Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004

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

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

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

• Kept
• Deleted per the deletion policy
• Sent to cleanup
• Merged and/or redirected to an existing article
• Transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or Wiktionary)

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

Current votes - 31^st 30^th 29^th 28^th 27^th 26^th

Old votes - 25^th 24^th 23^rd 22^nd 21^st 20^th 19^th 18^th 17^th 16^th 15^th 14^th 13^th 12^th 11^th 10^th 9^th 8^th

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 26

Sitting (redirect) -- Add to this discussion

Delete redirect so List of seating styles can be moved here (see previous discussion). — Gwalla | Talk 01:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Redirects for Deletion go on the RfD page. Kevyn 02:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Phelsuma laticauda laticauda images -- Add to this discussion

It simply displays an image (Image:Phelsuma_l._laticauda.jpg) already included in the article Phelsuma laticauda laticauda--Nabla 02:14, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

• Delete. Somebody must've misunderstood how image pages work. — Gwalla | Talk 02:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. Nice picture, though. Fire Star 16:49, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Max Darvell -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable lecturer. Google gives 9 hits for "darvell hellyer" [1]. Diberri | Talk 04:33, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Vanity or random professor. Academics need to be just a wee bit more than breathing to be encyclopedic. Geogre 12:49, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable professor. — Gwalla | Talk 17:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Who he? PedanticallySpeaking 20:28, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

CMSbuilder -- Add to this discussion

• Danish-language ad for non-notable CMS product. Was on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, but all this needs is deletion. I gather that neither it's being an ad nor its being in Danish make it a candidate for speedy deletion, but I can't imagine a reason not to delete. -- Jmabel 05:08, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons above. Andris 07:27, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Yes, delete, do not translate. It's a nice ad without the yucky professional marketingspeak, but still totally an ad. Bishonen 15:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I speak Danish, and this article is 100% ad. Delete! Thue | talk 21:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

International House of Prayer -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable church full of non-notable people. Did love the disclaimer, though. RickK 08:36, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Hmmm...a church connected to the pancake industry...now that might be notable... -- Ferkelparade π 08:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • if so don't forget to create List of Churches associated with the pancake industry. --Ianb 10:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • and dig the third entry of these results: [2] --Ianb 10:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • St. Alphonzo's House of Pancakes/Nanook the Eskimo -- Frank Zappa -- Help I'm a cop! Geogre 12:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • IHOP-KC also has no connection with Kentucky Fried Christians
• pray for tasty filling, delete. --Ianb 10:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a legitimate organisation. -- Necrothesp 12:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• It is a legitimate organization, but it is not an exclusive one. The title is, apparently, not stable or referring to one thing. The article does not take into account that "International House of Prayer" is a name, not an organization. I can show you 3-4 of them that have no knowledge of or relation to each other. Delete. Geogre 12:47, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • In that case, should probably be renamed, but not deleted. -- Necrothesp 12:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • If it were notable, yes. We're not the Yellow Pages. Geogre 14:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • So, which religious organisations/churches are notable, in your opinion? Once again, this is immensely subjective. And nobody said we were the Yellow Pages or anything similar - that's carrying analogy to extremes. -- Necrothesp 15:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • We really ought not use VfD for debates, you know. I have and continue to offer my own version of "notable"'s definition. Again: a) Is it so famous that people know of it outside of its immediate real life context (e.g. people outside of this town)? b) Is it a thing that people will have heard of outside of its type (e.g. people not in the religious community)? c) Is it an exemplar of its type (e.g. the perfect or singular HOP of all the churches...the first, the biggest, the one that threw bricks at an abortion clinic)? d) Is it something more logically discussed in a larger article (e.g. would an International House of Prayer about all the various churches by that name be logical)? In this case, it's no, no, no, and not possible. We have to have notability, or else we list every legitimate business/organization, which does make us the Yellow Pages. Geogre 16:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. -- Necrothesp 08:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Legitimate but not notable. Btw this vfd is the funniest thing I've seen all week. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Is there a link from the disambig IHP that needs to be deleted??? JFW | T@lk 16:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, but move hilarious disclaimer to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense . [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• If notablilty can be established I'd like to see this one kept. We have articles for comparably sized groups from other religions, Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, for example. If the other organization mentioned on the page, Friends of the Bridegroom is large enough (I've looked at their website, they seem to be an at least well-funded local Kansas City, Missouri group) then perhaps it can still be a worthwhile article. I have left a note for the creator of the article on his talk page to that effect. If they don't want to follow up, then it will probably go. No vote as yet. Fire Star 16:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Unfortunately it's not so much a matter of notability, seeing as there are many religious affiliated organizations with this name. There's no reason that this specific one should stay. TheFed 19:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Nothing has changed in the time since I left the note. Too bad, whether the founders of the sect did it on purpose or not, the name is amusing. At this point I'll put in my vote to delete. Fire Star 21:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Geogre's Lemma (sure sounds like an article to me) convinces me that this is a waste of WikiSpace. Now if you could get take-out, it might be another thing, but my vote is to delete. Denni☯ 21:34, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename. Reduce ambiguity and keep content
• Delete. Postdlf 05:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It is entirely unique among anything happening among at least Protestant Christian circles, in that it holds prayer services that are well-attended (100-1000 people at each meeting) 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is a reemergence of laus perennis which surfaced from time to time in Catholic monasteries throughout the past thousand or so years. In terms of the definition of notability definition offered above by Geogre, for (a) Is it so famous that people know of it outside of its immediate real life context (e.g. people outside of this town?) - the answer is yes - they hold conferences about every month and draw 1000-1500 people to each of them, the overwhelming majority are from outside of Kansas City, with many coming internationally. Every year at the end of December they hold a larger conference that draws 10,000-20,000 young adults, again from all over the country and world and has increased in size every consecutive year it is held. As for (c) " Is it an exemplar of its type (e.g. the perfect or singular HOP of all the churches...the first, the biggest..." It is the first and biggest of a relatively new movement of independent organizations known as an "International House of Prayer" or a "House of Prayer of [enter city name]" all with the intent of growing to sustain a 24/7 schedule of prayer services. 65.28.104.107 06:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

GaneshaLMS -- Add to this discussion

323 Google hits for "ganesha lms". For comparison, Moodle gets 288,000 hits, Dokeos still gets 7,200 hits (Moodle and Dokeos are both linked from Managed learning environment, where the article's author also added GaneshaLMS). Seems rather non-notable to me... -- Ferkelparade π 12:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising and not substantial project. Geogre 14:49, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Ad. JFW | T@lk 16:06, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete the wikispam. — Gwalla | Talk 17:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Move or Rename: non-notable for english people, sorry if I misplaced the article, this article maybe placed in French Wiki cause this lms is a french project (that's why google doesn't list it on "lms", btw try [this search] or [this one] (with "software" instead of "lms") and you may see it's quite used (16,000 hits). Didn't know that the importance of a Wikipedia subject depends on his google popularity. Sorry.
• Keep: If you are going to compare google hits you better use anonymous users links. Similarly it's learning is a norwegian lms that is used by probaly 50% of lms users in Norway. Googling for "it's learning" lms will give you 287 hits (incl. dups.), while "it's learning" site:no will give 7730 hits (incl. dups). The entry could need improvement and perhaps move, but the way it is now it is quite factual and small, certainly wont improve if its deleted.--Dittaeva 11:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good Game -- Add to this discussion

A rather silly entry, speedied before but the (newbie) user recreated it. So on behalf of their opposition to its deletion, I list it here. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:21, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) — further note to the newbie, we're not trying to bite you :)

• Useless dicdef, delete. It's in widespread use, but I suppose everyone who ever hears it will know what it means. (and if there's any need at all for the definition, it should be an additional entry in GG because that's what people not familiar with the phrase would be searching for) -- Ferkelparade π 13:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Why would anybody even look up "good game"? And what kind of article could possibly link to it? Livajo 14:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Dictdef. Livajo, the answer to the first one is unknown. The answer to the second makes me shudder. ("Today, in the news, Canada had five more top 8 finishers by per capita GDP, in what was unquestionably a good game in women's freestyle curling.") Geogre 14:51, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictdef, pointless. — Gwalla | Talk 17:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I added a short entry to GG, (its pretty common practice to have very short dicdefs on disambig pages, to avoid confusion), delete now. [[User:Siroxo|—siroχo

—siroχo]] 20:16, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Are we running a dictionary or an encyclopedia? If we have a list of abbreviations, then move it there. PedanticallySpeaking 20:27, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Wiktionary redirect. That way the newbie is happy... at least his stupid entry is somewhere. -- Allyunion 22:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Right to Read -- Add to this discussion

The Right to Read 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 17:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), this article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

---

Belongs on wikisource, not here. -- Bonalaw 14:02, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep preamble (and mark as stub). Move story, in all its intense and oppresive rubbishosity to wikisource. GWO 14:07, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• transwiki, but to wikibooks or wikisource? I would have thought the former. Insignificant work, do not make stub. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• transwiki the bulk, but keep an article on the story, as I feel it is notable. Darksun 14:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Geogre, what is the prose equivalent of doggerel? No vote. Vote below. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki; not sure that we need to preserve much notice of what the story is/was, as Stallman is very active and information on his attempts at fiction can be included in his article. Wile E., I think the term here is "hackneyed." I don't mean to comment on the man's aims, but the prose is, well, kind of hack. He's not an author, though, so no penalty for not being to do everything well. (People don't try to do denistry without going to dental school, but everyone thinks he or she can write; that's why writers are rarer than dentists.) Geogre 14:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, the purpose of the story is political, not literary. I'm still not convinced that the story is sufficiently notable to merit storage in Wikisource but that is someone else's problem. Redirect The Right to Read to Richard M. Stallman and drop a short blurb there. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki story to wikisource, merge and redirect remainder to Richard M. Stallman. — Gwalla | Talk 17:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Certainly we need stuff on how copyright functions in the real world, but this isn't the place for a short story. I can see some useful material in this, but in this form I'd vote to Delete. PedanticallySpeaking 20:25, Aug 26, 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.

John S. Rhodes -- Add to this discussion

Doesn't appear notable. -- Grunt (talk) 14:58, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

Delete. Owning a blog and a little dot-com business does not make one Wikipedia material. Livajo 15:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Vanity. Delete. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity. Geogre 16:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete TheFed 19:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As Harold Ross constantly queried his writers, "Who he?" PedanticallySpeaking 20:21, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

List of routines -- Add to this discussion

This is a "list of routines" that currently contains only one. What need is there for a list like this? What other possible things could be added to it? And dance routines are certainly not unique to the Para Para style of dancing. This should be deleted, and maybe some information on dance routines in general can be added to routine. Livajo 15:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Agreed. Delete - DavidWBrooks 16:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Could be all dance styles, plus comedy routines plus programming routines etc. DJ Clayworth 16:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless, title gives no indication of what it would contain. — Gwalla | Talk 17:29, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fraser Papers -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Just an advertisement and a link to a company website.—Rory ☺ 17:13, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

• This company is part of the Canadaian S&P/TSX index (formerly TSE 300). I am attempting to add all the companies on that index. I was using categories instead of a list. If it is more appropriate to make a list then I apologize and please let me know. --YUL89YYZ 18:34, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

To clarify: I couldn't tell if this company was notable so I decided to list it here and see what other Wikipedians think. The best thing you can do is to make it clear (here or, better, in the article) what makes this company notable. Is it particularly big or old? Does it hit the news regularly? Is it known to people who aren't local or in the industry? When I listed this it was basically just a link, so I couldn't judge.—Rory ☺ 18:55, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep: As written now, it establishes the company as a major commercial concern and a significant presence in the world. Geogre 02:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added several facts that I think make it notable, and am working with the newcomer to try and avoid such misunderstandings in the future. It is a publicly traded company, which, in my mind is notable enuf, but it is also on what seems to be the equivalent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, plus has some 'firsts' within its industry. Niteowlneils 14:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the policy here. I'm convinced of it's place now that the article has been expanded. Can I simply remove the listing or does it have to stay here all week? Is it enough to just remove the {{vfd}} tag?—Rory ☺ 18:37, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

• • There are cases of "early removal," but those have to be kind of exaggerated cases (someone nominating George Washington or something. Just remove the VfD tag and let it sit. No one's going to delete the article without a loss of vote, and I don't see the votes coming. Geogre 21:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. But I've replaced the VfD notice. It should only be removed if the vote is closed early, which seems appropriate in this case. I don't think there's any problem with the nominator doing this if there are no votes to delete outstanding. I do think there's a problem with having an article listed here but no VfD notice. Andrewa 05:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Shard 05:53, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why? Andrewa 06:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox!! Livajo 17:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. The title already is POV. Gzornenplatz 17:19, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe that Michael Moore is the most loathsome, deceitful and traitorous worm on the face of this or any other planet. That being said, delete this enormous and raving POV rant. It's completely unsalvageable. - Lucky 6.9 17:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Although there are flaws in the movie, and this article discusses them, it presents the facts in such a way as to imply that Fox news does NOT have biased reporting. This is the network that could not win a lawsuit to award the network the rights to the phrase "fair and balanced" and which was was "laughed out of court" when it tried. This article needs so much work to bring it to Neutral Point of View, that is would be more fruitful to start with the stub: "Fahrenheit 9/11 was a movie. Because of it's nature it is always shown in the dark"Pedant 17:35, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
• Delete. As well as the POV problems already pointed out, I'm fairly certain I've seen this before, and it may be a copyvio. - Satori 17:39, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• note: Original source here says "You may also photocopy the full text of this report if you give it away for free." (note this text isn't the unencumbered summary mentioned on that page). Thus, unless Kopel submitted the doc itself (of which there's no indication), this is incompatible with the GFDL. So this should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. — Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Not a copyvio because it comes from here [3] where the author gives permission to copy (though a lawyer might want to argue about some of the restrictions). However it is massively POV. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, but salvage a link to the original page, and put that link on both the George W. Bush page and on the John Kerry page. We shouldn't loose the ability to find this valuable and heretofore unknown information. KeyStroke
• Delete. There is already a link to this worthy essay from Fahrenheit 9/11. In context, this page is merely a sophisticated form of Kidi Wiki—done with no understanding of what Wikipedia is about. I bet we all have a couple of papers that we would like to upload verbatim into similarly earth-shaking and inflammatory Wikipedia titles. :)) — Rednblu 18:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. POV rant, inflammatory title. — Gwalla | Talk 18:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. POV rant. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Binadot 18:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. My eyes! The goggles, they do NOTHING!! Way too long, POV. Terrapin 19:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP. It's only telling the truth! — Crevaner 19:03, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for alerting me. Now onto scanning for POV every one of your edits you've ever made. Terrapin 19:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • If truthfulness was the only criteria to keep, 95% of the VfD'd entries would be kept. POV, copyvio, Delete. Plutor 19:48, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• oh boy is the right-wing US establishment good at indoctrinating its people. delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• POV, poorly written, non-encyclopedic, and an inappropriate title on top of everything else- delete. -FZ 20:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's not telling the truth! (POV, advocacy, polemic, not notable, borrowed fame.) Geogre 21:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete please. Fire Star 00:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• But it's only telling the truth! Just like "The world is flat" and "Saddam Hussein is a very nice man." Delete this POS POV POS rant. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 00:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) PS, surely it qualified for being a speedy as patent nonsense
  • Comment: Nope, the definition of patent nonsense is quite specific. This article is a very good example of bullet two of the section "not to be confused with". It may be irredeemably POV and therefore deletable but it does not qualify for a speedy. Rossami 02:19, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely not patent nonsense. Go to the special pages, then New Pages and look at all the new articles written by IP's. It won't take you more than :20 to see what "patent nonsense" is. Don't get me wrong: this article is untrue and definitely POV and someone trying to get us to host a political polemic, and there's no way anyone but a hardcore ideologue with no regard for our policies would support keeping it, I think (sorry if I insult anyone in the process, but I really think this), so it's a more of a slam dunk of a loser on VfD than the slam dunk of WMD in Iraq, but it's not patent nonsense. Geogre 02:38, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. LegCircus
• Delete. This is certainly interesting, but is completely biased from the beginning and worst of all, is almost completely unreadable, a solid wall of text. I agree with others, put the external link on the Fahrenheit 9/11 page. Saint will 21:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not only is there already an external link on the Fahrenheit 9/11 page (see Fahrenheit 9/11#Articles about the film content and accuracy), but that article also has an overly long section going into great detail about a host of attacks that have been made on the film (Fahrenheit 9/11#Controversy about the film's content). In fact, that section goes into so much detail that it should probably be spun off as a daughter article. Regardless of whether it's moved or not, it covers the subject area in approximately NPOV fashion, with pro- and anti-Moore editors having contributed to it. The "59 Deceits" piece, by itself, is not so outstanding, amidst the torrent of criticism of Moore, as to warrant a separate article. JamesMLane 12:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:11, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Perhaps somebody should also look at Bush_family_conspiracy_theory Wodan
• Delete. for good reasons given by JamesMLane. Also, could go in Wikisource if copyright questions were adequately addressed. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:11, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete before I have to kill someone. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 18:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. One of the most obvious examples of raging POV I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Not fixable, since its POV is its whole point. Antandrus 19:13, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Total rewrite required (delete). As much as I disagree with many of the points, and the views of the person who wrote it, I do think Wikipedia should have an article on the essay. It seems to be of some significance. As an example, Swedish student organization tied to the liberal/conservative party (depending on who you ask) has translated the essay into Swedish and published at http://www.finn59fel.com/. It is being pushed heavily now and has been noted in some media outlets (some negative, others positive). Including the whole essay in Wikipedia is definitely not acceptable though. David Remahl 19:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with JamesMLane's rationale given above. -- The Anome 07:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andrey Budko -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable outside of 30uv1441, which itself passed VfD only by an inch. Fredrik | talk 18:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete -TheFed 19:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Thue | talk 20:55, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Reasoning? Not notable, and I refuse to compare him to the kid with the backward baseball cap at the local arcade who impresses Homer Simpson so much. Geogre 02:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Night is Darkening Round Me -- Add to this discussion

The Night is Darkening Round Me 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 17:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), this article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

---

Just a paste of the poem. Move to Wikisource -Vina 20:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Transwiki. Now the article has been blanked. Wish that weren't so. It's by Emily Bronte, so a welcome addition to Wikisource. Geogre 02:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• It's still in history.... -Vina 16:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I restored the text (no reason to blank it). Move to wikisource.

