow handle the link from List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war too. And the link from List of villages destroyed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Gadykozma 05:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Amyl -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Amyl


Namo -- Add to this discussion

Wikipediaddiction -- Add to this discussion

Neologism. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 02:07, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC) [moved from mainpage]

  • Wrong namespace. Move to Wikipedia: namespace, and link to Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test? Securiger 06:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipediholic is no less neologism and does not seem to be nominated as a consideration for deletion. Grice 10 AUG 2004
    • Delete. Neologism. As for Wikipediholic, firstly it isn't in the article namespace, and secondly I'm inclined to agree that the redirect should be listed in redirects for deletion. That doesn't affect the decision on this. Andrewa 13:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to another namespace. Rmhermen 13:07, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redir to Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test or Wikipedia:Wikipediholic. I also think it's incorrect--WP addicts are more likely to be editors, not just readers. My life is currently being negatively affected by my compulsion to edit Wikipedia (I only work about 20 hrs/week, when my employer would prefer 40, thus I am losing $1400 per week), so I think I know the subject. Niteowlneils 15:23, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and moved the article to Wikipedia: Wikipediaddiction. Hoping that this has changed the namespace of the article, I hope it is no longer in the "article namespace". Grice 19:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the redirect from Wikipediaddiction since it is obviously in the wrong namespace. I have no opinion on whether Wikipedia:Wikipediaddiction should be deleted or not. Angela. 01:16, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic content. Move if it may be appropriate elsewhere, but not in the context of an online encyclopedia. Skyler 03:32, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or get it out of the main article namespace. Not familiar with the rules on the Wikipedia namespace, don't see any harm in its being there. It's not a standard term, and in the main namespace it would be sort of incestuous in-joke, inappropriate. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:31, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, the name of the article seems inappropriate. Said aloud it sounds as if it may be an article on proper Wikipedian pronunciation.Fire Star 16:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it needs to be somewhere, keep under some name, because it does refer to a demonstrably extant phenomenon. Personally I'm not an addict, I can quit any time, but one can become addicted to wikpedia. Might be nice if this were actually addressed in a supportive manner, (what can you do if you find yourself getting addicted) etc., rather than as a joke though. Pedant 00:00, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article on Wikipedia addiction by a user who's been registered for a week and has 15 edits (most to the article in question and this debate)? Hah! You know nothing about being addicted to Wikipedia! -- Cyrius|✎ 01:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not much more to say... The Land 17:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Societas Via Romana -- Add to this discussion

Societas Via Romana 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.

Non-notable semi-fictitious internet-based micronation club. Article created by editor who apparently has an axe to grind concerning another similar group and whose only other contributions involve vandalism of parts of the Micronation article that relate to the competing group. --Gene_poole 02:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) [moved from mainpage]

  • Keep. Neither obviously better nor worse than the other micronation articles, which have repeatedly survived VfDing. The problem here seems to be that Gene_poole and Belgsoc seem to have it in for each other and are VfDing each other's clubs. Maybe what is really needed is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Securiger 06:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Belgsoc is not the only one with a dispute over Gene's actions; I also do not feel that Gene acts in a reasonable manner. Samboy 06:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like self-promotion to me. Samboy 07:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, I agree. If I was Emperor of Wikipedia, internet micronations would be one of several classes of articles we would manage without. But we are a cooperative community, and the community seems to want them to survive. That being the case, I don't see this one as any worse than the others. OTOH, if the vote was to delete all internet micronation articles I would vote for deletion. Securiger 07:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another small, completely non-notable hobby club/website/discussion group. --Robert Merkel 07:23, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, even by micronation "standards". -Sean Curtin 07:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that claiming 'micronation' status makes you notable (so don't think describing micronation aims are going to impress me), or that getting articles in newspapers written about you are (I've read enough newspaper articles about complete oddballs and silly stories to not rate this as a measure of importance). Claimed membership numbers when you don't charge a membership fee aren't going to impress either. What this society would need to persuade me is a significant number of members, or a significant profile in the community (re-enactments, educational work, regular film extra work, etc). It might be my laziness or an unclear layout of their webpage, but on a quick look I didn't see anything that describes such real world activities. So, if it is in practice no more than an online talking shop, delete. Average Earthman 12:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: As said above, micronations survive VfD over and over. Well, the only thing that I think I can offer is consistency. I keep, as much as possible, criteria that do not change with my feelings. I feel that real life always takes precedence over fiction, that the smallest town in our infamous geography dump is superior to the largest website. Micronations, to me, have notability that is extremely difficult to establish, almost impossible to verify. I have no feelings whatsoever on the worthiness of this micronation vs. that, no judgment on whether they are as notable as they are loved. To the degree that a micronation establishes notability in an empirical way, I can vote to keep. In this case, I cannot get that notability and must vote delete. Geogre 13:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Ianb 17:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Wholly agree w/ Geogre. Delete. Lacrimosus 02:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Non-encyclopedic. Seems like an advertisement. Skyler 03:42, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have visited the website of this group a few times. They are not a bad bunch, and they at least do not presume to be a micronation. {Poole's description of them as a "micronation club" is inaccurate in this respect. The article here flat out denies micronation status}. Still, I have to agree this club is not notable and it's small size and lack of achivements {beyond being a pleasant place for Roman buffs to associate} make it inappropriate for a reference encyclopedia. Stuart Smith 12:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
They can deny being a micronation all they like - but the facts - and their own actions - speak for themselves. This internet-based entity was created by a group of disgruntled former members of the Nova Roma micronation, with the specific intention of setting themselves up in opposition to the former group. The editor who created this article has also attempted to delete references to Nova Roma in the Micronation article, and replace it with references to Societas Via Romana - which would appear to be rather odd behaviour for a group that claims to not be a micronation. --Gene_poole 00:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As an aside, "Gene Poole" is really George Cruickshank, "Emperor" of Atlantium. Samboy 00:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Samboy is a crank who has repeatedly posted irrelevent off-topic statements as a way of attempting to villify another editor. Admins please note this latest example. --Gene_poole 00:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Gene_poole flat out lies. I (Captain_Q) did not attempt to replace references to Nova Roma with Societas Via Romana (edit: I see this inaccuracy has been corrected now). Like some other users here say, the matter appears to be revolving around tricking people into believing your POV rather than the actual facts. I find this very petty...
Let's see...on the micronation discussion page, you argue that Nova Roma is a micronation and will continue to refer to it as such because that is what the Nova Roma webpage says it is. Ok. But when SVR denies being a micronation, you ignore that and insist it must be. I see. The real criterion here is Gene Poole's POV! If Gene Poole says something is a micronation, then it is. And if he says something is not a micronation, then it is not.

And according to the edit page, Belgsoc did not even create the article! You know what I think Gene? I think you would have ignored this Societas Via Romana article were it not for Belgsoc tamp ering with your beloved

micronation article. Belgsoc is as strong in his or her opinion as you are in yours, and that is a terrible distraction for you. In the end, when you saw that Belgsoc did an edit on this article, you decided to have some personal revenge and put it up for deletion. But you did not count on Belgsoc putting your Atlantium article up for VfD, did you? Isn't this whole matter rather petty? Stuart Smith 01:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You know what I think? I would not have even known about the Societas Via Romana article if Belgsoc - an editor who has been around for 1 entire week, and contributed to 2 entire articles -(and who has been strangely inactive since then) had not attempted to repeatedly interpolate it into the Micronation article - which, I repeat, indicates in no uncertain terms the nature of Societas Via Romana - ie that it is a web-based micronation. As it was therefore non-notable, I nominated it for deletion in exactly the same way that I have done for articles on numerous other unverifiable, non-notable web-based micronations. In a fit of pique, Belgsoc then listed Empire of Atlantium for deletion. That attempt will fail this time, just like it failed the previous 2 times it was tried - and Belgsoc, like all other Wiki self-promoters, will (indeed, already has) disappeared from whence he/she came. --Gene_poole 02:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't care if it calls itself a "micronation" or a blog if it's nonnotable. Postdlf 05:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fire Star 16:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for a multitude of reasons already presented. Denni☯ 01:53, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. Captain_Q Obviously you won't find me very objective because I created the article, but in my defence, I would like to point out the following facts: the Societas Via Romana is a serious organisation and is not a micronation. The one who put it up for deletion purely seems to have purely done so out of spite. Secondly, it is not the only article I have written or contributed to, so, I can't be accused of using it as self-promotion... Please don't be too dismissive in your scepticism, people. I wonder if some of you even bothered to read the page at all...
  • Delete, not notable, let emperors Gene Poole and Belgsoc go and fight it out elsewhere. —Stormie 02:14, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
But neither user is associated with that org! Captain_Q 11:37, Aug 14, 2004 (CET)
Gene Poole listed it on VFD, Belgsoc removed the VFD listing, I don't really care if they're officially associated with your society or not. —Stormie 06:46, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I previously voted for deletion, but I am changing my vote. I think Stormie is right and this whole affair is a personal quarrel between Cruickshank and Belgsoc. And it is not fair that the SVR gets its article deleted because of being in the crossfire. When I see some of the really insignicant stuff that is allowed to stay in Wikipedia, SVR looks a bit more noteworthy. {eg. I like the Beatles...but Hey Jude is NOT and NEVER will be encyclopedia material. So, even though my vote change will not be enough to help keep this article from deletion, I will change since they ought to have someone on their side. Stuart Smith 16:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Dittaeva 20:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another vanity article on a micronation based on ancient Rome. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is not a micronation. Uh. Captain_Q 11:57, Aug 16, 2004 (CET)
  • How did I miss this one? Delete. Ambi 10:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - UtherSRG 20:32, 16 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.


Homer Lea -- Add to discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Homer Lea

Atlantium -- Add to this discussion

This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.
Previous AfDs for this article:
Previous AfDs for this article:

From VfD

  • Atlantium - irrelevant "micronation". --Wik 05:05, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete; agree. Most of the google hits, incidentally, refer to a TV show or a city in a Might and Magic game, not this silliness. Tempshill 05:16, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)\
    • They claim over a thousand members and have recognizable stances. The article is moderately well-written (certainly not patent nonsense). Some of the towns from Rambot actually have less population. I'm forced to say keep. Meelar 05:25, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • They can claim a lot, but it's not verifiable. --Wik 05:28, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless this is particularly well-known (ie people in Sydney have heard of these people) then delete. Secretlondon 08:44, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't wish to vote on this one, but if it helps I do live in Sydney (since 1958) and have never heard of them except through Wikipedia articles. Andrewa 09:31, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Strongely oppose deletion. This page has been salvaged by a good many longstanding and respected Wikipedians over the last year. --mav 10:27, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • If the topic is irrelevant, there is nothing to salvage. --Wik 19:19, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose deletion. It may be small but it is not unverifiable see this article in a major british newspaper and [2][3][4] theresa knott 13:08, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Some of the information in the article might be unverifiable, and should thus be deleted, but I think the article per se should be kept. See these sources. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't see how any of this verifies the claim of 1,000 members, and a sizable membership would be the only thing that could justify an article on this. One of your links is a copy of the Wikipedia article Micronation, where Gene Poole himself added his nonsense. Another is merely an internet directory. And the Guardian surely has not verified the membership of Atlantium; it is mentioned within a larger article about micronations, and the information given is likely just based on a web search and maybe a brief telephone interview with Cruickshank. See Andrewa's comment above showing that even a longtime Sydney resident has never heard of this. It is of no relevance and the membership is unverifiable, therefore it has to be deleted. --Wik 19:19, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. —Psychonaut 14:34, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I find it interesting. -- Cyan 22:03, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Relevant verifiable micronation. Has more citizens than Sealand. Anthony DiPierro 23:46, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Gene Poole It appears that Wik has issues with the fact that I have chosen to challenge his/her repeated vandalisations of the "micronations" article over recent days, and has chosen to engage in some sort of half-arsed vendetta in consequence. The current attempted article deletion is an obvious consequence of this malicious, uninformed and outright vexatious attitude. Needless to say, more than ample physical evidence exists to verify all claims made by Atlantium and its administration that are not affected by privacy considerations. These include on-site video coverage by such international media organisations as Reuters and TV Deutsche Welle, in addition to a raft of print media articles - all of which are in the public domain. In summary, I encourage Wik to either put up or shut up.
      • Gene Poole had the audacity to put his "Atlantium" fiction on a list of "serious aspirant states" together with Palestine; my "vandalisations" consisted in removing it from that list. If there is "ample physical evidence" it's up to him to show it. --Wik 05:47, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Gene Poole The increasingly shrill blatherings of Wik on this subject are a clear illustration of this individual's inability to maintain anything approaching an informed or rational viewpoint. Atlantium is obviously not a fiction, no matter how often Wik attempts to devalue it by making that patently false claim. It is a real entity comprised of real people - many of whose photographs, names, addresses and telephone numbers are listed - along with a large volume of other entirey verifiable data - squarely in the public domain. The fact that Wik cannot be bothered to do any serious research (sorry but a Google word search doesn't qualify) - even when provided with appropriate leads - speaks volumes concerning his/her real agenda - namely, to rubbish the efforts of those whose personal attitudes he/she disagrees with.
    • Chill out, Imperator. As for everyone else, I think it is worth mentioning semi-serious endeavours with real histories and extended followers -- they are definitely encyclopedic, although might be culled from a paper 'pedia. See for instance Pi Day or even Yellow Pig Day (but see its VfD entry below) or the Scottish streaker who crossed the pond to hit the Superbowl. But I do think that all Atlantium content [bios of its Emperor, list of its cabinet, refs to its policies] should be on a single page, reflecting its size and small history. And I don't think it should show up in any list other than a "micronations" list which explains that most of these political entities are recognized only by other micronations, if at all. +sj+ 03:28, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)
    • Delete: irrelevant. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:59, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete - we could all invent micronations in our bedrooms. Secretlondon 23:47, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. I never knew of Atlantium before this. Just don't go nuts over NPOV, and everything will work out fine. (Yeah, this means you too, Wik and whoever's disputing Wik.) Rickyrab 18:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tiki Ti -- Add to this discussion

From VfD

Advertising for non-notable bar. RickK 05:26, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Non-notable? I wasn't aware this article existed before just now, but the bar itself is one of the most well-known establishments in Southern California. A Google search for the name, with or without quotes, brings up (literally) myriad results, all relevant; at any rate, I certainly grew up hearing about it. The article is in dire need of a clean-up, but it's a definite keep. Austin Hair 05:42, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Needs a clean up, but its a very notable place. --KenV 05:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Clean up and removal of advertising: It has no employees? Very weird. You can see two different hands at work, at least. One is a Wikipedia-appropriate one, and one is not. Geogre 13:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. OMG, Los Angeleans are second only to New Yorkers in thinking they live in the center of the universe. I live in the same state, and frequent bars, and have never heard of this. "tiki ti" only gets 600 hits. (compare to 16,000 for "tiki hut", which doesn't have an article). If this stays, expect articles on The Oasis, Murphy's Law, and Blinkys, "notable" bars in MY neighborhood. "The Oasis, known to many as "The Bat Cave" for its dark, cramped atmosphere..." "Murphy's Law is in the popular Murphy Street neighborhood of Sunnyvale, and features live classic rock music on the weekends. ..." "Blinkys sports bar is on the renowned El Camino Real, and features live classic rock music on the weekends..." Note, KenV's only edits are here and the subject article--suspect original contrib of article. No employees? What, the waitstaff is all volunteer? Niteowlneils 14:08, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • All this for a one sentence stub on a notable bar on Sunset, hmmm I reedited my first entry to an approprate one. California Smoking Law is ment to protect the employees, the oweners do not have employees, they do everything themselfs. --69.33.44.66 17:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • That helps explain some of it. You do see how confusing it was in the article to say that it was a place with no employees? If this is as famous as Tiki Hut, then realize that most of us will re-examine the article before the end of VfD voting and review our votes. Geogre 17:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! Los Angeles landmark referenced on our Sunset Boulevard page. jengod 18:36, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If jengod says it's an L.A. landmark worth keeping, then it's an L.A. landmark worth keeping. -- Decumanus 06:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV. In Canada, Toronto claims to be the center of the universe. I'm sure every country can claim a metropolis arrogant enough to make the same claim, and at least one bar in said metropolis arrogant enough to proclaim itself monarch. Denni☯ 02:06, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
    • The article makes no claim that the bar exists at the center of the universe, or any claim of any superiority whatever. I can only assume that you're not referring to the actual content, or even the name, but rather the article's very existence. Given this assumption, I ask: how is this a violation of WP:NPOV? Austin Hair 02:36, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • I claim only that a fricking =bar= has no place in Wikipedia, unless someone famous drank there regularly, or a notable person committed suicide on the premises, or some other event occurred which elevates it above any other similar liquor-serving establishment in Backwash, Indiana (where the same fun can be had at half the price). Plain and simple, this bar is irrelevant to five decimal places to the world's population - what reason other than fondness for the establishment or vanity could there be for including such an article? Denni☯ 02:03, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
        • Nobody notable drank there regularly? Amongst the many famous regular patrons of the Tiki Ti have been some key figures in the underground rock scene of the 1980s, such as the members of The Cramps, Jeffrey Lee Pierce, Bob Forrest, and many others. It was the post-punk scenester crowd who discovered the bar, previously a neighborhood joint little known outside of what was then a relatively obscure part of L.A.
        • In fact, you claimed that this article was POV in the lead sentence of your first post, which is a very different argument from the one upon which you've now decided to fall back. Significance, you secondary argument, is relevant to this vote, and I simply argue that a notable landmark in what is unarguably a notable city can rightfully be considered to be both encyclopedic and significant to a sizable portion of our audience. Neither Pikachu nor Giraldus Cambrensis are of any interest to "five decimal places of the world's population," but they both (quite appropriately) have their place in Wikipedia. Austin Hair 02:26, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
          • And I still think that a sentence like "It is considered by many to be the very epitome of the Tiki tavern style" is POV unless you have some demonstrative proof that "many" ≠ "me". And what precisewly is "...a sizable portion of our audience..."? The hundred odd regulars? The few thousand who have visited because of its "notability", or the few (being generous) tens of thousands who have heard of it? Both Pikachu and Giraldus Cambrensis have notability to a hugely larger audience than this article. I stand by my vote. Denni☯ 18:47, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
            • Have you read WP:NPOV? "It is considered by many" is precisely the way to state a particular viewpoint while not actively espousing it. In fact, I don't personally hold an opinion either way, and did not write that tidbit in the first place. I did rephrase it per the NPOV policy. As for the bar's prominence as a Los Angeles landmark, perhaps you'd best leave that judgment to LA residents and tourists—i.e. those actually qualified to judge. I certainly wouldn't take it upon myself to speak for the popularity of a site in Jakarta, having never even been there. Austin Hair 23:13, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Dittaeva 20:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

photoreq

removing photo request. photo has been added. Minnaert 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above discussion

Putting aside the discussion of bars, Sunset Blvd, center of the universe etc. The Tiki Ti is an historic landmark for those involved in "Tiki Culture" just because "you" don't understand the concept doesn't mean it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. It is as much a part of "tiki" as Trader Vics or Don the Beachcomber. And it IS world famous by the way. Hell, without Ray Buhen there would've BEEN no Trader Vic's! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.203.11 (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ACS Chess Club -- Add to this discussion

"ACS Chess Club" 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. The notable alumni were moved to Anglo-Chinese School with attribution noted in the edit summary. Rossami 00:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just couldn't pass this vanity article by. POV as well. Didn't some other article from the Anglo-Chinese School come up recently? - Lucky 6.9 07:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity. --Robert Merkel 07:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge the facts that they have produced an International Grandmaster and a Secretary General of FIDE into Anglo-Chinese School; delete the rest. Securiger 08:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the article: I suppose rescuing the ACS info for the linked articles is good and noble, but this article, as well written as it is, should be deleted. Geogre 13:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge the GM, the IMs, and the SecGen into Anglo-Chinese School, and delete. -- Jao 05:41, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete Vanity but some information could be used. Frankchn 13:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: an attempt was made to remove the VFD notice from the page. -- Grunt (talk) 03:32, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
  • Vanity Vanity Vanity... Having an article about this Club could potentially happen, but merge and COMPLETELY REWRITE. I mean common... The whole thing about not being daunted about being called geeks? Totally unnecessary.

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.

Waldo 54 -- Add to this discussion

This is a poorly written (in my opinion) article about a poorly written (again, my opinion) web-published autobiography about a clone. Seems like vanity to me. Delete. Gentgeen 08:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • oops, I forgot its clone, "Waldo 54" should be deleted with it. Gentgeen 08:34, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • If it hasn't been published off line, and the author has no significant publication record, then delete. Average Earthman 13:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both. 33 hits. Actually sounded like a potentially interesting book, until I learned no one is selling it! Niteowlneils 13:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both: Not published except on the web, no notability. Geogre 13:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • All is vanity, but at least this is notably vain! -Waldo 37, 10 Aug 2004
  • Delete Cutler 22:52, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

MegaWorks -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable small computer software company, founded by a school student in 2001. Google comes up with speaker systems, not this company. TPK 08:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Looks like vanity. Even if it weren't, it's not notable. Geogre 13:34, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Cutler 22:51, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Andris 14:09, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)


YOSAKOI -- Add to this discussion

A Japanese dance (festival)? If I'm mistaken, and this is notable, it would need a far better translation. -- Pjacobi 12:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • MASA 13:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)I am … though I translated the item of "YOSAKOI festival" which appeared on Japanese edition as a summer festival which represented Japan into English and it let me write it.
  • Keep, notable. Started in 1955, teams of up to 150 people compete, "よさこい" (yosakoi) yields 100,000+ Google hits, FAQ here. Looks like we need an article about the Super-Yosakoi Festival [5] as well. Move to cleanup list. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. In desperate need of cleanup, but keep. Title probably shouldn't be in all-caps, though. — Gwalla | Talk 22:34, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lacrimosus 02:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Madness Temple -- Add to this discussion

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 07:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madness Temple

There's no point in it. Madness Temple is an enclosed forum. We rarely get new users. If someone wanted to know about the site, they's actaully visit it or type it into google. This article does not serve a purpose at all. Can we be rid of it again, please?

Jakemcmahon 16:50, July 13, 2004 (GMT)


An apparently non-notable website created a few days ago. So new it does not even have an Alexa ranking. Andris 12:24, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Sheesh. Vanity/advert; delete. Lupo 12:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the idiots from my board (yeah, the temple) trolling this page. Note: the page was created by a non-admin member. I believe you both have a point, and support the deletion of this page. Alreadyinuse 12:44, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi, I'm one of the people that created the Temple. I can assure you it was a member who created the entry. However, if you wish to delete it... then you will, I suppose. Which is a shame, as it's a completely valid site. The only decent case you have against it is the Alexa thing. Never mind. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • What he said
  • Comment I'm another person from the Temple, yes its new, but why should that mean it gets deleted. freakimus
    Because it is non-noteable, and also because Wikipedia is not a web directory. Lupo 12:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for advertising new sites; even a "spin-off" of Slashdot probably wouldn't make it here. --Ianb 12:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess this is a losing battle (and quite a pointless one at that) but the fact is that Madness Temple is a fast-growing community. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The point isn't that it's a fast-growing community- it's that the temple isn't really a notable site. b3ta has tens of thousands of members, it has got a lot of press attention and it is very well known around the web community. Madness temple has been up for about five days. Hardly anyone knows about it, and it's done nothing particularly important. Yet. Alreadyinuse 13:00, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. We'll see what happens in the future. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment Hi, I'm the guy who wrote the piece...I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to inform about various issues, including sites on the Internet? I wrote the piece from a neutral standpoint as requested (writing only to inform, as is the whole point, and without giving an opinion either way) and stressed heavily the fact that it was new and a b3ta spin-off of sorts. I didn't realise that Wikipedia only lists major sites; to me, that seems rather moot, as everyone knows all about the major sites anyway. I felt the MT had enough noteworthy stuff on it to deserve a place here, hence my entry. Heh, please don't bash, 'twas an honest mistake if it can really be considered as such. Feral.
  • Delete: Wikipedia does not offer web guide functions. Geogre 13:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - neither notable nor encyclopedic - the sort of article that makes me think that the criteria for speedy deletion should be more widely drawn. Cutler 22:49, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory/promotional tool. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:34, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

How to Build -- Add to this discussion

Far too general title and the material only covers automobile engines. I don't think this title ever be useful for any article. Rmhermen 13:01, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Material is not usefull. --Starx 15:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with above, and Wikipedia isn't a "How-to" guide. Delete. -- Stevietheman 15:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Not true. There is plenty of how to info on wikiepdia. Also thwe title is a non issue as the page can easily be moved. However it reads like a wikibook page, so I suggest it's tranwikied to there. theresa knott 15:15, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Disagree. Wikipedia contains a good amount of info it's not supposed to contain. -- Stevietheman 15:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • But the issue of how-tos has never been resolved and there's isn't any established policy or consensus. There's nothing about this in Wikipedia:What's_in,_what's_out. And Wikipedia:How-to tells specifically how to write them. By all means express opinion on articles, but I wish people would please stop asserting that there is any established policy that excludes procedural knowledge from Wikipedia. You can start a section on this in Wikipedia:What's_in,_what's_out or try listing Wikipedia:How-to, but please do not assert policy where none exists. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: How-to, and not an actual how-to. It's along the lines of "To score a touchdown, be sure to go all 100 yards down the field." Perhaps it belongs in Wikibooks, but I wouldn't judge that. Geogre 16:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encylopedic Cutler 22:46, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is of no interest, this is an encyclopedia of knowledge not a guide to the web. anon comment moved off main VfD page
  • Move to some better title, such as "Home-built automobile engines" or whatever phrase would be most natural to hobbyists who design and build their own high-performance auto engines. It's a vaguely interesting topic. I can see this growing into a decent article. Check to make sure we don't have one already. If someone objects deeply to the procedural language, this could easily be rewritten since, as other have noted, it's not really a procedural article at all. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Moved to Home-built automobile engines. Attempted cleanup. This is an area that I am sure Wikipedia has very little info on, but is in fact quite popular in the real world, it would not be very encouraging for new users if such stuff is simply deleted. Vote to keep. --Dittaeva 21:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Evocative -- Add to this discussion

definition - Mattingly23 13:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Dicdef. -- Stevietheman 15:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: dictdef...doubtful Wiktionary. Geogre 16:51, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - dicdef Cutler 22:44, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete uninformative dicdef. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I Spy With My Little Phi -- Add to this discussion

No google hits. Dubious content. If it were a comedy I doubt it would be funny. Almost certainly a hoax. Michael Johnson (teacher) is linked from Blue Coat School, Oldham Դմն 19:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete Դմն
  • Delete unless it can be verified within the VFD period. Cutler 21:54, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Blast! I thought I had it here, but that's a mirror cleverly disguised. Not a bit of it is verified. Burn it, unless someone finds something. Odd that a BBC series in this much detail doesn't provide us with the name of any of the stars, isn't it? Geogre 01:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacrimosus 02:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • BBC website hasn't heard of it either. Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete entirely on the basis of stupid title. Wikipedia is not Everything2. Denni☯ 02:11, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
  • Delete ... in a chilled out yet stringent manner. - Nat Krause 20:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete probable nonsense before it spreads. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Blue Coat School, Oldham -- Add to this discussion

I can't see anything significant about this school. Dmn / Դմն 19:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete Dmn / Դմն 19:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • We seem to have admitted that we'll have a page for every High School and this is one. It's moderately historic but the article is a gross abuse of bandwidth. WP:Cleanup then see if what's left survives WP:VFD. Cutler 21:52, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously there are factual inaccuracies, but it is a notable secondary school. Perhaps put this version on Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense and create a serious page, afterwards. There is clearly a load of intelligent humour here, probably from students of the school. Whilst it is most definitely wrong to have this on the encyclopaedia; bad jokes would surely be a fitting end to some artistic self expression. Also, if we don't save it, I can see these students(?) doing the same thing again.
    SimonMayer 22:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • what a lot of work this page has had put into it. Alas, the really interesting stuff, which would be the basis for a proper article (the history, as it looks like quite an old school) is very sparse. Agree with SimonMayer's suggestion. --Ianb 23:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree with SimonMayer. Ele 00:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Joke. Preserve on BJAODN and have a rewrite from nearly blank. A lot of work, fools the casual eye. Geogre 01:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and Keep. Lacrimosus 02:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Schools are inherently notable for anyone researching educational facilities. Article needs cleanup though. Davodd 20:19, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. -Sean Curtin 21:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Clean up then keep. And then ban the vandals. The page was fine before the sabotages. -- ~~~~
  • This page has turned into one giant ugly-ass school vanity article. I took an axe to it in the hope of chopping out some dead wood, including the blatant irrelevant copyvio of the area map. Give cleanup a shot at it, but if it's still garbage by the time they're sick of it, delete without regret. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. Neutrality 02:58, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. If noone else does this, I'll have a shot at it. Being related to a member of staff of the school gives me a shot at doing some fact-finding. RDevz 22:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Michael Johnson (teacher) -- Add to this discussion

Insignificant teacher in a hoax tv programme. Dmn / Դմն 19:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Dmn / Դմն 19:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not worth an article. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 20:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Geogre 01:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacrimosus 02:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


WackoWiki -- Add to this discussion

WackoWiki

See also:


Looks like restored after VfD below. Mikkalai 01:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Old VfD

Just an advert for some unknown wiki. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 20:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete Cutler 21:46, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 02:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Geogre said it. Skyler 03:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's not a Wikipedia mirror. It's not a website running a Wiki for some other purpose. It's a site offering some kind of Wiki software (like MediaWiki), under a license described as "You are free to everything. Hmm... almost =). See LICENSE file in installation pack." Whatever that means. Does that make a difference? Do we have a guide to sources of Wiki software anywhere, and should this be on it? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New VfD

  • del Keep. Mikkalai 01:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Vote changed after the article being expanded. Mikkalai 18:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: there's an article on the same in the Russian Wikipedia. Samaritan 02:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It may be of notability for russian programmers. The current article says nothing why it is notable. Mikkalai 07:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, no clear reason for deletion. m:Wiki is not paper, remember. Dan100 09:31, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has more than a hundred thousand Google hits. Lose the advertising copyish features list, though. --Korath会話 00:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If you have just abit of patience to click 4 times thru the list of hits, you'd notice there are only 318 of them, and vast majority of these are purely technical references, like invitations ot download, user documentation, etc. My son's website has more hits for his silly college projects. Mikkalai 01:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • FYI, here's the exact number of hits from wikis running on WackoWiki. Again I can hardly understand your systematic deletion policy for Wakka forks -- Dario (User:151.37.62.186)
    • And the exact number would be 75, if you click at page 8 of google report. Mikkalai 17:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • No, that the number of pages that Google thinks are "dissimilar"; the real number of pages found is shown at the top of the page. --JavaWoman
  • Delete. --fvw* 09:17, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
  • Ok, why don't delete MediaWiki also? WackoWiki has more than 300 installations, such as http://freesource.info/, http://wiki.qube.ru/, http://wiki.phpdoc.info/, http://docs.mamboserver.com/ . Keep, --- kukutz
  • Comment: Is there any clear policy on (dis)allowing articles describing trademarks / commercial products / open source software products? DenisYurkin 16:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • There is a common policy of notability. You cannot have an article for every piece of software out of college's dorm. Mikkalai 17:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Excellent. And what're criteria for notability? If I believe it's notable and you believe it's not, how can we resolve a conflict? Is it only voting that can help us? (i.e. number of adherents vs number of ignorants) Some kind of Sanhedrim that is supposed to know everything notable? DenisYurkin 17:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • If there is nothing more to say than "I believe it's notable" in its support, then it is non-notable. If there is something to say, say it. "WYSYWIG editing", "easily cutomizable", etc., are commonplaces, hence not proofs of notability. Mikkalai 17:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • In other words, there's no common criteria for notability, I understood correctly? Then, let me clarify: what do you mean by notability? Is 'well-known and widely used' enough? (then what's criteria for wideness?) Or we only mean 'having unique features, which makes the product different from others'? DenisYurkin 17:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • We are not in the court of law here. Once again, if you have something to say, say it. Rewrite the article to show the notability of the tool. See also wikipedia:Importance for general guidelines. Mikkalai 17:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Thanks for politely answering my every question (sorry, I started replying when your last phrase read 'Otherwise goodbye'). Now I clearly understand that it may or may not have any sense to say anything on the matter... Anyway, what I know about WackoWiki is: (I'm ready to contribute this to the original page):
                • it is used as a knowledge management system in many companies in Russia, including Yandex (search engine and one of largest internet companies in Russia); detailed list of companies can be provided if it can add value
                • it is leading wiki engine in Russian segment of Internet (if you measure by number of installations)
                • its codebase is used for NPJ (english page), first open-source "blogs+wiki" web service/software in Russia
                • it has javascript-based WYSIWYG-like editor WikiEdit, and it's far more advanced than MediaWiki's (smart (un)indentation/lists, lots of keyboard shortcuts (press '?' in toolbar here))
              • DenisYurkin 18:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • So what are you waiting for? Be bold <-click here. Mikkalai 18:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • So, if there is nothing more to say that "it's not notable" then it's notable? Just exactly what would provide "proof of notability", please? Could you please drop the derogatory tone, mr. Mikkalai, and provide some objective criteria why these articles should be deleted? The mere fact that now-deceased Wakka has so many different forks (not "copycats") is in itself notable (as are their differences). Of course they have common features (MediaWiki has common features with Wiki, too! - in fact all Wiki engines have common features, that's why they can be classified together in the first place). Keep - all of them. Maybe they should merely be edited somewhat to emphasize their differences. -- JavaWoman
    • Once again, if you have something to say, say it. Rewrite the article to show the notability of the tool. The article looks like a cut'n'paste from User Guide or promo leaflet. It doesn't even say that the developers are Russians.
      • Why would it be "notable" that the developers are Russians (are they?). Does it matter where they come from or where they live? - JavaWoman
Once again, I pointed you towikipedia:Importance for general guidelines. Did you have a look into it before immediately jumping at me? Mikkalai 17:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, I looked. The first thing I see is "This is a proposed policy" - and I don't even see any occurrence of the word "notable" or any of its derivatives. The one "jumping" at others is you Mr. Mikkalai, by proposing to delete seemingly arbitrary pages and not others in the same class and using derogatory language rather than objective criteria to make your case. -- JavaWoman
  • Keep. Agreed with previously announced reasons. --Yemperor 18:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. VfD abuse - David Gerard 23:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Are you crazy? Extreme keep! --L33tminion | (talk) 03:56, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whether or not the software is being actively worked on, the contents of this article are helpful to a reader looking for an overview of development efforts in the wiki software field. — DV 04:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I've started the article, nice discussion -- enno 23:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pacific Root -- Add to this discussion

Not notable. Neutrality 21:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • WP:Cleanup then we can decide because I could make neither head nor tail of this. Cutler 21:44, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: If I understood it, it's obsolete and asks us to be a web guide for something that's out of business already. Pretty self-destructive entry. Geogre 02:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • mildly notable, evidently defunct, would be better off as a redirect here: Alternate_DNS_root --Ianb 06:54, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As it stands, a technogeek message saying "This number is no longer in service." And we should keep this because...? Denni☯ 02:10, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
  • Delete ad for defunct service. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacrimosus 23:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche/parody -- Add to this discussion

Impossibly POV. RickK 22:29, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Gzornenplatz 22:33, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete if not NPOVed and moved to a better title where it isn't duplicating anything. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 22:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but also move to WP:BJAODN. Neutrality 00:05, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh my. Mildly entertaining in a sociopathic way, but please delete with all due haste. Fire Star 02:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:BJAODN. -- Jmabel 23:58, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but could we move it to a metawiki thing someplace? Stirling Newberry 03:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

B. R. Frieden -- Add to this discussion

Copied from VfD discussion

155 Google hits for "B. R. Frieden Tucson." Looks like original research as well. Another vanity article I couldn't let pass by. - Lucky 6.9 22:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep: I don't understand mathematics beyond division, so I haven't a clue about whether the article is accurate, but the problem here seems to be in the article's name. B. Roy Frieden turns up a lot of hits. B.R. Frieden virtually none. Further, the B. Roy Frieden looks entirely consistent with the article's description of him. I can't say that it's significant or not, but he does have the Fischer chair, etc. Geogre 02:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Frieden's "Extreme Physical Information" theory has gotten a certain amount of press. From skimming some websites and newsgroups, it seems to be considered interesting and not crankery. See for example this skeptical book review [6]. The article as it stands is a promo piece, certainly written by Frieden himself (try a reverse DNS lookup on 150.135.248.126). Move to cleanup for NPOV-ification, which might be hard but oh well. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:32, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Works for me. It was the self-promotional tone and the whacked-out Google search that threw me. Clean and rename. - Lucky 6.9 08:56, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looks like another article came in from the same proxy. See Extreme physical information. I'm far from a mathmetician, but this could use a look from someone who knows the subject. - Lucky 6.9 19:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment number two: Wile was right about the proxy. It's from the University of Arizona. - Lucky 6.9 19:14, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The article needs a lot of cleanup/attention, but EPI is a real (if unlikely) physical theory; Frieden has 39 papers in the Scitation index[7], and other writers cite his work at least occasionally. It's a well-known enough theory that people would reasonably want to look it up- keep. -FZ 13:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Also delete B Roy Frieden - This is a new attempt to recreate the vanity page under a new title. User acknowledged it is his (and his name) on Wikipedia:Help desk. - Tεxτurε 20:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

B. Roy Frieden's anonymous POV-pushing edits

B. Roy Frieden claims to have developed a "universal method" in physics, based upon Fisher information. He has written a book about this. Unfortunately, while Frieden's ideas initially appear interesting, Frieden's work is highly controversial:

  • Binder, Philippe M. (2000). "Physics from Fisher Information: A Unification (a review)". American Journal of Physics. 68: 1064–1065.
  • Kibble, T. W. B. (1999). "Physics from Fisher Information: A Unification (a review)". Contemporary Physics. 40: 1999. (the reviewer has some positive comments but concludes that Frieden's work is "misguided")
  • Case, James (2000). "An Unexpected Union---Physics and Fisher Information". SIAM News. July 17. eprint (highly favorable)
  • Matthews, Robert (1999). "Physics and Fisher Information (a review)". New Scientist. January. unauthorized electronic reprint
  • Physics from Fisher Information: A Unification (a review) from Cosma Shalizi (Computer Science, University of Michigan) (highly critical)
  • Physics from Fisher Information (a review) from R. F. Streater (Mathematics, Kings College, London) (highly critical)
  • Physics from Fisher Information thread from sci.physics.research, May 1999 (mostly critical)
  • Fisher Information - Frieden unification Of Physics thread from sci.physics.research, October 1999 (mostly critical)

User:Lucky 6.9 was dead right about WP:VAIN. Note that Frieden is Prof. Em. of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona. The data.optics.arizona.edu anon has used the following IPs to make a number of questionable edits:

  1. 150.135.248.180 (talk · contribs)
    1. 20 May 2005 confesses to being Roy Frieden in real life
    2. 6 June 2006: adds cites of his papers to Extreme physical information
    3. 23 May 2006 adds uncritical description of his own work in Lagrangian and uncritically cites his own controversial book
    4. 22 October 2004 attributes the uncertainty principle to the Cramer-Rao inequality, which is potentially misleading
    5. 21 October 2004 adds uncritical mention of his controversial claim that the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution can be obtained via his "method"
    6. 21 October 2004 adds uncritical mention of his controversial claim that the Klein-Gordon equation can be "derived" via his "method"
  2. 150.135.248.126 (talk · contribs)
    1. 9 September 2004 adds uncritical description of his work to Fisher information
    2. 8 September 2004 adds uncritical description of his highly dubious claim that EPI is a general approach to physics to Physical information
    3. 16 August 2004 confesses IRL identity
    4. 13 August 2004 creates uncritical account of his work in new article, Extreme physical information
    5. 11 August 2004 creates his own wikibiostub

These POV-pushing edits should be modified to more accurately describe the status of Frieden's work.---CH 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: subsequent to my protest, B. Roy Frieden created a user account as noted above. I have exchanged some polite emails with him and he feels that his second book (which I plan to examine) overcomes objections raised by myself and other critiques regarding his first book. We have more or less agreed to reopen the discusssion in sci.physics.research once I have obtained his second book.---20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on B. Roy Frieden. 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) 03:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Moving "Counter Criticism" content here

I have moved the "Counter Criticism" section from the main page to below, as its style is not particularly neutral and rather confrontational. Some of these points may be worthwhile to reintroduce into the article (preferably not by B. Roy Frieden) if they are rewritten and appropriately sourced. See WP:NOR, WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV. —BryanD (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since criticism has been introduced here, it is only right that some of the conceptual perforations made by these authors should be considered.