---

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.

Herzl: Speech by Rabbi Samuel M. Stahl -- Add to this discussion

c&p dump of a speech with no context, formatting etc. ; orphan page. Wikisource material? --Ianb 19:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I don't see any notices that the text is reproduced with permission, so I have listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. But otherwise move to wikisource. Thue | talk 20:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Floccinocinilihilipilification -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

• Oh god this entry pains me. First, it's a dictdef. Second, it's one of those made-up words that nobody actually uses except to say "Look! I know a long word!" Finally, it's not even spelled right. Delete. RSpeer 20:22, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Googling it, the dicdef doesn't seem to be right. Fx [6] says that it really means "the act of estimating as worthless". So I will floccinaucinihilipilificate the article and say delete :P. Thue | talk 20:41, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Your reference is correct. I remember checking this in the 1960s. At that time, the word was found in the OED but not in Webster's New International (Second edition, of course--the one without ain't).
• Delete. Dictdef substub. — Gwalla | Talk 23:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I'm nominating this for speedy deletion because not only is is a dicdef, it's the wrong dicdef, and it's spelled wrong (the proper spelling is FLOCCINAUCINIHILIPILIFICATION.

Kevin Rector 23:15, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

• Could redirect to Floccinaucinihilipilification but I don't object to the redirect being deleted. Angela. 23:45, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Figuring out what to do this this one is easy, folks. Redirect to Floccinaucinihilipilification, on which we already have a good article (as well as a good one on Longest word in English. I'm off to do it now... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) It appears someone beat me to it. Am I about to get an edit conflict? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Yep. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 01:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep redirect. Andrewa 06:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Robert N. Cronk -- Add to this discussion

First American born in 1924 (although if you read his autobiography on his web site he says he doesn't know for sure), non-notable; first American born in a century, maybe, but not first every year. Everyking 20:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• useless trivia, delete.--Ianb 20:33, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable (hospitals, midwives aren't required to estimate birth times to the second). Trivia. Delete. Terrapin 20:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivia -67.42.143.188 22:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivia and unverifiable (even if midwives had to estimate birth times to the second, they couldn't possibly have all had synchronized clocks). Livajo 23:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivia, vanity. Not apparently notable for anything besides the timing of his birth, which is unverifiable. — Gwalla | Talk 23:09, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. That category they want to put him under doesn't exist, either, but to put him under it is pretty presumptuous. RickK 23:22, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page of a nobody. Arminius 00:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Describing him as a 'nobody' is pretty cruel, but Delete. -- Necrothesp 09:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. anthony (see warning) 14:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --Dittaeva 11:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Margaret Theodora -- Add to this discussion

Apparently notable only for being the daughter of someone whose name is not given and the grandmother of someone else who is listed for deletion. A bit thin on useful information. Deb 21:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. RickK 23:21, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Substub and no notability even pretended to. Geogre 02:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Deb, your matter-of-fact nomination is the best laugh I've had today. Delete. Bishonen 14:45, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

List of Presidential Places -- Add to this discussion

No Idea, just found it. -guety is talking english bad 21:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Cleanup and expand? Looks dead now, but definately encyclopedic. Terrapin 21:20, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Hard to tell. Do they mean birthplaces? Or just any place associated with a President of the USA? Keep, cleanup, probably move to a better title. — Gwalla | Talk 23:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• The article says there are 358 of them, but doesn't define what they are. This would be a mighty large article if there are going to be 358 lines like the one for George Washington. Delete. RickK 23:20, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Sigh. This article was, I believe, the result of the very, very, very young person who was tossing in highly local Delaware/Pennsylvania material. He put in a couple of stubs about Washington, I think, and someone, out of kindness, made this article to contain the results, since people didn't like being mean and crushing the newbie. I say delete. First, I think lists serve virtually no purpose in an encyclopedia. Second, this is a stub that would become bigger than the ocean if truly filled out, since we'd be talking about all presidents, from Polk's home in Chapel Hill, NC to Jimmy Carter's nuclear submarine, on. Geogre 02:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Not to mention that there are lots more Presidents than just the American ones, and there are other kinds of presidents besides national presidents. Way too vague. It's like a provervial List of fallen sparrows.--Samuel J. Howard 19:12, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, and DELETE(D).--Samuel J. Howard 19:13, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As a list, it should have at least five items. -- User:Docu
• Delete - the near-identical List of George Washington Presidential Places was deleted back in July. This should follow it. It's had almost two months of existence without being fixed. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 13:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mardukh -- Add to this discussion

Advert? Google shows 540 hits. -Vina 21:36, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Advert. — Gwalla | Talk 23:14, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: band vanity. Geogre 02:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Body of Myths -- Add to this discussion

This seems to be a vanity page. It's an orphan, and is a lengthy description of works by an author who seems to be unpublished. Google turns up only a link to Wikipedia, and a duplicate of the Wikipedia entry on wordIQ. Seems to me like Wikipedia isn't the right place for descriptions of the work of unpublished authors. DavidSky 22:05, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• literary vaporware, delete. --Ianb 22:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Sigh. Delete. At least it isn't linked to a page about the author. RickK 23:15, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete ad for unpublished fantasy series. — Gwalla | Talk 23:16, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• "the first book, Nocturnal Bodies, is set to be published in 2006" well, come back in 2056 when it's an acknowledged classic of whatever genre it purports to a be member of. -- orthogonal 01:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• "Literary vaporware": Thank you, Ianb, for one of the best phrases in a long time. Delete. Geogre 02:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Scott Jarkoff -- Add to this discussion

Looks like vanity. Maybe his page is worth an entry, but not the guy himself. Caught this when the redirect jark was created. --Shibboleth 22:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Upon further examination, probably not vanity but users from his page writing up an entry about him. The site looks pretty large and probably shouldn't be deleted, but I still think this guy is not important enough. --Shibboleth 22:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Much as I pity anyone stuck with that name, not notable. -- orthogonal 00:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: His family is 33 years old? Per nomination, page might be worthy, but not the person. Geogre 12:43, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• His site's rather well known and dissevering of a few lines, but the person? I think not. He's, frankly, not encyclopedia material at this point in time. Perhaps in 10 years if deviantART is still around, but for now, we don't need this. Merge anything useful and delete. -- Bobdoe 23:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

thats like saying the telephone is worth an entry but not alexander bell

Untitled

from VfD:

Not sure if this is really notable, or someone's attempt to highlight a specific family. A google search only returns a few hits. If it is notable, maybe a merger of the entries from the listing of the separate families? -- Allyunion 22:32, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't know what you were searching for, but many of these people are famous Romans, notably Mark Antony. This page is linked to by many others dealing with ancient Rome. I assume such a family tree would be useful to scholars of the era. --Shibboleth 22:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable family. See Scipio for a list of members of this family: there are at least 10 Scipio's with their own article. Eugene van der Pijll 22:57, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. Notable family, certainly. But shouldn't the image page be used for this? — Gwalla | Talk 23:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • No. The image pages are not a part of the encyclopedia, so the image should be included on some page in the main encyclopedia. And there is no other page where it would fit well, as it describes three families (each of which have their own article) in one tree. Eugene van der Pijll 23:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep then. — Gwalla | Talk 01:28, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Highly notable. James F. (talk) 23:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Pjacobi 23:43, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Very helpful in undertsanding Roman Republic. -- orthogonal 00:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. But someone should write some text summarizing the most important people in this chart--with Wikipedia links to larger articles, such as Scipio, as Eugene van der Pijll suggests above. I suggest moving this page to Wikipedia:Pages needing attention--with a summary of what should be done to make a good encyclopedia article. The graphic could be smaller on the encyclopedia page with a thumbnail so that someone interested could look at the full-scope of the chart by clicking on the thumbnail. ---Rednblu 01:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree with the cleanups suggested above. This is one of the two most important families in Roman history and, with a slight difference or two in battle outcome, might have been the most important. Geogre 02:55, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that there should be links on the page to the more notable members of this family -- and frankly, there isn't a single member who isn't worth at least a paragraph. Smerdis of Tlön 13:41, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Very useful in understanding the relationship of family to the chain of Roman history. I found this page while researching the Cornelii and the various Scipios.
• Keep. We need imagemaps for family trees like this. Gdr 15:12, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
• Keep. FoeNyx 00:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Cape Ramirez -- Add to this discussion

Google's never heard of this tequila-based cocktail. [7] Diberri | Talk 23:51, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

• Transwiki and delete. -- orthogonal 00:55, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Unverifiable. There is a cocktail called Ramirez, but I've never heard of Cape Ramirez and can't find anything that doesn't suggest the article is a hoax. The instructions, which were moved to the talk page, were copied straight from Margarita. Angela. 02:00, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, if it's just a margarita. Geogre 02:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, if not proven to exist. Andris 07:35, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it! Angela - you are right I copied the margarita recipe because I'm new here and was having a real challenge learning how to format it properly so I just copied that entry but you'll notice that I replaced the content with the correct ingredients and a slightly different instruction. Looks like this stuff is gone from the page now? Somehow already deleted? I don't understand! Regarding the other critiques, yeah, not on the net but it is becoming well known among bartenders, especially in New England. So my description was a bit silly but the drink itself is what a ton of people are consuming, I wonder if it is the next Mojito... Winchee

And it's great that you're contributing! But it's not really encyclopedic. -- orthogonal 04:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - unverifiable, not to mention POV. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Untitled

From VfD:

This should be on a grand list of Beethoven's list of works, rather than having it a separate entry --Allyunion 00:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to a page with a name something like Beethoven (Chamber Music), as you suggest above. I notice that many of Beethoven's works have a separate page, such as Moonlight Sonata. I agree with you that the piano trios do not deserve a separate page. But as you suggest, we should move the text to a page with a name something like Beethoven (Chamber Music) leaving a redirect instead of deleting. ---Rednblu 01:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that a few works, such as Moonlight Sonata, if given enough detail to its history, etc, might be a notable entry, if it can be expanded as such. However, two Trios are not notable enough to warrant its own page. -- Allyunion 04:39, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to a list of Beethoven's chamber works. If they can be expanded in the same way as the articles on his symphonies, they can be broken out again. — Gwalla | Talk 01:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • On second thought, keep. User:Camembert's argument is persuasive. — Gwalla | Talk 22:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Wait a sec. We seem to have quite a few articles on popular music albums by contemporary "artists" (...Baby One More Time, Oops!... I Did It Again, Britney, In The Zone, No Strings Attached, Celebrity, Raising Hell, Straight Outta Compton, Doggystyle, 2Pacalypse Now, Strictly 4 My N.I.G.G.A.Z, Thug Life: Thug Life Vol. 1, Me Against the World, All Eyez on Me, Makaveli: The Don Killuminati: 7 Day Theory, Tupac Resurrection, ZZ Top's Greatest Hits and many, many more) and even individual songs (Hey Jude, Strawberry Fields Forever, Penny Lane, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Blowin' in the Wind, Space Oddity, Smoke on the Water, Grooveallegiance, Who Says a Funk Band Can't Play Rock?, Promentalshitbackwashpsychosis Enema Squad (The Doo-Doo Chasers), Into You, Girls Just Want To Have Fun, Smells Like Teen Spirit, Bridge Over Troubled Water (song), Rapper's Delight, and many many more), but one of Beethoven's best known works should be merged with all his other works?

Understand that a single Opus represents at least as much work as a contemporary album -- and much more work than most individual contemporary songs -- , and will be listened to with delight long after many of the albums (not all!) that we dignify with articles will be wholly forgotten.

• Keep. -- orthogonal 00:26, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

<<[(Lots of popular music albums] and many many more), but one of Beethoven's best known works should be merged with all his other works?>>

Yes. That is right. That may be the price of admission to Wikipedia, Madison Avenue, the Age of Republicanism, the Twenty-first century, and beyond.  :)) ---Rednblu 05:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If lovin' Beethoven is wrong, I don't wanna be right. ;) -- orthogonal 07:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Decumanus 02:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Having studied music, and a little of the works of Beethoven, these trios aren't really notable in themselves, unlike articles such as Moonlight Sonata, Minute Waltz, Blue Danube Waltz, etc. which document well-known pieces which have gained notability in their own right. Merge into something more useful. All the article says right now is that they're in more-or-less standard trio form. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 05:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm rather surprised that people are suggesting it isn't possible to write articles on these pieces - it's quite clear to me that it is possible. You can write about the history of their composition, the circumstances of their premiere, you can give a quick analysis of the structure, thematic material, an overview of recordings... besides which, we already have many articles on specific pieces (Piano Quintet (Brahms), Piano Quintet (Schumann), Piano Quintet (Shostakovich), to just mention a few piano quintets) and I see nothing wrong with that. Of course, at the moment the article isn't especially impressive, but we don't delete articles just because they are stubs. The problem with this particular article, if problem it is, is that it combines in one article two pieces which ought to each have an article of their own; as they were published together, however, there's bound to be a certain amount of common history, so I see no harm in having this article as well as ones on the individual pieces. --Camembert 13:11, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, there is too little information on the Piano Quintet (Brahms), Piano Quintet (Schumann), and Piano Quintet (Shostakovich) pages that you cited; separate pages with so little information misses the real opportunities here. Such little sprinklings of information about many pieces would make sense if covering several pieces on one page, if organized, such as chronologically, around several concerns in the composer's life, and if covering some span of the composer's scrutiny of life, creativity, and the void. Hence, with only that little sprinkling of information about each piece, it would be better to merge that little sprinkling of information on those pages into something like the following three pages--that would grow as Wikipedia contributors find sufficient information to fill out the details.