Streater's claims:

Streater has a short section in his text referring to lost causes in theoretical physics, essentially making three claims against EPI.

Claim 1: Streater claims that: Frieden generally identifies I with the kinetic energy, and J with the potential energy. Rebuff: It is Streater who claims I equals the kinetic energy in this criticism: a wrong and baseless claim, except in quantum mechanics. To explain further, EPI is formulated through aims and operations that center on demonstrating, algebraically and philosophically, that the central, elementary laws of physics arise out of Fisher Information. These are expressed by values of information functions I and J generally, with I generally not being the kinetic energy and J not being the potential energy. It is quite clearly shown that I and J are informations that, only outwardly, look like the familiar energies of mechanics; and that these associations were made merely to motivate a person with a standard physics background to think in a different direction on this fundamental level. Our thesis is that the laws of physics arise out of information. The derivations of each chapter demonstrate this. The right physics results out of I and J in each case, something that Streater has not denied.

Claim 2: Streater claims that “Frieden claims to have derived quantum mechanics from information theory, forgetting that he started with Schrodinger's equation.” Rebuff: Frieden’s approach does not start with the Schrodinger equation. It starts with general forms I and J as above. Schroedinger himself was ever-mystified as to where the Fisher Information (called ‘kinetic energy’ in standard introductory physics) came from in his now-standard Lagrangian-based approach. Schrodinger never resolved this issue; but had he been a biologist he might have heard of R.A. Fisher’s foundation work using his ‘Fisher Information.’ Fisher’s biological work, in the UK, was, in fact, going on during the same years (circa 1922-25) that early quantum mechanics was being developed just across the channel in Denmark, Germany and France. Too bad Schrodinger was not aware of this.

Claim 3: Streater claims that “Frieden claims that the position of a particle does not send it into an eigenstate of energy. As it is, his result is hardly new, being the basis of the Rayleigh-Ritz method of finding the eigenvalues, known since the nineteenth century.” Rebuff: Frieden did not originate the statement “measuring the position of a particle does not send it into an eigenstate of energy.” It originated in the work of the esteemed John A. Wheeler. He believed in, and championed, a participatory universe, whereby each physical effect follows from the way a user carries through on it with a particular choice of observing apparatus. Indeed, even when the apparatus is changed during the experiment (a so-called “delayed choice” experiment) the output changes accordingly.

Shalizi's Claims

Shalizi has a more extended claims against EPI, though curiously he notes at the end of his commentary that it may not have peer support. It might be seen why this could be the case when considering some of his claims.

Claim 1: Shalizi claims that Frieden does not really maximize Fisher Information; he simply requires that its variation be stationary. Worse yet, says Shalizi, he is admirably candid about the fact that simply doing this doesn't give us any very interesting equation of motion. To get that, he subtracts from the Fisher information a new quantity of his own devising, the "bound information," and requires that the difference between these two, which he calls the "physical information," have stationary variation. Rebuff: Fisher Information really is maximized, but out of the variation of quantity I - J, not just of I, and the assumption of such stationary variation is standard in physics, as Shalizi undoubtedly knows. This is particularly apparent in quantum mechanics, where the Fisher Information I = J, the full amount needed to launch quantum mechanics via the ‘participatory universe’ thesis of John A. Wheeler.

Claim 2: Shalizi is unable to see any reason why the physical information should be maximized. Rebuff: Unlike a Lagrangian, Fisher Information is generally not invariant under change of coordinates, e.g. from Cartesian to spherical, so Shalizi would have liked some reassurance on this point, which is not forthcoming. As the book makes clear, there are no “correct” physical variables, until you first define what you mean by “information.” It’s not C.E. Shannon’s form, but rather the continuous generalization due to Fisher.

Claim 3: Shalizi claims that Frieden evidently believes that Nature thinks in Cartesian coordinates. He tries to justify his "extremal physical information principle" (pp. 79--82) by saying that physicists are in a non-cooperative game with Nature, trying to seize as much data as we can from Her, and the upshot of this is that physical information should have stationary variation. I couldn't say why he thinks this should convince anyone not raised on the lumpenfeminist idea that modern science is a way of raping and torturing Nature. Rebuff: The inference is wrong. Observers do not want to seize a maximum amount of data but, rather, a maximum amount of information in the data taken. It’s not quantity - it’s quality that matters. As a matter of fact, Nature itself operates by this principle: “natural selection” (Darwin) is selection for maximum information I.

Claim 4: Shalizi claims that adding bound information (or rather, subtracting it off) reduces the scheme to vacuity. Frieden pulls these terms from out of, to put it politely, the air, and they seem to have no independent significance whatsoever. They are simply whatever he needs to get the equation he wants at the end of the variational problem, subject only to the (really rather mild) constraint that they have the right symmetry properties. Frieden's scheme is at best mathematically equivalent to orthodoxy; it adds nothing empirical; places fundamental and useful concepts in doubt; does nothing to unify physics either internally or with statistics; and it is associated with some really bad metaphysics, though that last perhaps reflects more on Frieden than on the scheme itself. I see absolutely no reason to prefer this scheme to conventional mechanics, rather the reverse. This is at best an extended mathematical curiosity. Rebuff: The reason is, as shown throughout the book - from one physical scenario to another - Nature simply acts that way (also, see Wheeler’s previously noted hypothesis). For example, in biology: Darwinian “natural selection”, i.e., “survival of the fittest,” can be derived on the basis of the principle of Fisher Information J – I = minimum. See Frank, J. Evolutionary Biology, “Natural selection maximizes Fisher Information”, Jan. 2009, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01647.x As to Shalizi’s other remarks, “placing fundamental and useful concepts in doubt” is the purpose of any worthwhile new theory; e.g., Galileo’s assertion of having observed a non-centrist universe. Was he wrong: in fact, and in trying to make it known? Shalizi just doesn’t ‘like’ the idea behind the book; but evidently, this is not out of having read and well-understood it. Finally, contrary to what he claims, information does rule.

That information rules is supported by Meijerin (http://www.sintropia.it/journal/english/2013-eng-3-01.pdf), who argues that Frieden's Fisher Information framework has a fundamental property of intrinsic information, and this produces matter. Intrinsic information is defined to be the most complete way of describing a contextual object. This is consistent with Barbieri (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257780021_The_Paradigms_of_Biology ) who explains that there are three paradigms that reflect on reality, the chemical/physical paradigm, the information paradigm, and the meaning paradigm, and where information can be an intermediary between the other two.

Fu -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Dictdef of a slang term. RickK 23:09, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Slang term, but it has been around for quite a while. I think it originates in Joe Bob Briggs's movie reviews, where he refers to any exploitative element in a movie as -fu. It's funny when he says it. Geogre 02:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Please Merge with Kung fu. The phenomenon of appending "-fu" to words and "your [whatever] is weak" jokes are extremely widespread. And Animefu, is, in fact, a popular Anime website linked from the front page of Slashdot. - RedWordSmith 02:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • On second thought, Gwalla's right, the Kung Fu article actually is a bit long. Just plain keep. - RedWordSmith 21:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Widely-used suffix with an interesting, if silly, history. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Wile E. Also, merging with Kung Fu would merely clutter that article with something that isn't terribly relevant to its topic. Keep. — Gwalla | Talk 18:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Aside from the reasons already mentioned, suffixes are included in Wikipedia. I don't see any reason to exclude a slang term. Maybe we need an article listing slang suffixes? • Benc • 22:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've done a bit of work on it. Fire Star 18:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasonably close to encyclopedic. - Nat Krause 20:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Your wiki-fu is strong, Fire Star. Keep. DS 00:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems meaningless. No one knows what it means. ("Peeping-Tom fu. Handcuff fu". "Flame-thrower Fu". "Whiskey-bottle Fu". ???) Joe Bob Briggs seems to use it for everything and anything; it'll mean garbage soon. Mandel 11:47, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

end mvoed discussion

Explanation needed

"Fu is a word meaning expertise" appears to be an unsubstantiated claim - when and where does fu = expertise? A link to a relevant, explanatory page would be more useful than a link to "expertise". 192.43.227.18 07:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC) ws[reply]

I agree. Some explanation needed here. A bare link to "expertise" is not informative. Acsenray 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David_Saville -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable? --Ianb 23:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. No evidence of notability, probable vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, even though he's famous in NW England. I wish the man and ministry well, but evidence of notability is lacking. Geogre 12:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same reasons as above. -- Stevietheman 15:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Or re-direct to Alvin and the Chipmunks as a typo) Davodd 20:16, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Salt_Cellar_Youth_Project -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable? --Ianb 23:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:37, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable. -- Stevietheman 15:00, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Created by a user who seems to have an unhealthy interest in Blue Coat School, Oldham, and marking major additions of material as minor edits. Delete, non-notable. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

W00t -- Add to this discussion

The result of the debate was keep [added by Andre🚐 23:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC) for afdstats][reply]

Not-even-slang term. Reads like a copyvio, but I can't find it. Who's Tristan? RickK 23:57, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's very commonly used online. By me, anyway. [[Voporak 16:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Object. The word is important part of Internet culture. Plus it gets 326,000 Google hits. [8] Neutrality 00:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've NPOV'ed it and removed the odd Tristan reference. This is a definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite keep. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I suppose it'd be a dicdef, but it doesn't actually seem to mean anything :) It's a fairly common piece of leet, and (to my shame) I know at least one person who says it aloud (in company, even). It's surely not a copyvio - it's 18 months old, and has been built incrementally by numerous users. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Have caught myself saying this word ;-). --Ianb 00:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a staple of Internet culture. Andre 08:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article itself should be wikified, but such a topic belongs on WP. Aecis 14:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It's already listed in Leet and Internet slang. Does it really need its own article? Neutral. -- Stevietheman 14:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The listing on those pages are just that - lists. Several of the other words on those pages have their own articles. The page seems exactly like a less sure version of suxxor. It could possibly be improved, but it's valuable as it is. Yelyos 15:49, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • Naaah. Just because there are other bad examples doesn't mean they should be applied to the article in question. I vote to redirect to Leet. -- Stevietheman 16:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to leet where, as Stevietheman says, it's already listed. The speculations about the origins of the word are just that - speculations. They do not add any verifiable facts beyond what is already listed in leet. Rossami 15:37, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove or Redirect to leet as stated. "It was first seen in 1994" LOL? violet/riga 15:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Addition: The article is all speculation and without any firm facts it has no place in a -pedia. violet/riga 16:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep — I enjoyed reading that article. It is a very informative and useful article to have, and it distinguishes us from traditional old-fashioned antiquated paper encyclopedias. — Timwi 15:43, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's widespread enough on its own as a term that it deserves an separate article. Yelyos 15:49, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect. It deserves its own entry. Pahalial 17:04, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's listed on leet, but any slang term with a complex etymology and/or near-ubiquitous usage deserves its own article (compare pwn). • Benc • 08:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • "The definite origin of the term w00t is unknown" doesn't say "complex etymology" to me. violet/riga 08:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Um? I count five different plausible theories in the article. "Unknown" does not mean "simple". Yes, it's speculative information. But it's still potentially useful information about a frequently-used term, and therefore has a place in the Wikipedia. • Benc • 10:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Theories yes but there isn't anything factual there - I know of at least one other claim to be the true etymology. Though I understand and agree that it has a place being mentioned in a -pedia I don't see how such pure speculation as to it's origins can be included. violet/riga 10:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep In case others have not noticed, w00t has now moved beyond internet-only usage and into the mainstream. The Steve 08:55, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • No, actually I have not noticed that. Please provide evidence so that I can consider revising my vote. Rossami
      • Only anecdotal I'm afraid. I've caught several non-computer-savvy people using it. I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong... The Steve 11:17, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's definately in widespread usage. Plenty of etymologies are highly speculative. --Nickco3 12:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mike H 21:11, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no harm in leaving this here. Also, it IS a very commonly used word on several internet communities, so if someone is confused they may easily find the meaning here if kept. AaAA
  • Keep. It's a different enough concept from the rest of Leet that it deserves its own article, like pwn. Ilya 01:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Leet and absorb any valuable content into that article. W00t is certainly one of the most frequently seen words in leet slang, but I don't know why that fact alone should merit a separate article. There's nothing so complex or nuanced about its usage or etymology that it can't be reduced to a paragraph in the article on Leet. —Triskaideka 00:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although I detest the word, I hear it all the time. Historie Pete 18:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP - Just like pwn and this word needs to have its own page. If there is a problem with the article itself it can be edited. --Windfinder 15:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very common word on the Internt, and the article is extremely useful in explaining it to people who encounter it without knowing what it means. --Goobergunch 19:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Jrc 18:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I wrote the comment on the rap origins since I had heard it used as w00t in that context (online gaming, but with references to rap culture) before I had seen it used in geek-admin-speak, and which apparently came later. The word was used fairly separately from the rest of l33t because of that origin as well. You'd usually see things like "w00t there it is", and you know, it wasn't just lamer teenage "i pwned you" speak. It could be a cultural-sexual reference encoding hyper-sexual emotional responses to embarassingly rare social contact in anonymous internet chat rooms. So then, that's a pretty interesting origin. At least relative to the general topic of l33t speak origins, which as a whole is just an amusement. If you delete this entry, I pledge to start a subversive revolutionary movement called "Save the w00t!", and bring crushing masses of l33t gamers to bear, the only true protectors of internet culture. Or at least I'll make T-Shirts about it and try to get some friends to wear them. -- Pablo Mayrgundter 18:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • On Google "W00t" gives 333,000 results (more that l33t at 205,000). I'll change my vote to keep but I think the article needs some work. violet/riga 19:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'll agree that the article needs some work; w00t is more than an example of l33t. Possibly, though, it would make sense to redirect to l33t and put the etymology in wiktionary. 66.222.36.122 00:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a well known, well used word among geek and online gaming circles. If it was a word that has only recently entered usage I would deem the deletion acceptable, but it has wide enough scope for its own page. 62.255.32.9 10:22, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I hate wikipedia. It shall all die, one vote for deletion at a time. 66.109.201.10 03:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template history Iceland -- Add to this discussion

Looks like an attempt at creating a template message. Suggest merge with History of Iceland and delete, as a redirect could be confusing. -- Netoholic 01:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Note that the author of the page blanked it shortly after creation. I think just deleting would be appropriate. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


August 11

United States naval weapons -- Add to this discussion

United States naval weapons 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

Nothing but a list of red links, no change for almost a year. Joyous 03:19, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Although I'm surprised it isn't a category yet... Securiger 05:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Someone meant to come back to it and didn't. At present, it's a disambiguation for items that aren't here. Geogre 12:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep, Delete this abandoned article. Agreed that it would make a good category. -- Stevietheman 14:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. Delete. Skyler 18:13, Aug 11, 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 Barbadians -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Notable Bajans are already listed in the List of Eastern Caribbean people, and the sole person included in "List of Barbadians" is apparently not very well-known. --Sesel 03:45, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • What? No Gordon Greenridge? No Walcott, Weekes or Worrell? No Sir Garfield Sobers? Garfield Sobers not listed? I mean, really. I'm shocked. Really, really shocked. Average Earthman 15:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Joel Garner as well, of course. I've added them to the list of Barbadians in the 'List of Eastern Caribbean people'. Next is to add articles on them. Average Earthman 15:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless expanded, I don't see the usefulness of this article. Skyler 18:15, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's been redirected to list of Eastern Caribbean people -- keep as a redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree, best thing to do. Average Earthman 16:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll go along with that. Keep as a redirect. Skyler 23:21, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

ChavScum -- Add to this discussion

It's a funny website.. but it's just some website, hardly encyclopedic. Alexa rating is 60,920. —Stormie 04:11, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Securiger 06:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • slightly amusing, but once you take away the detailed forum rules there's not much left. Delete as per usual procedure for website entries. --Ianb 06:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. A casual user hits the non-forum stuff, where things are sold. Loved the movie "Snatch," but not so much this. Geogre 12:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same reasons as above. -- Stevietheman 14:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It may have had a big article on it in the Daily Telegraph, but still delete. Wikipedia isn't a web guide. Average Earthman 16:05, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Skyler 18:35, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

2318 -- Add to this discussion

"According to the point-and-click series The Journeyman Project, 2318 is the projected year that that extraterrestrials land on Earth to form a permanent alliance. This is, however, entirely fictional, and most likely will never happen." This merits inclusion in 2318 if it is possible to expand it, but this bit of trivia is not worthy of its own article, and finding enough information about a year this far in the future would be impossible. Guanaco 04:34, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. And frankly, even if it wasn't in the far future, I wouldn't want to see a minor bit of fictional trivia like this in an article about a year. —Stormie 04:40, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. TPK 06:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There was a precedent for this quite recently, ah yes, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/2443. --Ianb 06:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: fancruft. It makes my head hurt to look at all the red links in The Journeyman Project... more useless crap on the way. God save WP. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:14, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: A private fiction. The year entry is supposed to be for stuff that happens. Geogre 12:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with everything that has been said. Definitely delete. Skyler 18:37, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • I removed some non-encyclopedic information and simply put in encyclopedic information. True or false: now this article can re-direct to 24th century. 66.245.7.55 22:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Why waste the space it takes to redirect such a strange number, which could refer to any number of different subjects? I can't see people typing in this number and expecting to be redirected to information on a future century. No vote change. Make me an argument. Skyler 22:27, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • Poof. You're an argument.  :^P Seriously, delete this. This is just goofy. - Lucky 6.9 03:13, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into timeline of fictional future events and delete. -Sean Curtin 21:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree, however the format of timeline of fictional future events includes links to the relevant date page. Since the author has already taken down the doubtful content, I have been bold and inserted a reasonable facsimile into the Timeline page. Rich Farmbrough 21:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mahaveer School -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Once again, I can't resist. This time, it's a grade school. Non-native English, too. Check out the name of the corresponding redirect: Shri Mahaveer Digamber Jain Senior Secondary School. - Lucky 6.9 05:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Hmm... a grade school (oops, it's a secondary school -- Wile E. Heresiarch 03:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)) ... no evidence of notability in sight. Still, as such, it's more meaningful than the entire compendium of Pokemon fancrap cluttering up WP. No vote yet. (Vote below -- Wile E. Heresiarch 03:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Wile E. Heresiarch 06:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: You sure got that one right. I'd rather see this stay and get cleaned up than stumble across the latest waste of server capacity and shake my head over the whole thing. Isn't there some active talk about redirecting all those Pokemons and Digimons and Dragonballs and other anime whatsits to their own wiki? Consider this dismaying observation: Pikachu reminds me of Rosie O'Donnell. - Lucky 6.9 07:43, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wrong side of the line, no matter how well done. Lucky 6.9, I was sorta kinda joking about the anime ghetto, but it is a good idea. Geogre 12:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Expansion: We seek to offer information on all institutions that are notable. There never was and is not now really a policy rule that one type of school (college) stays or goes. By simple deseutude, we came to a sort of deletionist's agreement on that, but the truth is that there is one criterion: notability for NPOV non-stub articles on schools. "Notability" is something we can argue about. I have voted to keep, for example, schools that were the first school of a particular denomination in a place. This school offers us no notability. There are many, many web guides to schools available now. Most of them are free to users (because they charge schools). We do not need to get into the habit of trying to duplicate in a clumsy way what others do in a professional (i.e. they're paid to do it) way. Sorry if this is testy. Geogre 00:13, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Side-Comment: I have not been here as long as many who vote on this page have, but I am in total agreement with the previous statement. Notability is an arguable subject. Also, we (those who vote on the basis of notability when it is in question) are not elitists, but if you let everything and anything have its own entry, this beautiful project goes from a heirarchy of what is seen as credible knowledge to a scattered mess of this and that information. I do not feel my time is well-spent in working to make Wikipedia better if the latter is going to be the outcome. Skyler 00:42, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Note: Just because there are a lot of entries of inappropriate content, this does not give reason to keep others. I have seen the "If you delete this, than you'll have to delete that..." argument far too often as an excuse to keep. From my understanding, the point of this page is to improve Wikipedia and keep it respectable. Other similar tolerated content should not be used as an argument, they should be listed here as well. Skyler 18:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Would be included in an unabridged encyclopedia of religious schools. Information probably useful for those researching: Jainism, architecture of the Johari Bazaar, or the historic legacy of Sawai Man Singh Bahadur. Remember: just because you personally find no need for an article, doesn't mean it can't useful to someone else. Needs cleanup, though for format and context. Davodd 20:10, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Dittaeva 21:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 07:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to contain promo material

This article seems to be made for promo of the school I mean does the lay reader really need to know the version of computers used in the school .....ehFORCE RADICAL (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Desultadox -- Add to this discussion

Useless neologism. --Diberri | Talk 05:55, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Yep. Delete Securiger 06:05, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • "Neologism" - and how! Delete, delete, and for good measure, delete. TPK 06:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacrimosus 07:35, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Forum neologism. Geogre 12:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity slang. --Ianb 14:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism/Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Skyler 18:46, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Double Delete. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:30, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

ClamAV -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ClamAV


May-december romance -- Add to this discussion

dicdef; delete. Lupo 12:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • And the title is misspelled too. Gdr 13:21, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
  • Might be a good idea for an article, but this one is just a definition and it should be titled "May-December romance". Delete this one for now. -- Stevietheman 14:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing useful here. Darn, now I have September Song running through my head... For it's a long long time from May to December/And the days grow short when you reach September/And the autumn weather turns the leaves to flame/And you haven't got time for a waiting game... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Which singer's version of the song? I actually like the Lou Reed one. Oh, the article? Um, delete for dictdef that can't be expanded without our heading into People Magazine territory, and there's no point in that. Geogre 17:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm partial to the Walter Huston version, from the original musical, in which the lyric actually rather menacing. Rich, powerful old guy expects to win the body if not the heart of the sweet young thing. "And I have lost one tooth/And I walk a little lame/But I have a little money/And I have a little fame." All of the song seems to be analogies with money and power. The phrase "These golden days I'd spend with you..." "If you examine the goods they bring they have little to offer but the songs they sing," whereas Stuyvesant "has a little money." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. I don't know how it could be expanded in order to constitute encyclopedic content. Skyler 18:51, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wake up Maggie, I think I got something to say to you/It's late September and I really should be back at school... Sorry, couldn't resist. Oh, delete, btw. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. An important 20th century (if not earlier) phenomenon. Rewritten. Denni☯ 03:33, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
  • Keep; rewritten (consider disregarding previous votes). Many thanks to Denni for the rewrite; I moved the text of the article over to Age disparity in sexual relationships and changed May-december romance to a redirect. • Benc • 21:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I see you have, but sigh ... User 66.56.110.36 had then already created a new article Older women-younger men. I would nominate that one for deletion separately and suggest merging contents with Age disparity in sexual relationships, except that this is getting so monotonous, and moreover that there is not that much to merge, apart from the unsupported statistic that 34% of women are now dating younger men in the US. Otherwise it's all there already in Age disparity, in more NPOV form. Could somebody appropriate please just delete Older women-younger men on sight without further formality? I suppose putting the 34 % statistic into Age disparity first, in case a reference for the figure is forthcoming. Bishonen 09:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I see now that Older women-younger men has already been put up for deletion under its own steam. And you say you've already moved it? See, when I go look, it doesn't look moved, and isn't carrying a VfD template either. Maybe I'm having a cache bug or something. Checking ... no, the same thing happens when I change from Mozilla to Safari. Maybe the proxy is messing with me. Is anybody else experiencing the same problem in viewing this article, please?Bishonen 10:21, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's Older men-younger women that is listed on VfD, not Older women-younger men. Thank you for finding this third page; I've moved its content to Age disparity's talk page and changed it to a redirect. No need to list it a third time on VfD. (By the way, 66.56.110.36 created all three of these pages. In fact, I don't think any of the three pages should've been listed on VfD... the nominator should've merged them and listed it for cleanup.) • Benc • 19:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, Benc, yes, I know I got confused there ....I just couldn't face writing in a third time, after boring everybody to death already. Thanks for working out which target it was that I was shooting wildly in the general direction of. Bishonen 22:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with • Benc •'s reorganization of this content at Age disparity in sexual relationships and change my vote to redirect. (The phrase "May-December" is more likely to be a search query than "Age disparity"). Denni☯ 05:16, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Overwatch -- Add to this discussion

A military term with difficult-to-establish usage. I wrote a note on the article's discussion tab asking the author to expand or consider another manner of providing the information to Wikipedia. Geogre 13:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Very common military concept used in any discussion of modern tactics of "fire and maneuver". Current content is a mere definition (and not completely right). I'll try to fix it later. Rossami 15:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: That's all I could ask for, Rossami. I sure don't mind being proven wrong, if it means we get good articles on military topics that we've been lacking. Geogre 17:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. As above. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if Rossami does not have time to expand, it is a valuable entry and someone with extensive military knowledge could add great contribution to it (i.e. common usage, historical usage, examples, etc.) Skyler 21:14, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Important military concept, merits expansion, not deletion. -FZ 15:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on earth -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Capital E missing. The page with the capital E already exists. Helldjinn 14:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Redirected to Jimmy Corrigan. Keep harmless redirect. (Any decision about the relative noteworthiness of Jimmy Corrigan would require a separate nomination.) Rossami 15:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rossami, keep harmless redirect. Thue | talk 16:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed: redirect, though I wonder whether it should be to Jimmy Corrigan or Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth? I vote the former, because the latter is too cumbersome. Geogre 17:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: The latter is already a redirect to the former. Didn't want to create a double redirect. Rossami
  • Potential readers should be aware that the plot does not catch in the first dozen or more pages, so initial patience is needed. How duh can it get? If you can "get" Lord of The Rings in the first hundred pages, you're doing better than most. What kind of intellectual vacuum does this article occupy? Denni☯ 02:27, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
    • No kidding, Denni - so edit it to be better, why don't you. —Hob←Talk 03:28, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
      • Because (a) I couldn't care less about Jimmy Corrigan, (b) my Wikiplate is full of other projects, (c) I think this kind of nonsense is not appropriate to Wikipedia, and (d) a vote to delete is not an obligation to fix. Hope this answers your question. Denni☯ 20:35, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Student Developed Education Policy -- Add to this discussion

Perhaps worthy, but not noteworthy article. "The Mission Statement of the CeSDEP says 'The Center for Student Developed Education Policy... will maintain a web site that will help students develop new and old policies for their primary and secondary public schools.'" OK, so it's a web site... that's not listed in the article and when I find it in Google, it doesn't load. At any rate, since this article revolves around such an obscure site, the article should be deleted. Further, Google searches on the term mostly list the same article in Wikipedia knockoffs.

  • Tentative Delete. Currently, this article reads mostly like an advertisement for the website, but without a link to the website. If it can be expanded upon to create a meaningful article, rather than an explanation of a web site, I would reconsider. For now: Delete. Skyler 21:18, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak delete: First, we're not really a web guide, so this needs to have become notable prior to entry here. There isn't much indication that I can find for this being a well used, effective, or unique entity. Geogre 00:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory, and no evidence of notability. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wakaba -- Add to this discussion

Addon module for an image messageboard software (idlechan, which may or may not be notable enough to deserve an article). I don't think Wikipedia should list individual addon modules for every software package in the world -- Ferkelparade 15:21, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge and Delete. In agreement with the above statement, I believe this is not notable enough to have it own entry. Any notability could be merged into an article regarding the original software. Skyler 21:21, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Vote Against This is not some minor addon for existing software, but an entirely separate program. unsigned vote by anon User:24.42.73.51, creator of the article
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat, and there's no evidence of notability. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Robert Hetzron -- Add to this discussion

Whoever Robert Hetzron might be, the article/substub doesn't do anything to educate us about him -- Ferkelparade 15:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • This seems to be content originally destined for Beja language. Perhaps move there as an external link and speedy delete? My guess is that someone clicked on the link to Robert Hetzron on that page trying to edit it and ended up creating a page by accident. Yelyos 15:26, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sure exactly what this is, but I know it should be deleted. Skyler 21:55, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The link is cool, but belongs in Beja language, where I've put it. Robert Hetzron is a major Afroasiaticist and Semitist, but not a newspaper. - Mustafaa 23:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Substub tells us nothing and is just a link. Geogre 00:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not an article. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PictoChat — Add to discussion

The result of the debate was no consensus [added by Andre🚐 22:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC) for afdstats][reply]

Last I heard, Wikipedia is not a fortune-teller. Niteowlneils 16:54, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attention: it's out now. Thus, everyone saying "futures" and such is wrong, now. Andre (talk) 02:55, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • This is a vote for the deletion of this yet-to-be-deleted article. It is likely that it wil be deleted once enough votes have been cast -- Ferkelparade 17:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, futures, does not exist. Promotional. WIkipedia is in no rush to document things, Wikipedia is not interested in being "first." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:00, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a vapourware directory. --Ianb 21:15, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As of yet, non-notable. Skyler 21:57, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fallout IV is a program that will likely be really cool, if the company stays in business and the programmers keep coding and the public keeps buying.... Not an article. Geogre 00:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Nobody edits/deletes it until they know it. WikiPediaAid 6:26 PM, Aug 12, 2004 (EDT)
  • Strong Keep: Maybe all of the articles for unreleased game hardware and software should be removed? Nintendo DS, PlayStation Portable, Super Mario 64x4, etc. etc. It was demo'd at E³, and even has a page with screenshots on nintendo.com [9]. Sure, it's a bad entry, but just because it's not out yet doesn't mean it's delete-worthy. - Plutor 17:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) Weak keep. Mark my words, it'll be released and back within a year! See also below. - Plutor 21:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do think articles for unreleased products should be deleted. Particularly when a product has been announced but not released, such an article verges on being promotional. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for dissemination of preannouncements. There's no rush; we're not a news source and we're not trying to scoop anyone. But if you don't agree with me, maybe you should weigh in with your opinion at Wikipedia:What's in, what's out#Products.
      • Okay, thinking about it a little more calmly, I can agree that with future products, notability is probably more important with future than existing products. For instance, the Segway article was created just after the product's unveiling (and official naming), but the first ones weren't available for delivery until 15 months later! [10] I'm not arguing that PictoChat is quite as notable, but rather that the Wikipedia:What's in, what's out#Products page is a bit too broad. - Plutor 21:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - current content is an unverifiable future event (with the key unverifiable point being its notability). Comment: Some of the other articles that Plutor sites might be eligible for nomination under the same criteria. It is, however, irrelevant. We evaluate each nomination on a case by case basis. Rossami 20:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be News reports. And that should cover promotional pieces written as though they are intended to used by media as News reports. Jallan 23:15, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • YOU EVIL SO-CALLED KNOW-IT-ALL VOTING PEOPLE OTHER THAN ME! You think you can delete PictoChat?! NOT YET! WikiPediaAid 4:16 PM (EDT) September 1, 2004
  • This is coming outin a number of weeks. Keep. Andre (talk) 23:52, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, as long as the confusion on the protocol PictoChat uses ceases (it uses the proprietary protocol, not Wi-Fi). --Evice 21:16, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Top superhero (and supervillain) hide-outs and bases — Add to discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Top superhero (and supervillain) hide-outs and bases

Legault — Add to discussion

Fictional character that is an orphan article, gets only 600 hits for Legault fire emblem, and is apparently NOT notable enuf to be mentioned on Wikipedia's Fire Emblem page. Niteowlneils 18:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. If someone wants to merge into the Fire Emblem page, that is fine, but we cannot give every fictional character in history their own entry and still remain a reputable encyclopedic source. (IMO) Skyler 22:15, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Send it to the game dungeon. Break out of a character from a game, it's fiction, unwikified, and tremendously minor as a game. Divide the game's notability by some large number for the character's notability. Geogre 00:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Scuffleball -- Add to this discussion

I don't think this sport is notable. It seems very much tied to various micronations and most of the Google hits originate from Wikipedia. I'll reconsider my vote if enough people know of it. David Remahl 20:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. David Remahl 20:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert for website, well done and perhaps well intended but not what we want. From the official website :Organization is the key to this, and right now, this is essentially a one-man operation. I have some close friends who help me out with various objectives, and several good people who have helped test the sport out. If you would like to help with the organizing of this sport, drop me a line here. I would love to hear from you and would really love additional input into developing the sport. So it's not yet encyclopedic, and may never be. Andrewa 21:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I fully agree with Andrewa for a change. Skyler 22:18, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Just a Comment. The sport is real, it's not fictional. It has been played, and it has a set of cohesive rules. It does exist. I thought Wikipedia was an information source. I had no idea that just because someone has not heard of something that it deserves to be deleted. Delete it if it doesn't pass this litmus test, but 'not notable' is quite arbitrary. scuffleball 22:24, Aug 11, 2004
    • Comment: Welcome to Wikipedia! See your talk page if you haven't already. Andrewa 13:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Whether it exists or not, it is not yet notable. Indeed, we are confined to notable information, in context. The reason for this is simply to set some limit. Were we to not have that limitation, then we would be including every product of every imagination anywhere at any time. All terms, such as "notable," "significant," and "important" are going to be open to some argument, and that's why the deletion process is by vote. Geogre 00:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • While I have no desire to bash Everything2, having contributed to their pages myself, I will say that the primary difference between E2 and Wikipedia is that E2 is prepared to accept any article on any topic. E2 is a much more suitable repository for neologisms, neopolitics, neoeconomics, and neosports such as scuffleball. What I most appreciate about Wikipedia is its insistence on some kind of history for its topics. Even though that may be, in some cases, only four or five years, at least there is some legacy to demonstrate perpetuity. Denni☯ 02:41, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

Kevin Toth -- Add to this discussion

Googling "Kevin Toth" +"Cleveland" -"Shot put" gets 98 hits, most of which still seem to deal with the shot putter. I don't think this person is notable enough. First contribution by new user. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:51, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

  • No vote. I question the notability, but when it comes to a person and one who seems to have made a name for himself (however small) in the music industry, I don't want to jump to conclusion. I will reserve my vote to hear arguments for notability, but if none are made, I agree with Meelar. Skyler 22:22, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: The author has repeated removed the VfD tag, it seems. Promoters are, to me, too tangential. Unless we're talking about Myles and Ian Copeland, I think simply being a promoter is insufficiently notable. Geogre 00:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote. But get ready for a HUGE influx of Olympic athletes. Davodd 01:12, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Anonymous: Uncounted vote. National band "The Starting Line" on MCA Records has thanked him on thier latest CD setting him apart from average concert promoters and he manages several bands listed on wikipedia / has worked with or on several shows listed on wikipedia. - Anonymous
    • Still no vote: On checking for "What links here" on the Kevin Toth article, all I find is the VfD page and a user talk page stating it should be up for deletion. Perhaps you could add Mr. Toth to these bands' entries in order to show relevance? Skyler 11:25, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Anonymous: Uncounted vote. Like listed above, he has repeatedly worked with a number of high-profile bands, even to the point of being thanked in album linear notes because of it. He has been doing what he does for a long time and is a recognized and revered promoter in Ohio. From the perspective of a touring band - any band who is stopping through Ohio would get the best possible show through Mr. Toth. Keep it. - Anonymous
    • Comment: Interesting points, but you guys (the two listed above) know that you need to be logged in and sign your votes for them to count on this page, right? Skyler 11:20, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - UtherSRG 15:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - Centrx 19:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see sufficient notability in this person for them to warrant an entry any more than any other person on the planet. It sounds like simple vanity to me. Skyler 23:59, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Tssf -- Add to this discussion

Vanity. Redirects Mathew Valente and TSSF should be deleted too, of course. Fredrik | talk 21:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. --Ianb 22:55, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • "Even maintains a profesional LiveJournal." Gee wiz! Thanks for sharing! </sarcasm> Delete. Neutrality 00:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity and all its tentacles. Geogre 00:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --Vik-Thor 02:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep national band "The Starting Line" on MCA has thanked him on thier C.D. setting him apart from average promoters. - 67.38.242.22 19:55:13, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I was the one who added the page, not Mathew Valente himself, I added the 'vanity' in there and I recently removed it. However, Mathew Valente has made meaningful contributions to Final Fantasy remakes and is very well known within the Nobuo Uematsu's fan community for his contributions in the form of Soundfonts and other music to help others. This should be enough to keep (please remove my previous vote declaration because this one explains a bit more of my reasoning). Furthermore, his work on the Chrono Trigger ressurection project should be enough. - User: 66.93.247.62
  • Delete: nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - UtherSRG 15:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I didn't add it but I see it as being fair. - mvtssf 11:30, 12 Aug 2004 (Likely sock puppet - first and only posting)
  • keep, EZD (Likely sock puppet - first and only posting)
  • Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 20:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, with vanity removed and I think that Mathew Valente is notable enough to be posted here.--TME 857309 20:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Likely sock puppet - first and only posting)
  • Delete, not notable + sockpuppets. -Sean Curtin 21:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. tssf is a very well known musician on several internet communities. Someone may wish to look up his name here to find out more about him without personally asking him, if this is kept. Also, whats the harm in leaving it here? - AaAA (Likely sock puppet - second posting - after one other VfD)
  • Delete. I'm quite sure he's a very nice guy, but being a nice guy or gal doesn't get you inclusion in an encyclopedia. Or everyone would be listing their mums. Don't take it as any kind of punishment, it's simply not a valid function of Wikipedia to make note of everyone who rocks or is otherwise nice. Aris Katsaris 02:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Vanity. Non-notable. "Known on several internet communities" doesn't count for much—the same could be said for me and I know I don't merit an article. Delete. — Gwalla | Talk 03:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, if only to discourage this sockpuppet crap. Why can't these people would spend as much time actually researching something of importance and writing about it...? -- Jmabel 17:50, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion follows:

  • They have other game musicians listed, why is there any exception here? - User: 66.93.247.62
  • I personally removed the vanity references, and I don't agree that Mathew Valente is "nonnotable" especially to the thousands who were recently brought aware of his work through Chrono Trigger: Resurrection, which was linked from Slashdot and Game Review pages for people to freely download his remakes. To the Fans of any Squaresoft game this person is genuinely worth keeping. - User: 66.93.247.62
  • You need to keep Tssf in here, he is a great person and deserves this right. He has done alot for the music community midi-wise and should take this honor. -kokiri_boy
  • Why delete him? He's a great guy who's really talented. Besides that, you list other game music musicians, why not him? It doesn't make sense to me... Keep him in. - walnut100
  • Keep tssf in here. He is a great musician, and a nice guy. And like others have said, you list other game music musicians, so why delete him and not the others?
  • Dont delete him!!! He rocks!!! - Nebetsu: The Slayer Of Weasels
  • Dont Delete TSSF he's a nice guy and his music rocks too!! - Easy D
  • Keep him, what's the harm of not doing so? He's done tons of work for many forums, people, etc... He's arranged tons of Zelda remakes and custom songs for me personally (for my fangames and custom games). Mathew has done great things for many communities and the least that you can do is let him keep his account. - Scrappersa
    • It's not an "account", it's an encyclopedia entry. -Sean Curtin 22:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It puts the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again. - Mamoruanime
  • keep him because his name is 4 letters long, i mean what the hell, its only four letters! psshht - pâpÈr mÃçhË pÛppËt
  • How many potential "Sock Puppets" never post to Wiki at all until they see something that interests them 66.93.247.62 22:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • People use it as reference and find that there is no need to post anything, but as soon as soon as they try to defend something they believe in, you call them "sock puppets". I personally don't care if you guys delete this or not, as far as I'm concerned it's all about who's notable or who's not. I believe I've done enough for both the fan-gaming, and the game music scenes that it's not like I don't deserve a notable listing here. A lot of you call it vanity, but most of you don't even realize that I did not post this of myself. Someone else did. So if you're going to accuse me of self-promotion, then fine. Delete the damn thing. A lot of you don't know the whole story so you vote vanity, I bet it makes you feel powerful. I don't care anymore. -Mathew Valente 69.193.14.149 22:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Think of Wikipedia as a community. Some people live here (citizens). We edit, we collaborate, we register our identity, we join the community. Some people don't live here, but are still a part of the community, in some lesser sense (visitors) - they read some articles, and they might edit anonymously. I don't know any community that allows visitors to have voting rights. If these sock puppets wish to be full members of the community, they need to register their identities and participate *before* voting, not so that they can have voting rights, but because they care about the community and not about any one specific article. - UtherSRG 22:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You don't get it. We KNOW which of these supposed edits are by sock puppets, and we KNOW that they don't get counted. There's no point in your continuing this nonsense, as only the votes of editors with a significant amount of contribution to the Wikipedia database will be considered. RickK 23:27, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)


I vote for "tssf" to stay. It's totally true,not spam.

My vote for him is to stay. He has given many valuable contributions to the community that many of you simply might not understand. Hes activly involved with the community and an honor to have. Requesting he be removed is like requesting Miss Spears be removed from publicity. Don't let said talent go unrecognized, embrace it : ) - PKGINGO

  • Did you even bother to read what I wrote just one paragraph above you? RickK 04:07, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • I second that! In fact, I was looking for a sock in my dryer just this morning, one which I was sure I'd put in, but alas, 'twas gone. That incident in turn made me think of this gentle discussion with its various and sundry versions of talking hosiery. Then, it really hit me: We may have finally discovered where all those lost socks really go! Ren and Stimpy, eat your hearts out. By the way, I found my sock. It was in the washer. It did not abandon me to become yet another sockpuppet. Since I feel bad for punishing the sock needlessly, I must vote delete. Since I have, in fact, voted once or twice on this page, I felt it was proper to allow my sock to type this particular vote. Trouble is, all I got was dD&YR)TJsfig87348hnkaau&^$#*. It is, after all, merely a sock. - Lucky 6.9 00:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: The name "Nebetsu: The Slayer Of Weasels" deserves points for originality. I may have to steal that one! - Lucky 6.9 00:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment comment: I ran "dD&YR)TJsfig87348hnkaau&^$#*" through Rot-13 and it came back "B-Movie Bandit." Thought you should know. - Lucky 6.9 00:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete musical vanity/self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Duck Family Tree -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Content is already covered in Donald Duck and Carl Barks. If some isn't, it can be added to those two articles. supadawg 22:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, but needs major cleanup/expansion. Ideally, the article would need a graphical representation of the family tree, but I fear all available images are copyrighted -- Ferkelparade 22:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Addendum: It might be a step in the right direction if the article actually focussed on the intricacies of the Duck family tree as it can be reconstructed from the comics instead of rehashing information on Barks and Rosa that is covered elsewhere. I'd volunteer to rewrite the article, but it might be at least two weeks until I have sufficient time to do the necessary research -- Ferkelparade 22:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Thanks very much. supadawg 22:18, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur- this is something a researcher might actually want to look up for reference, and it is a bizarrely complicated family tree for very well-known characters. Clean & keep. -FZ 12:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • As others have said, keep and expand. Aris Katsaris 02:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, with careful distinctions between the animated cartoons and writing by Barks and Rosa. Jallan 23:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Cat Town -- Add to discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cat Town

John F. Kennedy/Inaugural Speech -- Add to this discussion

This is a prime candidate for a transwiki, although I'd be mighty surprised if it wasn't already posted elsewhere. - Lucky 6.9 23:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Move to Wikisource. (But give the Wikisource link on the JFK page, by all means!) Neutrality 00:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete. --Diberri | Talk 00:26, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete since it's already at WikiSource. -- Netoholic 03:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete since it's already at WikiSource. —Stormie 11:10, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)


August 12

Maiden flight -- Add to this discussion

Delete - Dictionary definition, found via Wikipedia:Deadend_pages. No room for expansion that I can see. —Rory ☺ 01:21, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Dictdef. Oh, it could be expanded. In this form, it hasn't been in a coon's age. If it gets built up by the end of VfD, I'll change my vote. ("Maidens flee quite often.") Geogre 12:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for dictdef and oldologism and I hope people don't create articles about all the "Maiden X" terms that mean the earliest occasion of X: maiden voyage, cruise, speech, crop, day, dish, law ... what? Yes, reading from the OED here, sorry. "He but borowyng their woordes, bryngeth it foorthe for a mayden booke" (1555 copyvio template). Bishonen 14:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef and simply unneccessary. Skyler 01:09, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutrality 22:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Expanded somewhat. All votes above cast before expansion.

  • I say keep expanded version. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:41, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
  • Very cool addition, thanks, DJ Clayworth. Changing my vote to Keep. Bishonen 20:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Decent enough. Keep. - UtherSRG 01:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interstate 495 (New York City) -- Add to this discussion

Interstate 495 (New York City) 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 with a reversal of the redirection and a recommendation to reduce the content in Interstate 495. Rossami 22:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Listed here by User:Bumm13 after he cut-and-pasted the content to Interstate 495. keep, and revert Interstate 495. - UtherSRG 02:24, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Interstate 495 (New York City) is redundant as there is already an article on Interstate 495, which takes precedence over a route in a particular city. I-495 is not famous like, say, the Capital Beltway in Washington, DC and does not warrant a separate article. Furthermore, Interstate 495 was nothing more than a disambiguation page with city article links rather than actual links to separate articles using the I-495 designation, which isn't appropriate usage for a disambiguation page. -- Bumm13 02:45, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Properly it should redirect to Long Island Expressway, not vice versa, since the LIE is by far the more common name for the highway. -- Decumanus 02:45, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • This is one example of what had been a few irregularly named articles on Interstate highways. The only other currently remaining is Capital Beltway, which is also an Interstate 495. I made a proposal at Talk:Capital Beltway which has garnered zero response so far. I implemented it for the other less-well-known highways. Bumm13 is quite correct that unlike all of the other three-digit Interstate articles, I-495 was a disambiguation page. I suggest 1) that Interstate 495 (New York City) be moved to Long Island Expressway; 2) that the I-495 article contain only bare minimum of details on both the LIE and the Capital Beltway with links to both articles for more detailed information; and 3) that neither the LIE or Capital Beltway be included in Category:U.S. Interstate Highway system (it just messes up the symmetry of the category listing). older≠wiser 03:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the LIE rename is a good choice in this case. I'm not sure about all the other recommendations, except that I also agree that Capital Beltway not get sole possession of the name. I think we're facing an ambiguity created by the US government, rather than one that we made. Geogre 12:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: There are also stretches of "I-495" interstate in Delaware, Massachusetts and Maine. - Centrx 19:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: all of the various stretches of I-495 are already listed on the Interstate 495 article. older≠wiser 20:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Note: Only because that article was changed from a disambiguation page, including a cut-and-paste move from I-495 (NYC). - UtherSRG 21:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Note: No, actually they were all already listed there--otherwise it wouldn't have been much use as a disambiguation page. Bumm13 expanded it (although I agree the cut-n-paste from I-495 (NYC) was inappropriate. older≠wiser 21:22, 13 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 final appearances in Marvel Comics publications and List of origins in Marvel Comics publications -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of final appearances in Marvel Comics publications

Template:Listdev -- Add to this discussion

Content is "This list is incomplete. You can help Wikipedia by adding to it." All Wikipedia articles are incomplete. I've been deleting this template wherever I come across it, because it's redundant in the nature of Wikipedia. RickK 04:51, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • At least it should say something different, probably "lacking in content" instead of incomplete. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 07:54, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Send to clean up for now, maybe eventually delete. Alternately, delete and create a new "incomplete list" template. As it stands now, the "incomplete list" template is being misused, and you're right to delete it when you see it. You're absolutely right that Wikipedia is, by its very nature, incomplete. But consider, for example, a list of provinces in a country. Straightforward, objective lists like these are capable of being completed. When they're not complete yet, an "incomplete list" template is appropriate. Of course, most lists are subjective, constantly growing, or potentially very extensive (e.g., a list of car parts). The use of an "incomplete list" template is pointless for lists like that.

    Looking over the list of pages using the current template, I see a large number of lists that are essentially as complete as they're ever going to be. These should be removed in clean-up. But in the end, I think that an {{incomplete list}} template is a good idea, but it should be used very sparingly, and only for objectively completable lists.

    Side note: there exists {{expand list}}, which is basically identical to {{listdev}}. The two should be merged (into "expand list", I think); both are frequently used for inappropriate lists. (See also: Wikipedia:Incomplete lists, Whatlinkshere:Listdev, Whatlinkshere:Expand list) • Benc • 08:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure Clean Up will know what to do, since we're really talking about a copy rewrite and a change of Wikipedian habits. I can see a use for a template like this. If a person is writing a list and means to keep coming back, it's a handy way of flagging their work to keep returning to it and to flag all the other listmaniacs. It also might keep a list off VfD, if it's incomplete and in process. That's a possible use for something like this, not this. I agree with deleting this template, but I think the inappropriate use of it isn't really something VfD is going to do anything about. It'll just raise tempers. Geogre 12:42, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't delete, but revise. It seems to me that there are three basic kinds of lists we could expect to find in Wikipedia:
  1. Lists that could be completed. This includes any list that might reasonably be complete in some form for some reasonable time interval. Examples: U.S. rivers, national capitals, area codes in the North American Numbering Plan, members of any music group. All of these have changed over time, but can claim stability long enough for Wikipedians to establish a completed form.
  2. Lists that are expected never to be complete. This includes lists that cannot be known to be complete, as well as ones that are theoretically "completable" but are so large, dynamic, or imprecisely defined that they are sure never to be complete in an objective sense. Examples: most lists of songs, performers, movies, people, etc.
  3. Stub lists: Lists that have barely been started. They may ultimately be of either of the above two types, but they currently include only a tiny fraction of the eligible entries.
(Of course, this list itself has its fuzzy boundaries. For instance, a "pop song chart positions" might be completed in any given week, but only with significant effort, and is so dynamic that calling it complete is a bit misleading.)
I would suggest scrapping the overlapping {{listdev}} and {{expand list}} and replacing them with something like {{incomplete list}} and {{dynamic list}}, as well as retaining {{Stublist}}. "Incomplete list" should claim that it is "completable", but is not yet considered complete. "Dynamic list" should state that it is never expected to be complete, but is still a useful resource for finding members of the list. All three should request assistance in completing, adding to, and/or revising the list, as appropriate for each list type. Finally, there should be a very brief description (1 or 2 lines max) that describes how the tag is supposed to be used, and that description should be shown wherever the tag is described (currently Wikipedia:Template messages). If the template message is sufficiently clear, this description may not be necessary, but the current "listdev" and "expand list" tags don't really make their expected usage clear. — Jeff Q 14:00, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This should under no circumstances simply be deleted. It serves a useful function. As for whether to rename it or merge it's functionality with another template, I am OK with this in principle. I'll have to mull over the specifics proposals above before I commit though. older≠wiser 20:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) PS, FWIW, there was some discussion about listdev vs. expand_list some time back (pre-template namespace) on MediaWiki talk:Listdev and MediaWiki talk:Expand list.
  • Delete. Partly because it is redundant with {{expand-list}}, but more importantly because m[M]any (if not most) mere lists on Wikipedia are not encyclopedic, but rather mere indiscriminate collections of information. Often, (it seems to me), these "lists" become longer than the prose of the article, and significantly detract from the quality of the article itself. Lists, within Wikipedia, should not strive to be comprehensive, but rather indicative or exemplary. — MSchmahl 11:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC) (Note: {{expand-list}} is actually a redirect to {{devlist}}. But my main argument stands. — MSchmahl 12:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Funchain -- Add to this discussion

Listed on cleanup for over 2 months. Ad? --Jiang 03:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: Took the liberty of cleaning up this VFD nomination so that it has it's own vfd/subpage like the others. For what it's worth, Funchain already has a link on the Weblog page. - RedWordSmith 06:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 10:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia not web directory. --Ianb 11:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: In beta, and we're not a web directory. Geogre 12:45, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As stated above, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Skyler 01:44, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

FIRSTwiki -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable project that just started in May. --Jiang 03:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge into FIRST and delete redirect (since it has been pointed out that "merge & delete" is not GFDL-acceptable, as it destroys the attribution history). —Stormie 11:04, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • p.s. I have merged it, it makes much more sense there anyway. —Stormie 11:09, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It has been merged, where it will be a very good addition. No need for this web guide article now. Geogre 12:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as a redirect to preserve edit history, since its been pretty much directly copied into FIRST —siroχo 12:25, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Although I voted "merge & delete", I'm equally happy with "merge & redirect", a name like FIRSTwiki isn't going to cause any name-contention if we keep it as a redirect. —Stormie 02:09, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. --Rossumcapek 03:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User talk:68.48.167.231 -- Add to this discussion

Tally 5 merge, 2 keep as of 22:37 (UTC) 21 Sep 2004.

We have a vicious vandal bot attack here. Check this IP's history. All its entries are substubs about "Twilight Zone" episodes. They've been coming in for hours, sometimes one a minute. These also came in en masse about a week ago via the same proxy. I've also listed this on the "Vip" page. Help! - Lucky 6.9 05:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I took a look at the pages created. That is one sophisticated bot! Seriously, I think its probably a big Twilight Zone fan rather than a bot. Probably a very fast typist. Why do you want to delete the user talk page? The Steve 10:03, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with the idea that the creation of substubs is an act of vandalism. I also disagree with deleting a banned anon user's talk page. -Sean Curtin 14:24, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I should have made myself clear. There are just so many of these that listing each individual entry would have been a waste of time and space. I've posted the user page (which I began anyway) as a means to check the individual entries and to bring attention to the fact that several attempts at contact were made before nominating the entries themselves, not necessarily the talk page. - Lucky 6.9 18:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • IMHO the talk page should be kept for a reasonable amount of time; even if flagging up anons' new messages doesn't work yet, it might in the future, and this user might want to know why they've been banned. -Sean Curtin 21:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea. Keep the user page for a limited amount of time if the other articles are deleted. - Lucky 6.9 17:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all substubs created by this user. --Jiang 23:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • merge all stubs/substubs --Jiang 23:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep them they are good. Eric B. and Rakim 23:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Based on a spot-check of the stubs created, they seem reasonable and did not show up as obvious copyright violations. Can you please explain in more detail what concerns you about these articles? (Keep for now.) Rossami 20:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Of course. They're little more than unformatted text dumps with near-useless titles and more than one user has expressed concern over individual synopses of non-notable television episodes. I couldn't find anything that matched as a copyvio, but I did find a couple of sites that list the information on a single page. If they aren't copyvios, and since they are factual, I would encourage that these all be merged under a single page, titled along the lines of List of Twilight Zone Revival episodes, or even merged onto an existing page. It's very unlikely that anyone at all would try to find info on a single episode of a relatively unremarkable revival series without first searching for a list. The parentheticals pretty much assure that these will be nothing but orphans. - Lucky 6.9 21:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into a single article is fine. I suggest Twilight Zone (1985) Delete or redirect the stubs? The Steve 05:21, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Let's make lemonade out of lemons. Merge all into a single article and delete the individual stubs. No need for redirects as far as I can tell. A list is born! - Lucky 6.9 06:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • No such animal as "merge and delete" under the GFDL, as user attribution is lost. I vote to merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 09:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. Very short articles are mostly bad. Unannotated lists are mostly bad. Annotated lists are good (well at least more likely to be good). Jallan 16:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note: I have just come to count up the tally of this discussion, and the consensus is certainly to merge the articles together. The only difficulty with that is that not all of the Twilight Zone episodes that have articles were created by this user, and some of the others are actually quite decent articles - are these to be merged also? See List of The Twilight Zone episodes for this full list. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tropic of Cubicle and Roderick Maclean (author) -- Add to this discussion

Vanity. This book hasn't even been published yet, and the publisher seems to be non-notable. RickK 06:04, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • Although I gave those articles a bit of a polish, I'm inclined to agree and vote Delete. Does anyone know if Spork Press is a real publisher or vanity press? —Stormie 06:09, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Granted, Spork Press is a small press, but it is not a vanity press. They publish a quarterly hard-bound magazine (and archive online) and otherwise put out chapbooks and novels. Just to be clear, unlike vanity presses, publication with Spork is based on decisions by editors, and writers do not pay for publication. Tropic of Cubicle is a small book, yes. But, by all accounts, it is a real book. The point that Rick makes about a "non-notable" publisher seems dubious. Wikipedia has entries for plenty of small presses such as So New Media, with small, devoted followings, but which aren't big money-makers or household names. Wikipedia also has plenty of entries for "small-time" authors and impresarios: Zulkey (Claire Zulkey), Ben Brown, etc. Maybe you guys should reconsider, and allow non-mainstream literature and culture to get by the Wiki gatekeepers now and again. Oh, and, naturally, I vote to Not Delete. -NVFD, Aug 12, 2004
  • Delete. Google only finds one book published by Spork Press. Andris 12:11, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • The press is real, and worth keeping. An entry on a inor not-yet-existing book, on the other hand, seems pointless. Delete. -FZ 12:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: NVFD, the book may well achieve notability after its publication. No one here is judging the worthiness of the effort or, honestly, the merits of the press. However, Wikipedia is limited to entries on notable authors and books. After publication, the book will need to sell fairly well to make it into the encyclopedia. This limitation helps keep the Wikipedia both inclusive and yet practical. If you'd like, I think it might be a great idea if you were to set up a user page and store the information on your user page. When the book is published and catches on, gets talked about on NPR, gets a NYT review that makes your cheeks burn, goes on Oprah or whatever, you could push it over into the article space. (BTW, Tropic of Cubicle, and it's not pornographic?! Henry Miller will be ticked.) Geogre 12:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Important note: The listing on VfD is for Tropic of Cubicle and Roderick Maclean. The article on Roderick Maclean is good, and I like it muchly. My vote pertains only to the former. Geogre 12:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. There was a mistake in the section header. The second page in the listing should have been Roderick Maclean (author) who is the author of Tropic of Cubicle, rather than Roderick Maclean'. I just corrected it. If anyone voted based on Roderick Maclean page, please revisit your vote. Andris 13:21, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, at the time of listing on VfD, the Roderick Maclean article DID refer to the author. The disambiguation was made after the fact. RickK 19:32, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both: nonnotable. Getting a book published is truly no big deal, except to the author; being a published author (or book) is not enough to merit an article, by far. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Roderick Maclean (author): He does seem notable, although he's on the edge. What he wrote of himself (it it was him) was not invented. He seems to have the accomplishments that he lists, including many publications. He's not Charles Dickens or even Faith Popcorn, but he passes my test, and when I say that I put reality ahaed of fiction, this is what I mean. A real guy with some pubs is ahead, for me, of a character. Geogre 17:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Andris: consult the entry on Spork Press for more information. -- NVFD, Aug 12, 2004
  • I'm sorry, Geogre, you picked the wrong man for a "real guy". Besides a couple of poems from Tropic of Cubicle at [11] (so, it's a novel with poems interpersed ... ?), there's another poem at [12], with the footer "The pieces (like this one) in Tropic/of/Cubicle the book are character studies for Tropic/of/Cubicle the Broadway musical, which is itself a promotional vehicle for Tropic/of/Cubicle the boardgame and Tropic/of/Cubicle the ice vending machine, among other hotly-anticipated consumer products." Not quite BJAODN material, but pretty good, Roderick (are you there?). Vote: delete, or speedy delete, hotly-anticipated Wikipedia entry Tropic of Cubicle. And delete Roderick Maclean as a vanity entry, unless Geogre has a link for some accomplishments and publications on the web. The Google hits are a little hard to sort out from other people with the same name, and all I'm definitely getting about Roderick Maclean the author that's not about Tropic/of/Cubicle the joke is a note that he was or was scheduled to be the centerfold in the April issue of Naked Male Authors Quarterly, a publication notably lacking in web presence. Bishonen 21:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Bishonen, you seem so easily persuaded by a little humor. If it's verifying that Roderick Maclean is real that you're after, it's not difficult to find a few links to writing and references:
    TOC excerpt & pic in 3AM Magazine
    TOC excerpt in Diagram
    Short story in Bullfight
    Short story in Midnight Mind
    Short story in Spork
    TOC excerpt in Spork
    Short story in Monkeybicycle
    Short story in Eclectica
    Recognition in Million Writers Award
    Review of short story in Newpages
    Random blog entry
    Reference to public reading
    Pushcart nomination
    Oh, and Bishonen, run -- don't walk -- to delete the entry to Nabokov's Pale Fire because you've never heard of poems being used in novels before. -- NVFD, Aug 12, 2004
    • "A few" links? Not at all, you've gone to a lot of trouble. Thanks. I don't want to delete the author article for any doubt of the person existing, only for doubt of his "real" encyclopedic quality, and I don't mean to insult you by saying that. Shoot, insult him, I mean. Neither of you, seriously. It's just that Wikipedia goes by present rather than future notability. And for the Tropic of Cubicle article, it's a little unspecific to claim that the upcoming "small book" is "by all accounts" a real book. If some of all the accounts are on the web, could you link to them as well? I appreciate the problem of providing evidence of existence before publication, but, well, that's part of the whole problem of having an encyclopedia entry before publication. Bishonen 00:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • delete both, vanity --Jiang 23:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Not notable. Delete both, IMO. Skyler 02:15, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Roderick Maclean (author). Is interesting and somewhat notable. Delete: Tropic of Cubicle. Book's not out yet.--Ern 02:35, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Please note that all of the above user's edits have been to VfD discussions. RickK 04:25, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Tropic of Cubicle. Since it's not yet available in stores, it might achieve sufficient notability by being widely anticipated, or by being the next book in a famous series, or by having a famous author, or by having been in the news for some other reason, but in this case there's no evidence of those things, nor any evidence to suggest that it will probably become notable in the future. If it does, let someone else re-create the article at that time. I abstain for now on the question of Roderick Maclean (author). If the other claims in the article are true, then he's notable enough for me. However, I'll note that a quick search of Google [13] [14] [15] and Wired [16] [17] does not turn up any independent verification of those claims. Keep and maybe expand Spork Press, not that we're actually supposed to be voting on it. —Triskaideka 18:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • merge and redirect Tropic of Cubicle into Roderick Maclean (author). Keep the latter, assuming that the various other claims are accurate. -- Jmabel 19:56, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete "Tropic of Cubicle". It can have an article after it is published and has become notable. NVFD provided proof that "Roderick Maclean (author)" is not a hoax but has not yet convinced me that he meets our standard of notability - delete. Comment: In the future, please submit these as separate nominations. Thanks. Rossami 20:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Can't all News reports of things not yet released just go to Quick Delete? There are people on the Wikipedia project who have written real books that have been available for years whose works are not listed and they aren't crying for them to be listed. Jallan 22:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability and possible self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Blat -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Dictdef of a Russian language slang term. RickK 06:18, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. This was a very commonly used term in Soviet era and I could this eventually being a good article. Andris 12:20, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge: Honestly, I think this could be great information, but I'd love to see it in an article on the Soviet black market, the Russian "mafia" (in Russia...the concept of 'mafia' there is not what it is anywhere else), or even Soviet economics. As a stand-alone, I feel like we're losing good informationg by scattering it. Andris, can you think of a larger concept where this information can operate in a context of a larger discussion? Geogre 13:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. I agree with Geogre. This seems like it would be more appropriate in an entry for more of a "big picture" topic. If possible, I would merge and redirect. If there is no corresponding article and no one wishes to create one, I have to vote delete. Skyler 02:20, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Randomly, BLAT is also the name of an email utility. http://www.blat.net/ Has no real bearing on this article... SarekOfVulcan 04:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Other

BLAT also refers to Broad Level Access Term in controlled vocabulary development and management Musidora 18:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Blat" is also a term for a horrendous note on a brass instrument (including [saxophones]) usually produced by blowing too hard. Not sure if there's a good place for it, but there you have it. --Duneflower, resident weirdo 11:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable reference for this meaning? see Wikipedia:Attribution and wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also, it seems that this meaning is not for encyclpedia (wikipedia), but for wiktionary. `'юзырь:mikka 15:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Blat (software)" was deleted

The link "Blat (software)" is now effectively a broken link - that article was deleted.

--Mortense (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason K. Resch -- Add to this discussion

Vanity. And I do mean vanity. RickK 06:34, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • comment: how about Global Communications Network LLC too?
  • Hang on a moment. I am "the most visionary mind in 21st-century computer programming.". Delete this imposter. --Ianb 07:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vain vanity. SWAdair | Talk 10:00, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, as described above. Andris 12:14, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete- and I concur with the comment- I'm listing GCN as well. -FZ 12:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: No, I am the most visionary! I don't even program: that's just how visionary I am! I have plenty of visions for programs other people should do, though. (Vanity. Delete this and its little dog, too.) Geogre 13:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And I would say delete Global Communications Network LLC as well, as suggested above, unless it can be cleaned up in some way. That article reads as POV and an advertisement. This article is simply vanity. Skyler 02:23, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge with Idiot bin. Holy cow! Red link! You mean we don't have a place for stuff like this? How about starting with this article? Denni☯ 02:52, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
  • Delete already -- BJAODN is waiting! Tregoweth 18:40, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete He's all of 21 years old. A little young for "most visionary mind" status. --LeeHunter 18:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unequals -- Add to this discussion

POV rant, article title has nothing to do with article, original research. Choose one. RickK 06:42, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • hmmm, so many choices, so little time, yet only one conclusion: Delete. Indrian 07:01, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Total POV, doubtlessly covered better in other articles, although the title is at least slightly related. Delete. -RedWordSmith 07:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Kim Bruning 07:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for all the reasons stated above. But some of this material should be somewhere, because it is (in rough and ready form) standard critique of the oversimplified free market as presented in simple economics text books. Any ideas where the salvageable stuff could go, anyone? seglea 07:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Completely POV and needs to go, the sooner the better. Deb 11:48, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete POV rant. I saw nothing worth salvaging. Rossami 12:13, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Original research. Some articles are more unequal than others. Geogre 13:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Deleting this proletariat page is just a knee-jerk reaction by those who control the means of production. DELETE away!!!!!  ;-) Terrapin 20:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Heh. I like the way that economists are actually the ones who profit the most from free markets. Delete. Lacrimosus 21:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This sounds like basic Neo-Marxism to me. It is non-encyclopedic, ranting, and POV. There is actually no original research involved and nothing needs to be salvaged from it. Any concepts involved in this rant can be explained and articulated much better by any topic having to do with Marxism or Proletariatism. Plus, as a liberal economist ("free-trade economist"), I simply find it insulting and annoying. Skyler 02:39, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redir to Equality to deter reappearance. Davodd 08:57, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Good idea. I agree with that. All content should be deleted, though, as there is nothing of value to be merged. Skyler 11:54, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and quickly. Nothing but a personal rant. --LeeHunter 18:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Keirosis -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Keirosis

List of company name etymologiesencyclopedia -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of company name etymologiesencyclopedia

Sven Verbeiren -- Add to this discussion

  • No Google hits at all for "Sven Verbeiren", probably made up. Delete if existence of legend cannot be verified. -- Ferkelparade 11:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like patent nonsense; none of the references can be verified by Google, not even the purported 2001 publication. Looks like a carefully constructed hoax. Sjc 11:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Has several signs of being a hoax. (Flemish monster from 1864 known by the name "Sandwich"? Quotes from 1864 written in colloquial english. No listing I can find for any of the "references".) Not, however patent nonsense as we define it. Rossami 12:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It looks pretty dubious... I'd say delete it, unless some (extremely unexpected) evidence should turn up to corroborate it. It's good hoax, though... for BJAODN? -FZ 12:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's a prank. It's one kid twitting another. (Covered in acne with a nasal voice, dribbling food down his shirt?) Geogre 14:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) (forgot to sign)
  • Delete: Seems to be a hoax.--Ern 02:31, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • First of all, I've forgotten my username so can't log in (author of the Sven Verbeiren-page). All the books named in the sources are in my posession, and I've hired a book called "Vlaams Sagenboek", translated "Flemish book of folklore", wich also tales of 't Neuzeken. If I owuld had a scanner, I could prove you.