+++Chamber music (Brahms) describing briefly also the Brahms piano quartets [pnm://rm.content.loudeye.com/~a-600111/0676330_0104_07_0002.ra] (at least as much fun as the thicker Piano Quintet (Brahms)), together with the Piano Trios, Violin Sonata, and even the piano duets

+++Chamber music (Schumann) describing briefly also Schumann's piano quartet [pnm://rm.content.loudeye.com/~aa-600111/0082247_0105_07_0002.ra] which is more fun to play than the quintet, songs with incredibly richer piano accompaniments and more fascinating accompanying stories than the quintet, and solo piano works that have much more interesting things to note about them than the kind of description that is on the Piano Quintet (Schumann) page

+++Chamber music (Shostakovich) describing briefly also Shostakovich's piano trios and wonderful solo piano music [pnm://rm.content.loudeye.com/~a-600111/0689736_0101_07_0002.ra] often in the background of which you can hear the absent string accompaniment which Shostakovich never got around to putting onto paper.

I suggest the real question here is the following: Are you satisfied with the amount of information on the Piano Quintet (Brahms), Piano Quintet (Schumann), and Piano Quintet (Shostakovich) pages? If you are not, then the information on those three pages and many similar sparse pages should be merged into something like the three above "Chamber Music" pages. For all of the above reasons, I conclude that this Beethoven Piano Trio page should be Merged into a Chamber music (Beethoven) page what would contain a little sprinkling of information about each of Beethoven's string trios, woodwind quintet and octet, [pnm://rm.content.loudeye.com/~bb-600111/0152391_0101_07_0002.ra] piano quartets, songs, and delightful musical jokes! Beethoven's piano sonatas and string quartets should get their own pages Piano sonatas (Beethoven) and String quartets (Beethoven) respectively. Furthermore, if you look at the String_Quartet_No._13_(Beethoven) page, you will see that the most beautiful seven minutes of music ever written is buried in a Wikipedia page of misinformation and clutter that misses the dramatic story that could emerge from even the little sprinklings of information about many pieces in the context of a String quartets (Beethoven) page. We have to start sometime to organize this wonderful information to be useful to readers. And I say that merging this Beethoven Trio little sprinkling of information to a useful page is a good place to start doing the right thing in Merging the little sprinklings of information about many pieces into appropriate pages to be useful to the Wikipedia readers. (Until the Wikipedia server-side process is fixed, please copy and paste the URL: addresses that do not work above into the address window of your browser; thank you.) With all due respect, very truly yours, ---Rednblu 16:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

• Keep. Have a look at List of works by Beethoven and you'll see that Wikipedia's little group of classical music editors is slowly filling in the gaps. Antandrus 02:58, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm fascinated. The fact that they were written by Beethoven is plenty of justification for regarding them as encyclopedic. The fact that they are referred to by a single opus number is plenty of reason to combine them into one article (although it would be OK to have two articles, too). Oh, and I've replaced the stub notice, I can't see any reason it was ever removed. Either. Andrewa 13:42, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep decent stub. Beethoven is sufficiently notable that articles on individual works are reasonable to have, and it is reasonable to hope that such stubs will grow. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it's important and old could be expanded maybe rhyax 06:04, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Principality of Minerva -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Undocumented group. Redundant article content. The only evidence of the "principality" is 1 "under construction" web page. The valid article content already exists at Republic of Minerva, which also already includes reference to the "principality". --Gene_poole 01:11, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect to Republic of Minerva. Actually, I'll go ahead and do that. — Gwalla | Talk 01:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with redirecting. Since George Cruickshank, the emperor of Atlantium, a "micronation" that exists largely as a website, is trying to delete the entry for a rival "micronation" that exists largely as a website... does that make this a declaration of war? Nagurer 04:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Disregard: Invalid sockpuppet vote.--Gene_poole 04:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice try, George. However, I imagine the rest of us remain unconvinced. :-) The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 21:05, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) (PS, merge/redirect)
    • "The rest of you" obviously need to learn how to read a little page known as "user contributions" [8] in that case.--Gene_poole 23:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep redirect to Republic of Minerva. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Anon IP User:153.9.253.10 restored page, so I restored vfd notice. Redirect when comes off the top of vfd. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I agree with the redirect. Note, this isn't a micronation thing, this is related to the attempt to create an actual sovereign nation in international waters, and one that sparked action from a nation to stop it, rather than someone declaring their bedroom has seceded. Average Earthman 22:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Republic of Minerva, and it looks as if there's a little material that might be merged too. Andrewa 13:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and do not ridirect. The Prinicpality, a historical entity, is different from the Republic and it looks to me like each deserves it's own article.
  • that post was 14:10, 1 Sep 2004 User:SeekingOne; to that user, please sign your posts with ~~~~. The "Prinicpality" as you call it is related to the Republic, and is already mentioned there. Your grammar is as bad as your spelling, btw :). Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Oops... sorry!  :-) --SeekingOne 13:02, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
• As the author of the original Republic of Minerva Wikipedia article, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that some spurious group is trying to resurrect this micronation. I would request that the original article Republic of Minerva is maintained with the footnote about the Prinicpality, because that is all the Principality is - a footnote in another story. OT, I'd also like to write an article on Oliver if anyone can supply some detailed info. - User:Patronus
  • Comment: I seriously doubt that the "Principality" is a group - unless it's a group of 1. As I stated in the deletion notice, it belongs as a footnote within the Republic of Minerva article - unless some 3rd party documentation comes to hand to prove otherwise.--Gene_poole 23:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge As the author of the existing Principality page, I feel it is important to clarify that from my discussions with inidviduals (yes, more than one) representing the Principality as it is today, they are quite serious about the project, and have had discussion with venture investment groups, representatives from the Kingdom of Tonga, and with Michael Oliver himself - founder of the former Republic. It is my suggestion that the page remain, afterall, this is an open encyclopedia, the goal of which is to document all types of knowledge, and the Principality is a legitimate subject. However, may I suggest that if it is removed, it should be more than simply a footnote on the Republic's page. I should also note that the webpage that is up currently is not simply one under construction page. It's quite interesting, actually.
  • Comment: I am a Political Science student who studied "micronations" for a thesis project last semester. I studied some of the small nations in the Lesser Antilles in the Caribbean, and also came into contact with the Sealand group, as well as Michael Oliver and by connection the folks with the Principality. So, what you mean by "third party documentation," I don't exactly know, but there is more than one person involved in all of this.

end moved discussion

Third party sources

Could you please sign your posting! If you conducted interviews with Oliver and those allegedly associated with the new "principality", it would be great if you could you provide them as references/footnotes to the article. From everything I've heard Oliver is totally elusive, so if you've spoken with him that would represent quite an informational coup.--Gene_poole 00:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Principality of Minerva

I suggest that, instead of redirecting, there should be a separate page for "Principality of Minerva", with appropriate cross-links.

Contrary to some of the assumptions made in this discusion, the "government in exile" is a very real group, consisting of several people who seem to be quite knowledgeable, serious, and purposeful -- neither a mere footnote to history nor a "spurious group" at all.

These people held a number of discussions with Michael Oliver, who is now in his eighties. According to them, at least, Oliver wants nothing further to do with the project and does not want to be identified with it in any way, but otherwise has no objection to their claim nor to their plans.

I, too, thought the "monarchy" thing seemed a bit silly, until it was explained that some of the diplomatic and political efforts they plan are simplified and expedited by having a permanent head of state - one who is not subject to internal political changes (altho very much subject to removal for cause). They view the change of governmental form and adoption of a new Constitution, as well as the transition from Michael Oliver and Bud Davis (the elected President, whom Oliver "fired"), as a "peaceful revolution". Continuity is important to preserve the original territorial claim, which relied upon the legal concept of terra nullius (land owned by no one).

Calvin (who will not disclose his last name) and his associates are proceeding very deliberately, albeit cautiously, with a number of steps to pursue the goal of actually establishing the new nation, via appropriate means -- mostly political and judicial, as well as entrepeneurial (and, as far as I can tell, not military).

The group is currently located in the vicinity of Charleston, SC. Calvin, a fairly young man (early twenties), is American born, and intends to retain his American citizenship. He is currently doing post-graduate studies in pursuit of a J.D. degree, majoring in international law.

Incidentally, the monarchy is NOT at all hereditary. The deputy regent, Prince James, is unrelated, and none of Calvin's own family members holds office in either the government or the Parliament.

The regime is rather new, celebrating its first anniversary last October, I believe. Their website is much improved, now, and there is a separate one for the "liberation movement" - which now has at least one college chapter, with another forming in my area (Long Island, NY).

---

Now, who am I? And how do I know all this? Well, I have a radio weekly radio show ("Long Island Liberty, with BAM", Tuesday afternoons on WUSB 90.1 FM Stony Brook, NY). While searching for new material, and recalling the Minerva incidents from the past, I did a Google search and discovered the new group's existence. They responded favorably to my email request for an interview.

On December 7th (an appropriate day, if you think about Tonga's invasions!), I interviewed HRH Prince Calvin, the "Sovereign Prince" of Minerva on the air, for over an hour. I also had two lengthy telephone chats with him, prior to the show, as well as some detailed email with him and two other staff members.

I feel that I should, however, apologize for two things:

 1.  As a "newbie", I'm sure that my edits to 
 the "Republic of Minerva" web page were 
 not up to the highest standards of Wikipedia.
 (I took to heart both the encouragement given
 in your intro pages and the expectation that
 experienced hands would watch, intervene, and
 correct as neccessary.

 2.  Perhaps I should have, somehow, disclosed
 my rather tenuous "connection" and the fact 
 that I am not quite a "disinterested party".
 (But I didn't see any way to do so.)

 In fact, I have become very supportive of their 
 effort.  Also, my family has just decide to make
 a contribution to the relief effort for tsunami 
 victims in nearby nations, via Minerva's new fund.

There is somewhat more to be said about all these subjects (including some of the new information now on the minervanet.org website). Since I doubt that I would have the time to do the editing myself in the near future, (and also since I am not really sure how detailed or succinct the ideal definition page should be,) I'd be more than willing share the additional background information I have collected on this and some related sujects.

Sincerely,

 -/bam/-

EMAIL: bam@tripodics.com

P.S. "BAM" is actually my initials, but my Wikipedia name is "Tripodics" -- which is defined as "the study and programming of automata (tripods)." (See http://tripodics.com/about/tripodics.html for an explanation of the origins of that word.)

Megan Solis -- Add to this discussion

Megan Solis 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

Article about a 12-year-old who lives in Vancouver, B.C. Sorry to say, but she is non-notable, & apparently is everyone else mentioned in this article. (Although I'll admit I wouldn't dare list Vancouver, B.C. here. ;-) -- llywrch 03:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. Third time I can remember I have ever protected a page: someone keeps removing the VfD notice, as if that will keep the page from being deleted. (No, I'm not reversing my opinion about the page.) -- llywrch 23:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. —Stormie 04:01, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. — Gwalla | Talk 04:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. SWAdair | Talk 04:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• This was already deleted by myself (when it was posted by an anon), but now that the user has a username, why not simply move it to User:Msforever55? She already has a copy of it on her talk page, and was probably acting on Grunt's helpful suggestion to create an account so she could have her bio on her userpage (see User talk:154.20.118.177). Methinks she meant to put it on her userpage, but if it isn't moved I support deletion. -- Hadal 04:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, as she can move the matter from talk to user pages and this is now a relic. Geogre 12:47, 27 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.

Johnny_Swift_And_The_Mince_Pies -- Add to this discussion

Johnny Swift And The Mince Pies 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

Is this really useful?

03:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)202.180.83.6 03:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. —Stormie 04:01, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 04:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity/promotion. All ten web hits are Wikipedia and mirrors. BTW, does anyone know if the way freeglossary.com hides the Wikipedia attribution is legit? SWAdair | Talk 04:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • looks very illegit and a candidate for an entry on Wikipedia:Copies_of_Wikipedia_content_(low_degree_of_compliance) --Ianb 07:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Ianb 07:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Band vanity. Geogre 12:48, 27 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.

Stephen Cheung -- Add to this discussion

Stephen Cheung 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

Non-notable, self-promotion: a 17-year-old who knows how to use Photoshop. -- llywrch 03:41, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. —Stormie 03:50, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity -TheFed 04:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, with or without the penis. Poster is avoiding a block set by me (he was spamming his RPG site). He also has a history of furtive self-promotion (see [9] and [10]) under several IPs, and has created another article to further promote himself and his site (the same one he was spamming). Please note however that the penis stuff was added by another user in an apparent act of vandalism, but User:Pusher seems to disagree with its removal (perhaps he didn't look at the page history very closely?). -- Hadal 04:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, non-notable, possible vandalism, block evasion. Photoshop is a "difficult program"? — Gwalla | Talk 04:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Lacrimosus 09:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC).
• Delete. Below par for a young-person vanity article, should at least contain hospital of birth and details of immediate family members. --Ianb 09:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Continue banning every IP he shows up at. Geogre 12:50, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Save I'm doing a report on him. User:152.163.253.37 23:05, 27 Aug 2004
• Delete --Gmarine3000
• Delete. Indeed there is another Prof. Stephen Cheung 張仁良 which is quite well-known in Hong Kong. But I don't bother to write about him. --wshun 13:40, 31 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.

Ball (baseball statistics) -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

This article should be merged with Baseball statistics. -- Allyunion 04:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with you, so Keep article as per your request. You are not asking for a deletion, but for a merge and redirect. There is no need to list here: What to list and not list on VfD. Simply merge them yourself and redirect the page (#REDIRECT Baseball statistics) yourself. Davodd 05:15, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexdasilva47.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I think it's worth noting that intentional outs (sacrifice bunts) are also not included in either the numerator or the denominator of the formula.

---

From VfD:

This article should be merged with Baseball statistics. - Allyunion 04:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with you, so Keep article as per your request. You are not asking for a deletion, but for a merge and redirect. There is no need to list here: What to list and not list on VfD. Simply merge them yourself and redirect the page (#REDIRECT: Baseball statistics) yourself. Davodd 05:15, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

I beleive there are several additional uncommon ways to reach base safely that affect OBP such as catcher's interference while in the batters box and possibly fielder's interference in the basepath. Reaching 1st on a strikeout is like reaching on any other error, but I beleive reaching on catcher's interference may count differently with respect to OBP. Unlike an error where the batter would have been out, catcher's interference awards first base to a batter punitively. It is more similar to a HBP than an ordinary error and probably count's towards OBP in the same way.

Also, I forget who has the right of way in the basepath but I think the order is 1. The ball, 2. the runner, 3. the fielder.