Erik Buell -- Add to this discussion

Personal info. Not encyclopedic.--Jondel 10:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • proprietor of company Buell, a stub itself. Delete if Erik Buell not found to be otherwise notable. --Ianb 11:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • User:213.225.130.201. A man who made articles that were a bit rubbish but great fun. Delete, and send Buell to cleanup - they deserve a better article than the current one. -- Ferkelparade 11:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Note: the above IP also repeatedly posted a long incoherent rambling on Buell and was reverted several times. Lupo 20:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too subjective and unencyclopedic ScottyBoy900Q 20:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Taelons -- Add to this discussion

Appears to be purely fictional, but without context it should be deleted. Deb 11:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Wierd aliens-are-amongst-us article - hence why I added vfd. Unless this can be re-written from a NPOV describing who these people are (not easy looking at the results from a quick google search) then this should be deleted. CheekyMonkey 11:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article describes a major alien race appearing in scifi TV series. I count articles describing no less than 126 fictional alien races from List_of_aliens_in_fiction. Which, incidentally, this page is linked from. I see no reason to delete this page. --Nickco3 12:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not worse than the other 6000 articles in Category:Fictional and subcategories. I just added categorization. Please help the Category:Fictional categorization effort to prevent alien races invading real life. -- Pjacobi 12:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I'm not a massive Gene_Roddenberry fan, there's plenty of other stuff on things he's dreamt up on wikipedia. Kim Bruning 12:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article needs a little copyediting, but otherwise I see no reason to delete it, just because it is fictional. Lyellin 12:44, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not very good scifi, but prominent, and Taelons were the basis of the plot. Needs cleaning, but it's useful. (For that matter, the entry on the show could stand some work- like the airing dates?) -FZ 12:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge & Delete: Before everyone gets in an uproar, let me explain why. These critters were a staple of Gene Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict. Ok, the show ran in syndication for 5 years or so. It was, as far as I can tell, never particularly popular. So, we have a show that is notable but on the low end. So, my argument for deletion is that breaking out a full article on one fictional species from a show that isn't tremendously significant is a bad general idea. There is much to say about the species, yes. That's the nature of shows that run for five years. I'd rather see this merged with Gene Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict. Geogre 13:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Geogre--keep. I'd say articles about this alien species--playing as they did a central role--are worthy. Of course, somebody should write Earth: Final Conflict. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:26, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
    • Need to create? It's been there since May 2002.
  • Merge and Redirect. This information should be in the article on the series, not in an article to itself. If these aliens played so central of a role, then they are essential for explaining the television series and are entangled in its plot. A separate article only becomes redundant as it attempts to explain all the nuances--which are already explained in the main article--of a fictional universe that are necessary in order to have an informative article. For example, the first two paragraphs of the present article quite clearly belong in the main article. Information that is revealed in certain episodes, possibly that about the scientist, and is not about highly persistent and consistent things in the fiction, belongs in articles under those particular episodes. The information in the 3-4 paragraphs is possibly of this type, or it looks like it might be crucial to the overall plot, in which case it would belong in the main article. - Centrx 19:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: seems like a personal bias to delete.--Ern 02:41, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • disregard this vote. all 6 edits on vfd. --Jiang 07:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • And his reason doesn't make any sense. I must have a vendetta against the evil Taelons, banish them from the Wikipedia! - Centrx 14:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, they are "Taelons," aka "Telons" (Greek coinage for "end dwellers"), as in Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End -- the characters in which they closely resemble, until they turn all evil and stuff. Geogre 20:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect. As per Centrix. One big article with sections is usually better than lots of little articles that repeat information. Jallan 21:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, this article has come a long way since being VfD'd and could be extended to be quite good. -- 66.32.114.171 19:49, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • there is no longer a need to vote in this matter - the vote is over, with the conclusion that the article should be retained. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Carl hanratty -- Add to this discussion

A stub, at the wrong title, about a fictional character, containing little useful information. Does it really deserve an article? Deb 11:40, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Misnamed. The man is actually real, so an article on the character is doubly wrong. Geogre 13:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pity there's no article on the real-life personage, though. Lacrimosus 21:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. AFAIK, he's not real - IIRC, he was a melding of several real-life characters into one for the movie. Ambi 01:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Correction: Ambi's right. I was misled by the title cards at the end of the movie that said that the hero and "Carl" remain friends. Geogre 05:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's odd. I remember listening to a tape recording by the man and reading newspaper articles about his experiences, before the movie came out. Hmm. We definitely need an article now to work out what the real-life situation is. Lacrimosus 23:16, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zulkey -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable weblog. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Andris 12:06, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • delete. --Ianb 13:13, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity and web services. Geogre 13:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Just a blogger.--Ern 02:38, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ms Zulkey does not appear to be a significant author, and this blog does not appear to be a significant one. Delete. Average Earthman 10:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. I listed my name and site here because I saw a friend do it and as the site and I have been referenced in the New Yorker, the UK Guardian and CNN.com, I thought a referral might be helpful to those interested in learning more. If not, and this is merely interpreted as PR/vanity, I apologize (although I think the case should ultimately be left to other Zulkeys who wish this page not be the definition of "Zulkey.") Thanks for your time! unsigned comment from User:Zulkey
    • I've taken the liberty of moving the content to your new User Page. I think that's a better place for it for now. If/when your site becomes truly "notable" as the Wikipedia community has chosen to define it, then an article might be appropriate. By the way, it would be much better if someone other than yourself writes that future article. Thanks. Rossami 22:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AlexAndJoan -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/AlexAndJoan

Global Communications Network LLC -- Add to this discussion

  • Delete: Per above: vanity company listing. Geogre 13:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: The page is no different than others such as FileTopia or Trillian
  • Just because a company makes a program similar to {insert well-known program name here} doesn't make it notable. I'm open to third-party opinions though. --Ianb 22:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • delete, nonnotable --Jiang 23:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • ? Jiang what do you base notability on, whether or not you have heard of it? A google search for "Global Communications Network LLC" brought up 2830 sites..
  • Delete, nonnotable. Ambi 02:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Did anyone else notice what popped up as Google's cached version of the site? "The domain www.gcn.cx has been suspended by the registry." -- Cyrius|✎ 05:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GeekForce -- Add to this discussion

I can't find any traces of this on Google...It doesn't seem worth keeping. David Remahl 13:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. David Remahl 13:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Iainscott 13:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Are we really an oppressed minority? Sheesh. Artie Ziff is pleased. Geogre 13:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: the only website coming up in google is offline. TPK 14:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I find this offensive to me and my kind! :) --Golbez 19:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with TPK.Radoneme 17:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Self efficacy -- Add to this discussion

Pretty much individual research and a dictdef. It's also vertiginously tautological. Geogre 13:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Uncertain: it seems to be a valid psychological topic, however it is little more than a dicdef in its current form. If it can be expanded I would say keep. Otherwise, redirect to self-esteem or some other appropriate page. (If it is kept it needs a '-' of its own though). TPK 14:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • A neologism coined (as near as I can tell) by Dr Albert Bandura in 1986 or so. It appears to have caught on in self-help circles. See plenty of hits at [18]. Personally, I don't see much distinction between this concept and self-esteem but at least a few of the hits were academic papers splitting this hair. Keep. Rossami 14:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Plain old "efficacy" is a term used in political science (a high feeling of personal efficacy is a strong predictor of whether someone will vote). I vote to move and expand. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:46, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to efficacy. Also redirect self-efficacy there. -Sean Curtin 22:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. 20 years ago is hardly a "neologism" and Albert Bandura isn't exactly an obscure name. --Tothebarricades.tk 04:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, move to cleanup. Rhymeless 05:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Magazine type -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Created in March, the article has been in this form since. Duplicates information generally held multiple spots and is, at its clearest, a dictionary definition. Perhaps it was intended to spawn discussion, but it hasn't and is not likely to do so. Geogre 14:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Fairly pointless, ambiguous title, information about a gun's magazine should be in that gun's article, if there's anything to write about it. TPK 14:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. See above. --Golbez 19:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merged into magazine (firearm). Redirect to magazine (disambiguation), as the name could conceivably be used in reference to typefaces used in print magazines. -Sean Curtin 22:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Lochap -- Add to this discussion

please dont delete this, it is for a website, which has a big forum community. I see no reason to delete this page


  • this web site is not big at all. it doesn't seem like an appropriate encyclopedia topic.possible selfpromotion? delete - Mattingly23 16:24, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • This article is only a few minutes old, and is the user's first contribution. I'm explaining to the author why articles about their friends is not a good idea. To the author - please read your talk page, and discuss this issue there. DJ Clayworth 16:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Might be best to delet this, lochap.com isn't very important nor very big. Im gona have to agree with the other people, this really should be deleated. Sorry for the inconvience. -jjrh (site admin of lochap.com)

ok, sorry sereal, just tryin something new, lol

  • Feel free to stick around, guys. We can be pretty fast on listing things on Votes for Deletion. Take a few minutes to get familiar with the policies, set up an account, and please keep contributing, within policy bounds. You can also list personal information, including favorite research sites and the like, on your user page, once you set up here. Don't get discouraged, and welcome to Wikipedia. (Delete the entry, though, for being a web review/guide.) Geogre 17:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment jjrh, thanks for not squawking. Now that you have seen how easy it is to create and edit Wikipedia articles, we hope you'll stick around and try your hand at doing more. We don't really mind new people trying things out just to see how they work, even though we prefer that they do their experiments in the sandbox. I really don't think lochap.com is notable enough for an article, so I'm not encouraging you to expand this one. I think it would be a frustrating waste of effort. But, just so you know the rules... it's perfectly all right to edit and improve an article while it's under discussion in Votes for Deletion and quite a few articles end up with "Keep in present form." But the consensus on this article will probably depend much more on the notability of the website than on the quality of the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Might be a website; might be a forum; but it's tiny and unencyclopedic. 17 registered members. Atlantium has them beat by over 40x. ;) --Golbez 19:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. nonnotable --Jiang 23:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a webguide. Average Earthman 10:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete more web forum vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Trina S. Newton -- Add to this discussion

Trina S. Newton 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

Does not appear to be hugely important. Evercat 18:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I always feel bad when I say delete these pages, but not encyclopaedic. --Golbez 19:48, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Yardcock 22:38, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wow. 9 minutes from creation to VfD. It's nothing personal, the creator may want to look at Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies . --Ianb 22:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is of reasonable detail, but does not make a convincing case for notability. Average Earthman 10:17, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:48, 16 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.

Tittytainment -- Add to this discussion

Does not need its own article. This could be part of 20-80 Society. Rhobite 19:07, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Not encyclopedic (oh, and dictdef, and neologism, and not directly relevant to the 20-80). - Centrx 19:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment: If deleted, then 20-80 Society will have to be edited too, to remove its reference, if it is indeed irrelevant. --Golbez 19:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, although as it stands it should be modified anyway, for the term "tittytainment" is no more than the sum of its parts and should be worded more precisely and formally. - Centrx 20:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete as neologism. I would say more, but "Baywatch" is on. Geogre 19:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This article, The Global Trap, and past versions of 20-80 Society are all stub-sized. I added some of the content of the article to The Global Trap, which could still be expanded. It would be enough to have a redirect to that article. Yardcock 22:33, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism dicdef. - Cyrius|✎ 05:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oceanwalk Mall -- Add to this discussion

Almost vacant shopping mall which wouldn't be notable even if it were fully tenanted. RickK 20:02, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

And add Sloppy Giuseppe's, a one-off unimportant restaurant. RickK 21:10, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Ick. The "Sloppy Giuseppe's" reads like horrendous and cliched client-generated radio copy. Take away the name and you're left with "John Q. Italianrestaurant." Delete both. - Lucky 6.9 22:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • The entry for Sloppy Giuseppe's shines as an example of non-information. Delete both. --Ianb 22:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It should not be deleted, it is larger than most and important for the area... Sockpuppet vote pasted to main page. Moved to discussion page by Lucky 6.9, known loather of sockpuppets.

  • Delete: It's a shopping mall, with no claim to notability made. Mall of America is notable for being a behemoth. South Square Mall in Durham, NC, is just a mall. No reason given to set this apart from all others. Geogre 00:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Sloppy Guiseppe's, too. I do have a shiny quarter that says the author of the article works there. Geogre 00:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. WikiSpam, totally non-notable. "Obliterous"? Is that anything like "frabjous"? — Gwalla | Talk 02:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article appears to describe a small mall that is on its way out. I see no particular claim for notability, but lots of red links. Average Earthman 10:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, oh, I guess I have to vote delete, but I really love this article. It sounds like something in a Stephen King novel... or a scene in an interactive fiction game. >UP. The escalator is closed. >N. You are in front of Sloppy Guiseppe's. >Open door. The door is locked. >N. You are in front of Malley's Galley. You can smell french fries. >Enter... But what on earth does obliterous mean? Did the author mean ubiquitous, is it a chain? Or does it mean "obliterated," i.e. it too is closed? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • From behind the door an obliterous Garbage_Plate jumps out and mauls you. Game over. Try again? Y/N. --Ianb 02:02, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Awed comment: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith's version is much more entertaining than the article, but I think "obliterous" means something that is obliterating ubiquitously: i.e. it is always and everywhere not or, rather, not everywhere at all times. Geogre 04:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • comment: So, should it link to quantum superposition? — Gwalla | Talk 21:54, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • This slang site has the word "obliterous" and defines it to mean "inelegantly blotto." Unfortunately, judging by the other entries on that page, I don't think the site is very reliable. Most Google hits look as if they're people who meant to use the word "oblivious." There's one reference to "fibrosa obliterous" but it's apparently a typo for "fibrosa obliterans." I don't think "obliterous" is a word, which is a darned shame, since such a word is desperately needed in order to supply a rhyme for "clitoris." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:32, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both. User also created an article for Lychee Garden, a Chinese restaurant in the same Florida town (as if there weren't at least 5,000 other Chinese restaurants called Lychee Garden), which I already speedy-deleted. Oh, and megaprops to Dpbsmith, who had me rolling on the floor. Bearcat 10:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Metocean -- Add to this discussion

Neologism. Not even a dictdef. RickK 20:17, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • 14,700 Google hits. Pretty successfull neologism. Conditional keep. Some more content is needed. -- Pjacobi 21:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed, weak keep. -Sean Curtin 22:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. While it may be used enough to be appropriate for a dictionary, this term is no more than the sum of meteorology and oceanography, which are properly in their own separate and full articles, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. - Centrx 02:48, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I think this is, here, useless. The most we can do, if no one gives us context, is send it to Wiktionary. Geogre 13:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Boy on a Stick and Slither -- Add to this discussion

Untitled

One brief comment on the above: I posted the original stub but I disclaim responsibility for the line 'look at the website'. Lee M 02:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boy on a Stick and Slither. 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) 22:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:IndigoGenius/Jus cerebri electronici -- Add to this discussion

Another article in Indigo Genius's "personal" encyclopedia. We deleted the last one, and this is more of the same. Further propose that other articles along this vein be considered recreations of old pages and as speedy deletion candidates.

For those not familar with the situation, the relevent section of his main userpage declares that this article is "My Encyclopedia" and that "I am my own Admin, and I don't need those human rejects." The policy on userpages, on the other hand, says that you may not use your userspace as a personal webpage. Previously, User:IndigoGenius/Micronation was deleted for violation of the userpage guidelines - this is an identical case. Snowspinner 21:39, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

By your rather broad definition, there are a large number of user subpages that are equally or more qualified to be deleted. Are you sure you wish to be on this slippery slope? I'm tempted to start listing them here, especially if you start speedy deleting user pages... The Steve 05:36, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's allowed to have pretty much whatever he wants on his own personal user page (exceptions being things like child pronography). Samboy 21:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Untrue. The policy on userpages prohibits use of Wikipedia as a personal webpage, which this explicitly is. Snowspinner 22:37, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Exactly (what Snowspinner said). Wikipedia is not a free webpage host, and user pages and subpages are not for the place for this. He should try Geocities or Tripod. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What Snowspinner said. RickK 23:57, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Delete... yupyupyup. Do not support adoption of the Proposition based on discussion taking place in this context, however- list it in multiple locations? - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 00:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Honestly, this looks like a draft page or a personal view on law. There is no doubt a history that I'm unaware of, but I take "my encyclopedia" as figurative (i.e. "my sandbox") and this as either an article in preparation or a lost page that shows his views. I don't see the violation of policy. Geogre 00:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The history you're unaware of is that he's taking crap that's routinely deleted from articles and deleted entirely and keeping it in his userspace and calling it "his" article. The articles are about micronations - IndigoGenius claims to be the king of the Indigo Nation, which is an electronic micronation. Cessido Tallini, mentioned in the first sentence of the page in question, is Indigo Genius. Having failed to use Wikipedia as a means of self-promotion, he's cluttering the project with his repeatedly deleted articles, calling them his articles and operating under the mistaken belief that just because its in his userspace it's free from any oversight by anyone else.Snowspinner 01:13, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree, of course, that user pages are not a place for private web hosting, but this particular page, fantastic or not, doesn't seem to me to qualify. The user IndigoGenius may be disruptive or non-contributory. I won't take any stand on that. I'm not encouraged by his statements in this debate. If that's true, though, it seems that ArbCom actions and blocks of the whole person are the solution, if warranted (don't know), rather than killing him by pieces. Outside of the larger context, I see a page that isn't appropriate for main space but doesn't, by itself, seem outside of the lines. More, though, I regret our having these discussions about the person's behavior in general take place on a VfD about a particular page. Geogre 20:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • It's tough - I've certainly considered an arbcom request against IG, but so much of his content has been deleted that it's very difficult to gather evidence. I've considered undeleting some of the pages and moving them into my userspace to present as evidence, but most of them were lost in the database crash in June, and can't be restored at all. Snowspinner 20:57, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: has User:IndigoGenius been asked about this? If he states that it is a draft page or work in progress, then keep, but unless he does so, clearly and distinctly, delete. Wikipedia is not a free webpage host - countless other places are. —Stormie 00:30, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Quite the opposite - its recreation of information that is routinely deleted from the main namespace as rubbish. Snowspinner 01:13, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I can't understand why people are deleting MY Personal Pages which may serve as ideas for future articles or edits. Is Snowspinner even afraid of my ideas? If he is, may I ask why he's qualified to edit the Wiki, even destroy my own personal pages. This is CENSORSHIP from the Wiki. I can call it nothing else. This is "you are guilty, until proven innocent," the reverse of United States legal standard. --IndigoGenius 00:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Perhaps if you tried to write articles on things other than made up countries, you'd get further. As for the possibility of ideas for future articles and edits, since you clearly state that you do not care whether your writings get incorporated into the main encyclopedia or not, I have to say, I'm skeptical. Snowspinner 01:13, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Why is TTF-Bucksfan a made up country? It is a nation nonetheless, and like any nation, e.g. Italian-Americans, it has rights. This is not true?
        • Italian-Americans are not a "nation" either. They're an ethnic group within a nation - namely America. Snowspinner 03:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
          • Now I understand why you don't like nations; you don't like them because you don't even understand what they are. And a nation and a people like Italian-Americans is the same thing. The US is a multinational state, and each ethnic groups that manages to preserve its own culture, language, and customs, is a people, and a nation. TTF-Bucksfan is a nation also.
      • And what country was not made up at some time in history, however remote?
        • Most of the ones that actually control, say, land. Snowspinner 03:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
          • You are confusing the concepts of nation and state. Nations exist even without land, and some in fact exist in exile, like Italian-Americans, who are prosecuted by Hollywood like no other people in America. But I suppose that doesn't matter to you also.
      • Let me add that this article is about the law, not micronations, yet you want to delete all the same.
        • Sorry. You're right. This one is about a made-up law, not about a made-up country. My bad. Snowspinner 03:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Why don't you just say you don't like me too much, because I certainly don't hide my criticisms of Wiki Admins, and that it shows, no matter what garbage you say here.
        • I don't like you too much because you write articles about your fantasy world and then seem surprised when they're deleted. Snowspinner 03:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
          • The fantasy world you speak of cost me over 8,000 USD in TLDs alone. It is also not a fantasy to those that consider themselves Tallinians, Bucksfanians, or Cesidians (a new religion). Fantasies usually come a lot more cheap than that, and the shared fantasies of 17 people or more usually don't exist.
      • Why don't you just say THE TRUTH, that you are violating my rights even as a part-time wiki contributor.
        • Your rights as a Wikipedia contributor are to build an encyclopedia, to follow the rules of Wikipedia, and to go along with community consensus in building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia policy EXPLICITLY DENIES your right to use your userspace as a personal webpage. Snowspinner 03:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
          • What you mention is not my "right," but my duty (aka obligation), and Wiki has been so disrespectful towards me and my contributions, that I don't feel duty bound. Wiki is not the product of Tallinians, Bucksfanians, or Fifthworlders, since Wiki doesn't even recognise those people. First you treat me as even less than a 19th century negro slave, and then you expect me to work for you! I don't know where you're coming from Sir, but it isn't the place I live in, and it has been surpassed in the jurisdiction called America, at least with non-Italians. Wiki is even less than a sweat shop, if Wikipedians don't have the right to at least maintain their own personal pages, and you have already deleted one without my permission. You speak of rights, yet you have already violated my rights. I have nothing but contempt for you.
      • Why don't you say the truth, that Wiki will go bankrupt one day, and I promise you it will, because I will give it its final blow as soon as I have enough money. You are attacking my own personal file, yet you don't even see the disgusting things people like Gene Poole are doing right behind your backs, and claiming to be NPOV as well. --IndigoGenius 02:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • And how, exactly, will you "give it the final blow" when you have enough money? Snowspinner 03:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
          • Generals never describe the strategy of the battle they will use before they will destroy you, and I will destroy Wiki by destroying something much larger and powerful than Wiki. --IndigoGenius 03:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webpage host, I suggest IndigoGenius stops whining about CENSORSHIP and notes that many if not all computers come equipped with text editors and hard disks - excellent tools for saving "personal pages which may serve as ideas for future articles or edits." —Stormie 01:18, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not storage for personal files. →Raul654 04:24, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Anybody who wants to vote keep on this garbage, please see how this person who calls himself a King behaves. His articles are psycho. RickK 04:06, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Guanaco 04:31, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC) Delete. Guanaco 04:34, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. User pages are for constructive wikipedia-related work, not for personal promotion, etc. Sjc 05:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. IndigoGenius is a full blown certifiable lunatic who treats Wikipedia's established community standards with pure, unmitigated contempt. While his hallucinogenic ravings about being a "god", a "university dean", a "genius" and an "indigo child" etc provide a certain level of entertainment value, one must ask whether this is sufficient reason for continuing to tolerate his egregious presence. It should also be noted that Samboy who has voted to retain this drivel has been attempting, within the past few hours, to collude with IndigoGenius to promote edit wars and the vandalisation of the Micronation article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samboy#About_the_Atlantium_attack --Gene_poole 05:39, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The "collusion" that George Cruickshank, "Emperor of Atlantium", a.k.a. Gene Poole is referring to here is deleting the following paragraph that he added himself:
The Kingdom of Bucksfan, an internet-based fantasy created by one Cesidio Tallini, who amongst other things, believes himself to be a god and a genius, although these asertions are unsupported by available evidence. Tallini refers to Bucksfan as being part of the Fifth World - a New Age concept of limited currency, derived from Hopi mythology.
He attempted to revert my change here and only stopped when IndigoGenius removed the description. George furthered the attack against this competing micronation by deleting any links to it on the Micronation page. In addition, George Cruickshank is engaging in a campaign of attacking me personally since I have the courage to stand up to him. Samboy 08:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


  • Keep and stop policing user pages. Go edit some articles instead. Zocky 08:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Who died and left Snowspinner net cop hall monitor with a nifty orange plastic sash? Why does it even matter what Indigo has on his user page? Come back if it gets longer than 500K, and stop wasting VfD's time with personal grudge matches. Surely Snowspinner can find something better to do than to troll User pages looking for things to delete? Like, I dunno, edit an article (no, not a Proposed Policy, an article)? I know that I have better things to do than read these cat fights. -- orthogonal 10:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Then by all means, go do them. I'd hate to think I'm distracting you from adding vital content like putting Christian before uses of "Bible." Snowspinner 14:11, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • (In response to questions as to his vote) My bad. Sorry for not being more explicit. My vote is to Keep. As to IndigoGenius's vote, is there a policy that a page author can't vote on his page on VfD? If so I (and a number of others) have violated this policy all too often, and I owe yet another apology ;) -- orthogonal 06:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure about a policy, that's why I added the disclaimer, just in case. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep What Zocky said. What next, User:Ambivalenthysteria/top sekrit sysop kabal?  ? The Steve 11:00, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inappropriate use of WP as personal web site. Agreed entirely w/ Snowspinner. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • If someone is filling multiple user pages with huge amounts of articles, then I'd have a problem (anyone who says disk space is cheap can buy the next drive for the servers). If they've just got the one short page, they can say whatever they like as long as it's legal for all I care. No vote, as I don't care. Average Earthman 17:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep unless and until a) someone gives a reasonable estimate of the quantity of disk storage User:IndigoGenius is using in the directory tree underneath his home page. If there is no easy way to do this, then we need to request it as a feature from the developers, and b) we have a stated policy (do we?) about how much space is a reasonable allowance for a user's own user space. Admittedly his own description of how he is using his page is extremely provocative. But until we know how much he's using and how much is reasonable there's no basis for any intelligent discussion. IMHO, a reasonable allowance would be "my $0.02 worth" of disk space. If we assume disk space costs $5 per gig, that would be four megabytes per user. But that's just my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) P. S. And I have donated to WIkimedia within the last six months...
  • Delete. MWOT. Andrewa 22:35, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Of no use in building an encyclopedia. Delete - David Gerard 00:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I have differences with User:IndigoGenius' POV, I believe user pages are sacrosanct, and unless egregiously radical material is contained there, productive users should have the right to use the space as they wish. If Pokemon sub-characters have a right to exist on WP, so too should slightly daft user pages. Denni☯ 03:07, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
  • No vote: although this is a violation of policy, I feel that user pages should be handled by the arbitration committee, not VfD. -Sean Curtin 04:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Agree. See the talk page. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete No pages are sacrosanct. If a page is in violation of policy, then delete it or change the policy. Enough of the continual non-enforcement of policies. If policies are not enforced then they are not really policies. Jallan 21:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has no relevance to Wikipedia. Putting pages like this that wouldn't be allowed in the main namespace into the user space is just a sneaky way of trying to avoid deletion. This already exists at wikinfo and I see no need for it to be here as well. Angela.
    • I thought user pages were designed to be ones that would not be allowed in the main namespace. Main userpages tend to be vanity, do they not? The Steve 03:21, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, but this isn't a page about the user designed to tell people about himself. He is trying to put it across as an article which is why it is identical to the one in the main namespace at Wikinfo. Angela. 03:26, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
        • My point is that both your argument of relevance and that Putting pages like this that wouldn't be allowed in the main namespace are invalid for userpages. I would also have to say that trying to put it across as an article is overruled by it being in user space, which has been designated both non-article and not main namespace but rather what the user feels like putting there. I don't know about you, but this article tells me almost as much about User:IndigoGenius as his user page :) The Steve 04:24, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
          • Then nuke the article in article namespace as each appears. It will be the one to be found by Wiki's search engine. If the user insists on restoring articles from userspace to article namespace, there are disciplinary procedures in place. I've seen a goodly pile of nonsense on user pages, but have never questioned its presence there. Perhaps "sacrosanct" is a little imperative for what I think user pages should be, but I believe nonetheless they should not have to suffer the same scrutiny as articles. Denni☯ 20:57, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
  • Keep -- from a fluffy liberal point of view (and because I think it's important for community building), it seems bad style to put user space subpages on VFD, if they are not copyvios or illegal. Yes, we have a policy that user space isn't a web hosting service, but have take a tour through wikipedia user space, and you'll see masses of user space use that isn't linked to the goal of encyclopedia creation. So, as long as there is no significant bandwidth problem, and as long as it is legal, user space should be rather "private" and not fall under "public observance". ((A related, but not really complete idea: what about a BJAODN:-namespace in wikipedia? Hoax and nonsense articles could be moved into that namespace, articles here wouldn't count as article edits etc., and the page layout would indicate sillyness, e.g. by giving neon pink backgrounds for this namespace. Something like a wikipedia underground (dungeon?), letting falled geniuses play their games without to much disturbance. Problem would be of course the possibility that BJAODN turns in a second Everything2 or something ...)) -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 11:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly extremely gigantically reluctant keep. I'm extremely dissatisfied with the author's conduct, and the encyclopedic value of this article (it's definitely original research, but this doesn't count for much) but the guy can do pretty much whatever he wants with his user page until we get a better definition of personal webspace. He does seem to be designing his user page around a usual homepage concept, but still, the policies are too vague. Take this as a vote for keep, a vote for taking this to a higher authority (Jimbo? Arbitration?), and a vote for a better-defined policy relating to this. Johnleemk | Talk 17:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

  • For the record, at this point, the vote stands at: 15 (Delete), 10 (Keep), 2 (Neutral).
    • I'm not sure whether or not User:IndigoGenius is allowed to vote on this, as it's his article that is being voted on. If he is not allowed to vote here, then there are only 7 votes to keep at current. blankfaze | (беседа!) 06:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen in this discussion. Is he a registered wikipedia user? He is? Then he gets a vote. Suddenly I am starting to worry about censorship. The Steve 06:57, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
        • Er, no. VfD convention is that the article creator doesn't get a vote - David Gerard 13:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • There is some dispute about that, apparently. I have seen elsewhere (in the context of a VfD debate) that the author of an article shouldn't vote on the article being voted upon, and when I later mentioned it on another VfD debate I was told by a sysop that it wasn't true (it was much more than 5 days ago, so I don't remember which debate it was). So, my question is, is it a convention (which not everyone follows) or a policy? No particular axe to grind, I just felt a bit foolish over the issue. Fire Star 14:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • I'm not aware of any written policy about whether the author gets to vote. "The author" is slightly problematic, since if two people edit, which one is "the author"? (That hasn't been much of a problem on vfd since many articles that wind up here are indeed the work of a single author.) Anyway, I've always assumed the author or authors get to vote. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:33, 14 Aug 2004
            • I'd say "convention", not "policy". I see nothing wrong with an article creator stating their opinion in a VfD (I'd say that's a good thing), but would question counting it as a 'vote'. In any case, it's a straw poll to ascertain consensus, rather than a vote per se - David Gerard 14:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Then why is this page called Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion? 67.149.62.8 04:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
              • Thanks, it makes a bit more sense to me now.. Fire Star 20:21, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • I really wanted to avoid this dicussion but I must object strongly to David Gerard's earlier comment that authors do not "get a vote". They absolutely do. They are users just like everyone else here. They have no less (and no more) voice than anyone else who chooses to contribute to the debate. It is a point of courtesy to disclose if you have a vested interest in the article but that does not invalidate your vote. (No vote on the discussion of this page) Rossami 22:42, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • First of all, exact number of votes doesn't mean much. As David says, this is a straw poll to ascertain consensus. Secondly, why would you tally the number of votes after just two days on VFD? For which "record"? And at which point? How would people know at which point if other votes went in above your note? Or did you expect other votes to continue under your lap-time note? So everybody gets a vote, plus some people feel free to add off-hand remarks in the vote list? OTOH, if your intent is just to clarify what's going on, because it's very hard to see people's votes because of all these comments in the middle of the vote list, I would gladly join you in asking people to put their comments at the bottom of the page, so they look like they're commenting and not like they're trying to challenge other people's votes. Zocky 16:53, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, imagine that you should be expected to have to actually read through what all those bothersome other people have to say. Here's to McWikipedia! 67.149.62.8 04:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Imagine if you could read all the comments and yet be able to have a general idea of the votes without having to read all the comments. Zocky 12:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Zocky, you put it exactly right. My only intention with this is to "clarify what's going on, because it's very hard to see people's votes because of all these comments in the middle of the vote list". blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • When you start voting on personal pages, pages that are not part of the Official Wiki, you are basically voting on whether a person has the right to post a personal page, regardless of its content. While my personal pages are critical especially of Wiki Admins, they are certainly not excessive (I've seen folks with dozens more), and they are certainly not pornographic. Since you folks are voting then on basically whether I have the right to have a personal page, you are basically voting whether I have the right to participate in the Wiki. That is censorship even when the intent isn't censorship. It seems that many folks here believe I don't have the right to post in the Wikipedia, and simply because I'm a creative person. Since creative people can't post in the Wiki, or will be forced to stop posting at a certain point, just like I'm being forced, it is clear the Wikipedia is already dead, because without creative people it will never distinguish itself from the rest. It is not like a living human being, but more like a corpse. That's my two cents. I used to support projects less worthy than the Wiki, but I'm running out of money and inspiration in this case. --IndigoGenius 16:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • While I have no love for IndigoGenius, and have argued for deletion of some of his articles, I believe he has the situation nailed down quite clearly here. A user page is precisely that. It is not something which can be accessed by accident, and it does not pose a fire hazard to Wikipedia, except when some other user with matches and attitude happens by. Any contributor should have the right to a user page of modest size, in which content should not be an issue unless it is illegal. While I don't believe this gives a one-time editor the right to save his doctoral thesis on his userpage (yes, newcomers, it's been done), if a user wishes to promote his greatness in the eyes of the universe and pee on the peons, well, it's his space. While I do not agree with what IndigoGenius has to say, I respect his right to say it in his own space. Denni☯ 19:14, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
  • I've struck through my vote above, and would at this point like to abstain from the VfD process for IndigoGenius's page. Fire Star 20:21, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Would you like that counted as a neutral vote or just not counted at all? blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:01, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Don't count me. I may come up with something before the 5 days run out. Thanks anyway. Fire Star 04:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

An Update

  • BTW, just wanted you guys that voted against me to know I started my own Wiki at the Fifth World Wiki :P Now I can write articles 'til my heart is content. I'm also pleased to announce that Dr Joe Baptista, Chief Internet Scientist of TTF-Bucksfan, and the Minister that manages our 8 pTLDs (Public Top-Level Domains), has also started a Tiki Wiki with his own server space. I had to put up with hostile Wikipedia Admins and even a Micronational Wiki Admin who was totally unsympathetic, but now I give both the MIDDLE FINGER! See you guys on Judgment Day. I be just a quick to judge you, and just as harsh. --IndigoGenius 21:22, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So, is that a delete vote from IndigoGenius then? 67.149.62.8
  • Yay for you. The sight of a superego going down in flames thrills and excites me. May your ashes fertilize the good Earth. Denni☯ 04:55, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
  • Delete - IndigoGenius has his own Wiki host and we aren't supposed to be one. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Burn baby burn. - UtherSRG 01:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: What Zocky said. And there is so many other dubious user pages that are much worse than this, like that page with users that had the same password or the page that listed what someone thought was someones sockpuppets. It seems like its not actually what is written that people vote on, but who who writes it. Eric B. and Rakim 13:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article has been duplicated at User:Eric B. and Rakim/Jus cerebri electronici. -Sean Curtin 04:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Genesis (web comic) -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable, does not meet web comic guidelines for inclusion—traffic is so low that Alexa doesn't even list it. Following the link reveals that the comic currently consists of only one (rather eyestrain-inducing) page. While the idea of a manga-style webcomic adaptation of the Book of Genesis is rather unique and therefore, I think, potentially notable, it's fairly clear that this article and its subject aren't. — Gwalla | Talk 22:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Not notable and not significantly present. Geogre 00:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aris Katsaris 02:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. We can create a page if it ever achieves note. Average Earthman 10:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Man. A web comic created in 1993 and there's still only one page of it? (And it's a really sad page.) Right as I was thinking we might never get to vote on a less notable subject than G Senjou Heaven's Door. Delete hastily. Bishonen 20:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • He's had 11 years to get to page two. And I really wanted to see the Lord hanging out on his day of rest. I'm picturing a lawn chair and a cooler for some reason. Delete. (snarkiness in this vote brought to you by the Committee to Relieve Stress). -- Cyrius|✎ 05:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Aoeu -- Add to this discussion

Although Wikipedians familiar with the Dvorak keyboard would better judge, I think it's redundant to have this article since we already have an article on Dvorak Simplified Keyboard. I understand it is less known as a term than asdf. Wouldn't a redirect serve better?--leandros 22:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree. Redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 23:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Now redirected to Dvorak Simplified Keyboard. Comment: Nominations for redirection do not need to be discussed here since no information will be lost by being bold. Rossami 13:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you for directing me to the "being bold" page. I am (fairly) new, and I needed to read that obviously.leandros
  • Keep as redir. Good result. Andrewa 22:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


North of the Border -- 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 delete.

Stargate fan-comic. Non-notable. Traffic unverifiable, as it's on one of those verb.to webhosts. Article is POV. — Gwalla | Talk 23:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Fanfic. Geogre 00:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fan fiction, does not appear to be of widespread renown. Average Earthman 10:36, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable fanfic. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:01, 16 Aug 2004 (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.

Skittles bubblegum -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Not encyclopedic material.--Jondel 00:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep redirect. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:44, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
  • Keep (as a redirect), please. Plenty of candy articles exist; see Category:Confectionery. • Benc • 01:01, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect to Skittles. Assuming that it is a venerable tradition to have candy articles, is every variant of a candy appropriately broken free? Should there be Dark chocolate Milky Way and Milky Way lite? Geogre 01:39, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • New content(redirects,etc.) was added since I posted my delete. I want to cancel my vote for delete. ->keep/merge (?)--Jondel 01:48, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect. Not a terribly useful one IMO, but does no harm and preserves the edit history. Andrewa 22:07, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Curse of Greyface -- Add to this discussion

Doesn't look factual/encyclopedic.--Jondel 00:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: BJAODN, right next to other Discordianism stuff. Geogre 01:43, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Discordianism unless the article is significantly expanded and NPOVed. -- Ian Maxwell, 2004 Aug 13, 14:35 (UTC)
  • Keep, although needs expansion and NPOV -- 66.32.123.183 12:12, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it does describe the curse as it is, so how can it be more NPOV than that? And it's way longer than a simple definition. If U want to delete it, then paste it in Discordianism and THEN redirect Clovepower --62.211.179.165 21:18, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete/move to main page. At best this belongs in a separate page on Discordian tenets (well, such as they are.) --131.155.99.45 14:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Discordianism. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tales from Lardfork -- Add to this discussion

Tales from Lardfork 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

Non-notable. Does not meet criteria for inclusion. — Gwalla | Talk 00:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: link holder, seems to me. Geogre 01:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Alexa Test says top 200,000 required. This doesn't even make the top 3 million. Average Earthman 17:29, 13 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.

Sakana Yama -- Add to this discussion

Sakana Yama 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

Non-notable sprite comic. Did not meet criteria for inclusion, even before it was discontinued. — Gwalla | Talk 00:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I remember when this one was hugely popular, I was even a fan; if it still existed with the following it had then, I'd vote for it to be kept. However, it's gone, and slowly being forgotten. So delete. Rhymeless 03:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Weird how a person can follow a subject like webcomics and never have heard of something other seems to have been popular. Crazy mixed up world or something. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Don't blame me, I only live here. Rhymeless 06:30, 16 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 web comics -- Add to this discussion

List of web comics 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

List has been eclipsed by Category:Web comics. External links, start & end dates, and authorship info found here is also found in the individual web comics' articles. — Gwalla | Talk 01:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Strongly oppose deletion. This list has its use in that all that information is in one place, something I find a lot more useful than just a category listing which provides no information beyond 'yep, it's a web comic alright'. Gamaliel 01:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I understand Gwalla's redundancy concern, but it's a lot easier to monitor the list for changes than to find new articles popping up in a large category. Kudos to Gwalla for merging the info found in the list but not the articles though. I had a snarky "are you volunteering to do the work" comment ready and didn't get to use it. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep- the list is a useful means for looking up new materials & cross-referencing, as distinct from categorizing it. -FZ 03:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I strongly oppose any deletion of a list in favor of a category, just for the record. Not that anyone cares. :P --Tothebarricades.tk 04:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Categories do not supercede list articles. RickK 04:33, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I too would strongly oppose the deletion of this list - it has a lot of useful information not found in the category listing - Zaphod Beeblebrox 05:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The extra info in the list makes it more useful. Mindspillage 16:57, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think all unannotated lists without source references should be cleaned up and annotated or deleted as untrustworthy. But this isn't an unannotated list. Jallan
  • Keep. List articles usually contain some non-existent articles. When someone looks at the list, they might be inclined to create such articles. The info from the list page could also be copied to the category page. RedWolf 03:21, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: We've actually been deleting entries without articles, because there's a serious tendency for this list to attract WikiSpam in the form of article-less entries with external links. — Gwalla | Talk 04:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Categories and Lists should complement each other. As noted above, a category cannot possibly contain an item without an article (I am not personally in favour of the "policy" created recently of removing entries without articles: this seem rather non-wiki to me). Also I was under the impression that adding a Category to your watchlist only monitors changes to the description of the category, not to the addition of an article, so there is a distinct difference in functionality. Finally it is not unusual to find certain limited information duplicated in a list and the articles referred to: it is usual, for example, for lists of people to include birth/death dates as appropriate (for disambiguation purposes if nothing else) which obviously would also appear in the article referred to. --Phil | Talk 13:03, Aug 16, 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.

Pseudologia -- Add to this discussion

Pseudologia 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

  • an essay, not an article delete - Mattingly23 02:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • A self-congratulatory filibuster of an essay, not an article. Delete. Fire Star 06:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The author might want to read Wikipedia:No_original_research. Delete. --Ianb 20:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Who are you?
      • whoops, forgot to sign. --Ianb 20:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Original research, and I find it terribly aggravating. Are there not blogs? Geogre 13:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, although not with the current content. Pseudologia (a.k.a. pathological lying) is a valid subject. The current article, though, is an incomprehensible, unwikified, offtopic mess of an essay (and possible copyvio? My copypaste sense is tingling) and needs to be replaced with something that actually talks about the topic. — Gwalla | Talk 19:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: original research. An article on pseudologia is possible, but this isn't it. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No useful content. Valid topic, certainly, but that's no reason for keeping this. Andrewa 22:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unparsable essay. -Sean Curtin 04:40, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete original research essay. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete essay. Valid subject; but the article is a rambling incoherent tangle of Gnosticism, opinion, and the kitchen sink. Author should find another venue for his philosphy. Possible blog content. KillerChihuahua 19:51, 17 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.

Christopher backus -- Add to discussion

I was going to try and expand this into a stub (before moving to correct name), but all IMDb can add is his birthdate/place, and that his entire film and TV career is being a guest star on Will & Grace once. #1 "Christopher backus" -mira google hit reports "No results found for Christopher backus", #2 is tvtome.com and all it can add is that it is the first marriage for each of them (he married Mira Sorvino in June). Hits # and 4 are empty forums where anyone can talk about him, but no one has. The rest fall in three categories: 1) Geneology and news sites about other people that happen to have the same name, 2) Episode guide site article mentioning his name in the cast list for that one episode, 3) More empty message boards. This site[19] (tall page, near bottom, do a find for mira) describes him this way "Mira, who's 36, married 22-year-old unknown actor Christopher Backus just over a month ago. They met when he waited on her at a restaurant." Looking for hockey connections just found mention as a "former player" (at 22, remember) in articles related to the marriage, and I found zero verification of playing baseball. He seems to have basically zero notability outside of marrying someone notable. Niteowlneils 05:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. People whose fame is based entirely on their association with a famous person shouldn't have their own articles (except in the case of notable hereditary positions of course)Average Earthman 10:39, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Excellent nomination. You can borrow fame from your wife, but not encyclopedic content. A line on him in Mira Sorvino is about all. Geogre 13:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mira Sorvino. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:37, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mira Sorvino. Doubtful that anybody will search for him, or that he'll be linked much, but there's no reason not to, and it's good to be comprehensive just in case. — Gwalla | Talk 19:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cheating -- Add to discussion

Cheating 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

Dicdef. RickK 05:16, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Cheat to prevent future edits. -- Netoholic 05:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I tried to do that, but Cheat links to Cheating. RickK 05:25, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Cheat is a disambig. I re-did it, taking out the pointer to Cheating, but now it looks like User:SimonP is trying to make Cheating into a full article. Guess we'll see how it goes. -- Netoholic 06:42, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep what has been done to this thing. Looks pretty good now. I even did a copy edit. Geogre 13:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Deserving of an article, and the current stub is a good start. — Gwalla | Talk 19:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's acceptable as a stub. --Starx 01:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - But merge cheat and cheating? - Omegatron 01:47, Aug 17, 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 actors' hobbies and other careers -- Add to this discussion

List of actors' hobbies and other careers 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

  • I'm not sure if this page is worth having; I don't think anybody would search for this clunky name, and this information is better suited to the pages for the individual actors. Rhymeless 05:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Where's the promiscuity? The cocaine? This article steps firmly on a slippery slope. The information, if it is at all notable, should be on the individual actor's article. Delete. Fire Star 06:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree. Delete. --Ianb 07:35, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Ditto. Geogre 13:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Belongs on actor's page. RedWolf 03:23, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete (possibly redirecting to list of actors known for other careers or something similar if that exists). -Sean Curtin 09:20, 16 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.

Michal todd and Jazzy Dee -- Add to this discussion

Utter dreck. RickK 05:27, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's simple vandalism. And let's try not to encourage similar efforts by preserving them forever on the bad joke page. - Nunh-huh 05:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Utter Dreck?" "Vandalism?" In whose eyes? What pompous statements! If it were left to you, we'd all be living in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.
  • No, if it was up to me and within the rules of conduct here, your entries would have been deleted the moment your comment appeared since it put them into the category of intentional vandalism. We have a policy around here called "don't bite the newbie," but comments like the one you just left aren't going to endear you to anyone soon. You have a knack for writing, so why not take a closer look at other articles and try your hand at a real one yourself? - Lucky 6.9 06:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • "we'd all be living in Orwell's 1984" Well, unfortunately or not, it's 2004 and both articles are still completely unencyclopaedic hero-worshipping crap. Delete. Fire Star 06:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Orwell portrayed a department which wrote fiction as though it were history. I think that's the parallel here.
  • Can you provide any sources or references for this information? As a lover of underground film, I'd dearly love these to be true so that we could clean them up and keep them. Rlandmann 06:42, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Overlong and rambling. I can't see any sources for this information. Even if they are verified and cleaned up, I feel they'd still be a delete. Incidentally, there was a one-hit wonder called Jazzy Dee who had a hit in 1983 with a track called 'Get on up'. Now utterly forgotten, and not notable. But still more notable than these articles. Average Earthman 10:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Also, btw, the prose is florid and vaccuous. It reads like either a parody of a potboiler or as an excerpt from one. Both articles sound like sketches for fiction. I have to agree with Lucky: this looks like a bad faith attempt. Geogre 13:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • NOT speedy deletion candidates, but delete if unverified. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:35, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
  • IMDB has never heard of Michael Todd or his movies. Delete these suspiciously similar biographies. DJ Clayworth 14:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can't find information on either of these people to replace the current articles with more suitable stubs. - TB 14:53, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both: pranks. I have to say Jazzy Dee is a masterpiece of the "Behind the Music" school of journalism (... and despite massive success and every advantage, he/she fell into an inescapable spiral of drugs and alcohol). Only web hits for "Justin Ditton" are for some guy in Australia, from which these articles originate; probably someone's having a laugh at his expense. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Probable pranks, possibly real people but unverifiable. My friends in Ballina, a NSW town referred to in one of the articles, have never heard of either of them. Andrewa 21:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Did any of you catch the fact that, excepting only that Michal todd is from Melbourne and Jazzy Dee is from Ballina, these articles are otherwise IDENTICAL? Deletable pranks, and speedy deletes, at that. Bearcat 10:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah, you got past the first two sentences, did you? Very brave. Fire Star 14:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I had listed Jazzy Dee on Cleanup, the Michal todd came along and I added the VfD to it, which the user removed. When I re-aded it, I checked the user's contributions, which was when I found that he/she had created both articles. When I went to check on Jazzy Dee that was when I saw they were identical, which was when I listed both of them here. RickK 19:10, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

"Ah, you got past the first two sentences, did you? Very brave." I detect an air of elitism in the arena. I have placed this information on this forum because there is nothing on the web relating to this person. Heavens help us if we try to be pioneers.

Greetings 203.191.175.140. I was making a jest at the expense of the florid prose of your article, and I should apologise. In my defence, it was a jest in aid of pointing out that the style of the article is very overdone for an encyclopaedia, hence the "two sentences" remark. In a press release such a tone would be perfectly at home, but the VfD peer review process is designed to not only remove hopelessly inappropriate articles but give editors who may be interested in fixing them some insight into what changes will satisfy all of us busy little English majors out here, help the article become more suitable for Wikipedia and, thereby, hopefully survive the VfD process. Regards, Fire Star 04:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verifiable evidence of the existence of these movies is presented. Google search on ""Lounge Lovers" "Broadway Jungle" yields no hits, either searching on the Web or in Groups. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rebecca Blaikie -- Add to this discussion

Rebecca Blaikie 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

Not notable in her own right. RickK 05:55, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Keep, though for heaven's sake with a little more content. She stood for election against Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in his electoral district in Montreal in 2004. Cannon fodder, for sure, but far enough above the radar to merit note. The previous NDP candidate against Martin made a documentary about the experience, which was widely screened. Most Google hits seem to be mainstream news articles, most from media 'outside Montreal'; she's of some national interest. If the piece was more than one line about who her dad was we might not be having this discussion. Yes, I would add to it myself. Don't have time this very moment, but if it isn't deleted... Finally, a Canadian politician's progeny who has done even less of note, but is moderately famous and gets an entry: Justin Trudeau. 64.229.35.130 06:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Standing against an incumbent who is going to win easily isn't notable. Her public profile as the daughter of a mid rank politician won't be that high either. If she was standing for experience this time and gets nominated for, and wins, a seat in the next election, then she can have a page. But at the moment, I don't see sufficient importance. Average Earthman 10:55, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know how familiar you are with Canadian politics, but Bill Blaikie is far from a mid rank politician. He is, in fact, a major figure in Canadian political life. On his importance alone, his daughter would be a keeper for doing anything that got her in the news...like, say, standing as an electoral candidate. Keep. Bearcat 10:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep we have many articles on less notable candidates in the Canadian election. - SimonP 12:48, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I disagree with Avg. Earthman; standing for election (assuming you're from a leading party) is in fact notable. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:33, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
    • Even if you get less than 5% of the vote? Average Earthman 17:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes. If anything, the fact that she ran against a leading political figure makes her more notable. Either way, this is over my personal line for keeping. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:32, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
  • Keep - Could mature into a (short) article. We're not starved for namespace in and around "Rebecca Blaikie". - TB 14:39, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and built the article up a little bit - TB 14:48, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, particularly since Topbanana's edits. Ambi 02:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, although I think there's too many articles on obscure politicians but why single her out? RedWolf 03:26, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would be a shame to have every character in the Pokemon universe but not a real person who was considered newsworthy. --LeeHunter 19:00, 16 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.


3806 Tremaine -- Add to this discussion

3806 Tremaine 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

Move to BJAODN and delete. "Don't drink and type" --Rlandmann 06:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: see above. TPK 07:07, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Much as I dislike speedy deletes, I think this one qualifiesd under case 3, obvious vandalism. Rossami 13:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete it a lot, before it infects us and kills all life on earth anyways. Geogre 13:35, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Have replaced the silly article with a suitable stub. - TB 14:38, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep cleaned-up version. - Mustafaa 19:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the replacement (the original was properly annihilated). Geogre 20:28, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good work team. Andrewa 21:56, 13 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.

Pesher -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pesher


August 13

Anatolian Turmen Beyliks -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

This is misspelt (should have read Turkmen), contains almost nothing, the link in it is pointless, though I have it in my to do list and I did create another article on the same subject Anatolian beyliks.--leandros 10:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Now redirected to Anatolian beyliks. Redirects for misspellings are good until and unless they get in the way of some future article. Keep harmless redirect. Rossami 13:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. Until there is a conflict of some sort or unless the author requests his/her mistake be removed, I vote keep. Skyler 01:35, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've seen this misspelling before, as a transliteration error- Keep the redirect. -FZ 15:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved disccussion


Hey Jude (album) -- Add to this discussion

Nothing that can't go into the bottom of Hey Jude, although hopefully somebody can expand this sufficiently. Withdrawn because of improved version. Johnleemk | Talk 11:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - could be expanded to include release date(s), track listing, sales figures, influences, album covers et al. - TB 14:26, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep expanded version. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:45, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep this page. We've already got entries for Let It Be and Let It Be (song), and also Imagine (album) and Imagine (song) - ChicXulub 23:59, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • The difference is that neither albums were American-only, and that both albums weren't near-substubs. The improved version is a keeper, though. Johnleemk | Talk 07:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to argue this for lack of encyclopedic content, but after a drawn out debate over Jealous Guy, I am not going into that again. I don't find it to encyclopedic, but until/unless there is a more compelling reason to delete, I vote keep. Skyler 01:39, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ambi 02:31, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neutrality 21:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Lots of other articles on compilation albums. RedWolf 03:28, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)


Memories from the Past -- Add to this discussion

Delete: Personal essay, idiosyncratic, unlikely to be an encyclopedic topic. --rbrwrˆ 12:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Looks like someone's saludinitarian essay. I hope it's a draft. Geogre 13:39, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, borderline for speedy delete. Now, Memories from the Future --- that's a subject worth pursuing. Smerdis of Tlön 13:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - personal essay, no useful article to be written on the subject, no redirect appropriate. - TB 14:25, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Speed deleted as patent nonsense. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. PBTim 18:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Stefan Engeseth -- Add to this discussion

The Swedish summer holidays are over, everybody's back in town, and the pranksters back at their computers wasting everybody's time. Stefan Engeseth is a vanity page for a "Stockholm-based businessman" and author of an "acclaimed" book on marketing, created by the same user as the Vendela Kirsebom article ten minutes earlier. (Kirsebom is rather more notable than Engeseth.) It's interesting to see how the user had, just before, inserted Engeseth and Kirsebom in the List of Swedes article under " Other notables", creating a hilarious effect in what had been a very short list of Swedish household names, and being underhand in marking the insertion of himself (?) as a minor edit. Then he created the Engeseth and Kirsebom articles, I don't know why, but perhaps less for self-promotion than in order to blue their telltale redlinks on List of Swedes. Anyway, I've asked Mic to revert the list, and Stefan Engeseth needs to be deleted, if not Vendela Kirsebom. Bishonen 13:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: All the Swedes I know are scratching their heads on this. Minor figure, at best. Geogre 14:05, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. He is not notable at all, nobody i know (Swedes and Swedish-Finlanders) have ever heard about this guy. Only 40 google.se hits and almost all are promoting him or his book. Kirsebom however should stay. bbx 14:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete—fair enough. I entered it but admittedly he is known only within his industry and perhaps those he has promoted his work to. He seems better regarded outside Sweden. To Bishonen: I have not entered anything about myself but was in touch with a couple of people as I wrote their bios (you'll probably be able to guess which ones) to ensure none of their personal info was put on without their permission. This was an innocent mistake, not a puff piece for Mr Engeseth and certainly not a prank. I will take responsibility and revert the list, removing Mr Engeseth, but will wait for the outcome of your decisions on Ms Kirsebom (who, again, seems better regarded outside Sweden). Stombs 22:15, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hi there, Stombs. This is a vote about the Stefan Engeseth article, not about Vendela Kirsebom, and people here seem to agree in any case that she's notable enough to have her own article. But about the other matter, your addition to the List of Swedes of Engeseth and Kirsebom as two out of six (!) of the most notable "other" Swedes through the ages: uh, I don't quite know how to say this ... but I suppose E. and K. must simply be tremendously well-regarded outside Sweden. Thank you for removing Engeseth from the list, but I see that you've left Kirsebom right up there with Lars Johan Hierta and Sven Hedin. (It's not polite to look so surprised, co-voters. The two last-mentioned actually are notable in Swedish history.) (I've removed her now.) Admit it, you're trying to get on BJAODN, aren't you? Bishonen 23:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Hi Bishonen: thanks for replying to me. I am still getting used to conventions here but judging from Ms Kirsebom's company, I take your point and thank you for removing her. In that context, I may have succeeded in getting on to BJAODN! I know E. is well regarded in some overseas countries (but only in his field) and I'm about four degrees of separation from him but maybe I got suckered in by his promotion. Well, at least I didn't add the Graaf sisters. Then you guys would think I was on drugs. Stombs 23:46, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. When the original author votes to delete, that's enough debate for me. Skyler 01:43, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. -- Mic 18:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable enough. It should not be expected that friends of yours know about swedish people known in the business inustry of sweden nor is it a criterion to have an article on him. This is not an encyclopedia on english culture but an encyclopedia in english. A Google search on swedish domains gave me 74 hits, a general google search will give 546 hits this excluding hits with wikipedia and not using filter. Stombs, there is no reason for you to vote for a delete, this is a completely legitimate article.--Dittaeva 20:28, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? I'm sorry for taking a tone with you, Dittaeva, but what is it that in your opinion disqualifies the users who have voted about this, or friends of theirs (of whose, exactly?) from being knowledgeable on the subject? It can't be our nationality, since you do know that this is not an encyclopedia on English culture but an encyclopedia in English, so of course you realize that Wikipedia users aren't all Americans. Bishonen and Mic are Swedes, as it happens, bxx a Finland-Swede. But maybe you have some secret information about what line of work their friends are in? About the Google hits, though, I do appreciate that you supply the links and figures in a spirit of helpfulness, and I don't at all mean to suggest that the way you count is "wrong". But I think it's most usual, on VfD at least, to count only the hits that you actually see, i. e. up to the Google boilerplate "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar"etc. Looked at like that, your links give 26 Swedish hits, 153 general hits, and surely that's woefully, almost incredibly, few for anybody in this line of business. Heck, never mind about ommitting the very similar entries, they're too few no matter what. The man's a marketing specialist, he teaches people how to get Google hits. But if Stombs or any other voter is impressed by your argument, I hope they know that they're free to change their votes any time, until the entry rolls off VfD. Bishonen 21:43, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Ok, I deserved your tone for the friends issue, I was thinking about Geogre with his "All the Swedes I know", and bbx with his "nobody i know". I am truly sorry about the google hit values I gave, I have always done it like that, but see that your way is the better one, will try not use such values again. But I still think he is notable enough.--Dittaeva 22:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Meant to establish the basis of my vote only. Since a Google search was unrewarding, I went back to the next level of research: Swedish language. Since I don't know Swedish, I have to rely on my Swedish friends to find out for me. I asked them, first, "Is this a famous person?" No. Then I asked them to find out. After a .se web search, the answer was "a business figure." Ok. So, having personally no knowledge of the figure, I went to Google. Getting nothing from Google, I went to Swedes I know. Getting nothing from them, I voted Delete. When I put in a vote, the words there are generally meant to be an explanation of why. If you found hundreds of Google hits in English, then your search was better than mine. Since this is the English language Wikipedia, I think we serve the Anglophone community. That means, to me, that an Anglophone would wish to know about the subject. I couldn't find a way for that to be the case with this figure. Geogre 13:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • My vote was rough because I don't care too much my futile votes. But since I'm at it: Searching Google for "stefan engeseth" -wikipedia -"known speaker in inspirational business" on english pages, without filter, I get 88 hits omitting "very similar hits". If you really are interested these hits describe him: [20], [21], [22] and probably some more on pages that does not seem to be his own. His book seems to be hailed as, well, really, really good. --Dittaeva 20:49, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Ricardo Dominguez -- Add to this discussion

Ricardo Dominguez 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 redirect to Toywar. Rossami 21:37, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

155 Google hits for "Ricardo Dominguez toywar," so it's legit. But, is it notable? Not much here to go on, and the contributor seems to be relying too much on the external links. - Lucky 6.9 18:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: RTmark, Voteauction and Toywar are by the same contrib. - Lucky 6.9 18:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Diberri | Talk 18:23, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect to toywar. If there has to be something, it should be in the lemma that will be most likely to be searched. In fact, I'm inclined to say that one article ought to be enough for the whole tribe (except Voteauction, which I think should be deleted for irrelevance to much of anything at all, including "future historians"). Geogre 20:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Ricardo.Dominguez electronic.disturbance.theater gives 767 hits, among them mentions by CNN, Wired, Salon, Telepolis and El País. Also it seems he's not only known for "toywar". I'm more inclined to keeping. regards, High on a tree 21:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Sounds OK to me. Merge and redirect, but delete "Voteauction." - Lucky 6.9 21:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: We'll need a separate nomination for Voteauction. Geogre 02:15, 15 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.

Jenkins of Stowting Court -- Add to this discussion

Jenkins of Stowting Court 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. The disputes of factual accuracy were successfully addressed by Cutler's findings leaving one vote to keep and one vote to delete as non-notable/genealogical. Reviewing the content again, I find that I agree with Geogre's argument that the Jenkins ancestors were not notable in their own right. That brings the conclusion to a bare majority to delete. Note: If anyone decides that this article should be recreated, they can easily do so from this edit of the main article on Fleeming Jenkin. Rossami 21:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This was preamble to Fleeming Jenkin which I removed to a separate article. It has spent a week or so on WP:Cleanup and improved a lot. The question now is do we want it at all? I'm agnostic. Cutler 19:42, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Why not? It's rather well-written, and they seem to have been at least somewhat important. --Slowking Man 02:46, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Primarily of genealogical use, and the figures did not rise to significance. Geogre 04:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • This all smells awfully fishy to me, somehow. I can't find any references on Google to Fleeming Jenkin that aren't (a) eBooks of Stevenson's original text, (b) references to the book qua book, or (c) mirrors of the Wikipedia article. I have to add that at least some of these sites refer to the Stevenson book as a NOVEL. Is Fleeming Jenkin a real historical figure, or did some clever cookie slip a fictional character under our noses? Bearcat 09:57, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Encyclopaedia Britannica refers. He is one of the true greats of the heroic era of engineering. Are you making a point about Google? I found plenty of hits not restricted to (a), (b) or (c), such as [23] and [24]! Cutler 19:53, Aug 15, 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.

NewStar CactuSoft Technologies - Add to this discussion

A search on CactuSoft +software gets only 2000 hits, not many for an Internet-based software company. I question relevance. Also, this page was involved in a recent bizzare and offensive vandalism of Template:In the news—what's going on with that? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:30, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

  • It was not an offensive vandalism, as CactuSoft's Insight and Outlook publishes a list of notable webpages. Wikipedia's first appearance on this list was important to Wikipedia's history. Please Keep.— [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 20:35, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • A search on "Cactusoft Insight and Outlook" returns 45 hits. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:36, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
      • The Insight and Outlook feature is under the name NewStar. To save you time, I have taken the Google test with "NewStar Insight and Outlook". — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 20:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • 366 hits. Still nowhere near notable. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:47, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
          • Since when is Google the judge of notability? Not everything comes up on Google, you know. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 20:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • Yes, but rankings of websites by Internet-based companies tend to. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:52, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
              • The NewStar web server is coded so that it can not be indexed on Google, to prevent Googlebombing. If you are not finding the corporate site, that is why. I know this as I work for CactuSoft. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 21:00, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
                • I keep reading that comment over and over, trying to make sense of it. I can't. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:05, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Sadly NewStar "Insight and Outlook" 0 hits Rich Farmbrough 14:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • This seems fairly inoffensive. What's the problem? m:wikipedia is not paper 33451's appalling edits to the front page don't really relate to this page. Mr. Jones 20:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • My edits to the front page were justified, because, as I said, being listed on I&O is a large step forward for Wikipedia. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 20:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • It's nothing of the sort. CactuSoft is obscure, nevermind the bulletien it puts out. Including it in wikipedia is fine (IMO), but it's not front page material. Mr. Jones 21:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Does your opinion of CactuSoft have to do with the fact that it says Childlove movement is the most notable article in Wikipedia? — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 21:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence that this is encyclopedic. It seems to be promotional material. And please, VfD is not a good place to discuss wider issues. It's long and controversial enough even if we stay focussed. Andrewa 21:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, I wouldn't say it's promotional...What determines whether or not a company can have an article? — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 17:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • This is strange. There is a company called "CactuSoft" (http://www.cactusoft.com) but that doesn't seem to be related to this one, it's UK based for a start. The google test provided kindly by "Mr Grinch" lists a lot of sites which contains those three words. I find no evidence that this company exists, let alone notable. I call bullshit and for the deletion of this article. --Ianb 22:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why does everyone think their hardly-notable company should have its own encyclopedia article? Household names only, please. Jeeves 22:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • NewStar CactuSoft gets ONE Google hit: [25]. Delete. RickK 23:42, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like a non-notable delete to me. Hayford Peirce 00:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zero hits for "CactuSoft Technologies". I really wanted to find a website for them, and tried all kinds of other combinations of the given names and info in the article (BTW "Ty's Software and HTML" also zero hits), but after 20-30 minutes of searching I gave up. Didn't find any news stories, or anything else that seemed related to this "company", either. Niteowlneils 04:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - can't prove existence, much less notability. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable. Make sure you delete the redirects at NewStar and CactuSoft as well. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:56, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Bill Stevens - Add to this discussion

Vanity, advertising for this "business savvy person"? Is Eduware, which seems to have been blanked by the same anon poster who created this article, as notable as is implied (at the "top of the educational software pyramid"? google brings up about 4,500 Eduware references, but most not for this company. --Ianb 21:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • comment: page was just blanked by an anon user... --Ianb 22:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete promotional text. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Err, the company really is a leader. I didn't speak up earlier, with all the blanking and reconsidering going on, but Eduware is worthy. However, captains of industry are a much tougher case. I agree that this page should be deleted, but I'm not so sure that an Eduware article would be a bad thing. Geogre 01:17, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Swish -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If it was then this page would say: To move with a hissing or whistling sound, as a whip; to rustle; as silk; to cause to make a swishing sound; to strike or cut with a swishing sound; to whip with a rod; a sharp whistling or rustling sound: the swish of scythes' a movement making such a sound, a rod used for flogging; a stroke made with such a rod; fashionable and perhaps lastly neologism: effeminate, used as a disparaging term for a homosexual man. Mintguy (T) 21:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not a definition or even a stub. Hyacinth 22:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) ?
    • As you are the author, that's not suprising, but what is your argument for retention within Wikipedia's guidelines. Mintguy (T)
      • Comment: First, I am still editing the article. Secondly, as of yet I see no arguments to refute and am letting the page speak for itself. Hyacinth 22:28, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: No vote (yet), because I want to see where Hyacinth is going with this before making a decision. It *is* clear from the page history that Swish was (and still is) a work in progress by Hyacinth over the past couple of hours, before Mintguy listed it on VfD. The subject at hand is a real phenomena, and "swish" in this context is by no means a neologism, having been in widespread use for decades, at the very least.
However, I do think the burden is on Hyacinth to justify why the material covered here deserves an article of its own, when it seems to be covered already in Effeminacy, camp, and drag. As I have always understood the word, "to Swish" is a synonym for "to Flame," that is, to behave in an outrageously stereotypical homosexual male fashion. I would like Hyacinth to clearly show where this material differentiates from what is already here on the subject. If there is't a clear distinction here, then Swish needs to be a merge & redirect to one of the other articles on the same subject. Kevyn 23:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Given a majority of votes for deltion I would advise merging the information with Camp, as indicated by Talk:Camp. Hyacinth 23:39, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Hyacinth, we haven't reached that point yet, with only 3 votes so far: one one vote in favour (Mintguy), one against (you), and one undecided (me). It's a little premature to be talking about what the majority of votes will be. Kevyn 23:50, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • Granted. For now I would recommend making a comparison with other articles. Butch and Femme is not a disambig for masculine and feminine, as one could argue for given the superficial exact resemblance, while masculine itself is a disambiguation and masculinity and feminity both redirect to gender role. Effeminacy is also covered in Classical definition of effeminacy. There is no article at all for the ideal which replaced swish, clone, which is a disambiguation. I created the disambiguation macho while writing swish... Hyacinth 00:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Still a dictionary definition IMO, and I can't see how it's going to change. The article is about the word and its meanings, and that's a dicdef IMO. If there was to be an article it would be swishness or something like that, but I don't think that's a good topic either. And, just BTW, in the Australian English I speak swish has a completely different meaning that hasn't even been mentioned yet. I'm open to changing my vote if a case can be made and almost made this a comment, but decided on the vote (obviously). Andrewa 23:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Question: Is the article currently dictionary-like (dictionaryic?)? I think it would be rejected on wiktionary as too encyclopedic. Hyacinth 00:07, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and/or merge-delete to Gay slang or Gay culture. I don't see anything wrong with this entry as it stands, except that it's hard for people to connect the title with the contents. If someone wants to see a discussion of the pre-Stonewall culture, I'm pretty sure they're not going to look for "swish," and I don't know about all the people watching basketball in non-English countries looking up "swish" and finding this. We can keep it and ask the author, and any interested folks, to consider a move to a topic entry that will be more obvious. Geogre 00:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • A pretty swishy article I would say. Certainly it shouldn't be kept under "Swish", but it might usefully be merged somewhere else. I'll make a formal vote when I see a little more where it ends up. Hayford Peirce 00:29, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep in present form (as of 19:55, 13 Aug 2004). I think. Don't know enough about gay culture to know whether how it should be coordinated with other articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment. What exactly is so hard about composing a first draft of an article in one's user space and not revealing it to the world until it has at least reached a good solid chrysalis stage? It seems to me that people make things hard on themselves by posting embryonic or larval articles. If you're planning to write more within the next day or so, why not wait until you've written it? Take a look at User:Acegikmo1's article Hanscom Air Force Base, will you? Six major sections, three photographs, a logo, 53 kilobytes long on first appearance in Special:Newpages. I don't see anyone calling that article a dicdef. I was strongly, strongly tempted to put a {{stub}} tag on it just to see what would happen... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Isn't there already a "work in progress" meta-tag? My vote is to keep or at least merge; either way, swish should be a disambig with the current page being moved to swish (slang) or swishiness or something less ambiguous. -Sean Curtin 04:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Isn't this a collaborative effort? Edit yourself. Hyacinth 05:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Let me try and make myself clearer. A frequent pattern I see here is that, within less than 48 hours,
  1. User creates a new page with a couple of sentences and no {{stub}} notice or any other indication of future intentions
  2. Page gets listed on VfD as dicdef or substub
  3. Original user gets around to adding the three or four paragraphs he probably had in mind from the beginning.
  4. Unnecessary weeklong VfD discussion has been launched, and the article is undergoing contentious scrutiny by people with no expertise in the topic, and griping about trigger-happy deletionists and guessing about whether the article will grow.
And the only real reason for this is that the initial page was short and it could all have been avoided if the author had waited to assemble a half-dozen paragraphs before creating the article.
I think the current article is fine, which is why I voted to keep. I'm not editing it collaboratively, as I have little relevant to add to it. I'm just saying that I think if you had simply waited until you had written the four or five paragraphs that are there now, this article wouldn't be up for VfD. Serious question, why did you put the original article up in its short form? Were you expecting to add more immediately and got distracted? Did you sort of want to put claim markers on the territory? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Dpbsmith lays out a real problem. I believe the burden should go in the other direction. Those of us who pay attention to Special:Newpages or VfD are generally more experienced than the user in the example above. We exercise judgement by waiting a while before nominating an article. Reminder: The article should only be nominated for VfD if it has no potential to ever become more than a dicdef. Rossami 12:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I beg you pardon? I'm a veteran user. I've been a Wikipedia editor for 2 years. I nominated this article because I thought the content was a dictionary definition (and not the immediately obvious definition at that), and was unlikely be expanded beyond that. I opened page thinking it might possibly be about the curtain rail company, but found out that it was about an obscure slang use of the word that appeared to be a neologism given the references cited were from 1998 and that I'd never heard of and was proably better off in an article about a concept rather than a word. Now I guess I was wrong in the first case as its origin is older than I believed. Mintguy (T)
  • Apologies. Dpbsmith and I got into a discussion of a general rule about how new pages are created and what leeway they should be granted before getting nominated for consideration on this page. We should not have distracted the discussion of this particular deletion nomination. Rossami

end moved discussion

Michael Moore Hates America -- Add to this discussion

This is an archived copy of the deletion debate, which is now closed.