Barry Bonds

Bolded him as an active player because he has not officially filed retirement with the Commissioners' office or MLBPA, and intends to play this season.Bradenkeith (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Steroids Asterisk

I think all references to Bonds need to be annotated in some way to show that his number were chemically enhanced w/ steroids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapered (talk • contribs) 06:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. In fact, please show records without Bonds. Recommend showing Bonds' stats in a footnote but restrict tabular record in body of article to exclude Bonds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.43.21 (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted the previous editor's deletions of a number of players' records from this and a number of other baseball lists. There is no consensus for such a radical alteration of the statistics, nor should there be, at least unless organized baseball actually decided to alter the record books. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Errors and OBP

There is something wrong with the OBP with regard to fielding errors. The fielding error counts as an AB, but the runner reached base. Why is it that the OBP penalizing the player by recording the AB but not including the fact that the player is on base? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.190.51 (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is weird. I thought ROE was included in the numerator of OBP. 68.231.148.116 (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• • According to Baseball Reference, ROE or Fielder's Choice counts as an AB (and not an H), therefore does in fact penalize the batter. see http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/On_base_percentage] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.242.74 (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Statistical Incinsistency

The OBP statistics referenced herein do not agree at all with the official OBP statistics at mlb.com. This glaring inconsistency should at the very least be addressed. Ty Cobb, for example, is credited with a .4330 OBP by the referenced list, good for 9th all time. Yet according to mlb.com, he has a career .424 OBP, good for 7th all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.66.20 (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I see Ty Cobb shown with a career .433 OBP at mlb.com; see [11]. BRMo (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Baseball assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:On-base percentage/Comments (baseball), and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Has a meaningful amount of good information. Needs references for some of the information presented in the article. Not yet illustrated (although I'm still unsure as to how one would illustrate On-base percentage). I'll work on it some and ask for an outside re-assessment. --SimpleParadox 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Eddie Gaedel

I think it’s important to note that Eddie Gaedel has the highest OBP of 1.00 49.180.155.184 (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

A player with one lifetime plate appearance in MLB is inconsequential to the game and does not merit mention here. Mindmatrix 11:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Photography as an art form -- Add to this discussion

Looks like a copyvio, but Google turns up nothing. No internal links. Looks like someone's school essay. I don't think there's anything worthwhile here. grendel|khan 05:38, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

• Delete. Fuzheado | Talk 12:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: No original research, although this is very, very well written (suspiciously so, perhaps). Geogre 12:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Send to cleanup, I think. It seems like a valid topic. I continue to find that Wikipedia searches are sucky, but I figured any decent article on this topic would contain the word Stieglitz and Google searching in Wikipedia on Stieglitz didn't turn up any real pay dirt, so I think this is the only article we have on this subject. Someone already linked it in the Photography article. I can't think of any better title for such an article. I dislike this article intensely. For starters, it doesn't mention Alfred Stieglitz. Or Pictorialism. Or F. Holland Day. It is written in an "original research" style and is at least 80% original reseearch. And, yeah, I wonder about its being a possible copyright violation. But I still am thinking X-Treme cleanup, not deletion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I didn't see the Bauhaus folks (Moholahagy Naggy, whose name I just butchered, e.g.) or "The Defining Moment," etc., either, but I wasn't looking that hard, because I was looking at it in terms of original research. Geogre 15:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, me, I don't know boo about the history of photography or photographic aesthetics. On thinking some more, what's needed is so much cleanup, as replacement with a good stub. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)BTW did you mean "The Decisive Moment" as in Henri Cartier-Bresson?? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • D'oh! I'm sure I messed up the Bauhaus photographer's name, too. (Kicking brain.) Geogre 21:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Aha. Duncharris has noted in the History that he removed a signature — a name — from the foot of the page. The article was originally signed "Arnold Perey, PhD". Arnold Perey's doctoral thesis in anthropology was about Aesthetic Realism, and a Wikipedia user Aperey did the posting, first as anon IP, see article History. OK, we can surely take it that Dr. Perey both wrote and posted the text, so it's not copyvio. But it is original research, maybe from his thesis. Bishonen 16:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• A dissertation that was reviewed and its author awarded a degree is certainly more peer-reviewed than most of what is in here. I haven't really looked at this, but I'm guessing there should at least be material worth mining. Maybe he can move it to his user area & start mining it? -- Jmabel 22:24, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but what's needed is a straightforward presentation of the whole subject, not a personal examination of selected aspects of it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and make less essay-like. -Sean Curtin 00:20, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • How? Sean, you need to give some vote here. Either keep it all or send it to clean up or merge & redirect or delete. I'd almost like to see it go to a kind of Wikisource staging area. It's good, but it's not encyclopedic. Geogre 22:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It isn't now, but it's got the bones of a good article. -Sean Curtin 06:08, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge what little information there is with photography and delete—this is little more than the intro to a personal essay at present, and it's a topic that needs to be included under the main photography article. Little use as a redirect. Postdlf 22:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete personal essay. Rossami 22:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: personal essay. But the author should be encouraged to write something other than an essay on this topic. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)Wile E. Heresiarch 14:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Duality of Screaming -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable zine written by "two anonymous Australian teenagers". RickK 06:39, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Lacrimosus 09:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC).
• Delete: Advertising. Geogre 12:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, advert. Just about anybody with a Kinko's nearby "publishes" a zine; they're notable if they're influential, but not otherwise. — Gwalla | Talk 01:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, and not doing a good job being anonymous. -TheFed 05:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is swamped with junk. Wetman 09:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Children's Own School -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Non-notable Montessori school. RickK 06:43, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

• For Montessori, 1920 is pretty old, pretty close to the origins. Very close. Abstain for now. The article doesn't quite give enough notability, but it's really close. Geogre 12:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to clean up to see if further research improves it. User Allyn will keep working on it, so this should be kept. Geogre 12:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• What are the guidelines for listing specific institutions? I see other schools listed here. Perhaps I am out of line in submitting this article for a specific school?Allyn

Schools are a constant bone of contention, Allyn. The best indication of this is Wikipedia:What's in, what's out where you'll see a distinct lack of consensus, particularly about high schools. For primary schools, there's general agreement that the school has to be notable in some way.

This seems borderline. It was perfectly OK to be bold and submit it. Nobody minds your submitting it.

Now we're trying to figure out whether it's notable enough to keep.

The most helpful thing you can do is try to do a little more research that might add a few more reasons why this school is interesting enough to deserve an encyclopedia article. As I understand it, there was a small wave of Montessori schools in the late 1910s and 1920s, then a sort of hiatus, then a resurgence in popular in the 1960s and thereafter. Do you have any idea how many Montessori schools there actually were in the United States in 1920? You might also say where you learned that Dorothy Gove knew Maria Montessori; assuming this is verifiable, it's of some interest. Finally, http://www.griffinmuseum.org/hist_photos/history_10.html shows "a selection of historical photographs" and there is one of "Children's Own School, 96 Main Street. Now the Montessori School. Home of James William Russell, Russell Farm." Is the building itself interesting? I'm confused by the statement that the "Children's Own School" is now the Montessori School, assume that's a mistake and that it was always a Montessori school that was always named the Children's Own School.

Any famous graduates?

Now, I don't want you to work terribly hard trying to improve an article only to find out that it gets deleted anyway, but... if you know the school and live nearby, have you thought about taking a picture of it to put in the article? All images have to be released under the GFDL, which is easy if you take it yourself and relatively hard if someone else has taken it... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep LegCircus
• Response Thank you for the suggestions. I do have a question, though. If I were to do additional research, how much time do I have to make any changes before a delete vote is taken? The school is in Massachusetts and I live in Oregon and I have to do things long distance. This was my childhood school when I was raised in Massachusetts. I am going to have to make some calls next week and ask some questions. I am also going to try to have a friend snap some e-pictures for me to put up on GPL, but those won't be ready for a week or so. I am not sure what my best course of action is. Can I ask that a vote be suspended until I make improvement, or should I volunteerly delete it myself now, but make another article when I am ready; if so, I don't know how to do this as I am fairly new to Wikapedia's authoring. Thank you. --Allyn 04:28, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Allyn, our basic issue for any item is whether or not it is notable enough to be in a general knowledge encyclopedia. We're all over the road on this, of course, because we're a wiki. Some things get overlooked, some are deemed notable by enough folks, etc. The best thing for you to do is to keep "notability" in mind with this article. I think it's part of the first wave of Montessori schools, and most of those did not survive. It might be even more notable, however, if it wasn't an early Montessori, if it was a notable educational philosophy of the New England area (and there were many). For your researching, your best bet is probably to e-mail the current librarian at the school, or archivist, if there is one, to get some of the legends and history of the place. So far, people are abstaining or voting to keep, so you may not be up against just the 5 day limit. Geogre 22:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, trusting Allyn to improve the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Request removal I have found out that I don't have enough time this week to do further research and try to get someone to snap some e-pictures. Can I request that this article be removed and that I will write a new article with additional research whenI get back from a trip out of town next week? --Allyn 05:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Allyn, that can create as many problem as it solves. I'm changing my vote to keep on the basis that a Wikipedian (you) is going to work on improving it, and I recommend some time on Clean Up. Geogre 12:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Template:Dartmouth-vfd -- Add to this discussion

Delete this. Aside from throwing gasoline on an already incendiary issue, it is wildly inaccurate: Non-notability is an already established fact? substub? Should be merged? Give me a break. There is no need for this. Kevyn 07:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• It's a joke that has not been used on any articles, Kevyn. There is a Templates for Deletion page, I think. If it's deleted in 5 days, that should be fine, since the Dartmouth Flood ought to be over by then anyway. Delete. (No, I had no hand in the template in any form. Don't do templates.) Geogre 12:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is was being used [12], which is why I didn't just ignore it. Kevyn 14:20, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Remove it from Dartmouth Ski Patrol ASAP, and Delete in VfD timeframe. Niteowlneils 14:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It's still on Dartmouth Ski Patrol, where it is indeed wildly inaccurate, as that article is far from being a substub. This is what creating joke templates leads to: somebody else is going to think it's even funnier to actually use them. Delete. Bishonen 09:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • So at least two people point out that it is being used on an article but neither removes it? WTF? anthony (see warning) 14:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• unnecessary, all Dartmouth College articles now sorted out. Shouldn't templates go on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion? Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:45, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sorry, I wasn't aware of the existence of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion until now. My apologies for listing it in the wrong place. Kevyn 06:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. RickK 19:31, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Care to elaborate, or are you just trolling? anthony (see warning) 14:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete -- Jmabel 22:26, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete when no longer being used on any articles. Angela. 00:49, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Replace with regular VfD template wherever used, then delete. Not likely to be useful in the immediate future, as the assignment is over. Do not move to BJAODN, as it isn't funny. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No need to promote more bad feelings. Should really have been listed on TfD though. — Gwalla | Talk 02:01, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yup. Should have been listed there. My bad. Kevyn 06:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, it should have been listed on TfD. But I'm not wanting to quibble. We've wasted enough time on this. Andrewa 14:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

keepVagrant 21:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Multiplayer Gateway -- Add to this discussion

"Multiplayer gaming community", founded this month. I propose to delete this as non-notable. Andris 07:06, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable,advert,unencyclopedic.--MaxMad 07:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another forum. --Ianb 09:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: No advertising, and we are not a web guide. Geogre 12:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, advert, Wikipedia is not a web guide. Just another gaming forum. — Gwalla | Talk 02:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rodney Dickens, Lauren Grandcolas, Steven D. Jacoby, Mark Bingham -- Add to this discussion

Rodney Dickens, Lauren Grandcolas, Steven D. Jacoby was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikimemorial. As of 17:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), this article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

---

9/11 victims who did not do enough during their lives to warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia. Transwiki to wikimemorial and delete. --Jiang 09:18, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Necrothesp 09:39, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki to memorial & delete. Geogre 13:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Mark Bingham. He was one of leaders of the attempt to take the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania back from the terrorists. After the events, his name was in the newspapers and TV quite a lot. Transwiki the rest to memorial. Andris 13:32, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Andris: Mark Bingham stands outside the other victims for being identified as one of the passengers who rushed the cockpit on Flight 93. Geogre 15:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Bingham, no vote on the rest. Everyking 17:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Bingham—the media had quite a bit about him specifically. Didn't bother to read the rest, so no vote. Postdlf 23:28, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki 'em all, keep Bingham. — Gwalla | Talk 02:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep all. Famous people who warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. anthony (see warning) 14:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Bingham, wikimemorial the rest. Average Earthman 01:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki all to Wikimemorial. Bingham may deserve an article, but the current text is all memorial and no encyclopedia article. This discussion thread would be a better starting point. By the way, I am choosing not to rewrite the article during the discussion period because this is the right content for Wikimemorial. I'll make some notes offline and recreate the article after it is transwiki'd. Rossami 02:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Bingham, wikimemorial the rest. Ambi 13:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Memorial and delete all except Bingham. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• keep Vagrant 19:45, 1 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.

EL GGoDo -- Add to this discussion

• Delete. If this were not a nonentity, some information on exhibitions, collections, or something, would have been included. Vanity or joke, whatever. Wetman 09:43, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not noteable -- Solipsist 10:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain: There are a couple of works witnessed on the web, but very few. I simply cannot assess the notability. In general, Expressionism ended in the 1930's. I would not expect a 71 year old artist to be doing a ton of self promotion. We will have to be presumptive and delete, but I'm not ready to say so yet. Geogre 13:04, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: too local. Geogre 15:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Note: If this article is deleted, please delete the tons of redirects the original poster created to the article. RickK 19:30, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

How does one become recognised? I suppose we can ask ourselves the universal question who stands at the great gates of recognition to say that one artist/person is "recognised" and the other is "not"; at present you are the gate keepers to this exclusive club. Who is to say that "Albert Einstein" should be recognised and another great scientist/artist/musician etc of equal standing not are recognised.

As the main contributor to elggodo.net and the contributor of this short article (to save disk space) I believe this article should remain if you wish to reflect history, even if with a note to say:

"El GGoDo is not a world-wide celebrity, but a private man whom is well known in Leon Spain as a great artist (painter, sculptor and philosopher) as is recognised by inclusion in the cities Gothic Cathedral of his artwork, "Liberted" ,see these links for further information as further proof:

(http://www.catedraldeleon.org/sub2/sub2.html, http://www.spainturismo.com/leon/)".

Taken, he is generally known as an expressionist but of course he has now created his own style which is based on expressionism. I have seen many great works of art and I believe at least a number of his works can sit comfortably along side the master works of great painters such as Picasso and Dali without any problem or hesitation.

As I have time and this is not my full time occupation, in addition I have a number of disabilities which affect my endurance I will add more and more information to elggodo.net and as the appropriate information comes to hand (please send me some if you have any) I will add it to the wikipedia section on El GGoDo. El GGoDo.net is definitely not for profit it is not even a company of any sort just a group of people trying to preserve the works of El GGoDo and to encourage research, investigation and perhaps publication of critical essays on his artwork theories.

Based on this I hope you will reconsider your verdict about the deletion of the small entry on El GGoDo whom is a true artist still alive living, breathing and painting artist. About the exhibition listing - I know for sure he has exhibited a few times in a big way, but in Spain the political situation made it and "makes it" difficult for him to exhibit often; if he was in Australia yes he could have a long list of exhibitions without doubt. Spain has a very colourful history as I am sure you are aware. Written By A. Rodriguez155.143.63.77 12:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC).

• Note to the anonymous contributor, please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end of the post. You should also be aware that anonymous votes are steeply discounted during these discussions. Please consider creating an account and logging in. Rossami

Asia no junshin -- Add to this discussion

• Cool song, but does not merit encyclopedia entry. -- Paul Richter 10:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete -TheFed 05:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alan Beckwith -- Add to this discussion

Alan Beckwith 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.

Probably autobiography. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies. He might have an Imdb entry, but non of the credits are noteable. -- Solipsist 10:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, possible vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 02:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Everyone and their dog is a member of the Screen Actor's Guild. -TheFed 05:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete. anthony (see warning) 14:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor appearences on TV only. Average Earthman 01:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia's policy should be upheld. Known by all in several fields. User: Mia State 08:08, 01 Sept 2004 (UTC)
  • Hello Mia, that's a nice sock puppet. How do you get the lips to move so realistically. But you are quite right Wikipedia's policy should be upheld - as per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies. -- Solipsist 19:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Who do you think this is a sockpuppet of? And when did Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies become policy? And which part of it do you think applies? anthony (see warning) 19:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • • I would suspect a puppet of the originator of the article User:64.14.248.62. And you are quite right, I hadn't noticed that Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies is only a proposed policy, never-the-less this article would fail on:
          1. Well known entertainment figures
          2. Painters, ... engineers... whose work is recognized as exceptional (twice)
          3. Wikipedia:Auto-biography (most likely)
          4. 100 year test
          5. Informative

        Is that enough? -- Solipsist 11:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

        • No, it isn't good enough. Criteria for Inclusion of Biographies is an inclusive list. You don't have to fall under every category, only one. And as you've now noticed, it's not policy, in part because it's not complete (there are a large number of people with consensus for inclusion who fit under none of the categories. anthony (see warning) 12:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • So which one would you use for inclusion? -- Solipsist 12:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Well known entertainment figure is one possibility. anthony (see warning) 19:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Good question! I noticed that this Solispit guy posted ony a few minutes after my vote. He better not be accusing me of being a sockpuppet!!! I've been wrongly accused of being one once before and I DONT LIKE IT!!!!! Pitchka 22:44, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
        • There are well defined criteria for determining a sock puppet, largely based on examining a user's contribution history. User:Pitchka looks nothing like a sock puppet on this issue, but User: Mia State does. -- Solipsist 11:39, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Doesn't the originator of the article get a vote? Mia State created this account months ago, and a logged in user is not a sockpuppet of an IP address. If anything, the IP would be a sockpuppet of the logged in user. But the IP didn't vote. The only way this accusation makes any sense is if you're claiming the user is a sockpuppet of me or Pitchka, and I can tell you for a fact the user isn't a sockpuppet of me. "A sock puppet is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who posts under more than one name." So I ask again, what is the other name you are alleging this user posts under. Not IP address, name. anthony (see warning) 12:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• delete not notable. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • also user has added his name to lot of lists, remember to remove all from special:whatlinkshere/Alan Beckwith. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP. I think this is a valid entry. If we delete this guy because he is "minor" then there are an awful lot of people and metal bands that should be removed as well. I did an internet search and he has a lot of listings. He has also done stage work which means IMDB would not include these works. Pitchka 19:17, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
• keepVagrant 21:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Inadequate evidence of notability. (Yes, I did read the referenced listings.) Note to Pitchka - every nomination is evaluated on its own merits. If there are others, we deal with them as they come up. Rossami 22:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP. Valid. Accomplishments speaks for themselves. He's leaving the world a better place than he found it. Wikipedia benefits in its endeavor for the entry. (I know your intentions are well meaning) but you're creating alot of cyber-dust in bickering on this listing. Keep it and let's go on. User: Mia State 10:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Franky I don't understand why you guys are so virulent against this listing. I think that he is noteworthy he has a hell of a lot more credentuals than I do and from what I've seen a few thousand other people already listed in the encyclopedia! I really don't understand what the problem is outside of some bizzare personal dislike by the person who started this whole kangroo court! Could it be jealousy? Pitchka 17:23, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

• Now listed on VfU, as it was deleted against Wikipedia policy. anthony (see warning) 18:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. Wikipedia policy is to discount the votes of sockpuppets. Consensus of real voters was to delete. RickK 19:10, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

• Which votes are you claiming to be votes of sockpuppets? And what are you defining as consensus? anthony (see warning) 20:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• KEEP. Thanks for reconsidering. For those who want to delete, consider

that when you start to chip away at the many facets that makes Wikipedia a gem - that gem will soon lose its lustre. It's a valid entry. User: Mia State 17:10, 7 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.

Stefan Capaliku -- Add to this discussion

cv/Resume. Whats the policy here? Can we place our own resumes? Google comes up with something and he exist in another language(Albanian?) of a wikipedia sis. project. Speedy deleted at first but not sure so placed it here. --Jondel 11:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• If he is notable, an encyclopedia article could be created, but delete the CV. Darksun 12:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• delete. CVs should be deleted on sight, IMHO. If this guy is notable (doesn't strike me so from the CV), this is not the way to start the article. --Ianb 13:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: No CV's. Geogre 13:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I'd say an obvious resumé like this is a speedy delete candidate, even for a notable person. No reason this should have to stand for a week. But it's not my call, so delete. If an admin wants to do a speedy I'd be all for it. -R. fiend 18:13, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• It's such a bad resume that I think it could almost be deleted as "patent nonsense".--Samuel J. Howard 18:55, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not Monster.com. — Gwalla | Talk 02:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete CVs. If someone is notable, somebody will write an article about them. Average Earthman 01:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Just to be picky, though, a CV is not a speedy under any of the current specific cases. As for the poor quality of the writing, please see the very first bullet in patent nonsense#Not to be confused with.... Rossami 02:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all CVs. All of them. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

deleteVagrant 21:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

National anarchism -- Add to this discussion

This article seems to have been made up for the purposes of scoring points in a debate on Talk:Anarchism. This is not an historical term and it is at most the name of a fascist's personal website. By allowing the article to remain, Wikipedia would be giving credence to a piece of propoaganda and a neologism that has no use outside of that site. I suspect I know who the author of the article is, and having seen what he does to those who cross him (vandlaising every page they edit until he forces them from the wiki) I wish to remain anonymous.

• Comment: About 1320 Google hits apparently across many sites and authors, and no talk page as I write this. Article is the work of an anon, but they have no other edits at this IP at least. On the other hand, the IP who listed this has a history of vandalism. Probably not a suitable VfD listing IMO, perhaps even an early removal candidate. No vote at present. Andrewa 16:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: As we now have some votes to delete, early removal is not appropriate, but still unsure, still no vote. Andrewa 22:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Admittedly, it's still not a very good article. -FZ 20:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I cannot imagine this becoming a useful article. Delete. -- Jmabel 22:28, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Ditto. Delete. Lacrimosus 06:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless completely rewritten. -Seth Mahoney 19:14, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Alexandre de Rodes (Rhodes) -- Add to this discussion

Alexandre de Rodes (Rhodes) 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

An article on Alexandre de Rhodes (the correct spelling) already exists. This version should be deleted (as it has factual errors anyway). Don't keep it as a redirect, since I doubt anyone will go to that page, but possible make Alexandre de Rodes a redirect to Alexandre de Rhodes. Darksun 12:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, later redirect can be made. Geogre 13:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Somebody who can't spell a guy's name shouldn't be trusted to write an encyclopedia arcticle about him. RMG 23:59, 29 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.

Pac-Pix -- Add to this discussion

vaporware, not well explained. --Ianb 16:29, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I've tried to clean this up a little bit, although it's still not great, and everything I wrote was inferred from the original article, screenshots, and reviews. 4570 hits on Google for this game, none of which appear to be wikipedia on the first page at least, and EB Games seems to be taking pre-orders for its release in 03/05. Perhaps a Keep or merge into Pac-man would be best? - RedWordSmith 18:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A product of the future. When it is released, we might well want a mention of it somewhere. As a breakout, it would be better on the WikiGames than in main space. A simple, "This is a game, and here is how you play it" seems non-encyclopedic. I appreciate the work gone into improving it, but the farther we get from GameFAQs, the better. Geogre 18:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Game that hasn't even been released yet. — Gwalla | Talk 02:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Products need to be of exceptional promise/interest to merit an article before they exist. Average Earthman 01:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alice on the Internet -- Add to this discussion

A poorly written article with a poorly written title about Alice from Alice in Wonderland on the Internet. Delete on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a web guide, and should not have articles about an entity's presence on the Internet separate from the article about that entity itself. Livajo 17:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• delete, not encyclopedic. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with delete in this case, but we should be careful about general pronouncements such as the above. An article on E-commerce or New Media would be respectively about "entities" commerce and journalism, "on the web".--Samuel J. Howard 21:31, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
• I've been puzzling over this one. Of all the fictional characters snatched up and manipulated by the Internet, Alice has been one of the most mangled and reshaped. So, do we talk about that as a phenomenon? Possibly. At the same time, this is somewhat journalistic, somewhat a commentary that creates the subject it reports on (i.e. there is not something out there called Alice on the Internet that needs an article; there is Alice as she is on the Internet that is getting commented upon). A very weak delete, or the contributor could be asked to write up a section on Alice in Wonderland on Internet uses of the character. Geogre 00:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Alice in Wonderland]. Not that I think the redirect would be that useful, however. — Gwalla | Talk 02:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete do not redirect -TheFed 05:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• delete Vagrant 20:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• This does not fit any of our normal deletion categories. On the other hand, "there's no 'there' there" for the article. Tentative delete because I can't even begin to guess how this could be cleaned up. Rossami 22:59, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

History of the translation technology -- Add to this discussion

History of the translation technology 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

Poorly written and poorly titled start to an article. Some history of translation exists in Translation#History, but not enough to start a new article with. Satori 19:54, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 21:29, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Incoherent, poorly titled, contains no real information. — Gwalla | Talk 02:19, 28 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.

Dr peter ellis -- Add to this discussion

Non-noteworthy. He's some oncologist in Hamilton, Ontario. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 21:11, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Something Bitchin' This Way Comes -- Add to this discussion

Created by hard-banned User:Michael under his latest pseudonym of User:Mike Garcia. I have been deleting and reverting vast quantities of this user's work today, but this article has been "vetted" by Guanaco, and normally I would just delete it because Wikipedia policy written in stone by Jimbo on this one user is to delete all of Michael's work even when others have modified it, I don't want to get into a p*ssing contest with Guanaco on this one -- I've had too many bad dealings with him and would rather get support from the community on deleting this. Please note: It is JIMBO'S decision that Michael is hard banned, it is JIMBO'S decision that all of Michael's work be deleted or reverted. RickK 21:45, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep #Danny 23:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) comment moved off main VfD page
• Keep. This is my work as much as it is Michael's. Guanaco 23:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Unsure. I think RickK is doing the right thing listing this. On the one hand the policy is quite clear, all Michael's contributions are to be simply erased. That's what a hard ban means. On the other hand, this seems to now be a good article. No vote for now. Andrewa 00:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd rather judge the article on its on merits rather than the politics of who initiated it. If it's an acceptable article on its own merits, what would the point be of deleting it -- to recreate it again in more or less the same appearance? (Sigh, the ghosts of internet projects past now haunt me.) KeithTyler 00:14, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the main reasons for the decision to delete/revert all of his edits was that it was nigh-impossible to go through all of his edits and fact-check them on a case-by-case basis. However, this article has been vetted by an established user, and I feel that it should be kept. (But if Jimbo says it goes, it goes.) -Sean Curtin 00:25, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
• You might want to delete this entirely, removing Michael from the edit history, and then recreate it, not by restoring the deleted text but by copy and paste. Assuming it is all accurate right now. Adam Bishop 00:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Michael may be banned, but he still has the right to attribution. Guanaco 04:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • What? No he doesn't, he's banned! He shouldn't have anything attributed to him if he is supposed to be reverted/deleted on sight. Adam Bishop 07:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

      It's a basic concept of academic honesty, if not the GFDL, that we should try to follow. Guanaco 15:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, I assume Guanaco would not take credit for it unless he was sure it was factually correct. Everyking 01:10, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • You assume wrong. Guanaco would do anything to make me look bad. RickK 04:44, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

    In that case, you should show that it has at least one inaccuracy. Guanaco 04:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    I have no idea if it's correct or not, and it's not my need to have to do so. Michael is on auto-revert, no discussion. RickK 05:12, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

    I am not on auto-revert, so if you delete my edits, you should show that there's something wrong with them. Our banning policy states that "if a user does knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user, they have taken responsibility for it, in some sense, so there is no benefit in reverting that edit again, and there is the risk of causing unnecessary conflict amongst the Wikipedia community." I have taken responsibility for the content of the article, so there is no benefit in deleting it. Guanaco 15:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I originally was of the 'take them one at a time' opinion, but having wasted the last hour or so researching this issue, now understand the reasoning behind the hard-ban/auto-revert policy of Jimbo. The article has one possible minor inaccuracy (can't be sure without the actual album in my hand), and one major inaccuracy. Just doesn't seem worth wasting so many people's time on. Niteowlneils 16:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • What is the major inaccuracy? Everyking 19:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    There were two bands called Lock Up. The earlier of the two released Something Bitchin' This Way Comes, and the later band released Pleasures Pave Sewers and Hate Breeds Suffering. This article linked to Pleasures Pave Sewers as if it had been created by the same band. This mistake wasn't Mike's fault, and it was an easy one to make. He probably copied the information from allmusic.com, which contains this inaccuracy. I have fixed our article and have submitted a correction to allmusic so this hopefully won't happen again. Guanaco 03:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This seems to now have become a test case. If it's allowed to stay, then IMO we are endorsing the actions of users who verify and edit Michael's work rather than deleting and reverting it, thus circumventing the ban. So reluctantly, it must be delete. Andrewa 01:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • sigh- seems there are alot of short memories around on Wikipedia these days... Why is everybody debating the 'should he stay or should he go' around Micheal when a quick look through the edit history of Crass by Micheal and his many alter-egos plus several related articles from a while back should remind everybody of just how destructive, bloodyminded and mischeivious (and sometimes unfortunately subtle in his disinformation) this character is. The hard ban is there for a reason, shame everyone has forgotten what that reason is. quercus robur 01:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The history of "people-who-have-been-given-second-(and-third)-chances" is indeed rather completely dismal. It only takes one Pandora to open this particular box, while all can "enjoy" the sorrows she releasess. - Nunh-huh 04:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I still don't follow what this now-gone user's destructiveness has to do with deleting an article that has been shown to be largely accurate. Is he gone, or isn't he? And whether or not he is gone, how does that affect the content of this article? (And how does letting this article be kept - as opposed to deleting it -- lead to further damage?) KeithTyler 00:05, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

He never really left. I think it would be wise to read User:Michael to fully understand why people are so upset about the hard ban being essentially overruled. Mike H 00:08, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Otherwise just throw away all rules, give this project over to the trolls and POV cranks, and the rest of us can go home. Jallan 14:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:16, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Necrothesp 15:53, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 13:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Jesus, this is disappointing. We're going to delete an article -- only to to recreate the exact same article in its place. Whatever. I don't care about Michael or Guanaco, or politics. What is the primary goal of Wikipedia -- to have accurate articles, or to have articles that are free of internal politics? Maybe someone could please fill me in, as I'm sort of new, and had gotten the idea that it was the former. Sigh. KeithTyler 18:48, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• What about changing the edit history, to attribute Michael's changes to a non-existant/blind/generic user? Or attributing it to his IP? Rhymeless 21:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I read User_talk:Michael/ban, and I can't say that knowing the history explained to me why his history requires that an accurate article has to be deleted simply because his name appears somewhere in the edit history. In fact, quite the contrary -- plenty of comments throughout that article agree that, for example, Any Michael article that has been checked for accuracy by someone else with knowledge of the subject or takes the time to look up appropriate references is fine. (User:Infrogmation) Now, the link in that article to a mailing list about the details of the ban ("Jimbo's letter to the mailing list") is broken, so I don't know the details of it. I do feel, from what I've seen so far, that the matter has become so terribly religious that a lot of people simply won't view the subject beyond the edicts they've been passed. I for one mourn the deletion of articles that are contentually acceptable. Regards, KeithTyler 00:20, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Comment. Mediocre articles that anyone can write are not a big loss when it means people do not have to put aside what they would like to be doing and check every single fact in an article or edit by a person who makes up information again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and finding it some of it bogus again and again and again and again and again and again and he won't stop and he won't stop and he won't stop and he won't stop and he won't stop and he won't stop. Jallan 02:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fundamentally I agree with that principle, however, that concern isn't an issue here as the article in question just so happens to have already been checked. Deleting it now won't undo the work already done in checking it. Which is why I feel that if that justification for deleting an article can no longer be benefited from, we should return to a principle of article quality on its own merits. Comments in the Michael ban article say as much as well. ... And I'm sure there's a better place for me to be prattling on about this principle than here, and would appreciate if someone could help point me there. KeithTyler 04:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - Michael is hard banned, and his work is to be removed on sight. The correct link to the Jimbo post is [13]. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and rewrite —siroχo 02:24, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Hard-banned user, and for a reason. This article was revived and vetted by an admin, then still found to be innacurate. Vintage Michael. Until/Unless Jimbo says otherwise, this article should be deleted, as well as User:Mike Garcia, the known reincarnation of a hard-banned user. SWAdair | Talk 08:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure if this should be deleted or not, but I am quite sure that if it remains (or is deleted and then replaced) Michael should be given credit, even if he is a bad guy. -- SS 21:06, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: created by hard-banned user, plus it's a content-free article. I'd vote to delete it even if User:Michael weren't involved. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:35, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Michael has been unbanned, so the reason for this listing no longer applies. Guanaco 20:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have restored this page, as it was deleted out of process with even less than a two-thirds majority. Guanaco 21:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see 13 Delete votes vs. 5 Keep votes. Care to re-count? RickK 21:08, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I see 6 keep votes. I wouldn't have any serious objections to you relisting it as a new VfD candidate, however. Guanaco 21:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep

1. Danny 23:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Central Catholic -- Add to this discussion

Subsubstub, plus a list of frivolously intended broken links. KeithTyler 22:23, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

• delete. non-notable high school. Nothing links there, or variations on it. Googling for educated at Central Catholic School Lawrence Massachusetts gives a few obituaries of non-notable persons. Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete candidate: It is a substub that immediately goes to a link. It is also a substub that nothing can grow out of because the title is indistinct. How many "central catholic" things are there besides the HS? How many HS's? I will sit on the sidelines with just a delete vote for a day or two. Geogre 00:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. GRutter 15:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discontinued palmOne Handhelds -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Um, what is this? RickK 22:25, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Why delete? This is a replacement guide for older PalmOne PDAs.
  • How does that remotely qualify as an encyclopedia article? RickK 22:25, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • I have been planing to link this page with the articles related to palmOne. Only the current models are mentioned on the articles.
• merge and redirect to PalmOne, Inc. under "list of models", including current ones. All entries User:Andros 1337 has created need to be cleanupped as they appear to be a bit POV. having said that, some interesting contributions. New user may wish to see welcome, newcomers and sign their posts with ~~~~ Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:45, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks duncharris. I have moved the info to PalmOne, Inc. The redirect page can be deleted. Andros 1337 23:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Climbing equipment Manufacturers -- Add to this discussion

Climbing equipment Manufacturers 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

Stub, no actual content, bad title, bad format, nothing but URL links. KeithTyler 22:48, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Could be a speedy deletion candidate for being nothing but links. Wikipedia is not a shopping portal. I'm not doubting the good intentions of the contributor, but the policies are pretty darned clear on this. Geogre 00:26, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert(s). — Gwalla | Talk 02:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. Average Earthman 01:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - just a list of links. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:18, 31 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.