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 VeryVerily (talk · contribs) 15:20, September 6 2004

Wikipedia is not the Coming Attractions. Get back to us when the thing is actually made, okay? DS 23:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's generated a media buzz just as is (cf. Talk:Gmail). Also, it's in post-production, so it has actually been made, albeit not released. VV 00:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Its main claim to fame seems to be that it's scheduled to be shown at the American Film Renaissance festival, whose website offers Join us for the first and only pro-American film festival in the country. Watch the films you won't see anywhere else. On the evidence so far, this is thinly-veiled promotional material of an unencyclopedic subject, commercial, political or probably a bit of both. But I'm open to changing my vote if some of our many solid contributors with a knowledge of US domestic politics want to make a case for it. Andrewa 23:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete it: Obvious delete. The film hasn't been made, is struggling to be made, and is completely unremarkable. Geogre 00:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: It does not exist. It is not an existing thing. The buzz it's getting is akin to the Move-on "Hitler ad": an echo chamber. We're not supposed to be part of that echo chamber, not supposed to participate in hype. The title by itself is a rant screamed out at the visitor. If there were a book called "Hitler Was Right" and it got lots of press, would we put it in here before it got published, on the basis of the press it got by being POV? I hope not. Geogre 04:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • If the echoes are loud enough, there's no reason not to include the source of those echoes in the Wikipedia. Yes, I would support an article on a hypothetical upcoming "Hitler Was Right" book, even though it would have gained publicity because of its inherently inflammatory title. True, it gained publicity using cheap and distasteful tactics. But it's not our place to judge a topic unworthy of an article because it's well-known for the "wrong" reasons. To do so would be POV on our part. • Benc • 04:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Note, though, that the blogosphere means that political stuff like this gets highly elevated Google hits. Also, given the fact that this "title" is a thing that the howlers of the right simply say quite often, what are the hits on the film, versus O'Reiley or Drudge or Coulter just saying the phrase, over and over again? I maintain that this is a tiny bit of spam, and I can't believe that we are editing to make it NPOV and saying that it ought to be kept. If I made a movie called "Liberals are crazy" or "Feminazi," my Google count would be astronomical without anyone talking about my movie. If someone honestly believes that this movie will do even .01 of the business that Moore's film did, then we can say that it's notable in advance. This film is going to vanish like a flushed toilet, IMO. Geogre 17:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Anonymous: Uncounted vote. The US presidential race is neck-and-neck; Moore's goal with his latest film is to contribute to Bush's defeat. Here's comes film that aims to undermine Moore's critique. This is all closely enough connected to a world-historic election that I can see scholars a hundred years hence wanting to discuss this film (whether as a failure, or a success, only remains to be seen). 64.229.34.107 00:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. After the movie actually comes out, we'll see whether it becomes notable in its own right, or if it is merely a footnote to the phenomenon of Fahrenheit 9/11. Right now, it's the latter if anything. — Gwalla | Talk 00:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's a lot of talk about it Hexii 00:35, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This user has made 22 contributions to the encyclopedia.
  • Delete. Promotional spam - we're not here to push pagerank - David Gerard 01:39, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A search for "Michael Moore Hates America" "Mike Wilson" receives 1,370 hits on yahoo[26] and 1,670 hits on google[27]. The Wikipedia article on The Day After Tomorrow [28] was created six months before the film was released and there is already a fairly sizeable article on Batman Begins. There is already a precedent for creating articles for movies that have not been released yet. Since this is a controversial. subject I also think it is important to point out that, NPOV is not only what we have in articles but which articles we have. -JCarriker 02:26, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed; see even Rapunzel Unbraided. VV 05:22, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: See how many of these hits are making fun of it. The "film" was featured on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart as a silly and stupid thing. You know what happens after something political gets on The Daily Show? About a zillion hits result. Same thing that happens when a funny joke is told on The Simpsons or Crank Yankers, and then you add in all the partisans who are outraged at the treatment and/or doing a "ditto". I don't understand why we can't wait and see how poorly this does before having an article that ends up pounding a screed into our site. Geogre 14:14, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain (verbosely). Keep. This is a political time bomb. Maybe the payload turn out to be a knat fart, but for now it's buzzworthy (see above comments), and therefore should be included in Wikipedia the time being. • Benc • 04:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This is an encyclopedia, not a place for "buzzworthy" confusion of gossip. If it might or should only be here "for now" or "for the time being", then it does not belong here at all. If the subject is not appropriate in an encyclopedia of twenty years hence, then it does not belong in an encyclopedia now. - Centrx 20:33, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Very good point. (A good enough point to make me change my vote to abstain.) It's a fine line, though: how sure are we that an upcoming, "buzzworthy" event will be notable twenty years from now? The 2004 U.S. election is buzzworthy and the source of much gossip, but it's also a pretty sure bet that it'll be notable in twenty years. On the other hand, buzzworthy == notable until proven otherwise. • Benc • 23:53, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and will only get moreso (like it or not). -Sean Curtin 04:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the page. Its a legitimate documentary and it is gaining a lot of buzz. When it comes out, it will of course cause a sensation and therefore most definately deserves to have an article on this encyclopedia! Crevaner 06:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Anonymous: Uncounted vote. Moore's movie had an article on wikipedia long before it came out. So Michael Moore Hates America should have an article as well. Thinker-X 06:21, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Especially since so many people are starting to talk about it! -- 47Reaver 06:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Anonymous: Uncounted vote. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1182843/posts This film has indeed been completed and therefore is deserving of an article] PureSioux 06:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Anonymous: Uncounted vote. Mike Wilson Loves America!
    • I do belive unsigned votes are not counted. -JCarriker 13:24, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • This article is a manifesto wrapped in a see-through coating of fake NPOV ("purports to be", "according to"). I think it's beyond cleaning up, so delete. Please note that of the four voters immediately above, one is anonymous and three seem to have registered exclusively for the purpose of logging these Keep votes.Bishonen 10:57, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • No article is beyond a clean up. Michael Moore Hates America; isn't the first propaganda piece wikipedia has an article on and it won't be the last. -JCarriker 13:24, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm on record as against any articles on "future products" Wikipedia:What's in, what's out#Products and would welcome participation by others in refining a formulation of policy on this. Factual material about what Moore has said about the project, or comments, articles, information, and facts about the work in progress are perfectly legitimate material—within other articles, such as Michael Moore or Mike Wilson. But a not-yet-existent movie should not be the topic of an entire article, and definitely not an article that begins "Michael Moore Hates America is ..." The big problem with any such article is that it is unverifiable. We do not know yet whether the movie will actually be completed or released, or, most important, whether it will be notable. Creating an article about it now gives it an importance it does not deserve and seems to me to be promotional in effect, if not in intent. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy to work with you on a policy. However I cannot support any retrospective legislation.-JCarriker 13:24, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • Intimations against ex post facto rules make no sense in a persistent encyclopedia. The policy proposed would not apply only to the very creation of the page, rather the article must follow it at all times. Such a policy implemented would not exclude pages that have been created before the policy was created. - Centrx 22:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unreleased film. The fact that we failed to delete other articles pre-release does not mean we should perpetuate the mistake. Rossami 12:31, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • No, but it would reflect a change in policy and as such articles such as Batman Begins and Rapunzel Unbraided would, as a matter of neutrality, also be subject to listing at Vfd.-JCarriker 13:24, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for "buzzworthy" folderol or statements of unconfirmed, "apparent" facts. The essence of the article is currently unverifiable statements from the director, who is not a neutral party. Such statements belong in the article for the director, not in an article about an unreleased film. Also, much of the information is subject to change, because the film is not yet released. - Centrx 20:33, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A news report. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories. But of course creating encyclopedia articles on topics currently in the news is an excellent idea. See current events for some examples. (However, the Wiki process lends itself to collaborative, up-to-the-minute construction of current events of historical significance, as long as these are written as encyclopedia articles.) When updating articles with recent news, authors should use the past-tense in such a way that the news will still make sense when read years from now.

The article doesn't fit these guidelines. It reads like a news story, even after an attempt to POV it from the blatently propagandist puff-piece first laid down anonymously. Google now gets 1660 hits for the film. But that is still not a good response for something supposedly generating lots of "media buzz". But I don't think "media buzz" is a particularly appropriate guideline for Wikipedia. Most of the hits seem to be talk on blogs. A search on Google News gets only 8 references. A search on Google Groups gets only 98 hits. Not notable now. It may never be notable enough for a separate article. I get tired of the idea that any submitted material no matter how biased or badly written should be kept because, in theory, it could be cleaned up. Clean it up at once, or lose it, and don't encourage more of it. There's too much embarrassing garbage on Wikipedia already that needs cleaning up. In accordance with current policy, delete all news reports about future media releases. People who want to hype media before it is released should be encouraged to do so away from Wikipedia. People who want up-to-date news information on the "buzz" about future media releases shouldn't be looking in an enyclopedia. Jallan 20:54, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was prominently featured on IMDB.com a few weeks ago (the "lead article", if you will, of the site's front page). -Sean Curtin 00:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: There does not seem to be an article yet for Mike Wilson. There is a reasonable case that there should be one. Getting featured on imdb.com is notability enough for that. The article on Mile Wilson could include all sorts of neutral, accurate, NPOV statements such as the fact that he says he's making this film, the fact that the story was featured on imdb, what people are saying about it, and so forth, as long as it doesn't grossly violate the policy that "Wikipedia is not a news report." None of this justifies an article about the nonexistent film itself. It's possible that the best course is "move article to Mike Wilson and then clean up." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I second that the current article should be moved to Mike Wilson, so long as it is noted that there are other films that have not yet been released that have articles. A move to Mike Wilson, eliminates the NPOV arguement envolved with deleiton, as it simply moves information ad does not delete it. T've also had much more success finding criticism of Wilson than his film. This soultion would satisfy my concerns with the article. -JCarriker 03:20, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Clean up for NPOV. When and if it becomes big, more info can be added. Is Moore really a "political figure"? Saopaulo1
    • comment: Since he's famous for his involvement in politics (albeit primarily as an outside commentator), calling him a political figure seems justified. — Gwalla | Talk 21:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. But it should be an article about the film not Moore.pir 16:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's keep Wikipedia worthy to be an encyclopedia. JoJan 21:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If Wikipedia allows pages to be created for non-political movies before they are released, I see no reason why it should not allow pages to be created in advance for movies with a political slant. In short, Fahrenheit 9/11 had its own Wikipedia page quite a while before it was released, so by the same rules the page of a forthcoming movie/documentary critcising Moore should stay. To delete this one whilst not having deleted the Fahrenheit 9/11 page would be blatant POV on our side. The only way this should be deleted is if the question of whether Wikipedia should feature movies that have yet to be released is resolved in favour of not featuring any upcoming movies, and all pages on upcoming movies are therefore deleted. Impi 22:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: As it is, the page is little more than a stub, but once the movie is released, it will become filled out. Moore is a political figure (witness his appearances at the DNC), not just a filmmaker (anymore). A film about him is a film about US politics. The controversy around Moore's films is itself a social phenomenon worthy of comment, and that is this film's subject matter (if I understand correctly). If the film turns out to suck, well, that will go in the article too (in proper NPOV language, of course!) Failing that, I agree with Impi that all films (political or otherwise) should be treated the same. Klanda 22:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This user has 66 edits. Fuzheado | Talk 07:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP! It's worth keeping. User:Pitchka 15 Aug 2004
    • This user has 69 edits. Fuzheado | Talk 07:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Pitchka's vote at WP:RFA has already been nullified under the suspcion of beign a sockpuppet. -JCarriker 14:50, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Impi and others above. Taco Deposit 02:52, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI, this user has 149 edits 16 August 2004. Fuzheado | Talk 02:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This user has been at wikipedia since April 18, 2004 and has a diverse and steady edit count [29]. The user first voted on Vfd on Jun 18. -JCarriker 08:49, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • This has already been discussed. [30] You posted my edit count, I asked how many edits a user must have before his votes should be counted, JCarriker replied, and Centrx blanked the discussion. Fuzheado, please stop challenging the legitimacy of my vote. Taco Deposit 04:20, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
        • Fuzheado is not questioning the legitmacy of your vote, he is only providing information to let other user make up their mind. (Notice he hasn't voted on the issue). As for Centrx, I have asked him about the deletion. I am sure it was a mistake. I realize that you still are learning about the community, if you need any help you can contact me on my talk page. -JCarriker 08:45, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cookiecaper 09:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI, this user has 113 edits 16 August 2004. Fuzheado | Talk 02:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This user joined two days prior to this post and has fewer than 100 contributions to the encyclopedia. - Centrx 22:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was close to abstaining, but the prevalence of so many sockpuppets has forced me to vote against them. Ambi 12:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Ambi, is there anyone specific you'd like to accuse of being a sockpuppet? And why? Klanda 14:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Please don't vote because of the actions of sockpuppets. For all we know the sockpuppets may want you to vote delete, and are intetionally flooding the this vote to make one side look bad. I hope you will rethink your vote and consider the merits of both arguements, rather than voting on the actions of a few nefarious users. -JCarriker 14:50, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (And I've never seen sockpuppets act intelligently enugh to try reverse psychology.) - UtherSRG 01:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I will concede that I haven't seen it yet either. However, it is a possibility if not an eventuality. I strongly believe that votes should be made on the merits of users arguements and the content of the article and not what people who are trying to manipulate the system are doing. The best policy with sockpuppets is to ignore them, and expose them if possible. BTW way it's not a matter of intelligence, it is a logical conclusion See: Newton's Third Law-JCarriker 04:37, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pieces of it could go to Michael Moore article and/or articles about his movies. Most of the article is either information belonging elsewhere or prediction/speculation. BTW, I second UtherSRG about sockpuppets, see Occam's Razor. And for Ambi's approach, I can see unethical people pushing one way to become a motivation for me to push the other way. ato 01:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Occam's Razor is a very interesting read. However, we shouldn't let unethical people's decisions govern ours. If I let my opinion about a presedntial candidate be soured by every party hack that drags the others' name through the mud there wouldn't be anyone in any party to vote for. -JCarriker 04:37, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • I was simply trying to say that it is likely that sockpuppets would be voting to change the outcome towards what they are voting for, rather than trying to apply reverse pscyhology. For the record, I am not calling anybody sockpuppet, I am not that experienced in Wikipedia. ato 06:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I understand what you were saying, and I don't think you have to worry about calling people a sockpuppet. Its obvious that there are sockpuppets on the page. My concern is that some wikipedians are letting sockpuppets influence their vote. I think that is a very dangerous precedent, one that could easily be exploited by sockpuppets in the future, if at present. I disagree that it is anything more than equally likely. Sockpuppets are by their very nature sneaky, and it really doesn't take a keen intellect to grasp the concept of reverse psychology. -JCarriker 07:55, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If current trends continue sockpuppets will soon out-number editors. --Gene_poole 05:05, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course! It is my firm belief that each contributors should have at least two sockpuppets of his or her very own. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Woolysock 07:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty green to Wikipedia still, so I'm not too clued-up on the whole issue of sockpuppets, but the way I see it, the only option is to ignore them. We should be debating the merits of the question of keeping this article here, not responding to sockpuppets and allowing them to influence our decisions. Decisions on whether or not to keep articles on Wikipedia should be based entirely on sound reasoning and logic, and not on a desire to vote the opposite to whichever sockpuppets are popping up. That's just petty. I stand by my original point, if we delete this, we delete all pages on films that have yet to be released. Remember, Fahrenheit 9/11, another politically slanted film, had an article on Wikipedia for months before release. Impi 10:33, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • ... if we delete this, we delete all pages on films that have yet to be released. Remember, Fahrenheit 9/11, another politically slanted film, had an article on Wikipedia for months before release. That statement is absolutely true. Deleting this article will be a clear case of political bias. Crevaner 10:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Deleting this article is most certainly not a clear case of political bias, nor does it necessitate the deletion of all films that are yet to be released. The reasons presented for its deletion have nothing to do with the political alignment of the film. Rather, they are based around the film's notoriety, the presence or absence of encyclopedic information about the film, and the condition of the article. Both immediately prior to its release (June 23, 2004) and as much before that release as we are for this vfd film (May 27, 2004), there was far more NPOV, encyclopedic information in the article for Fahrenheit 9/11 (F911) than there is for the article Michael Moore Hates America (MMHA). The major part of the MMHA article is based around statements by the director and has far less concrete and productive information than did the F911 article. Remember that there was a very public controversy regarding F911's distribution with Disney and also that the movie won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival (the first documentary to do so since 1956). Either of those alone makes the film and its article more notable than the MMHA film and article and provide bunches of information from neutral and various sources that can be used in the article, including statements and data from people who have actually seen it, for it had been publicly shown at the film festival. - Centrx 23:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • We should likely keep this article - it has been mentioned on CNN and highlighted by a number of conservatives on television, and it has been the butt of a Daily Show segment. However, here is an unusual NPOV technique - the length of the resulting article should be commensurate with the influence of the movie in the public. The F9/11 article is long and detailed because, as Centrx mentioned, it has been in the public debate, it has set box office records, it has been under much scrutiny and the director Michael Moore is a high profile movie maker who has appeared on network television, the DNC, O'Reilly Factor, etc. For MMHA, depending on how much play it gets (and right now it's just a single film festival) we should ensure the article reflects that. It should not turn into a soapbox to highlight a laundry list gripes against Moore. In short, Wikipedia should reflect reality, not create its own reality. Fuzheado | Talk 04:17, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. 67.40.112.223
  • Keep. Film will only get more notable, as was said above. Yelyos 16:20, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. --Xed 13:49, 6 Sep 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.

Household Cyclopedia - Cultivating beans -- Add to this discussion

Household Cyclopedia - Cultivating beans 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 17:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), this article was still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

Useless Household Cyclopedia junk with no hope of improvement. Guanaco 23:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • this is a 19th century How-to. Delete. --Ianb 01:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikisource. --Slowking Man 02:41, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikisource and delete: I do dig these old things, but this can't possess interest other than historical. Geogre 04:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree, transwiki to Wikisource. RickK 19:41, Aug 14, 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.

August 14

Unhexennium -- Add to this discussion

Stub about an element that has not yet been discovered, and probably will not be for a long, long time. (It's in period 9 and has an atomic number over 50 greater than that of the highest discovered element.) Eric119 05:05, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. The element doesn't even exist, and it's doubtful it ever will. --Slowking Man 05:18, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Obviously, this is the stuff you need in your pocket to remove VfD tags and to get rid of political double standards on Michael Moore films. Geogre 14:31, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • For curiosity, what is the atomic number of the largest chemical element it is possible to produce?? Has this atomic number been proven to be impossible?? 66.245.111.32 18:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google pulls up zero hits for this nomenclature. I would be cautious of statements such as "it's doubtful it ever will" (be created) - nuclear physics has nowhere near exhausted its capacity to produce heavy elements, but there is some distance to go to reach element 169. To answer 66.245, there is no theoretical limit to the largest atomic number it is possible to create. Higher-numbered elements (those above lead) become increasingly unstable with size, and one of the requisite measures of whether a particle exists is was it possible to measure a lifetime before the particle decayed into lighter elements. There is certainly a practical limit, based on current technology, but I have never heard discussion of any sort of theoretical limit. Denni☯ 19:36, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. See Periodic table (extended) - the names for upcoming, yet-to-be-discovered elements are official and have gone forward to much further than this. Unless you want to delete all of them. RickK 19:39, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Er, "delete all of them"? This is the only one higher than 120 that has a page. So, I say delete unless you want to create all of them. I agree the names are official but we can go arbitrarily high with them (e.g., septunnilenntrisepthexium). Eric119 19:59, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all of them if any others do exist. Delete all articles for what doesn't yet exist, so far as is known. unless there is a strong reason to keep a particular article because what it references is mentioned reasonably often in speculative writing. I imagine a bot working to create articles on all yet-to-be-discovered elements. :-( Jallan 21:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Does a "strong keep" mean more than a normal one? If so, I vote for a strong delete since this name is just an extension of a system that has the capacity to name non-existent elements of any atomic number.
  • Delete - it's a dicdef at best. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the placeholder unless there is something concrete to say about it now. When the element is discovered, it will be renamed (likely for the discoverer). Any article about the element will have to be created at that new name. Rossami 23:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Keeping interesting undiscovered elements should be a no brainer. id est Island of stability elements, elements whose discovery was retracted or remains controversial or those which have pop culture references. This one fails any reasonable test. As an additional note - naming can take a long time - decades - between first possible discovery and final confirmation. This means that placeholder names could be in use for a long time, and have significant literature associated with them. Retracted discoveries have occured since the early 20th century. Stirling Newberry 01:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Dittaeva 10:16, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this one, unless someone can come up with something notable about it that distinguishes it from similar not-yet-created transuranics. I think it's reasonable to have articles on such elements if they are in some way notable- e.g. if there's an active project to look for/create them, or they have some theoretical significance or predicted properties, or (as Jallan suggested) literary references. This has none of the above.-FZ 18:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Genetic basis for homosexuality -- Add to this discussion

Object. Absurd reason to list here. This article has been around for two years. Improve this article, don't delete it. --mav 03:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep and improve this article. Radoneme 17:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree (merge). Having a separate article about the "genetic basis for homosexuality" perpetuates the prejudiced view that homosexuality is "abnormal". A merger with "Causes of sexual orientation" seems logical. -- Spleeman 04:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur with Spleeman. -- Jmabel 05:37, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Would an article about the "genetic basis of height" or the "genetic basis of blue eyes" perpetuate the view that tall or blue-eyed people are abnormal? (Full disclosure: I'm tall and blue-eyed.)
Interestingly, one of the scientists who mostly strongly argues for a genetic basis of homosexuality, and the first referenced in the article, Simon LeVay, is himself gay. Even more interesting, LeVay began his research to distract himself after caring for a lover who died of AIDS -- and found his current lover via his notoriety after publishing his theory (Link is perhaps slightly Not Safe For Work, because of a "beef cake" photos in a random accompanying personal ads.)
LeVay's research is not about the basis of just any sexual orientation -- it's specifically about the basis of homosexuality (and possibly even just a predilection for receptive anal sex, which of course can be practiced by heterosexuals). However, the article title may still be wrong: LeVay's research points to uterine exposure to androgen by the fetus -- which may or may not be genetic (it probably is, but is also no doubt influenced by the mother's environment); as with many "genetic causes", we suffer when we apply the false dichotomy of "nature vs. nurture" to what is really a complex series of mutually reinforcing or dampening interactions between the genome, its phenotypical expression in the soma, and the environments of both genome and soma.
In any case, let's not sugar-coat to be politcally correct. Science is science, and to be NPOV, we should report it regardless of whether it seems to buttress or undermine our political views. Morality is morality, -- and science and morality are orthogonal -- so regardless of what the science reveals, my moral view will not change: gays, no matter why they are gay, are and must be as deserving of full civil rights and of pursuing happiness as anyone else.-- orthogonal 06:55, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comments: The article is not about LeVay or his theories, exclusively. If it were it would still need to be retitled.
It doesn't seem scientific to name an article purpoting to describe the world as it is after a hypothesis, ignoring all others. Hyacinth 07:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename. Benc and Maveric149 make excellent points. Any minor POV problems can be corrected, and if the articles were merged, Causes of sexual orientation would be, IMO, just about the right size to break out a subtopic into a new article. Since this subtopic already exists as a seperate article, why bother? - RedWordSmith 06:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do not merge/rename. --Gene_poole 12:02, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: The thing about this debate is that all "causes" can be used to discriminate and bash homosexuals. If homosexuality is genetic, then it can be prevented. If it's environmental, then we're back to blaming the parents or fixing the culture. If it's psychological, then we're back to curing it. If it's none of these, it's a choice, as the conservatives say and can be criminal. A report, NPOV, on this one approach, if it covers the ways in which the research was and is used for political purposes, is helpful. The truth, so far as there is any, is that Science just doesn't know. Some research teases this way, some that way. LeVay's research was pretty weak, btw, for pointing at genetics. It pointed at morphology, but brain morphology isn't just genetic. The rest is politics. Geogre 14:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • If the article must be kept, and that seems to be where consensus is headed, then changing the title to "Genetic basis for sexual orientation" seems the best option. -- Spleeman 20:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And please don't remove my vote this time. Andrewa 21:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It appears I must have done that, but inadvertently. In fact, I have no idea how I did it, but I do sincerely apologize. -- orthogonal 21:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Accepted. For my part, I'm sorry if the preceding was a bit terse. Thanks for the quick and positive response. Andrewa 21:31, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What probably happened was that you both edited at the same time. Orthogonal started editing, and then Andrewa saved her editing, and then Orthogonal saved his unintentionally... wait for it... orthogonal version. -Luc "Somethingorother" French 04:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This probably didn't happen, for two reasons. Firstly, Orthogonal would have received an edit conflict message. Secondly, I'm sure she's a delightful person (;->, but this female Andrewa you refer to is not me. Andrewa 07:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep; do not merge. -Sean Curtin 00:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep and do not merge. CoppBob 03:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge or rename with a title not specifically referencing homosexuality (like Genetic basis for sexual orientation). If renamed, we should also start work on a complimentary Environmental basis for sexual orientation. -Seth Mahoney 18:41, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename "Genetic basis for sexual orientation" as suggested above - obviously any genetic basis for homosexuality would provide a genetic basis for heterosexuality, or any other sexual orientation. Paul August 23:00, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to something like "Genetic basis for sexual orientation", as suggested above. Josh Cherry 02:00, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep no merge no rename. Williamb 13:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and no rename. Scientifically the question of connection between genetics and homosexuality is interesting because a priori you would expect Darwinian evolution to strongly select against a homosexuality gene. If there is a genetic basis, you have an interesting problem as to why the genes persist (presumably due to a co-benefit, a complex interaction of genes or genetics+environment). There is a passing reference to this in the article, but more could be made of it. Renaming the article would dilute this question. In terms of any bias for or against homosexuality, it cuts both ways. I've known several gay men who are keen to find a genetic component to homosexuality as a justification against pure lifestyle choice - as in, 'hey I was born this way'. There are quite a few sexual orientation articles that are POV, but this doesn't look like on of them. -- Solipsist 16:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep and no rename. Excellent point. Indeed, the darwinian argument is the crux of the issue. Deepak 21:26, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Inanimate Carbon Rod -- Add to this discussion

It's an article about a single object in a single episode of the Simpsons. Although it's somewhat memorable, it's not notable enough for a whole article, and nothing useful links to it (just the VFD and the "Nothing links to this article" report as of this writing). Please Delete. - RedWordSmith 06:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: No need to merge or redirect, IMO. The inanimate carbon rod is a hero. It saved the astronauts and got a ticker tape parade. We all love the inanimate carbon rod. No break outs of objects from fiction, though. Geogre 14:40, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - there's trivia and then there's trivia. This is the kind that doesn't belong. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's interesting, I could see giving it a sentence in an article on fictional technological devices, it certainly merits mention in any article there might be on the episode or the fictional power plant, but beyond that... no. I could see maybe having a redirect here to... something? I can't think what. Just delete, I guess. -FZ 15:19, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't WikiSimpsonPedia. Gwimpey 19:21, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've put it on WP:BJAODN. zoney ███ talk 01:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even trivia, its just desriptive. (ricjl 00:01, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC))
  • Delete. I guess TV is affecting too much some Wikipedians. Zaelsius 14:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

harry pearson -- Add to this discussion

Notable person? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 07:16, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC) [moved from main vfd page]

  • Delete: Link spam, especially since it doesn't give the surname a capital letter. Geogre 14:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - doesn't sound notable. Deb 20:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The magazine might be notable, but being an editor isn't enough. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zaelsius 14:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Unfairenheit 9/11 -- Add to this discussion

  • A POV rant. I vote to delete. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 07:16, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC) moved from main page
  • It's actually a copyvio from [31]. - Lucky 6.9 07:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: What a coincidence that Bushcountry.com links to us and we're getting two "We hate Michael Moore" "articles" in a row. Copyvio, rant, POV, "original" research. Geogre 14:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clear copyvio from an article that's listed on Fahrenheit 9/11#External links. BTW, 2 recent "anti-Michael Moore" articles in a row (from 2 different contributors I might add) is no big coincidence. We get POV articles all the time. And any website is free to link to us, regardless of their political views. There is no conspiracy. (Though I pray I don't find myself corrected if thousands of bushcountry.com (or any other ultra-POV website) hooligans descend upon the 'pedia when the election heats up.) • Benc • 20:29, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fire Star 22:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Sean Curtin 00:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete RedWolf 03:31, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this rubbish. - UtherSRG 01:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Rubbish? It's no more than an editorial by Christopher Hitchens - no worse than anything one might find in, say, the New York Times; simply another opinion. Copyvio, however, so delete. DannyBoy | Talk 02:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zaelsius 16:43, 19 Aug 2004 (+2h)

Winston Churchill Quotes -- Add to this discussion

The contents of this page and the page's history have been moved to Wikiquote:Transwiki:Winston Churchill via the transwiki system, all future edits should go there. This page is now listed for deletion. -- Netoholic 07:32, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Given the fact that transwiki has taken place. Delete. Geogre 14:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • As there is a better place for it, delete. Average Earthman 16:25, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I listed this page in May. Why is it still here? RickK 19:34, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Because no one is dealing with stuff listed on /Old as needing Transwiki. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Anyone can do the Transwiki, but an admin needs to delete the WP version when it's done. Maybe there needs to be a better process than just listing them on /Old ? -- Netoholic 14:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Medinge -- Add to this discussion

This entry is well-written like everything by the same contributor, but delete for non-encyclopedic subject. Medinge is a Swedish 18th century (or so) mansion-house standing in it's own grounds, in other words it's today your typical refurbished conference center, and as the author states , it's "little known, even in Sweden". I live in Stockholm, I'd never heard of the place. Also delete entry for being promotional, since its primaray purpose is surely to mention and link to "the international Medinge Group think-tank", see next post, plus to provide an external link to the commercial website of the conference center (which independent research shows is owned by Tomas Gad, mentioned in the Medinge group entry listed below). Hello again, Stombs, I'm guessing 203.79.67.84 was you before you registered, wasn't it? I hope you don't think I'm trying to make you feel unwelcome with all the VfD listings. You are very welcome to Wikipedia and I'm sure you'll be a valuable contributor. Please don't be discouraged! You've made a lot of edits in just a few days, most of them very useful, and, man, you work fast - what are you trying to do, rival User:TheCustomOfLife? Oh, and the VfD isn't really the ideal place for communicating with you, so the sooner you create a userpage, the better. Then people will be able to leave you messages , tips and kudos there. Remember, we do want you as a contributor. Bishonen 09:07, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: A thorough nomination again, with little room to debate. Delete for the reasons given by bishonen. Geogre 14:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Retain, I hope: can Medinge Group be removed if that is more a promotional problem? I have been told that there is a bit more than the mansion there and there is a sign; some loggers work there and there are neighbouring properties. I'm not sure what road, etc., it's on but I can find out more. Of course, I'm happy to defer to the locals. Stombs 23:07, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect to Medinge Group for now, unless someone has info an any architectural notability of the manor (if it is a reasonable well-restored 18th century Swedish manor house, then it would be notable for that). -FZ 16:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Dittaeva 18:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • My guess was a little early, the present mansion was built in 1820. It's no doubt well restored on historical principles, because that's the big selling point of the 18th-19 c mansion conference centers: conservation, ambience, culture, history, see the staircase where the ghost of the lady of the house appears on the stroke of midnight according to reliable local tradition. I've conferenced at a few of them, they're lovely. But there are a lot of them. I tried Swedish Google for slott + konferens and also herrgård + konferens and got screen after screen of names, some of them well-known and a few household names for Swedes (as I've said, Medinge isn't one I've heard of). Abandoning the compilation of stats for these searches after a poweruser relative explained to me what a misconceived idea that was, I'll just say that in boating due west from Stockholm on Lake Mälaren, I've seen maybe 20 similar mansions along the shores in one day, with their characteristic white color and solitary, wooded placement, typically a couple of miles in from the waterfront, also well-restored-looking and no doubt conference-housing. Stombs, I know your motives were good in creating an article for Medinge, but I still don't think it's very notable. Merge and redirect would be OK by me, if the Medinge Group entry survives - see that discussion for my argument that it shouldn't. Sorry for taking up so much of everybody's time. I'm definitely done about these two entries now. Bishonen 22:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Medinge Group -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Medinge group


Lilly Lazer -- Add to this discussion

Although I've never heard of HIM (band), if the group is deemed notable enough for an article then I suppose each of its members is. Nevertheless, this doesn't qualify as a real article about the guy. I would suggest for Cleanup but I don't know how well staffed we are for cleaning up Finnish musicians. JamesMLane 10:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: This break out is very much vanity or fanboi. The band seems to have only Wikipedia and a tab site to bolster it, but that's not under discussion. This article is uninformative and dewey eyed. Geogre 14:57, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable person and ridiculous article. RickK 19:25, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable outside the context of HIM (which is itself notable, however). Article reads like a bio from Seventeen and doesn't contain any information worth saving. The same goes for fellow bandmember Ville Valo's article, which is similarly content-free. — Gwalla | Talk 02:25, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • See, I don't agree that if HIM is notable enough for an article, then each of its members must necessarily be article-worthy too. Not at all. But as long as staffing is the issue, surely we must be well set for cleaning up this article and the one on HIM's frontman Ville Valo listed below (a more notable guy). If you swing a cat on IRC you take out half the populations of Finland and Sweden. For instance, if one of the users going "You stupid delete-happy baboons" on the Ville Valo discussion would like to improve the articles some more (I see some work has been done), to make the notability of the subjects shine forth better, I'll gladly hold my vote till I see it. Bishonen 19:24, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • If you think that someone hit by a swung cat might come forward and improve this article at some point, then perhaps we could change it to a stub ("Lilly Lazer (born August 12, 1976) is a Finnish guitarist. Since 1995 he has been a member of the band HIM." I took all that information from this article and the one on HIM (band).) I just don't want to see the present text remain as a disfigurement to Wikipedia while the article is sent on what might well be a hopeless mission to Cleanup. JamesMLane 20:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into HIM (band) (who are notable and worth an article) and redirect (no need to delete, the name isn't likely to cause any contention). Ditto for Ville Valo. I'm all for individual articles for people who have been members of multiple notable bands (like Clem Burke), but it seems a bit pointless to have one for someone who hasn't. —Stormie 00:17, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, or merge an edited version into HIM (band). Zaelsius 14:52, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think this should be deleted, seeing as how the person that is the main focus of the article doesn't seem to have any real relivance, other than an apparent former membership in the band Him so for that reason i suggest that if anything other than deletion this article should be merged with an article about Him should one exsist.