BWMA -- Add to this discussion

BWMA 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

This was nominated for speedy, and I was about to delete it as 'sneaky vandalism', but some other admin took off the tag, so it gets to spend five days here, I guess. Google finds zero relevant hits, and superpages.com can't find anything even close to being a gallery or museum on Roosevelt in Pasadena, let alone anything with that name. It just doesn't appear to exist. Niteowlneils 22:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• No google hits. Delete. RickK 22:52, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I removed the tag, only because it is just not at all a speedy deletion candidate. But it doesn't seem to be at all notable. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:01, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I live in Southern California, and I've never heard of this museum. Even if it did exist, it's non-notable. Besides, the first search off Google for "BWMA" is "British Weights and Measures Association." -- Allyunion 23:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It may be nonsense after all. Nevertheless, it can stay, with no links out, for the VfD period. (My dog makes American paintings. She's an American Eskimo Dog.) Geogre 00:28, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Anywho search, Business, Name Busby, Pasadena, California fails to locate it. Nor does eyeball scan of all 35 hits returned by category = Museum. Nothing on Switchboard, either. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, possibly nonexistent. — Gwalla | Talk 02:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Dogpile's advanced search found zero relevant hits. SWAdair | Talk 08:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No Google hits by extended name ("Busby and Ward Museum of Art") at all. Even my beagle gets a few (although he doesn't make American paintings, since he's really a sculptor). Dukeofomnium 16:11, 1 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.

UK Video Art: The Early Years -- Add to this discussion

There's nothing there. It seems to serve as nothing but a vehicle for linking to the external site. I almost listed this on Cleanup, but it would really require someone to actually WRITE an article, since nothing here is worth cleaning up. RickK 23:03, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Looking at the article's history, it looks like it's been repeatedly recreated despite attempts to redirect it to other locations. RickK 23:37, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It looks like we've walked into a conversation, not encyclopedic at all. This is in addition to the problem with the name and the fact that the content might belong (that which is intelligible) to another article. Geogre 00:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I was going to say merge/redirect to video art, but it looks like that already happened. Since it keeps getting recreated, is it a speedy candidate? — Gwalla | Talk 03:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey! First look at my 'anonymous' (but authoritative) recent addition (29/8/04) in the 'votes for deletion' page you have on Peter Weibel. Then, re this reference to European and specifically UK video art must be included otherwise you are going to have a typically American-biased entry! If an informative global overview can't be produced at least leave in invaluable links!! Looks like you've left a link to the Experimental TV Centre, NY, alone for example, now why is that?

• • No change of vote. Geogre 13:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well George (Geogre?) you are just being stubborn. C'mon, Mr Anonymous has a very valid point. You can't do that All-American-Boy and sneer it off! That just isn't very intelligent , this is meant to be a serious (if not intellectual) contribution to WORLD knowledge.

• • Well, Anonymous, please read my vote, and don't make assumptions about the nationality or ethnicity of those who vote against this fragmentary and POV account. Geogre 01:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I can't see a reason for a separate article under this title, but, Mr. Anonymous, please feel more than free to add appropriate UK-related material to Video art, which is probably too U.S.-centric. -- Jmabel 04:46, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

OK, this discussion is getting cyclic to say the least! I will indeed add more on European work to the Video Art main page if there's no other world expert out there to offer it (?). However, I would have thought your editors could have easily transferred the GIST of the 'stub' statement to the main page with no trouble, particularly as Jmabel appears to agree it is currently 'US-centric'. And Geogre, there is certainly no assumption of 'ethnicity' in my comments but some remarks on this page surely read as American bias? My point, as above, is that this UK chronology reference link MUST remain if you are including direct links to 2 or 3 U.S. video info organisations and, I note, a German database! -- 'Mr Anonymous' Aug 30, 2004

• Got to agree with Geogre. Article just kind of starts in the middle and doesn't really say anything other than there was video art made in the UK. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It says early video art was not only the work of US (or US based) artists, but that there was simultaneous interest and use of the medium across the western world. Until this appeared the main Video Art page didn't "really say anything" about anything other than typical claims, BY OMISSION, of American supremacy in the field. This addition contributes some historical FACT. Keep it.

Bergin -- Add to this discussion

Firstly, it's just a dictionary definition. Secondly, I've never heard the term used, and a google search did not find any references to Bergin as anything other than a last name. Google of "do a bergin" returns nothing. --Satori 23:11, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should move it to Wiktionary instead. --Sgeo | Talk 23:51, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

See my second point, above. I don't believe this is a term in usage outside of, perhaps, one company's IT department or a small group of friends. It should just be deleted. --Satori 01:39, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete or speedy delete as nonsense. It's someone's private joke -- to do a Homer, etc. Geogre 00:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete it. -- Allyunion 00:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Joke neologism, dictdef. — Gwalla | Talk 03:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Template:Public IP -- Add to this discussion

Text of this template is

This is a public IP address used in a Kiosk or similar environment.

I question whether this has any value. If someone is vandalizing pages from a public terminal, this message will not stop them from being blocked. -- Netoholic @ 23:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This should be on TFD. — Gwalla | Talk 03:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep, at least the first sentence. anthony (see warning) 14:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How does one know if it is a public IP or not? Delete. And if it ends up being kept, remove all but the first sentence. cesarb 14:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you serious? There are a number of ways to determine that an IP is used in a public kiosk. One of them is to use the public kiosk and check your IP. anthony (see warning) 15:04, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious. Suppose someone not logged in adds that template to his IP's User: page. How are you supposed to check? You don't even know where the supposed public kiosk is. The reverse DNS and whois point to random company, which might or might not be a cybercafé (and its webpage is written in a foreign language, with no pictures). Or maybe the webpage is for something which is obviously not a cybercafé or something similar, but that particular IP happens to be used by a public machine in the lobby.

If you are the one using the kiosk, it's easy to find the IP; however, given the IP, it's not easy to determine if it's really a public machine or not (and to make matters worse, you can find a public machine in the middle of a set of nonpublic ones, you can find a nonpublic machine in the middle of a set of public ones, or you can have a range of IPs with a mix of public and nonpublic machines).

The only way I can imagine it being used is for a logged-in user to add it to his current IP whenever he using a public kiosk. If you trust that user, you can trust the IP belonged to a public kiosk when the template was added to the page.

cesarb 17:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Untitled

From VfD:

Sounds like a minor character in Star Wars. -- Allyunion 00:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• A very minor character in Star Wars. It appears in one scene and has no lines. Delete. — Gwalla | Talk 03:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect to Minor characters in Star Wars. — Gwalla | Talk 01:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Minor characters in Star Wars. Kevyn 06:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Minor characters in Star Wars and pray that nobody expands this stub. Cutler 11:31, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Ok, Minor characters in Star Wars has been created. Content from 2-1B (Too-onebee) has been merged into the minor characters page, and the 2-1B (Too-onebee) page is now a redirect. Kevyn 05:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, it took me quite a few hours to do it, but I found just about every minor Star Wars character with an entry (there were about 50 of them), and merged them all into Minor characters in Star Wars. I defined Minor as being substubs, stubs, and articles with only three paragraphs or less. Kevyn 23:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Hierarchy-Philosophy -- Add to this discussion

• Delete. KeyStroke
• Delete. POV, original research, and generally a rambling mess. --Satori 01:31, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
• 90 Google hits for "Hierarchy-Philosophy," none of which actually seem related. Very nearly Patent nonsense. Delete - RedWordSmith
• The only thing this article cannot be tagged for is parking on the wrong side of the road. Now wait a minute... Delete. Denni☯ 02:24, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
• Nearly? Nay, precisely patent nonsense. Delete, possibly speedily. Kook political rant, incoherent, neologism. — Gwalla | Talk 03:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I acknowledge that with a few footnotes to the nonsense of Immanuel Kant, George W. Bush, and Wittgenstein, this page could be assigned to college freshmen for analysis and semester finals. Nevertheless, this page should be deleted as nonsense while we still have the chance to do so before it grows into something bigger. ---Rednblu 05:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: What a dreadful bit of nonsense. Ok, someone has read only Ayn Rand, finally broke from her, and now feels qualified to explain what's wrong wtih Philosophy. Ick. Geogre 12:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pixod -- Add to this discussion

This is merely an advertisement for Mallie Mickens website, and as such, should be deleted. -- Bobdoe 02:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Advert, Wikipedia is not a web directory. — Gwalla | Talk 03:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, website vanity. --Ianb 07:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Web vanity. Geogre 12:28, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 22:48, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cuntry disco chocolate covered satan group -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable band. It was speedily deleted, but it wasn't a speedy candidate, so I restored it and brought it here just in case. Guanaco 05:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Patent nonsense is a reason for speedy deletion. The only reason Guanaaco restored it was because I deleted it. This band has one Google hit. Delete and ban Guanaco. RickK 05:34, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete And do not ban Guanaco, your politics have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Both of you need to knock it off. -TheFed 06:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Nonsense. Geogre 12:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline case, I think RickK was quite justified in speedying it but Guanaco had every right to undelete and list it here if he wanted to. But he does seem to be riding RickK, doesn't he? Please cool it, guys. You're damaging each other, yourselves and Wikipedia. Nobody is perfect. Andrewa 17:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious easy delete. If not a joke, non-notable and vanity. If a joke, original research. Non-notable almost by own testimony, since the band "makes records in miniscule runs with little or no concern to commercial viabilty" and "seldom performs live." But I don't see how it could qualify as a speedy under "patent nonsense." I just reread patent nonsense and it has a very narrow definition. "Incompetent and/or immature stuff" or "Really poorly written stuff" which are carefully classified as not falling within the definition of "patent nonsense." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep & clean. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 22:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Clan of the Dead Goat -- Add to this discussion

• Vanity/ advert/ broken link - it's got everything Cutler 11:19, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep As far as I have seen, there are many articles on Wikipedia relating to gaming clans, or websites that are of note within a certain community. Is it an advert? Well clans are non-commercial in nature. Broken link? What is Wiki for if not to fix things like that.. Vanity? Well I would have to agree on that one, but if I had someone else make a page about the clan, woundn't it be just as bad? The reason I think that this clan deserves an arcticle, is because it has become so known in the community, its become an institution within the Counterstrike custom modeling scene. --Jemimus 11:35, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete not a big fan of including clans in general, unless they're notable. These guys get get fewer than 500 google hits. Compare the number of hits to a more notable gaming clan 4 Kings' 3,210 hits (no affiliatons, just saw them in a documentary). Seems that if we're going to start including gaming clans, this one is not the right place to start. —siroχo 11:55, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Other clans can be nominated for VfD if they look non-notable, so please tag them. In this case, WP is not a web guide and needs to be careful not to give the impression that it is. Geogre 12:20, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, Wikipedia is not a web guide. Somebody turned it into a redirect to Clan of the Dead Goat Gunshop, also on VfD, which is also non-notable. — Gwalla | Talk 23:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If a clan can get sponsorship, go to Korea to compete, and get news articles written on it, then it's sufficiently notable. This one isn't. Average Earthman 01:17, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, violates spirit of autobiography restriction as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 22:50, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Clan of the Dead Goat Gunshop -- Add to this discussion

• Vanity/ advert/ non-notable - Clan of the Dead Goat. Cutler 11:22, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep My inspiration for making an article about the Gunshop was other acticles about notable websites, in particular the 4chan article. Which relates to a open hentai database and its associated community. 4chan is very well known in hentai/anime circles, and the same is true for the Gunshop, as it is well known within the Counterstrike Custom modeling community. Vanity/Advert? Sure.. but not more so than 4chan or other website related articles in Wikipedia. non-notable? Well this is more a matter of opinion than anything else. Do I have to post hits per day to prove the site is notable? Its notable within its own community, which easily numbers the tens-of-thousands. --Jemimus 11:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and merge into Clan of the Dead Goat if that is kept. Not deserving of its own article. —siroχo 11:46, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Again, I tend to vote this way about any game presence online unless it is the exemplar of such things. Not notable enough for us to be a web guide. Geogre 12:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: This is the most influential modding community of the biggest on-line game ever. It deserves a mention. Jorri 14:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: This vote by an IP with no other contributions. Andrewa 17:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia does not need an article on every website. Wyllium 15:26, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
• Keep: The Gunshop has grown out to be a full-size community supporting the weapon model replacement scene. It stands out in quality and its emphasis on realism. It deserves to be kept in here GrefTek 15:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: This vote by another new IP. Andrewa 17:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Citing only contribs bypasses verifiability. This edit shows that that IP forged Jorri's sig, not GrefTek's, which this edit shows was forged by 80.126.231.152. In order not to undercut our trust in editors' tagging of SPs, please cite edit-diffs (which also provide a link that verifies the number of contribs), rather than citing contribs pages. And when you view the preview, that gives you a chance to double-check your compiling of your research. --Jerzy(t) 03:37, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
      • Comment: Maybe. Not convinced yet. Let's talk. Andrewa 09:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • It appears that Jerzy meant to point out that I had given the wrong IP above, and this is quite right, I had accidentally duplicated the link for the earlier sock-puppet forgery. Here's the correct link. I disagree with the rest, but we're still talking. Andrewa 19:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Clans can rarely, if ever, fit into the catagory of notable, this one certainly doesn't. -TheFed 17:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The website doesn't even come up. RickK 22:52, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, Wikipedia is not a web guide. Just a Counterstrike mod site. — Gwalla | Talk 23:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If it was notable, they'd have fixed their webserver quicker. Average Earthman 01:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa doesn't even know it. -Sean Curtin 01:25, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Ianb 07:05, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Hit with delete stick repeatedly. Terrapin 14:15, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is a website dedicated to writing an encyclopedia. Promoting your website does not further that goal. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: Its the biggest community modding site for the biggest online game. Its member count easily reaches into the tens of thousands - I don't think there many other sites with a community this big. This article is not an advert for a personal site but an informational page for, as previously stated, a website with a huge online community behind. If the Gunshop doesn't deserve a mention, I'm not that sure what others websites do. Please keep it in. fabianoag 6:46, 31 Aug 2004 (AEST)
  • The above supposed User is in fact the anonymous user User:203.45.51.219. RickK 19:38, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. http://gunshop.clandeadgoat.net/ has an Alexa Traffic Rank of 461,504. SWAdair | Talk 08:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Jerzy(t) 03:40, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)
• Keep. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 22:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Untitled

From VfD:

No real definition or context, but it doesn't seem like a speedy delete candidate, reads like an ad —siroχo 11:42, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: not an article, really. Geogre 12:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete The festival certainly could be of note, were the article written more about the festival and less as an advertisment I would say keep it. That, however, seems unlikely. -TheFed 17:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Advert for upcming event. Is this festival particularly famous in Estonia? Is it influential? If not, delete. — Gwalla | Talk 23:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Sounds like it is a major event. Keep then. — Gwalla | Talk 00:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• A quick google finds references to this specific festival in the webpages of the British Embassy and the British Council. It therefore appears to be a significant festival in Estonia, and therefore a keep. Average Earthman 01:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Question: AE, the festival has a presence, but do you want just a keep, or a keep and clean? Just asking, because, to me, the article looked like half a blurb with rainbow words. Geogre 15:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Rhymeless 02:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up and wikify. RMG 00:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Ambi 13:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can find some real info that isn't an ad. Fishal 22:50, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 22:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonP (talk • contribs) 3 September 2004 (UTC)

Dartmouth College student life -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

This is the entire merged content of the articles that are listed above. There are about half a dozen unnotable student societies and clubs here, out of a total of (at a conservative guess) 100? 200? how is this balanced? how is it to be maintained? delete, no merges, nothing. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Merge with Dartmouth College, redirect, and split out into individual entries where the content is too big. anthony (see warning) 14:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with Dartmouth College and redirect. I think this should be a section of Dartmouth College. From the start, I have argued that these merges should be to Dartmouth College#student life and not a separate article. The same is true of the ...athletics article. The reasons are simple: the DC article can contain it, and we are going to be in immense janitorial trouble by having the breakouts. Do we want to have to watchlist every one of these articles to stop college folk from writing up "funny" stuff in the college life or, worse, booster/hate speech in the athletics articles. Let's not multiply our headaches unless we have to, and logic says we don't have to and shouldn't need to. Geogre 15:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment Dartmouth College article presently does include a Student Life section and present contents and structure is:

1 Student Life

1.1 Musical activities

1.1.1 A cappella singing groups

1.1.1.1 Dartmouth Cords

1.1.1.2 Dartmouth Dodecaphonics

1.1.1.3 Dartmouth Rockapellas

1.1.2 Dartmouth Wind Symphony

1.2 Drama and performance

1.3 The Hopkins Center

1.4 Winter Carnival

1.5 Dartmouth Night

1.6 Clubs

1.6.1 Dartmouth Mountaineering Club

1.6.2 Dartmouth Film Society

1.7 Athletics

1.7.1 Dartmouth Womens Crew Team

• Merge and redirect as follows: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1 Dartmouth Film Society -- Do not merge, already in Dartmouth College article

2 Dartmouth Rockapellas -- Do not merge, already in Dartmouth College article

3 Dartmouth broadcasting -- Trim appropriately and merge into Dartmouth College, Student Life, Clubs

4 Native Americans at Dartmouth (NAD) -- Trim appropriately and merge into Dartmouth College, Student Life, Clubs

5 Dartmouth College Marching Band -- Trim appropriately and merge into Dartmouth College, Student Life, Musical Activities

Make this page redirect to Dartmouth College when above work is complete.

• Merge/redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 23:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. (Much redundancy already exists.) -Sean Curtin 01:27, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 13:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Christian applied philosophical view of marriage -- Add to this discussion

The theologians mentioned are notable, and this is an accurate description of a particular line of reasoning in Protestant thought. However, the name is so cumbersome as to be impractical. The line of thought is presented as true, presents no alternatives, and claims to speak for "Christian," which is too POV from the start. Geogre 15:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• merge with marraige and redirect.--Samuel J. Howard 16:56, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. An essay, albeit a good one. There must be a place for it, but it's not Wikipedia. Andrewa 17:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Essay. — Gwalla | Talk 23:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Personal essay. Delete but encourage the author to contibute to existing articles. Rossami 02:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, do not merge: essay. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:11, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge any useful content with Christian view of marriage (which incidentally should be renamed Christian views on marriage or something similar and plural). -Seth Mahoney
• Merge w/ Christian view of marriage, but make sure to only keep useful info and not essay-like speculation. Fishal 22:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redistribute relevent information around articles. [[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 22:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

E. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh -- Add to this discussion

She has certainly been involved with a significant, ongoing research project, but is she notable herself? Is this vanity? Geogre 15:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • Apparently, I'm full of beans. Will remove nomination. Geogre 00:58, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. She's the leader of the research project. Several of her bonobos have articles (including the famous Kanzi). She should have one as well. _R_ 20:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Very famous (and very controversial) in her field. -- orthogonal 23:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. — Gwalla | Talk 23:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Average Earthman 01:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Eep! Definite Keep. She's the top mind in an influential field of research. -FZ 13:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Word Rage -- Add to this discussion

Word Rage is the angry frustration felt by some people who receive emails with lengthy attachments in Microsoft Word format. Seems a made-up term and indirect vanity. Google returns 582 matches, none of the first 10 results refers to this particular meaning. Doesn't even appear in Urban Dictionary. Wyllium 16:10, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Discussion

• Delete Doesn't even really qualify as a Neologism, not that that would justify it. -TheFed 17:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Original research. Granted, I have WordRage even without e-mail being involved (WordPerfect 5.1 does all anyone ever needs), but this is not encyclopedic content. Geogre 17:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Vi is all I ever need ;-) --Ianb 22:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not an established term, most of the content is original research. I like the suggested attachment. Is there some other article in which it would be appropriate to include some of the information in this one? (By the way, within the last forty-eight hours I was sent a Word attachment that is utterly useless, as it is a proposed poster layout in which appearance and typography are everything, and it uses a bunch of fonts that are not installed by default in Windows or the Mac and is thus useless... so it's not as if I don't appreciate the issue). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• hmm. A phenomenon looking for a name. Not sure this is the way to go about coining it. Note, most of the content by volume can be found here: [14]. --Ianb 22:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. A piece of anti-Word advocacy disguised as an encyclopedia article. — Gwalla | Talk 23:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Cleanup and move. There is a useful page called Top posting. Remove the term 'Word Rage' and move the content to Word attachments. 84.66.30.39 11:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. The useful content is now in Word attachments. 81.77.35.97 19:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Rossami 23:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

U.S. presidential election, 2012 -- Vote here

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled U.S. presidential election, 2012.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

---

U.S. presidential election, 2012

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for political punditry. Of the material in this article, only the date seems verifiable, and that seems adequately covered elsewhere. Gdr 18:20, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

• DO NOT DELETE--there will be information coming in soon. There are differences between 2008 and 2012 that should be noted on this page. Do not delete.
• Delete: It's the future. It does not exist yet. Geogre 18:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) "I Have Veto'd"
• The 2008 presidential election article seems to be rather professional and acceptable, and it is in the future as well. The writer of the 2012 article has not listed himself as a potential candidate so the article doesn't qualify as vanity. It's not very informative but may be a useful shell. I say keep. Thehappysmith 19:42, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Speculation and generalities that, with a few details changed (names, which party is currently in, which party is currently out) apply to any presidential election two terms away. Delete please. - RedWordSmith 19:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• The 2008 article is good and useful, but trying to write about 2012 takes the speculation too far. Delete. Everyking 19:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Concur- The 2008 article is sueful, but there's nothing useful here, just speculation and restatements of the obvious. Delete. -FZ 13:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, original research. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This article seems to be all about perhaps, assuming and maybe. No place in the wiki i'm afraid. Saint will 20:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research, speculation too far in advance. — Gwalla | Talk 00:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. What Everyking said. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. James F. (talk) 03:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, way too much speculation. Flockmeal 05:34, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
• "assuming an ammendment is mad to the US constitution"; how about the second one? anyway, delete. recreate in 2008. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Original research speculation. If someone wants to create an article on general future US election speculations, that might be OK. Jallan 02:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete I created the 2008 article in Dec of 2003. That resulted in a vote not to delete. In my opinion, the earliest that a 2012 page might have any useful value would be following the 2006 election. User:Mcarling 15:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. (Condoleezza Rice/Rudolph Giuliani 2008!) --Golbez 08:15, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.Until year 2007 it's too soon to talking about. --Sina 10:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The content is near zero.
• Delete. Could be viable if speculation had begun regarding some of the candidates that appear to be positioning for a '12 bid (Barak Obama has been considered). But such speculation is unlikely until there are some '08 primary losers.
• "'Do Not Delete'". Perhaps the article can be trimmed, but I feel that the date of the election is relative information.
• Do Not Delete. The election date, the fact that the electoral votes will have been redistributed and that it will be an election with an incumbent president elligible to seek re-election (barring the highly unlikely election of George H. W. Bush or Jimmy Carter in 2008) -- Jord 22:49 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - We're going to need it sooner or later. -Litefantastic 12:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: So, what's wrong with "later", when it's actually verifiable? — Gwalla | Talk 04:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - It will be needed as we get closer to the 2008 election! Past 2012 is unneeded. --Doctorcherokee 03:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep What Jord said. Ryan Cable 10:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete it from Wikipedia. But archive it for future use. KNewman 02:29, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Do not delete. As time progresses more interesting contents could emerge. --Boshtang 05:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

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

---

2004 Summer Olympics medal count for countries ending in -stan -- Add to this discussion

{{Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 Summer Olympics medal count for countries ending in -stan

Northside Christian Church -- Add to this discussion

If it was a big church in a big city, one that is notable for something other than being a friendly community of good Christian souls, then okay. 19:30, 28 Aug 2004 User:Thehappysmith

• was blanked by author -- speedy deletion candidate. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Godspeed to them, but not significant or notable. Geogre 23:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. — Gwalla | Talk 00:03, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Crab Basket -- Add to this discussion

Vanity for non-notable band. Google search for '"crab basket" band' returns 11 hits, one of which is relevant. That site happens to be run by Crab Basket. Guanaco 20:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also delete Image:Crab Basket.gif, which is their logo. Guanaco 20:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• obvious vanity. delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:42, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• delete before someone adds an entry for frakin' awesome. --Ianb 21:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete candidate for obvious nonsense. Definitely delete this, and the image, and, if the author blue links the band members, each of them. The link is nerve wracking, too. Geogre 23:10, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 00:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a site to promote non-notable bands. Average Earthman 01:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete both as vanity. Geogre, which specific case do you believe qualifies this as a speedy, though? Rossami 03:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Because it is a band waiting for members, is frakin' awesome, and is waiting for any songs, what we have here is something that is nonsense. Granted, it's not the "dfadfdsafd" sort, but when you get "It's a great company that is going to form any day now," you've got nonsense. N.b. that I also say that it is a candidate. I err on the side of caution, generally, but I also think that we ought to have a nonsense that's a step beyond the "save page" or "snot" (both of which, incidentally, are more test saves than patent nonsense). Geogre 13:17, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm the original author of this article, and I shouldn't have written it when y'know...the band really hasn't started yet. I agree completely with Geogre, it is complete nonsense. The band is, however, known throughout Kennesaw Mountain High School, but is not yet known world or even nation-wide. Sorry for the inconvenience, I did not mean to for it to be vanity of any kind, I truly wanted to document the band's progress, but I picked the wrong place to do it. Potatosalad 09:55, 02 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page Created

• Given how outdated the discussion below are, I've went ahead and created the page for Protiviti. It goes without saying that the size of Protiviti compared to 2004 is now large enough to warrant its own page. In Robert Half's annual reports, it now has separate sections for its Risk Advisory/Internal Audit services (Protiviti is now an integral portion of RHI). The firm is also growing year-by-year so this page is necessary as it is now operating at a global scale. All information provided are objective and backed up by source so the "advertising" problem from years ago should not persist.--Jjj84206 (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

From VfD:

This is an ad for a consulting company. Delete -- Bobdoe 00:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• This looks like a substub for a major international consulting company. I'd say decent sized multinational companies should have an article, but only if someone is willing to create one with some actual useful facts in them (which I'm not in this case). Delete unless expanded. Average Earthman 01:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to their parent company, Robert Half International. RHI is a $1.9 billion professional services company with an international presence. RHI deserves and article. According to their own website, Proviti has only "hundreds" of professionals. If their advertised scope of industries and territories are to be believed, then they are spread much to thinly to be a "leading" anything. Because they are merely a division of RHI, they do not report their financials separately making such measures as revenue or market share unverifiable. Rossami 03:42, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Well, I had already written a respectable stub before I saw the most recent post. Merge with Robert Half International, redirect, and send to cleanup so hopefully someone will fill it out on the whole company.--Samuel J. Howard 05:22, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge. And redirect, just in case someone searches on "Protiviti", so the searcher can learn it's not a kind of Italian sausage. ("I like to add sliced Protiviti to my Chef's Salad"). -- orthogonal 22:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and merge, as per Rossami's comment. ··gracefool |☺ 04:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep! It's a good company! (added by 24.13.205.27, not signed)
  • You, sir, do not have a vote. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:32, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Agree with merge; this article seems to be a direct copy from their website, blatant advertising. Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Three Guys from Miami -- Add to this discussion

Is this really notable and encyclopedia-worthy? Looks like a vanity entry to me. Please vote. Ropers 00:47, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• It doesn´t seem that important to me maybe in a local newspaper, but not in an encyclopedy

Linn

Just as valid as the list of other Food Network chefs! Are we going to eliminate all popular culture references from the encyclopedia? Better delete the ones for Emeril Lagassse and Julia Child. They are/were, afterall, just TV chefs as these fellows are. Jale

• • N.b. This user blanked the discussion. Reverted by me. Geogre 01:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Name of their TV show? when it went on the air? title of a book or two? Cut the self-serving nonsense. What a waste of time. Wetman 01:30, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable. Apparently a regional show. Were it to be national or syndicated nationally, I would vote to keep. Geogre 01:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa rank of 480,886. Not high enough for wide notability, and Wikipedia is not a web guide (as a comparison, a randomly selected cookery site from a google search, www.texascooking.com, ranks 93,027 with Alexa, while a famous British chef at www.deliaonline ranks at number 37,368). If their book is a roaring success, maybe they'll deserve an article, but there are hordes of cookery books out there, and hordes of TV chefs. Average Earthman 02:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This very much feels like self-promotion. Original article has POV, reads like a PR blurb, and conveniently has Amazon link and 1-sentence article about the publisher. Editor at 168.143.113.138 reversed the vfd and added this to list of chefs. Maybe articles for each of the "Three Guys" but not an article for the title of this trio. --Junesix 03:10, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable self-promotion. Though I'm sure it's yummy. But wasn't this book already weritten by Jerome K. Jerome? -- orthogonal 22:08, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ACORN -- Add to this discussion

This is quite clearly nothing more than a piece of PR propaganda for the organization. I mean, for fuck's sake..."The 80s proved to be a time when the political elite in America was less concerned with the needs of low-and moderate-income people than ever." WTF?

Anyway, I'm not sure it necessarily needs to be deleted--it may still be salvageable--but it was suggested in #wikipedia that listing it here is the only way to get any decent amount of attention brought to it.