Global Artificial Intelligence Act -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable, vaguely defined Syndicate of Software Engineers Who Would Play God. No Google hits [32], other than our article. • Benc • 10:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Not notable. (There are world-wide individuals? That's scary.) Geogre 15:00, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism or whatever. The article and VfD are the only google hits. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons described above. Andris 11:30, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Gaia, SF society -- Add to this discussion

A Croatian sci-fi/fantasy club, non-notable as far as I can find. (Surely there's multiple sci-fi clubs out there named Gaia, anyway.) Then again, I am not from Osijek, Croatia — maybe it's a big thing over there. :-) • Benc • 10:21, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A newbie created several other stubs like that, they should all be linked from Science fiction in Croatia. It's not unlikely that many of them are non-notable, dunno. --Joy [shallot] 14:29, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not notable. Geogre 15:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete organizational vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • This should be kept. Don't delete. We have no right to determine what is notable or unnotable. Perhaps this material could be consoldiated into a single article. I feel as though a bias is occuring here just because the subject happens to be in Croatia, a country which rarely enters into the attention of the American public.
    It's still a bunch of sub-stubs... the originator should have written something about them, otherwise the articles don't provide anything more than their listing in the list of local SF societies does. --Joy [shallot]

Pauliina Lappalainen — Add to discussion

Non-notable kid. 8 displayed hits. Only one in English is replies to a poll. Niteowlneils 14:18, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is the originator's only contribution. Did you create the article, Pauliina? If so, nobody's trying to be nasty about it, but you need to register at Wikipedia and put your personal details on your personal userpage, rather than in an article. Vote to delete article. Bishonen 15:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: If it's a personal page, then the author should create an account and feel free to put the material on her page. Geogre 17:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree appears to be personal page. RedWolf 03:33, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Assuming the summary is accurate, delete as vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lhina Hansson — Add to discussion

Non-notable person. 1 unclear hit. Still only 400 at the suggested spelling without the 'h', that may or may not be this person. Niteowlneils 14:24, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What? You say the best and most beautiful woman in the world does not deserve her own article? You're a cynic, Niteowlneils. And look, it's NPOV, too, with the "is by many considered to be"--that's very cute. The originator, btw, also put the sentence "One important family in the area is the powerful Tykesson family" into the Svalöv article, until Mic reverted it, so complimenting his friends and family on Wikipedia seems to be his special thing. Don't know whether he's himself a powerful Tykesson or Swedish guitarist Gustav Bjarnason, but one of those seems very likely. Speedy delete joke entry. Bishonen 15:12, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Yet another mash note. I'm glad she has an admirer, but we are not match.com. Geogre 17:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Speed deleted. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hu Lao gate — Add to discussion

Only one article links here, and that article is non-fiction. However, the only hits I see relate to the Dynasty Warriors video game. Nominating for unverifiability. Name capitalization may be incorrect as well. If this is deleted, it should probably be de-linked from Dong Zhuo. Niteowlneils 14:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PS This was tagged for speedy, but I felt I couldn't make a strong enuf case to actually delete it. If someone thinks that route is better, no complaints from me. Niteowlneils 14:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: A number of these articles have been on Clean Up. I've worked on one or two successfully, but it requires a lot of effort, and often to no avail (for me). There are numerous small articles about battles in Chinese history. They are often c&p from another source, too. If you can find the material in an intelligible form, they tend to be accounts from the 17th century. It would be nice to have the information on Wikipedia, but it can be very difficult for non-Chinese history experts to do anything. It can go on Clean Up, but with prejudice toward deletion if unimproved in a month. Geogre 18:02, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Probably a battle from the China's Warring States period (the Dynasty Warriors game is based on the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Weak keep, strong if it can be verified to not be just from the game. Definitely needs cleanup and expansion. — Gwalla | Talk 02:35, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as incomprehensible. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless confirmed as factual (which won't happen, I'm sure). -Sean Curtin 09:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • If it's a real event, and a real structure, send to cleanup or Attention; otherwise delete. If it's a real gate but anot a real battle, there could probably stand to be an architectural article on the gate, but this isn't it.-FZ 15:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Home-office — Add to discussion

From VfD:

This is from the {delete} cat, but I think has too much context to qualify. There are no links to it from the article namespace, only Wikipedia:Who, Why?. It may be theoretically possible to write an encyclopedic article on the subject, but right now it's mostly just a dic def. I also wonder about the title, as, from what I've seen, most terms that one sees hyphenated elsewhere, on Wikipedia, the hyphen is omitted (EG African American), tho' I'm not real clear why. Niteowlneils 15:00, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd have said it was a valid subject, so keep. Whether it should have a hyphen is questionable, but I imagine that's an attempt to differentiate from "Home Office". Deb 20:02, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I suspect the content is covered in Small Office, Home Office aka SOHO, which I think is the general term for this. --Ianb 20:17, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Small Office, Home Office. In fact, I'll do that right now. — Gwalla | Talk 02:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: It might be useful to disambig this kind of home-office from the use of the term to refer to a "home" office of a wide-spread corporation... not sure if this would be the place for it, though. -FZ 15:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Deal dollar store — Add to discussion

Non-notable chain store. Only 39 displayed hits for "Deal dollar store" -wikipedia -encyclopedia, and most are coincidental text matches, not this chain, and even with the excludes, hits for the actual chain still tend to be from Wikipedia mirrors. Only 100 stores claimed. Niteowlneils 15:49, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • It may be bigger than Google is telling you, since the spelling is really Deal$. I'd ask one of the computer superusers here to tell us how to make the dollar sign count in a search, only it doesn't really matter, does it? It's an advertisement. Delete it. Bishonen 16:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep weakly: If unmade movies and single stores stay in.... No, the stores are real, it seems, and substantial enough. We have a sad habit of keeping even individual stores, so the chain should count. The article is wrong, btw: They're now up to 130 stores. Geogre 18:05, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • If it's that large/widespread, then it's probably notable. Weak keep. -FZ 15:50, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Life in Eastside — Add to discussion

Non-notable comic. 7 displayed hits for "Life in Eastside", all unrelated or Wikipedia mirrors. Niteowlneils 16:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • It appears this doesn't even manage to reach the level of being a webcomic (google doesn't know it exists, anyway), and the article doesn't state where this comic is available. delete. Average Earthman 16:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Please, please delete. --Bishonen 16:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not notable, possibly not existing. Geogre 18:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete before all those red links get filled in. RickK 19:14, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, non-notable. — Gwalla | Talk 02:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ChibiAnime -- Add to this discussion

Not a very informative article, and I don't see how it could become much more so. More importantly, not a sufficiently notable subject. Surely its mention in Otakon is good enough? —Triskaideka 16:40, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Alexa Traffic Rank for chibianime.com: 771,665. Niteowlneils 16:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide, or a web guide to web guides. Geogre 18:11, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Web guide WikiSpam. — Gwalla | Talk 02:41, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Peacefire — Add to discussion

From VfD:

Alexa Traffic Rank for peacefire.org: 205,900, well below the 100,000 threshold. Niteowlneils 16:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable. Peacefire and its operator, Bennett Haselton are/were involved in: Litigant in ACLU sponsored lawsuit, testimony before congress' COPA commission, early spam testcase, battles (later defended by ACLU) against webfilter software makers (wired magazine), EFF/aclu cybersitter case,NEWS.com interview, hotwired story, described by AP as "high-profile anti-spammer" -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Very notable site. It's sometimes shady, sometimes libertarian, but it has made a big splash in the real world, so our having an article about it is not webguide stuff. The site has been a consistent (and litigious) opponent of filter and blocking software. Geogre 18:13, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Alert: I've been trying to add to the article. When it was nominated, Niteowlneils was right in doing so: it was a single line and a screen capture, and it looked just like any other piece of linkspam. I invite everyone who sees this to improve my poor efforts and add what they know. Were I not a school technology director, I might have no clue about this site, either. Geogre 18:24, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Peacefire has had a real and notable impact on the web, and the revised article is well-written and informative. —Triskaideka 20:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep. Absolutely notable. — Gwalla | Talk 02:43, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Certainly keep now that it sheds some light on what the article is about (altho' it could use some specific examples in it, like from Finlay's list, above). Niteowlneils 03:30, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment:I won't vote per se, since I've had interaction with them from a library-database filtering fight a few years ago, so I'll abstain as being myself non-NPOV. Googling "Bennet Haselton" as a phrase gets a couple of thousand hits, though. -FZ 15:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Definite keep in present form. They are notable and have done important work. Good article now. Nice work, Geogre. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. cesarb 02:16, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Multilingual_Speech_Input/Output:_Assessment,_Methodology_and_Standardisation — Add to discussion

Summary of a research project. Doesn't say what university.

comment: the above by User:Poccil --Ianb 23:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • some international resaerch project. Unfortunately this c&p summary of a decade-old project doesn't inspire further investigation to make something decent out of it. Delete, and reference from SAM--Ianb 23:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC) too.
  • Delete - not an article. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Expenditure — Add to discussion

  • dicdef - delete - Mattingly23 18:39, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: dictdef, no transwiki. (I'm almost relieved to see nice, non-controversial dictdefs again.) Geogre 23:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jan wellendorf — Add to discussion

From VfD:

  • doesn't seem like this should be in wikipedia - delete - Mattingly23 18:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Non notable. Delete. RickK 19:13, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Another person whose surname lacks a majiscule. It looks like a first entry from a new user, but he or she did not sign in. The figure in question is possibly a prosperous person, but not notable. Geogre 23:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Jan Wellendorf developed a style of karate called Sanshinkai, which does not by a Google search appear to be a hugely major or famous style. He published two books on karate in 1980 and 1981, which are now out of print. One karate sensei refers on his website to Wellendorf as "retired president" of the Karate International organization, but this promising lead fizzles out: "Karate International" turns out to be a balkanized catagory, there are lots of little Karate Internationals and no the Karate International, at least not on the web. Conclusion: not encyclopedic, delete. Bishonen 19:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Ville Valo — Add to discussion

Non-notable musician. See the discussion of Lilly Lazer above. RickK 19:31, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • He's well-known as the frontman, is enormously popular in Europe, has a notable solo career. I'd vote to keep him when I wouldn't vote to keep other members of HIM, as people who don't know the band well might still know/recognize him as its frontman.. Rhymeless 19:40, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely notable. The article needs major clean-up though. Yardcock 21:02, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Non-notable? :) You stupid delete-happy baboons. --Lussmu 23:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • You seem eager to make personal attacks, as evidenced on your User page. Why would you bother coming here, if the English Wikipedia is so beneath you? Personal attacks are not acceptable, you might want to rethink your approach.
  • Delete, same reason as Lizzy Lazer. At best, redirect to HIM (band). Content is fannish ephemera: favorite color, favorite food? Come on. — Gwalla | Talk 02:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to HIM (band). Wile E. Heresiarch 08:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And don't redirect. "Non-notable"? What an insult to Mr. Valo bbx 10:44, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Why should we care what his favorite color is? RickK 21:28, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Just remove that part then. Keep the article. bbx 23:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I said my say on the Lilly Lazer discussion above: if some of you insulted fans would like to continue to improve these articles (I see some work has been done), I'll vote after the fact. Bishonen 19:44, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • As I voted on Lilly Lazer, merge into HIM (band) and redirect (and I'm a HIM fan, so this is not a biased vote by a "stupid delete-happy baboon"). —Stormie 00:21, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • keep (and improve). perhaps the problem with this discussion is that the guy has achieved an encyclopedic level of popstardom, but so far seemingly only outside the U.S. (Oh btw, I'm not a HIM fan at all.) regards, High on a tree 15:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is a notable musician (I'm also not a fan). The page has to be improved though. --Sac 04:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • His sole claim to notability appears to be his membership in the band. The article for HIM (band) still has plenty of room. Merge and redirect until there is a reason to break the main article apart. Rossami 23:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GrabIt — Add to discussion

From VfD

From VfD:

Non-notable newsreader. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 18:54, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • No vote. Gets a fair number of google hits and seems to be specialized in downloading images and things from usenet. The article as is might not do it justice. --Ianb 20:14, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep & send to clean up: Fairly notable and widely used program, but the article as it stands is like a press clip or a download description. Geogre 00:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Fair use rationale for Image:Grabitlogo.png

Image:Grabitlogo.png 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 ensure 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) 23:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Grabitmain.png

Image:Grabitmain.png 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 ensure 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) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No response to emails? Not true ! Sure a few days delay but Ilan personally responds in a very friendly and helpful manner G.Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.151.17 (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with this article

There's nothing wrong with this article other than it isn't footnoted, but how many refs to news clients are there aside from those on NSP websites where this program has been recommended for years. Don't let the beta designation fool you. There is a new 2 beta in the works, btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.250.134 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Older men-younger women — Add to discussion

  • doesn't seem like an encyclopedia topic delete (rewrite is good, keep) - Mattingly23
Tend to agree. Even if you were interested in the subject, how would you ever find it? Deb 19:59, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree. This is neither necessary nor anything new. Aranel 20:01, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • in other news, bears have been found to dispose of waste body matter in highly arboreous areas.Delete. Keep --Ianb 20:05, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh dear. Delete. Fire Star 20:35, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; rewritten (consider disregarding previous votes). I've moved the article to Age disparity in sexual relationships; I think this topic is perfectly encyclopedic — even if it is a little obvious. Many thanks to Denni for contributing much of the new content, which I took from his rewrite of May-december romance (also on VfD). • Benc • 21:21, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Fire Star 22:10, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Not the most elegant solutions, but it works to keep a number of topics. We all need to pitch in. Geogre 00:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the new page, & the redirects; the news page does have useful info & is encyclopedic. -FZ 15:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the new page, now it looks better and encyclopedic Radoneme 18:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bemani Get It Joke — Add to discussion

Not notable; a very specific example of an in-joke. Joyous 23:28, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

It's notable to those in the Bemani community. Give it a chance.

  • Why is something that is notable to the Bemani community necessarily notable to anyone else? (Maybe it is, but if so, we need to be told why.) I found 140 hits on Google, most of which weren't even related (actually, I found 1 that was related, but I'll admit that I didn't look at all 140 of them to be certain). [33] This is an internet-community, right? If so, I'd expect more hits for a major phenomenon. Delete. Aranel 23:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • This isn't the Benami community. Delete. RickK 23:37, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is supposed to be a knowledge repository. There is effort going on to expand the sections related to rhythm games, of which Bemani is a part. Just because this single facet of it is not a sweeping cultural revolution throughout the world doesn't mean it's necessarily not worthy of a few bytes of Wikipedia space.
  • Delete: Wikipedia reflects notable items of knowledge in a context. This is an in-joke among a few people who are sheltered away by their private chat. As such, it has no more notability or currency in the world than any other private joke among friends. It is not verifiable, notable, or important. It will not be searched for, and it is so ephemeral as to be gone before it even exists. Geogre 01:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stupid jokes may be encyclopedia-worthy. Stupid in-jokes are not. I suggest that the author repost on a Bemani FAQ, if anyone has bothered creating such a thing. -- Jmabel 02:04, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obscure in-joke, not notable to anyone who isn't already part of the small community it is used in. At most the contents should be moved to the "Trivia & Culture" section of the Bemani article (which consists of a link to this article, and is the only article to link to it besides VfD). Probably doesn't even deserve that. — Gwalla | Talk 02:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • delete —Rory ☺ 02:57, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Onion_Chutney Coconut_Chutney — Add to discussion

Two tasty recipies for transwikification. See What_Wikipedia_is_Not, #22. --Ianb 23:40, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Transwiki & delete. Geogre 01:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, delete, and send me some chutney. -FZ 15:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, delete. -- WOT 19:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • No-Delete, Don't know what Transwiki means. I see no reason given for deletion. Are recipes not allowed on Wikipedia? Nuggehalli 10:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --YUL89YYZ 19:56, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Fifty tallest buildings in the USA (text format) — Add to discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fifty tallest buildings in the USA (text format)

Sunny_jim — Add to discussion

Sunny jim 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 Either an advertising character for some cereal in an unspecified country a long time ago, or a colloqialism. Not sure anything can become of this. --Ianb 23:53, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

keep revised version. --Ianb 16:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's a mess. Ok, whatever advertising spokes-toon it was, "Sonny Jim" is an insult (see Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe, if you don't know it elsewhere). This must be British, since the comedian in question is. Factually untrue and mostly irrelevant. Geogre 01:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. No time to research this now, but Sunny Jim and the advertising campaign Force cereal are considered to be landmarks in the history of advertising. 100 greatest ads of all time 'n' stuff. He may have been an early case of a cartoon character being successfully used to promote a product. The reason why it has some kind of meaning in popular culture (whether or not the article is accurate) is because for a while Sunny Jim was a household word. He's in the same pantheon as the Gold Dust Twins, and Phoebe Snow ("said Phoebe Snow/About to go/Upon a trip to Buffalo/My gown stays white/From morn 'til night/Upon the Road of Anthracite"), and Buster Brown, not to mention Aunt Jemima, Betty Crocker, and so on. I see that our Advertising article's section on the History of Advertising isn't very good, by the way... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:50, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I guess there could be an article here. Someone want to write it? BTW, Sunny Jim is also a popular brand of peanut butter in the Pacific Northwest, not sure how widely it is distributed. -- Jmabel 02:06, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • I was able to find out some more about it, check the article now... but I cannot find any picture. Apparently no connection to the cereal Sunny Jim! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I made a start. And the article is no longer a possible copyvio. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
wow, I didn't know breakfast cereals went that far back. Thanks! --Ianb 16:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, my, yes... they were a significant cultural phenomenon. They started out as health-quackery stuff, served in the sanitariums at Battle Creek and elsewhere, I think a little before the turn of the century. If you want to see a fairly amusing movie, check out The Road to Wellville sometime. The story of shredded wheat is interesting, too—they were originally supposed to be a kind of instant gruel, i.e. the intention was that they be mixed in hot water and left until they had a (disgusting) soft, watery, pudding-like consistency. People decided that they were a lot more palatable eaten while still crunchy, and the rest is history... Sorta like the story of brandy being intended to be a preserved-wine concentrate that would be mixed with water to reconstitute the wine at the end of the shipment, until it was discovered that people liked it undiluted. Anyway. The histories of cereals and advertising are sort of intertwined because they were, at least in the U.S., some of the very first nationally-distributed and marketed food products and some of the first for which modern-style advertising campaigns were conducted. H. G. Wells has a funny reference to cereals in Tono-Bungay. Some patent-medicine entrepreneur are discussing strategy and one of them says:
"There's all these patent grain foods,--what Americans call cereals. I believe I'm right, sir, in saying they're sawdust." "No!" said my uncle, removing his cigar; "as far as I can find out it's really grain,—spoilt grain.... I've been going into that." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a famous campaign example in advertising & business communications texts, and the character was well enough known to enter the language as a colloquialism that lasted for several decades; I'd say it's notable. Keep. -FZ 15:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia would be improved by many, many more pieces of mostly forgotten pop culture and trivia of the past to balance the flood of current trivia. Now an excellent article. Jallan 18:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'd never heard of this campaign, but found it an interest read. I endorse the comments about the preponderance of modern trivia over ancient trivia too. Trivia is good. GWO 19:37, 19 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.

The Amazing Race 6 — Add to discussion

  • Highly suspect. Amazing Race 5 is currently ongoing and will probably still be running at the same time as the supposed start date of this one. There are still 7 teams left in AR 5 and three weeks left in which no one is eliminated. There is nothing at cbs.com which mentions an Amazing Race 6. RickK 23:59, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. The information is correct, see [34]. -- Netoholic 00:28, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Show has been confirmed, and is either currently filming or has already completed filming. - MattTM
  • Abstain: Ok, it's real. Now, is it notable now? Is it worth a solo article at this point? Why put it in in hopes that one day it will need to be presented? Geogre 01:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:43, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • How very odd that they're going to overlap them. Oh, well, keep, then, I guess. RickK 04:13, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is, in fact I've noted that in the article. Keep. Jgm 07:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Current version reads more like an ad or a TV Guide listing than an encyclopedia article but that could, in theory, be fixed. The bigger concern is that it's notability can not yet be verified. Delete until it is released and a hit. The single line in the parent article The Amazing Race is sufficient for now. Rossami 23:51, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


August 15

ImageShack — Add to discussion

Description of a web service less than a year old. Notable? --Ianb 01:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I know that a lot of people on Fark use ImageShack for image hosting. Couldn't tell ya more than that. Rhymeless 01:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's a free image hosting service. It's very notable, used a lot on discussion forums where they post photographs. Apart from that it seems to be a very good service (not very relevant, I know). It has a Google PageRank value of 5(/10), en.wikipedia.org has 8(/10). Did you really research this before submitting or just post on vfd to find out if its notable? --Dittaeva 19:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: enough not to be sure whether this is another step on Wikipedia's slippery slope to becoming a self-service DMOZ. It does get a lot of hits (57,000), but is relatively new and I've never heard of it, despite having interests in that kind of area. Regarding page rank - hadn't occurred to me to look (not being a IE user); are there any guidelines on this? Page rank is logarithmic, so 8 is probably several orders of magnitude greater than 5. (FWIW I run one site with PR5 which I don't consider worth its own article). --Ianb 20:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Pammy Annette Avent -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

delete - nothing here that's not on Gary Ridgway —Rory ☺ 02:47, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: A victim whose loss is sad but sadly whose encyclopedia notability rests with her killer. Redirect to Gary Ridgway so that those searching for her will find an account. Geogre 11:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Redirect. Postdlf 19:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Also Agreed, Redirect to Ridgway--Plato 10:00, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

GBA roms -- Add to this discussion

GBA roms 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

Besides being titled incorrectly, this article contains no information specific about GBA ROMs; just a few bits that are applicable to all ROM images. Garrett Albright 02:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • delete, nothing that couldn't be put in a more general article —Rory ☺ 02:49, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictdef plus redundant info. — Gwalla | Talk 03:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge into Read-only memory. TPK 06:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: but it's not really talking about Read-Only Memory, it's talking about ROM images (which already have an article containing everything this says, so merging is unnecessary). — Gwalla | Talk 21:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge into Roms, not Read-only memory. - Plutor 15:13, 16 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.


Protest warriors -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Protest Warrior already exists, no need for two pages. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect—Rory ☺ 02:43, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP. In case you didn't notice, this article was created before the other article you cited (i.e., it "already existed"). -- Spleeman 03:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(BTW, anonymous votes don't count, nor does being "first")
  • Merge and redirect. Singular is of course the correct form for the name, altho' there's a pretty strong argument that ProtestWarrior is actually most correct. On inner pages of their site, they are a bit inconsistent, but on the home page, and on the "send us money" page[35], which you'd think they'd be sure to write it correctly, it's always ProtestWarrior. Niteowlneils 03:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • After a review of the website, I agree the page should be retitled "ProtestWarrior" or "ProtestWarriors". However, if you would like to rename an article, the appropriate place to propose doing so is on the article's talk page, not on VfD. Also, being "first" does matter when the reason given for deleting the page is that "Protest Warrior already exists, no need for two pages". This statement is based on a false assumption that the "Protest Warrior" article predated the "Protest warriors" article, which it didn't. In fact, the latter article existed before the former. The author of the "Protest Warrior" article should have investigated whether or not there was already an article on the subject before creating a new article. Anyhow, both articles have good info. Merge them under "ProtestWarrior" or "ProtestWarriors". -- Spleeman 03:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect: Seems like these guys are just this generation's Hard Hats, who were no credit to homo sapiens. In fact, one can claim that they were influenced by Free State or whatever, but I'll bet the Hard Hats were much more the model. Anyway, I don't know if we're not lending them notability, as they seem to be no more present than the big chicken, the potato suit guy, etc. Geogre 12:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

August 15

Nigel alfaro -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nigel alfaro

Robert Lewis -- Add to this discussion

Vanity. RickK 05:43, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Definite vanity. I'm pretty sure one must do more than attend a college to have a Wikipedia article. -R. fiend 05:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 05:54, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity. The talk page says that its primary importance is for those in the Venn diagram of SW Missouri students AND mass communications majors AND readers of the Caphala newspaper. That's too small a set for an encyclopedia. Geogre 12:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • besides, the newspaper has its own article Capaha_Arrow. --Ianb 14:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for above reasons (and for not providing hospital of birth). --Ianb 14:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Robert, you're 22 years old. You should know better. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Template:Bmoviebandit1 -- Add to this discussion

Template:Bmoviebandit1 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. Failing to acheive a clear consensus to delete, this template is kept. However, I note that the Bmovie Bandit phenomenon seems to have died down and this template may no longer be necessary. It is no longer in use on any article. I also note that a majority of the keep the template votes came early in the discussion while a majority of the delete the template votes came late in the discussion. If after a reasonable period (perhaps another month) the issue remains calm and the template remains unused, this template may be renominated. Rossami 23:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ignoring all the discussion about the Bmovie Bandit's actual work, my best interpretation of the votes about the template are:

Keep template
  1. Rick
  2. Lucky 6.9
  3. TIB
  4. Rhymeless
  5. Siroxo
  6. Jallan
  7. Ambi
 Delete template
  1. Gzornenplatz
  2. Everyking
  3. Meelar
  4. Jgm
  5. Eugene van der Pijll
  6. Wikisux
  7. The Steve
  8. Wile E. Heresiarch
 Abstain or Ambiguous vote
  1. Sean Curtin

This template is being tagged on factual stubs, saying "Since the entries are factual, current policy dictates that these substubs must stay." Indeed, if they are factual, they should stay, and shouldn't have this unnecessary template tagged on. Gzornenplatz 05:54, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, and delete "Since the entries are factual, current policy dictates that these substubs must stay.", since I disagree with that contention. RickK 06:03, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not to worry. I'll be happy to drop the line about the factual entries. I truly do not understand why anyone would allow these "entries" to stay. I was simply following the suggestion of another user. I realize I wrote the stub, but I'd like to vote to keep with revision. - Lucky 6.9 06:11, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Done. In fact, I noticed that there were some other edits to the template, so there must be others who agree. - Lucky 6.9 06:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Now you just made it worse. The articles are factual (if you disagree, please point out what is not factual on Staci Greason), and we do not delete factual articles on valid topics (if you don't think we should have any article on Staci Greason on grounds of insufficient notability, feel free to put it on VfD), so the sentence you removed was the only one that made sense. I don't understand what your whole problem with those stubs is. Contrary to what you seem to think, no user is ever obligated to expand any stub. You can ignore them. But instead you want to delete factual material. Gzornenplatz 06:40, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gzornenplatz must like Sneaky Vandalism. --TIB 06:37, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Please explain what is "sneaky vandalism" about Staci Greason. Gzornenplatz 06:40, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • stars on Days of Our Lives from 1989 to 1992. - an impossible contradiction. RickK 07:06, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
        • It says starred, and already did so when this template was added. Gzornenplatz 07:13, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
        • Bad grammar is an indicator of ignorance or stupidity, not vandalism. -Sean Curtin 01:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • In response to Gzornenplat'z sneaky vandalism question: Wikipedia:Vandalism... at the bottom. --TIB 08:50, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't notice that you said 'about staci greason'. Still, the fact that the diff between the first and second edits point to botvandalism. --TIB 08:53, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • If anyone can think of a better alternative, or would be interested in nominating themselves to cleanup each of the Bandit substubs that appear, then by all means, vote to delete. In the meantime, I vote to keep this, even if the wording seems a little harsh. Rhymeless 07:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The articles are factual and do not necessitate urgent "cleanup"; like any other article, they can be improved by anyone who wants, but they don't have to. Gzornenplatz 07:12, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Normally I'd agree with you; I'm very much an anti-deletionist; But I can't help but believe that because of the inferior nature of these substubs, they are likely to remain undeveloped for quite some time. Furthermore, having a massive number of distinctly unremarkable substubs, of such inferior quality, reflects poorly on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that merely ignoring these substubs, hoping that someday, a mysterious someone will come and make them useful, and furthermore, that hundreds 'more will not be made in the meantime, is not an option in this circumstance. Rhymeless 07:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • You don't have to hope that someone will improve them; they are already useful. You seem to have the misconception that stubs are only placeholders which may prompt others to create useful articles, but are not themselves useful. But even if you knew for sure no one will ever expand the Staci Greason article, it provides the information that she was an actress who starred on Days of Our Lives from 1989 to 1992 - that's better than nothing for someone who seeks information on her, isn't it? How can that reflect worse on Wikipedia than lacking any information on a topic someone might look for? Those who don't look for it won't even see it, other than by clicking on Random page, and if that's a problem the better solution would be to implement a preferences option for a minimum article length for Random pages, and the default value could be high enough to exclude stubs like that. Gzornenplatz 07:41, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm not so sure I really follow you on this. These substubs, are like leaving bricks in the middle of the sidewalk. Sure, you could stand on them, and get a slightly better view, or carry it off and make something better of it. But it's far more likely that somebody will trip over it or kick it into the street, or simply ignore it. It's the same way with these pages. I think it's a bit of a flimsy excuse to say that these substub pages *might* help somebody, when, more than anything, they're simply in the way. Rhymeless 07:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • That analogy doesn't hold water. How could the stubs possibly be "in the way" (of what?)? If you don't care for them, just ignore them, they can't harm you. Gzornenplatz 07:59, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
              • On reflection, no that probably isn't the best analogy I've ever used, although it is 5 AM here. However, I maintain that these pages ARE in the way (if only because they are consuming an inordinant amount of various editors' time) and are detrimental to Wikipedia. I would have more problems with this template, if these substubs were not apparently the product of a single vandal/bot. It is the nature of their appearance, more than their content, that is troublesome, and would require this temporary template. Rhymeless 08:10, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
                • No editor is obliged to spend any time on those pages. You actually want to delete them or put this template on them - that is spending time. Instead you could just ignore them. How is factual information detrimental to Wikipedia? Gzornenplatz 08:22, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • The "article" said "starred" only after someone else fixed it. Also, anyone who de-contents existing articles and turns them into this sort of nonsense after repeated warnings is a vandal. So many people have done such terrific work here. Why should this person be any different? Why should we allow this kind of nonsense to stay? It's been suggested that I put these up for deletion on this page...and I've been crucified. It's been suggested that these be turned into redirects...and others revert them. Still another user suggested that a template be made because he recognized a real problem...and I find myself defending its inclusion. I've cleaned up more of these things than I can count...and I just don't want to do it anymore. I've left this project on three occasions because the frustration I feel over this individual was becoming too much to take. Now, it is jeopardizing my nomination for administratorship. Some hobby I've chosen, eh? :^) - Lucky 6.9 07:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • So someone fixed it, what's the problem then? Even if the user vandalized other articles, that doesn't mean that every article created by that user is vandalism. Articles like Staci Greason are not "nonsense". This template is nonsense. And if you don't want to clean these articles up, just don't do it. And don't take things personally, no one is crucifying you. Gzornenplatz 07:50, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Your heated demands that this vandal's articles remain would have one wonder if you weren't involved in their creation. RickK 08:27, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, strongly. The idea of putting this in an article seems so counter-productive that it's almost painful to see it exists. Either clean up the articles in question, delete them through VfD if their subjects are too obscure, or just ignore them. Everyking 12:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. normally on something like this I'd vote delete. But, many wonderful wikipedians have put in much time to fighting the B Movie Bandit in a variety of ways, this is a recent idea, we should see how it works out. If this template can save some amazing contributors a bit of time, then its worth it for sure —siroχo 13:15, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The template is absurd. But it only exists because too many people oppose other responses to this "flooding". Flooding is usually counted as vandalism on the web. Some call it denial of service attacks. It means that time and energy spent on the flood prevents normal activities. Ignoring garbage is an option only for those who care nothing about quality. Fixing up litter dropped purposely over and over and over again by someone who won't stop isn't what anyone is here for. If people don't like the template, then argue instead for quick deletion of the articles. Stop claiming that articles that are an embarrassment to Wikipedia should be allowed or that others should fix them up as fast as they come in, that those few who really know the B-movie area should have all their time taken up every day dealing with litter dropped by one editor. Jallan 15:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia to have these articles. Other encyclopedias don't have any articles at all on such subjects; they should be embarrassed. If nobody ever touched one of these after its creation, we'd still be better off than we were when we started, because we'd have a little more info than before. On the other hand, wikifying one of these articles can be done in a matter of seconds. In a few seconds more, one can add a link to IMDb. And so on. But if they are just deleted, we might never get articles on some of these subjects again, and no editors with time to kill would ever come across them to improve them. Everyking 16:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If these bother people so much, why are they looking at them? Revert any vandalism from this person, even hand out 24 hour blocks if it gets to be too much of a problem, but there's no need for a template. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:48, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
  • I really don't mind if this template is deleted. I thought it was a good idea at the time, and I knew that creating it wouldn't deter this person. It was intended as a temporary measure to alert users who might not be aware of the problem, and if it's going to cause this much contention, I'd just as soon see it gone. However, it's easy to take things somewhat personally given the kind of grief and mixed signals I've gotten over this. I tried from the get-go to reach out to this person with everything from pleading to out-and-out invective. I tried the "carrot" approach just last week, right up until the time an existing article was de-contented. Meelar has the right idea. Let's just block the range from submitting any anonymous entries. A legitimate user would sign up in a moment, and if the Bandit signed in with a user name, it could be blocked if the mischief continues. It's also a bit hard to swallow the fact that this numbskull gets a free pass to litter the site while users who try to act for the common good have to fend off attempts to stop the littering, and I'm referring to users other than myself. - Lucky 6.9 19:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • By this point I would think that all of the "is it vandalism, can we ban this range, can we use this temple" arguments have taken up more of our users' time than actually fixing these stubs would have. -Sean Curtin 01:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree. Many users have already spent a great deal of time on cleaning up, expanding and redirecting these entries and it's become extremely tiresome. At no time has this person shown the least inclination that they're willing to play by the rules. I've already fixed a countless number of these things and so have other honest users as indicated, and this hasn't been some sort of knee-jerk reaction to a clueless newbie. - Lucky 6.9 03:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • If it's tiresome, stop it. Why do you feel obliged to expand these stubs? We have thousands of stubs - why are these particular ones such a problem for you? Gzornenplatz 08:36, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I apologise for the strong language, but I'm frankly disgusted by those people who insist on keeping these, yet won't spend any of their time cleaning these up or even wikifying them. Rather, they're happy to let these sit, idle, forever, or wait until some other Wikipedian spends their valuable time cleaning them up. Bye bye any form of quality control. This isn't an argument about inclusionism vs deletionism. It's an argument about a vandal who's driving numerous users up the wall. Unless you, yourself are willing to do the work, for gods sake, put up or shut up. Ambi 03:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to cite two recent examples. Another user put this template on the Staci Greason article soon after it was modified with little more than wikis, bold face and a substub template. Twenty minutes after I left a terse note on an anon user page, the Bandit returned on the same proxy with another substub for a little-known actress named Sharon Leal. No "B-Movie" template was posted, but the only other contributions were to formatting and not content. I expanded it a bit. The point is, no one really wants to expand these things and I don't blame them. - Lucky 6.9 03:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I don't think vfd is the place for this discussion; what's being discussed here is essentially policy rather than whether an article should be deleted As to the issue at hand, hanging an ugly sign around somebody's neck seems to me to be a most decidedly un-wiki approach to (not, actually) resolving this type of situation. I agree strongly with Everyking's comments above: we must treat the articles, not the template. Consider this a delete vote, both for the template and this way of doing things. Jgm 07:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It's an ugly sign that would never have been necessary if this had not been allowed to get to this point. They're not useful contributions, he's not a newbie, and how the heck else would you resolve the situation? Ambi 08:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Why the heck are correct facts not useful contributions? Is there any precedent for deleting articles just because they're unwikified or have poor grammar? There's a lot of worse stuff on Cleanup. Why are you singling out those actor stubs? I don't see any "situation" to "resolve". Gzornenplatz 08:36, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
        • Gzornenplatz, have you actually looked through this user's contributions? I'm not anti-stub, and neither is anyone pushing for the deletion of these. Stubs are good. Sub-sub-stubs are bad. Particularly when they're en masse, every day, for months. And moreover, no one wants to expand them. So either they sit there, one badly written sentence, forever, or someone who didn't want to in the first place takes up some of their time, that could've been spent doing something useful, fixing them up. Ambi 09:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • Even if they just sit there, they are useful information. They are short stubs, but not too short. Maybe our whole "stub" terminology is a bit unfortunate. There are longer articles which could just as much be described as "stubs" because of all the relevant information that could still be added. On the other hand those actors, precisely because they are not particularly important, don't need much longer treatment. I think short entries, even one-liners, have their legitimate place. If someone has heard the name "Staci Greason" he can look it up and find that she's a soap actress who starred on Days of Our Lives from 1989 to 1992, which may be just enough information. Instead you would rather have his search turn out blank. Gzornenplatz 10:28, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
          • If you think the current stubs are useless, how exactly is adding an insult-box to each helping? They go from being tiny bits of fact that, should someone stumble across one, might eventually be the basis of an improved article to a tiny bit of fact with a major, somewhat mysterious borderline-personal-attack caveat attached, that nobody is likely to want to mess with. Jgm 11:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • A vote for deletion of this template should be seen as a means of volunteering your services toward fixing the problem with the user/cleaning Bandit entries up. Rhymeless 08:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Ambi 09:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh piffle to this. A vote to delete template is what it is: a vote not to destroy whatever use these harmless stubs might have by adding an insult to them. As others have pointed out, there are more useful ways for most folks to spend their time than fixing harmless stubs. Jgm 11:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the template, keep the articles. Clean-up/VfD/ignore the articles, as appropriate, but they're substubs, not candidates for speedy deletion, as the template says. Compare these articles with Rambot's articles on U.S. towns: they consist of a bit of (some would say "almost useless") information, they can function as a starting point for a useful article; most won't, but those don't actually hurt anyone. Eugene van der Pijll 15:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the template and keep the articles. What harm does it do to keep the articles, even as substubs? I've said this before, but if Wikipedia is headed for the rocks, it certainly isn't because of an excess of factual information. Wikisux 02:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think this template reflects much more poorly on wikipedia than any malformed substub ever could. Yes, I would be perfectly happy to wikify stubs you are unhappy with. Just have a list of them somewhere and I will occasionally fix a few. No, I don't consider it a waste of my time. (Well, no more than any other work I do here) The Steve 20:41, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm also in favor of deleting B-movie substubs but that's an entirely separate discussion. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:53, 8 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.

Dajuroka -- Add to this discussion

Non-English word dictcef. RickK 06:02, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • agreed, delete—Rory ☺ 22:00, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, even though I find things like that interesting...shouldn't be here, though. --Tothebarricades.tk 22:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Interwiki and delete. Yelyos 04:00, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not an article. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Floyd -- Add to this discussion

Originally on CSD but I don't think it fits any of the criteria. The article is fairly unecyclopedic in its current form, however a google search on "John Floyd Stanford University" gets a few hits. Although I say delete for non-notability, I know some people prefer keeping articles on academics, so here it is. Prehaps CSD needs to be expanded to allow speedy deletion of say "Very short biographical articles whose subject gets very few or no google hits"? TPK 06:30, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • This: [36] gets even fewer hits and none of them look like the John Floyd described in the article. Not conclusive in itself, but the fact that he is apparently the brother of a fictional scientist from several Arthur C. Clarke novels doesn't exactly convince. Looking at the "What Links Here", there are a large number of other individuals with the same name, maybe this could become a disambig page.--Ianb 08:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this, anyway, or make it a disambig.: This page is a description of the fictional brother of the fictional scientist from 2001: A Space Odyssey and 2010. The whole article is about the fictional guy. If anyone wants to blank it and start listing the disambigs, that would be a Good Thing. Geogre 12:29, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete fiction disguised as reality. Moderately surprised that Heywood Floyd doesn't go anywhere though. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge whatever relevant info here into the article on the book; turn this page into a disambig, since there are real people by the name (a governor and a U.S. Congressman from Virginia, an English Jesuit thelogian, and an award-winning American football player, among others). -FZ 16:22, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ozone depletion theory --Add to this discussion

This page was seemingly set up by Ed Poor to present the views of Fred Singer, a detractor of the accepted theory that CFC's are causing Ozone depletion. These arguments are WELL covered in other articles on ozone such as ozone depletion, Fred Singer and others. This page presents nothing of value to wiki and I would argue serves only to create controversy where there is none. The page should be a redirect to Ozone depletion and if Mr.Poor wants to present the views of Singer that should be done on either the ozone depletion page or the Singer page, not here in effort to confer false legitimacy and avoid the eyes of editors. Furthermore, all the main substance of the page is one big cut-n-paste from a website. --Deglr6328 07:36, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Go ahead and make the redirect yourself, it's much faster than putting the article on vfd. Ordinary editors are allowed to make redirects. I agree that ozone depletion theory isn't a very good article & a redirect is appropriate. Have at it, Wile E. Heresiarch 08:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, ok then, we'll see what happens I guess....done. Should I remove this VFD then? --Deglr6328 08:47, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, I would suggest just leaving this discussion in place so others can see what happened (otherwise the discussion just disappears off the vfd page & people wonder). This discussion will scroll off in a few days anyway. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 16:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Just archive the discussion on the article's talk page. — Gwalla | Talk 21:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • To clarify, please archive the discussion in accordance with the new deletion process which puts a link on the article's talk page and preserves this discussion page. Rossami

Revaluation of fixed assets --Add to this discussion

Huh? I assume the article is about India. Is it a copyvio? And what does that last paragraph mean? RickK 08:11, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: It's a business manual page. If it's not copyvio, it's original. We do, in fact, need more material on economics and business, but this is specialist and is addressing a specifically implied audience of specialists. It won't work in an encyclopedia, and its title is so out of the way as to be impenetrable. Geogre 12:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 19:25, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, as long as it's not copyvio. Just because it's a specialist topic doesn't mean it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (quite the opposite IMO—Wikipedia is great for looking up terms you're unfamiliar with). In desperate need of cleanup though. — Gwalla | Talk 21:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Heavy heavy smell of copyvio. Delete, probable copyvio, unreadable style. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Tough one. It is definitely an accounting text. The writing is probably too poor to be a copyvio. I suspect it's a first draft just dropped into Wikipedia. Some of the concepts are valid and are not covered in any existing article I know of. However, much of the article fails to follow GAAP (UK or US) and could create more confusion than help. The title's okay for an article. Recommend moving to Clean-up for a month or two. I'll try next week if I can find my old textbook. Delete if not cleaned up in a reasonable time. Rossami 00:14, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but do examine for copyvio. If none, it's off to cleanup for this one. Kim Bruning

European Affairs --Add to this discussion

Non-notable grouping of members of the NationStates game. There are thousands of NationStates nations, and thousands of "continents", of which this is one. There is nothing notable about any of them. Full disclosure, I'm a member of NationStates. RickK 08:18, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • looks pretty impressive, but then I have no more idea about this kind of thing than I do about Thingymon stuff. If kept, it should be moved to something like "European Affairs (NationStates)", but I suspect this kind of stuff is better off on someone's fan site. --Ianb 11:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable. We're talking about a segment of an online RPG, here. By its nature, it has no empirical realty or permanence, and by definition it is a smallish phenomenon. The article is well written, and it's quite in-depth, but if Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire were written about a fictional civilization, I'd have to vote delete on that as well. Geogre 12:19, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I have no interest either way on this particular article, but Geogre, I'm trying to understand what you just said. I assume you are not saying that works of fiction are invalid topics for an encyclopedia -- I labored long and hard on Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, and it's a featured article -- so what exactly are you saying? That we can only have articles about fictions created in traditional media and not those created by an ongoing collaboration? or what? How about Nicolas Bourbaki? -- Jmabel 17:10, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course not! Indeed, being a person who has studied fiction for a long time, I'm all for it. What I was saying was fiction is less historical than reality. A fiction that is online is less than one that has an empirical existence. Finally, a commentary upon a fiction that is online is a step beyond that. It was the sum of all three that made a grounds for deletion. If Gibbon were writing a history about an online fiction, he, too, with all of his mastery, would be a secondary work on a non-empirical fiction. Also, I was trying to say that the beauty of the writing cannot, by itself, make up for these things. It's commendable, and it makes a valuable Wikipedian, but by itself it doesn't make the topic notable. Sorry for writing so dramatically. Geogre 17:21, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Also, Jmabel, I would never say what we "cannot" have. I was only trying to explain my own reasoning for my own view. There are plenty of fictional authors (e.g. Flann O'Brien and Myles na gCopaleen, both of which I worked on) who are great and wonderful, but fictions that are created in a non-empirical way have a greater burden, in my own thinking, than those that can be instantly verified by sitting in a library. Geogre 17:35, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's true that European Affairs is based on Europe, a region of NationStates. However, it is not only the largest player-created region in NationStates, it has its own domain and server and generally keeps to itself; most actions taken in Europe have little to no effect on the rest of NationStates and vice versa. I believe that if NationStates ceased to exist, European Affairs could easily keep going without NationStates. Its general indepedence combined with its size makes it notable in my book. Goobergunch [NationStates nation] 19:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, alas. I have to say that it's one of the best articles on an absolutely nonnotable I've ever read. God bless their little hearts... Postdlf 19:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, NationStates groups are not notable. At best, mention in the context of that article. -Sean Curtin 01:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • That would be somewhat impossible to do logically, because of their isolationism to the greater NationStates community - as far as the rest of NationStates is concerned, they don't really factor into importance. Goobergunch 16:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 03:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an online group of, what, 40 people? Well, at least they don't claim to be micronations... Average Earthman 09:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, there are 561 registered users on their forums. Goobergunch 16:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I sincerely hope that you do not interpret any of this as prejudicial to the writing or the worthiness of the pursuit -- both of which I think are estimable. Rather this is meant, at least for my part, to be solely a question of whether the entity has sufficient notability that strangers to the group will be searching for information on it. Geogre 20:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete microNationState. --Michael Snow 20:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • As the person who wrote the article, I want to say first that if this was not a relevant thing, I would not have bothered writing it at all. Regarding what Rick (the person who voted this deletion) said first, he may not have noted, but this community is, together with The New Meritocracy, the only NS region which has its own server and a devoted community which has worked hard to succeed. I think it deserves to have one article. It is not only an online community. Being almost as old as the game itself, it has almost lost all ties with the game itself. I dare to say that it is a huge board of political simulation and roleplaying which has little connection with the game. -- MiguelFC 22:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It looks kinda interesting. Dmn / Դմն 01:04, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The heart says keep, but as Ianb said, "I suspect this kind of stuff is better off on someone's fan site." Alexa Traffic Rank of 3,092,175. SWAdair | Talk 08:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I find I've heard of this game.--Plato 09:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. NationState regions are not encyclopedic and neither are websites with Alexa rank of 3,092,175. Andris 09:28, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete. This may confuse people who seek to find information about historical events about European Affairs or for that matter, current events with European Affairs. This article would be far more suited in expanding Jennifer Government: NationStates. - Allyunion 09:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't have any problem in merging the article with the NationStates one. I'm only a bit afraid that members of other regions may protest. MiguelFC 12:06, 20 Aug 2004 UTC
  • Delete - Otherwise, every region in Nationstates will want to have a page. Not relevant in an encyclopaedia sense. I am also a NS player. So there. :-) However, I agree the content is good, but it belongs on their site not here. --bquanta 11:57, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

N00k --Add to this discussion

Non-notable slang term. RickK 08:41, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Non-notable. Imagine a Venn diagram: leet writers AND NationStates players AND IRC users AND "rare word." I think that pretty much gets us down to two guys laughing at their own joke from a fanfic book. Geogre 12:16, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. With extreme, extreme, extreme prejudice. This is utter crap. Ugh. Crap. Postdlf 19:21, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete — drop the bomb on this one. Extremely esoteric. • Benc • 20:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: non-notable, neologism, dictdef. — Gwalla | Talk 21:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, violet/riga 21:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Tothebarricades.tk 22:15, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Short of writing an article about my coffee mug, I can't think of how to make a more trivial article. Average Earthman 09:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutrality 02:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Bishop Dennis J. O'Connol High School -- Add to this discussion

Sole content of "article" is "Bishop Dennis J. O'Connol High School is a Catholic High school in Arlington, Virginia." Postdlf 10:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Same anon as the grade school below. Probably someone new to Wikipedia. Hate to open his or her eyes with a VfD loss, but delete for lack of notability. Geogre 12:13, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Have moved it to Bishop Dennis J. O'Connell High School since that is the correct spelling. Feel free to delete the old redirect, but I am quite shure that this school has been and is very notable to all the people attending it and working there, and therefore vote to keep the moved one. --Dittaeva 20:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Considering the paltry history given at the school's own website[37], I don't think there's really anything that could be said about this school other than the fact that it exists. Postdlf 20:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The high school I attended (which had more students) is of note to me - should I start an article for it, too? Aranel 21:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • keep—is this more or less notable than any random London railway station?—Rory ☺ 22:21, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, because I believe in deletion of non-notable high schools. See User:Dpbsmith/schools. However, discussants should be aware that there is no consensus on this issue and should at least glance at What's in, what's out: Secondary institutions if they are not familiar with it already. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article provides almost no information not in title. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems less notable than those London railway stations that have articles. One could make a similar list of every high school in the US and that would be a reasonable list article. But as with the London railway station article, one would expect most of the links to be empty and to remain empty. Jallan 13:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I think railway stations are more notable, actually—I live in Arlington County, and like the rest of its residents, I'm very aware of every Metro station, but never having gone to this school and not being an Arlington County school administrator, I've never heard of it. Postdlf 01:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Saint Joseph's Catholic Grade School -- Add to this discussion

Sole content of "article" is "Saint Joseph's is a Catholic Grade school in Herndon, Virginia. Children can attend grades kindergarten through eighth grade." Gee, sounds fascinating. Same anon author as the above nomination of a similarly notable high school in Arlington—his/her only contributions. Postdlf 10:16, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: I know that this got listed on VfD very soon after creation, and it's possible that the anon wants to come back to add more, but it's not notable, and I don't think it's going to be able to make a case for notability. Geogre 12:11, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • No no no no no. We've lost the battle on high schools, but let's hold the line on lesser grades. Delete. RickK 20:46, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. See User:Dpbsmith/schools and Wikipedia:What's in, what's out#Primary schools. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. RedWolf 03:37, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not an article. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not informative and from the little information supplied not notable. Jallan 13:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Dittaeva 10:26, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. SWAdair | Talk 08:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Korean anti Japanism -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Korean anti Japanism

USS Jebediah -- Add to this discussion

A vehicle from a single episode from The Simpsons. Geogre 12:41, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • According to the history, this thing had a vfd message added to it earlier this year; The User Contrib page of the person who first nominated it for VFD in Jan says that the discussion is in the May 2004 VFD archive, but I haven't been able to find it. At any rate, Delete for the same reason as Inanimate Carbon Rod. - RedWordSmith 18:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • (Not a vote). The previous discussion can be seen here (the next edit removed the listing). - 19:08, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
  • Do we have an article on the episode it appeared in? Merge and redirect if so. No vote otherwise. Postdlf 19:18, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hardly notable even in the context of The Simpsons. Only linked to by two description-less lists, neither of which really need even the small amount of additional information that this article provides. —Triskaideka 19:24, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The problem is that non-knowledgeable people hear these references to navy ships, and think they're real; so how do you inform them that they're not? Now when this last came up, list of fictional ships was just getting started; it would be plausible to redirect and move the content there. Of course, that's made more difficult by trying to have this article deleted, instead of simply making the redir in the first place. Stan 21:27, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this encyclopedia can hold articles vessels from Star Trek and Star Wars, it can find room for one from The Simpsons.
  • Merge and redirect to list of fictional ships. -Sean Curtin 01:45, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subtrivial. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to List of fictional ships#Television, as it's listed there already. Maybe add a brief sentence about it there. It really doesn't deserve an article to itself, but this will help anyone who for whatever reason feels the need to look it up. -R. fiend 04:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you stick it in the list of fictional ships then a search of Wikipedia would find it. We don't need articles for every single object to appear in a TV show. Average Earthman 09:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily a good assumption. I've found recently that Wikipedia searches are often really bad at finding things, and sometimes come up with articles that seems completely random. Redirects are safer, when they can be managed. -R. fiend 15:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. DJ Clayworth 15:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Note: merge and delete is not a valid option. - 15:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
    • I don't see why not. Take any useful information from this article; put it in The Simpsons; then delete this article. valid option says: "other (some other action) such as". 'such as' means that other actions are allowed. DJ Clayworth 16:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect -FZ 15:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • rename to "USS_Jebediah (Simpsons)" and change all pages pointing to it to the new page Patcat88 01:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Why? What other USS Jebediah are you trying to disambiguate it from?
      • The point is to let people know that this ship isnt real, and incase there will be a real USS jebediah (probably not), it will have its own page. Also the ship maybe used again in a future episode. Any information that is acurate should be kept in wikipedia, because if wikipedia is deleting thigns just because they dont seem significant enough, I might as well pull out my 20 parts long commercial encyclopedia since wikipedia looses its advantage of having information that you cant find in a paper encyclopedia.
        • Wikipedia ceases to be an encyclopedia once it starts accepting entries on things that are insignificant. Besides, the USS Jebediah will still be in Wikipedia, just not as a separate article. You can even find it the same way you would if it were a separate article. —Triskaideka 14:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Villa Polaroid -- Add to this discussion

A large house in the Netherlands. Not very notable, only get about 5 hits on google, and if we listed every large house in the world there would be a lot more articles.

User:Supadawg, you forgot to sign --Ianb 15:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry 'bout that. [[User:Supadawg|supadawg - Talk]] 15:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • This throws up more questions than it answers. For example, who is Rob? Never mind, Wikipedia is Not A Real Estate Directory, Delete. --Ianb 15:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, we know that Rob is not a student. I think we need to call the police and find out what Rob is doing with those 15 students. Delete. Geogre 17:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And if 15 students and Rob shows up as an article, delete that too. Postdlf 19:16, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless explained why this is encyclopedic. I agree that Wikipedia is Not A Real Estate Directory. Andris 07:44, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does it have architectural importance? Historical importance? Cultural importance? No, it has 15 students and some guy apparently only known as 'Rob'. Trivial. Average Earthman 09:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mosquitos Nation -- Add to this discussion

Mosquitos Nation 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 MERGE all content into Miskito#History and REDIRECT. Rossami 22:36, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thought this might be bogus at first; "Mosquitos Nation" gets 0 google hits. "Mosquito Nation" however, gets quite a few and they seem legit, but I think it's the same as the Mosquito Coast, though it's a bit difficult to tell. If someone who knows more about this can verify, then I think merge and redirect to Mosquito Coast is the best option. Otherwise move to Mosquito Nation and expand so its more than basically just a list of kings. -R. fiend 16:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mosquito Nation would be the people, Mosquito Coast the place. -- Jmabel 17:12, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Send to Clean Up to see if anyone can find out about the Mosquito Indians and their formation into a tribal nation. If we already have Mosquito Indians, we can almost certainly turn this to a redirect. Geogre 17:13, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • No Mosquito Indians, but there is a page for Miskito. Should we redirect this there? Or merge and redirect so we have the list of kings (basically all this page is)? This article describes the Mosquito Nation as a "state", rather than a "people", and the Miskito article mentions they had political autonomy for a time, so I think we are talking about a state here as well (and if these are Indian tribal kings why do they have such european names?). I don't especially feel like spending a whole lot of time researching this, but something should be done with this page. -R. fiend 17:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • This is apparently for real, despite the weird European-ness of the names: [38], [39]. Move or merge (but to what? Miskito monarchy, perhaps?) - Mustafaa 18:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, the Mosquito (or Miskito) are English-speakers. To this day, Bluefields is a basically English-speaking town. The Mosquito figured prominently in the contra wars, because initially they were very poorly handled by the Sandinistas and proved to be easy recruits to the contra cause. -- Jmabel 02:13, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Since the list is pretty short, and unlikely to grow, merge it as a section =Miskito rulers= or =historical Miskito state= or =Miskito monarchy= or some such (the latter two are more likely to encourage people to add info about that era), in the Miskito article, and leave Mosquitos Nation as harmless/typo protection redirect. In fact when this is over, we should probably make redirs out of every place we looked for articles about the people, the people's rulers, and the nation. Niteowlneils 22:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect to Miskito and merge. I have read about this in relation to Gregor MacGregor, who "leased" land from one of the kings for his scheme, although I am not sure whether the names are anglisized or not. This could be appropriate as a part of the =History of Miskito= or something similar. - Skysmith 10:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Note: The IP who created this is now creating subarticles for the leaders. See Oldman. When we make a decision here, we're going to probably have to make decisions about the chiefs. Geogre 17:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I noticed that and started wikifying them, as the general consensus is that al this Mosquitos stuff is encyclopediaworthy, the question is where to put it. But I think I'll wait til he's done and see if we have an idea of what exactly we're going to go with this. He's linking stuff to Mosquitos Nation, even though if nothing else I think it's established that that's a typo. His punctuation is also atrocious. A result of all this may be that we'll have to turn Mosquito into a disambiguation page, although come to think of it a note and a link on the top of that page might do the trick. Right now I guess we have to figure out how to merge this stuff and where to merge it to, and make clear the exact connection between the Miskito and the Mosquito Coast, among other things. -R. fiend 17:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks real. Merge and redirect to Miskito, which seems to be the more accepted spelling. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • See [40]. Mikkalai 22:47, 5 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.

Eploids -- Add to this discussion

doesn't seem worthy of an excyclopedia article - delete Mattingly23 16:29, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Shady-sounding promotion. Geogre 17:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ploid is a neologism and trademark, ePloid the electronic version. No evidence that either is encyclopedic, open to a change of vote if this is provided. Recent and only contribution by an IP, so probable newbie. Andrewa 19:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Eh, merge and redirect to Frito-Lay. Just make sure the mention on that page isn't an ad. Or delete; can't say I really care to know about eploids. Postdlf 19:15, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Another thing to consider is whether we want a plural form redirect, and an incorrectly capitalised one at that. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:24, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Redirects are cheap. Don't worry about that. But delete this article, please — reads like a radio commercial. • Benc • 20:23, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert, non-notable. Just another coupon-based promotion, like zillions of others. — Gwalla | Talk 21:43, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. No need to redirect. Rossami 00:22, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

San vito di caore -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

The (nearly enough identical) page exists with the right spelling (and capitalization), and this misspelled one should be deleted. Perhaps somebody created the good one instead of fixing and moving the bad one ... ;Bear 16:46, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

  • I made it into a redirect to the proper page. I s'pose if one person could type the wrong thing in when they made it, then so could another. Harmless to keep as redirect. Postdlf 19:12, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep redir. Otherwise people won't find it as a title match if they search google-style all lowercase "san vito di caore". Niteowlneils 22:24, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Eraldo da Silva -- Add to this discussion

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

Portuguese. RickK 06:34, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • A rough translation:«Eraldo da Silva, brazilian born in São Paulo, on 1967-06-30. In 1991 moved to Japan with his wife Antonia Alice de Sousa Silva. Had two daughters; Gabriela (1992) and Carolina(1995). Lives in Gifu.». I requested a speedy delete--Nabla 15:08, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
    • Sadly (in my view), useless vanity like this is not eligible for speedy deletion. I'll move it to VFD and get it out of here. -- Jmabel 16:55, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

<end moved discussion>

  • Delete -- Jmabel 17:01, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity. Geogre 17:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Vanity, delete. cesarb 02:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jacek Fredro -- Add to this discussion

Moved from Wikipedia:pages needing translation into English

  • Jacek fredro - unknown - Tεxτurε 20:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Appears to be Polish -- Jmabel 06:11, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Polish. It seems to be an article about not very widely known historical person. I don't understand why lowercase is used for the Fredro's last name... Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 06:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Standard newbie mistake, sees other pages with only first word capitalized, extrapolates a principle incorrectly. -- Jmabel 06:48, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • I copied this to pl, but now fear it may be copyvio -- Jmabel 06:59, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

<end moved discussion>

Delete - Jmabel 17:22, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • It's not in English. This is English Wikipedia. Delete. Average Earthman 09:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, don't translate -- only notability is that he was father of Aleksander Fredro, and somewhat within a family of Urszula dembinska (see below). My guess is, both are results of same person genealogical research. Przepla 22:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's had plenty of time to be translated. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Urszula dembinska -- Add to this discussion

Moved from Wikipedia:pages needing translation into English

<end moved discussion>

Delete. If translated and kept, move to Urszula Dembinska. -- Jmabel 17:24, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, don't translate as not notable. This article is about wife of member of szlachta, whom biggest achievement seemed to act as host for Stanislaus II of Poland, for few days. Przepla 22:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Myth (warez) -- Add to this discussion

Yet another incoherent page about a non-notable "hacking group." Neutrality 17:34, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. That "article" hurt my eyes. Postdlf 19:07, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: That article hurt my brain. Geogre 19:10, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • ouch; delete -R. fiend 19:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutrality beat me to making this entry. This thing is painful. Yelyos 20:03, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, MYTH is notable, at least within the warez scene. But this article is utter crap. Delete, unless someone wants to rewrite. (I don't.) • Benc •
  • Delete. Some w4r3z d00dz trying to promote themselves. — Gwalla | Talk 21:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • dElEtE. If someone wants to rewrite though, go for it. Antandrus 22:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • |) 3 |_ 3 + 3. Deletion pnwz j00 d00d. (I feel ill.) -Sean Curtin 01:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this useless crud. RedWolf 03:39, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Michael Snow 20:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow. The SWEDISH HEADQUARTERS is in Sweden. Hüdathunk? Delete. Denni☯ 00:55, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
  • Comment. Myth are probably one of the most notable of the 'warez' groups out there. Perhaps there could be a page on Warez groups, or similar? Darksun 19:42, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Darksun, this is a notable group; it's simply a bad article. Clean up and keep. — Dan | Talk 01:13, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tomed Incident -- Add to this discussion

From vfD:

From looking at the article, you would have no idea that it's about a fictional battle from Star Trek. Encyclopedic? No. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 18:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect—there has to be some page on Star Trek or Romulans or something that this could go in. Postdlf 19:06, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Mike Storm beat me to making this listing. Geogre 19:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect somewhere. Some trekkie will know which of the thousands of more legit Star Trek articles this most pretains to. I sure don't, but it should be a more specific link than to Star Trek. Postdlf may be on track with Romulans, but I wouldn't be surprised if it could be narrowed down even more. -R. fiend 19:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason this shouldn't be a separate article. - SimonP 00:20, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Sean Curtin 01:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless pseudoinformation. Another one for the fan sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. From what I've found, I believe the best location would be in the Romulan section of The_Neutral_Zone. As far as the TV and film versions of Trek go, at least, it is only mentioned briefly, as 'something that happened decades ago which is why we're in this situation today', in a episode or two, mostly as a plot device, so I really don't think it needs its own article (it may be covered a bit more in one Trek book, but I don't know if we want to start down that road). The one ep I'm sure it's mentioned, just for the record, is The Neutral Zone (TNG episode), but it would be hard to work this material in intelligibly--it can be made to flow into the Neutral Zone article fairly smoothly--I may be able to take a run at it in the next couple days. Niteowlneils 02:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - what is it with these fans and their wittering? If we do have to keep it, can we at least change the name to show it's fictional source - e.g. Tomed Incident (Star Trek)? Average Earthman 09:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect- it's something that people might search for, wanting to know if it's a real event, a major fictional event, or a throwaway line, since it's referenced in multiple shows. -FZ 16:00, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect: It's a major event in the Star Trek mythos, but they've never given us more than breadcrumbs of information as to what actually happened in the Tomed Incident. --Golbez 21:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge in Romulan (History#24th century) and redirect. Very little is actually known about the incident, certainly not enough for a separate article. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge somewhere. Vague information, little of it - not important enough for a separate article.--Ouro 13:02, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Wreck -- Add to this discussion

Seems like a pretty non-notable band to me, and their description as a "beginning" band makes me think they're not out of the garage yet. When your name is as common a word as "Wreck" you get tons of google hits even when paired up with several other words, but none seemed to be this band as far as I could tell. Googling all together: -Wreck band Roeselare Belgium- came up with a few hits, none of which were these guys. -R. fiend 19:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable garage band, probably not even gigging yet. — Gwalla | Talk 21:47, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sub-radar and pretty near subliterate, even for rock writing. Geogre 01:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't find anything on them either. Antandrus 05:26, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete musical vanity/self promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I redirected it to List of shipwrecks as that's what I would expect to find at an article called Wreck. Gdr 15:56, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
    • Clever. That should work well. -R. fiend 23:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Interesting solution. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:31, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect. Or delete the page (to remove the band promotion from the history) and recreate the redirect. Andris 09:32, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Nibby -- Add to this discussion

Nibby: vanity slang / neologism. --Ianb 20:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, for the reasons noted by Ianb. • Benc • 21:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. slang neologism used by a grand total of two people. — Gwalla | Talk 21:48, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: We're not going to advertise their site for them, or invite them over for Thanksgiving dinner. Geogre 01:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yuza Asif -- Add to this discussion

NPOV problems, and it just... seems wrong (especially with the tourism advertising link). DS 21:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, file on cleanup. "NPOV problems" is not a valid criterion for deletion: Wikipedia:Deletion policy lists "Article is biased or has lots of POV" in the "Problems that don't require deletion" section. The article is stubby and requires wikification, so cleanup is the place for it. With regards as to whether there is such a belief, there appear to be a nontrivial number of people who believe this, and the matter is discussed in a number of published books, including Jesus' Tomb in India (ISBN 0895819465), Saving the Savior: Did Christ Survive the Crucifixion? (ISBN 0895819465), and Jesus died in Kashmir (amazon.com). The name Yuza Asif, or a variant of that spelling, appears to be common in this context. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Should be moved to Yuza Asaf though. Then inlude a NPOV or clean-up message. Yardcock 22:15, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, and link from Bible conspiracy theories and, if I recall rightly, Erich von Daniken (or was that Moses that he thought went to Kashmir? Whatever.) - Mustafaa 17:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I found it pretty interesting... wikipedia seems to be the place for this type of stuff.
  • Keep. Just needs expanding.
  • Keep, although the speculative nature of the article should be made more clear.
  • Keep. This is a legitimate article!

Peter Crampton -- Add to this discussion

Vanity article, non-notable figure. Geogre 22:15, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, a member of the European Parliament seems potentially noteworthy, but there's almost no useful information on this page. If there's really nothing significant that can be added then I'll agree it's deletable. Or if there's some sort of list of members of the European Parliament then perhaps redirect there. -R. fiend 23:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, parliamentarians are encyclopedic. - SimonP 00:12, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, or else we'll also have to go through and dozens of articles on U.S. Congresspeople, Australian and Canadian MPs, and etc. Stubmark and cleanup as appropriate. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:23, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ambi 03:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, keep, but still I would like to think this can be made more informative, or at least less trivial. SimonP's addition of the years served in Parliament were already a substantial improvement, but this stuff about where he had a summer internship to me seems pretty pointless. But then again I really don't think this article is worth much effort on anyone's part. -R. fiend 04:16, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Sure it can, and most likely will -- that's the way Wikipedia works. "It could be better" is not a reason to list a page on vfd. Oh, and keep, clearly. Jgm 06:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the important bits (since he actually won an election to a reasonably significant body) - should also note which party (Labour I believe). The rubbish (i.e. everything but the first line at the moment) can be deleted. Average Earthman 09:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I strongly suspect this Peter Crampton and the former MEP Peter Crampton are not one and the same person. The MEP Peter Crampton was born in 1932 and I don't think European parliamentary pensions are that dire that he needs to take up a traineeship at a bank. Also note that the original poster seems to have deleted the MEP reference. I also added the vfd notice. --Ianb 17:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Ianb 17:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: I've nothing against an entry on the MEP though. --Ianb 18:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Yep. I was wondering who was hallucinating, me, when I nominated it, or the folks who were keeping it. When I nominated the article, it was a college kid's vanity. Then I saw that this was an MEP? I was stunned that the article didn't originally indicate that. I think your explanation, Ianb, is the best one. There is a kid now upset that we're making him an MEP and a MEP who hasn't needed an internship. We are, therefore, at a jam. We don't need to disambig a vanity article from the MEP. I suggest that we make a new MEP article by a different name, go ahead with deleting this, and not redirect, as there isn't much point in that. Or do redirect, but be prepared for our college friend to come back and change the MEP article some more to make it "accurate" to him. Geogre 17:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I notice, alas, that the MEP is known only as "Peter Crampton" anywhere I've looked, so we can't make him unique with his name and will have to try Peter Crampton, MEP or similar. I placed a "Disputed" tag on the (now back to vanity) article & left a comment on the talk page for our new user. Geogre 17:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Well that explains alot. I was wondering what the hell the deal was with these internships. Can't we just make this an article about the MEP, restoring that part and deleting everything about our college friend? That's basically what Average Earthman and I were suggesting, unbeknownst to us. Clearly it will be a substub, but the consensus has already established that MEP's are notable. If it gets reverted again I'm sure some admin will give him a warning, and a temporary ban if he persists. -R. fiend 17:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article seems to be quite confused about which Peter Frampton Crampton it's about. An article about the MEP would benefit from starting over. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the vanity. Keep the MEP. If theres not MEP info, then delete the article entirely. Stbalbach 02:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep with the MEP information only. If any other Peter Cramptons of minor notablity appear they can share the page. Any non-notable Peter Cramptons later added can be deleted from this page by any editor. Jallan 14:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Turn this into an article on MEP. Either by rewriting it or by deleting vanity article and creating a stub on MEP. Andris 11:50, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

El Guapo -- Add to this discussion

If we're erasing the article on CAT TOWN, we should probably erase the article on a specific character thereof. --Ian Maxwell 22:55, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I voted keep on CAT TOWN, but this certainly does not need a page on its own. —siroχo 06:56, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable cat from cat photo gallery. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we are going to have an article on El Guapo, it should at least acknowledge that it was the name of the villain in The Three Amigos (movie). Klanda 07:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    That's where I remember the name from! Thank you! -- Cyrius|✎ 07:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Three Amigos (movie).--Samuel J. Howard 02:22, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
which article I have created and which talks about the popular character El Guapo.--Samuel J. Howard 03:46, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree, this article is best as a redirect. Keep Samuel J. Howard's changes. • Benc • 03:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since I've now come across three distinct uses for the name "El Guapo", I've converted the Three Amigos redirect into a disambiguation page that describes and provides links for each use. (While I was at it, I also fixed a bunch of multiple redirects involving the El Guapo and Three Amigos pages.) — Jeff Q 10:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


List of fictional people who were cremated -- 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.

Since this was never officially closed...The result was no consensus ~ VegaDark 03:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional people who were cremated

Don't see the point of this list at all, and it's hardly got any names listed anyway. The List of people who were cremated (linked to from cremation) doesn't even exist. violet/riga 21:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete Is List of fictional people who were delivered by caesarean section next? RedWolf 03:43, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I created both real people cremated (and populated it) and fictional caesarean sections (MacBeth is notable for this). On the original question Keep.--Samuel J. Howard 04:50, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • None of the reasons given are valid for deletion. keep. Jgm 06:52, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Marginally fringe. Fuzheado | Talk 08:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merged into List of people who were cremated. Redirect. -Sean Curtin 09:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the merge&redirect -FZ 16:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful information. And add the female character from Waugh's "The Loved One" whose name I cannot recall, but remove Tolkien's Denethor - he was obviously burned alive. --Gene_poole 23:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Borders on trivia, but so does every single article about Star Trek other than Star Trek. -- Jmabel 01:40, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Silly trivia, but perfectly factual and potentially useful to the Ken Jennings wannabes — or someone investigating cultural attitudes toward the practice of cremation as seen in literature. (Yeah, this may be a stretch. But keep nonetheless.) • Benc • 03:55, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not necessarily trivia either. Someone may find it useful for research purposes. Sjc 04:07, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete No! No one is going to ever need this information. No one will ever need to find a list of fictional cremated people. No one does a research paper on pop culture views towards the use of cremation. It seems like an excuse just to make another wikipedian article. Acsta 21:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually an old AFD from 2004. It would be best to post this on the current AFD. --64.229.73.113 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streetstudio -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Non-notable, created by Clay Enos, who has been advertising himself and his website all over Wikipedia. [[User:Supadawg|supadawg - ]] 22:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • He was plugging himself inappropriately but he also made some legitimate contributions, as I noted in reporting his vandalism. I went through all the edits and cleaned out the junk. I thought about listing this article on VfD, but the "Press" section of the website suggests that the project of going around NYC photographing thousands of people has gotten enough attention to be notable. That's why, after some dithering, I settled for a Cleanup listing instead. Tentative keep. JamesMLane 23:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Borderline keep. At first I thought it was just a commercial site plug, but it does seem to have gotten some attention. Sometimes we must remember that just because someone does promote themselves, does not necessarily mean they are not "notable". I agree with JamesMLane's cleanup idea. Antandrus 01:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: I know nothing of the user, but he has succeeded in getting Google hits outside of WP, and there are Internet art sites that are talking about his work, whether he staged the discussion or not (many of the references on Google are separate links to their site, and then there are blogs). Very much on the edge. Geogre 01:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clay Enos is famous enough to warrant this coverage. I know he's annoying at times, top artists often (not always but often) are. Andrewa 03:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Hi all, Clay here, I am amazed at this whole thing. I had no intention to vandalize but rather to contribute something I know something about. It is a start for me. I am new to this wiki process and have no intention of being an ugly self-promoter. It seemed to me, that creating a link without reference to it was foolish. Live and learn. Streetstudio succeeded in making the largest portrait collection of the people of New York in the history of New York. That is worth something, No? If I have made errors in style, I appologize. I look forward to gleaning further insights from all of you. BTW, Streetstudio is a total loss. It is not a business, it is a work of passion and had broken my bank to the point where i was in serious debt.
  • Notable, worth an article. Keep and cleanup as suggested above. Jgm 06:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's still self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete There are internet sites talking about all kinds of very unnotable people. "Largest portrait collection of the people of New York" sounds like a Guiness world record stunt. A fun thing to do, but there are tens of thousands of such unique doings. In evaluting one should discount obvious promotion. If someone wants to save some of he information in another more general article that would be ok. Jallan 14:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

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}} ~~~~

[[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=5228122"