Kurt Weber 04:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep: If its claim of having over 160,000 families registered, it's surely deserving of an article. I say send it to cleanup to get increased attention. -Frazzydee 04:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely notable. Send to Cleanup for POV-ectomy. Kevyn 05:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and send to cleanup. Not promotional as such. One-sided, biassed, but legitimate, well-written description of a notable organization. POV as such is cause for editing and balance, not for deletion. If the nominator is knowledgable, he could begin the process by adding a section entitled "Criticisms" or something of the sort, explaining why the organization is really... whatever he thinks it is. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) P. S. In response to the sentence "This is quite clearly nothing more than a piece of PR propaganda for the organization" my response would be "this is quite clearly something more than a piece of PR propaganda, although it clearly does contain some PR propaganda." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:45, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Send to clean up. ACORN is pretty significant and active, but a clean up is needed. Geogre 13:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Don't nominate for VfD because you don't like an organization's politics. Geogre 16:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't. Read above for why I nominated it here.Kurt Weber 17:47, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A perfectly legitimate topic. — Gwalla | Talk 01:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I removed the vfd, as it did not meet vfd guidelines. If this is incorrect etiquette, please let me know. --LegCircus 15:49, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • It is. Once an item is listed, it should stay. Usually, no one will object if the nominator removes the VfD tag in a landslide vote. No one else should, and, honestly, the nominator shouldn't, either. Let the 5 days go by. The tag will do no harm, and we won't forget to assess the votes properly. Meanwhile, Clean Up really should work on it. Geogre 18:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs some NPOVing to be more encyclopedic but is a perfectly valid topic for an article. This listing is absurd and quite clearly politically motivated, which is a waste of everyone's time. If an article needs some work this is not the way to draw attention to it. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • For the umpteenth time: No, it's not politically motivated. If you'd actually read what I wrote above, you'll find out why I submitted it.
    • I have read what you wrote above, and I have also read your user page, on which you admit to holding extreme right-wing views. If you wanted this article NPOVing you could have done it yourself, or brought it to people's attention in the usual way, but instead you tried to have it expunged from Wikipedia. No doubt this was your way of opening up a new front in the battle for, as you put it, "the entire destruction of socialism and collectivism." — Trilobite (Talk) 08:06, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • 1) No, I do not hold "extreme right-wing views", and I have no clue what gave you that idea. My ideology is very much NOT right-wing. 2) Your assertion notwithstanding, several people suggested to me that the only way to get attention brought to it to help clean it up was to list it on VfD, and following their suggestion, I did. I do not necessarily want it deleted (and if you actually did read what I wrote you will see I said as much). Grow up.Kurt Weber 18:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment I regret not knowing the etiquette, but I must say I disagree with it. There have been no delete votes (even the user who called the vote won't vote for deletion). There was no proper justification for the tag in the first place, and if we agree that VfD should not be used to draw attentiont to the page, then why do we reward those who would use it thus? Once again let me apologize for being new. I welcome comments at User talk:LegCircus — LegCircus 02:52, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

You may have a point here. If someone put a VfD tag on a big article like George W. Bush (for example) it would be removed immediately, and there wouldn't be a five day debate on the matter. I don't think you need to worry about anyone being rewarded for misuse of VfD though. A string of "keep" votes shows the community's disapproval. The VfD banner will disappear from the article in a few days and then the important work of NPOVing can begin. It can begin now actually, as there is no rule about not editing pages while they're being voted on. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not that you need another vote, but Keep. Needs a POV-ectomy, but it's definitely a notable organization. Antandrus 03:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Hold (slow-down?) This page contains potential copyright violations which need to be resolved first. I asked the submitter to clarify. Rmhermen 13:29, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I am the submitter and primary contributer to the page. There is no copyright problem. If I need to clarify further I will. Otherwise I will prepare for the next assault on my innocent little article. --LegCircus 15:34, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, now that copyright is resolved. Anyone know the preferred method for indicating this in the article? Rmhermen 16:16, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
      • It's best on the talk page rather than in the article. My suggestion: "This article incorporates material from http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=722. As the copyright holder I agree to license it under the GFDL. ~~~~" (signed by LegCircus of course). — Trilobite (Talk) 16:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, these people have managed to annoy me, so they must be notable.

• Keep. Why should the article be censored? Why not help to edit it to present a more NPOV if you find that it is so biased? --DV 08:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep - this should've been put on Cleanup, not VfD. ··gracefool |☺ 09:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of people by reported SAT score

List of people by reported SAT score 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.

This survived VfD on 5 September, 2004. It has not been substantially improved since then, particularly in the area of verifiability. The article contains its own deletion justification, namely "many of these scores are unverified." A correct statement would be that none of them are verified, since there no citations at all. On examining the discussion it seems to me that many of the votes against deletion are highly qualified, some feeling it should be kept only if verified and many feeling that the verifiable information should be merged into SAT. There are indications in this edit history that this page attracts prank and borderline-vandalism edits. I think it's appropriate to reconsider this. The previous VfD discussion appears below. My own vote is delete. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BEGIN NEW DISCUSSION HERE

• Delete. Unverifiable and un-expandable beyond a couple dozen entries. --Gene s 14:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a suitable subject. Scores are confidential, this list is based on the Time magazine article referenced, which lists ten people and says Here's how some famous folks told us they did on their SATs. Arguably both original research and a copyvio as is, and if expanded by asking more people it would then certainly be original research. Andrewa 16:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. —tregoweth 16:43, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Houshuang 18:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Conditional delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 18:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: DCEdwards1966 19:19, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete'. Unverifiable and unmaintainable. Jayjg 19:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - it's either unverifiable, or it's incredibly invasive. Cdc 00:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete on general principle that all these idiot lists make Wikipedia look like a nest of wankers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:46, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - points already made above (and below, for that matter) -- Cyrius|✎ 06:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, for the same reason other lists of this type have been deleted: it's totally unverifiable. Shane King 06:57, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - even if someone's score can be verified, it should part of the article about that person, with a link to SAT - Skysmith 08:54, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, and let every self-important 17-year-old put himself on the list, too, right after he writes an article on his high school. Just kidding. Delete. EventHorizon 04:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Edeans 06:54, 16 Dec 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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

---

Previous discussion

Third Echelon -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

This looks like a paranoid rant or a cut and paste from a conspiracy theory page. Everything I have read on the NSA describes them as a bunch of non-violent electronics engineers, techs software specialists and computer science geniuses. AlainV 05:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, this article is the plot from the book/video game Splinter Cell. Flockmeal 05:38, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, just put in a sentence so people know its a fictional organization. -- Crevaner 08:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Make a redirect to Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. No need to merge the material. Geogre 13:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I would prefer a straight delete as non-encyclopedic detail that is already adequately covered in Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. We should probably redirect, though, to keep it from popping up again. Rossami 15:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because it's fiction, doesn't mean it's non-encyclopedic. Splinter Cell is reasonably famous. ··gracefool |☺ 09:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but it should be made more clear that this is a fictional organization. I'm thinking a framed disclaimer box or something --Farside 14:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC).
• Redirect to Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and merge material, if necessary. Andris 19:52, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

"Splinter Cell"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the term "Splinter Cell" refer to the entire team? I could have sworn Sam Fisher was just the Splinter Cell operative. --Foot Dragoon 20:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Third Echelon is the team. A Splinter Cell is the main operator on the field. They are called that because they break off from Third Echelon during the operation (no evidence that they are American) and if caught or captured they are disavowed.

I second the above statement made. The very first game's fact "generator" even says that. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Question of ECHELON's existence

There is no controversy as to the existence of the program. There are plenty of references at the ECHELON article itself. The BBC claims that US officials have confirmed its existence.[15] A US Representative confirm its existence in the presence of the chairman for the house intelligence committee without question. [16] It's also discussed in a House Judiciary hearing, without question, during discussion on Amendment IV and it's relationship to signal intelligence. [17] Like the Cointelpro, and ARTICHOKE/MKULTRA, the existence was at once time only considered rumoured or conspiracy theory, but is completely confirmed as true today. Divinus 10:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That house.org site contains no instance of the word "echelon". And I said in my edit comment that I want an official confirmation. Those other sites are not up to snuff. It is still a rumor. ColdFusion650 21:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Did you spell it wrong when searching the text? It contains three! Check Page 87, paragraph 1 [18]; Page 199, paragraph 5 [19]; and Page 201, paragraph 2 [20]. It is part of the public record that is published by the House itself. There is no dispute whatsoever, and you're just dismissing fact out of hand. How is an interview with Representatives and the House Intelligence Committee Chairman on 60 Minutes not 'up to snuff'? There is plenty of evidence of the program's existence. Do you have any citations of a government official denying the existence of the project? Divinus 23:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Old Votes for deletion

An article for a single card from Magic? Even if it does go for $1000 (which I doubt it does; I thought the bottom had somewhat fallen out of that market). Merge and redirect to Magic: The Gathering, before we get thousands of other pages like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. fiend (talk • contribs) 08:00, 29 August 2004 (UTC)

• I came across one like this a little while ago and redirected it. But yes, delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Black Lotus is the most legendary card in the game, and gets >6000 Google hits. I vote keep this, delete other cards that might show up. --Farside 11:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect as the fiend said. Then we can read about this legendary card in its proper context. --Tagishsimon

• Merge: "Black lotus" is no doubt the rarest card because it's a legendary flower for mythical opium. It is also used as some kind of unspecified opium in the Baldurs Gate games. Perhaps make it a disambiguation for the various uses of the word (it's like the lotus flower itself -- used in all sorts of mythologies and fictions). Geogre 13:03, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I created this stub specifically because I came across its listing [21] on Wikipedia:What's in, what's out. I also checked eBay to confirm the prices- I was suprised, as well. I do agree with R. fiend: we don't want thousands of articles like this. However, due to its noteriety, it seems due its own (non-stub) page. Keep.--Rossumcapek 18:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete most articles on trading cards, but a few, incl. this one, are notable enough for separate articles. Keep. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:20, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

• Keep. Black Lotus is an exceptional aspect of Magic: The Gathering culture due to its infamy and value. RMG 00:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • Keep* This is the most valuable and famous element of a cultural phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.41.142 (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Make sure that other cards aren't added... but an article on the single card the most exlempifies a magic cultural item, and costs so much? Gotta have it. Lyellin 01:23, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep, but emphatically not a sanction to include most other Magic cards. -- Jmabel 04:55, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes my carefully crafted "that's interesting" test. Terrapin 15:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but only because of the card's notoriety. No precedent should be set here. Spatch 18:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If this is deleted, then mark every one in here as VfD, since it's pretty much the same. The Black Lotus is the "mythical card", even I as a non-Magic player know of it's existance and value. WolfenSilva 19:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Personally, I don't have a problem with magic card listings, given the precedent w/ Pokemon. But even if you don't accept that premise, the card still attains notability in its own right. Lacrimosus 22:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I suppose. I want to note how extraordinarily fortunate I feel that I was able to look upon the card through the external link without having to pay anything. Everyking 23:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I did a quick search for "Black Lotus" on eBay and found one that's currently at over $1600 and there have been sixteen bids. Not only is it remarkably expensive for a game card, but people are willing to pay for it. That's encyclopedic. Keep. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Absolutely keep, even if there probably aren't any other article-worthy Magic cards. As for Everyking's comment, I actually played a rather convincing fake once. It was fun... -- SS 21:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. This is relevant to millions of Magic fans, at least. ··gracefool |☺ 09:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. I basically agree with the sentiments above. Since the card has been highly sought-after and out of print for over ten years, it is historically important. The article does need some expansion, though. Neckro 21:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Probably the famous cards in the game. Certainly the most valuable. Few if any other Magic Card articles could be justified. Maybe Tolarian Academy... CHL 20:05, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Old comments

This is the search result for Power Nine. I would like to know where this list of cards came from in the first place. Obviously it is not universally accepted that they are the most powerful cards in magic, so the source is important. Dragonlord — Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 30 January 2005‎ (UTC)

No, and the article doesn't (or shouldn't) claim that they're the most powerful cards, but that is their common collective name. I have 1996 InQuests that use the term, and I believe I can find a dated strategy book with Mark Justice, Gary Wise, and others using the term. I believe the term has its roots from before 1995. I'll try to track it down.

Incidentally, I think this article should be moved to "power nine". It would not take much more to add descriptions for the other cards, and much of the article is directed toward that anyway. Cool Hand Luke 06:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, so I won't make the change myself, but I was under the impression that Black Lotus was considered the most powerful Magic card ever printed. As such, the section saying that it is solely sought after because of its rarity should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geinsei (talk • contribs) 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't tread on anybody's toes!

Black Lotus definitely deserves full mention with regards to M:TG. I made a page for all of the Power Nine cards and I encourage everybody to add to entries there. The information is more accessable that way. A redirect to the power nine page is here now, but I merged the content here into the Power Nine content since much of it was similar anyway. Ryan Prior 16:48, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

I appreciate that this was previously moved per request, and presumably appropriately. At this point, the page is a dab at black lotus, but the only entries seem to be capitalized. So, the proper place for the page would seem to be Black Lotus. If an actual "black lotus" existed, perhaps that fact would inform the page title choice. ENeville (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Conan

The original Conan stories refer to a black lotus as a poisonous plant. I'm wondering if Ron Howard invented the mythology surrounding the flower or recycled it from somewhere else.

He recoiled, recognizing the black lotus, whose juice was death, and whose scent brought
dream-haunted slumber.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.27.117 (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well unknown editor, i primarily just wanted to add the info that there's this plant named black lotus exist in the fantasy world created by Robert E. Howard, not start a debate :)

I had just watched Conan the barbarian(film) and searched for black lotus on wiki & later google and read several of REH's stories and found that there weren't anything about this subject on wikipedia's black lotus disambiguation page prior my edit.

" The Black lotus is a flower found deep in the jungles Khitai. Smelling the black lotus makes a person fall asleep, but not just a regular sleep. The spell of the black lotus makes the sleeper dream very strange dreams. " // http://aoc.wikia.com/wiki/blacklotus

" Conan suddenly realized that the air was impregnated with an alien and exotic scent.Something gently brushed his temple. He turned quickly. From a cluster of green, curiously leafed stalks, great black blossoms nodded at him. One of these had touched him. They seemed to beckon him, to arch their pliant stems toward him. They spread and rustled, though no wind blew. "

http://aoc.wikia.com/wiki/Queen_of_the_Black_Coast_%28REH%29#The_Horror_in_the_Jungle (original REH story)

I wrote it's a (sedative) narcotic plant because it made Conan fell asleep in the above mentioned story and in the film-adaption it's a chewable narcotic from Stygia. I believe a poisonous plant would've killed him not make him fall asleep, could be wrong though.

Regarding the recycle thing, we can only speculate. I do believe though, he might have got the black lotus idea from Tintin, the Blue Lotus(1934–1935) or while reading about the ancient Egyptians/other cultures revering lotus flowers.

--Byzantios (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Gelnaw's Law -- Add to this discussion

Gelnaw's Law gets few if any hits (wiki mirrors apart) on Google [22] [23] [24]. Suspect either invention or non-notability. Ironic, huh? --Tagishsimon

• Delete: Probably no hoax, probably well known in a specialized field. However, insufficient spread and usage for a general encyclopedia. Geogre 13:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep [was:] Don't Delete: I've heard it several times before, but I believe it's named incorrectly. I'd suggest, if anyone has the time, doing a little research to find the origin. GregDunn 20:50, 29 Aug 2004 (GMT -6)
  • Vote de-confused by me;2nd edit in his month-long history. --Jerzy(t) 05:14, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Searching on the text of the "law" gets only Wikipedia, mirrors, and one blog. Non-verifiable. SWAdair | Talk 03:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Don't Delete: I've heard it used several times and it think that it's named correctly, though spelling may be questiable. 16:33, 1 Sep 2004
  • Struck thru bcz anon. Their two edits on this vote are, BTW, their only ones. --Jerzy(t) 05:14, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
    • Jerzy, editing other people's votes is pretty questionable. We all know that anonymous votes don't count, so all you need to do is make a note like "no other edits" -- no need to pass judgement. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Del. The other two laws cited have already sucked all the air, and humor, out of this field. Non-notable. --Jerzy(t) 05:14, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough people know about it to justify it's inclusion. ··gracefool |☺ 09:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not clear why this is notable. Andris 19:55, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Okrent's law -- Add to this discussion

Okrent's law - Neologism, 19 or less google hits, many from mirrors. --Tagishsimon

• Delete. The stub also doesn't explain what this maxim is supposed to imply. It sounds terribly philosophical, but its consequences are not developed. JFW | T@lk 14:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain: The NYT is a heck of a platform from which to launch a law. Okrent's law is about the NYT's desire to "balance" stories that don't have two sides and about journalism's non-stop effort to get the other side, when the other side really doesn't have adherents. (E.g. someone proposes that we need to treat the mentally ill. The reporter thinks he or she simply has to go find someone who disagrees. Consequently, an "expert" from some Nietzschean-influenced organization gets ink to say that the mentally ill should be sterilized.) Geogre 15:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, or at least find someplace to merge it with; a bon mot that is in the process of becoming famous, or deserves to. If nothing else, it's something worthwhile to keep in mind when writing here. Smerdis of Tlön 22:03, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Neologism, no context, and the actual meaning of the term is very poorly explained. However, the topic of the "law" is something worth discussing. Delete if not expanded or renamed. -Sean Curtin 02:43, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. If it spreads, it can come back later. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Add Geogre's analysis to the article. This does deserve to be famous. Key45 21:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is not our purpose to seek to, or assist in, coining neologisms, deserving or not. Merge it into journalism, if you will; and even then, I'd lose the law tag as being neologistic. --Tagishsimon

• Keep, although the article clearly needs more context. ··gracefool |☺ 09:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: neologism with no currency. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:12, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If this becomes known, an article can be added later. Andris 19:57, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to article on Okrent. Ellsworth 23:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

W h auden -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Uncapitalized page title, only content is a poem copied in from somewhere. Any proper content should go to W. H. Auden but there's not even anything to merge. Bonalaw 14:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Change to a redirect to W. H. Auden, no merge needed. The poem would be Wikisource, if it weren't encumbered. It is, of course, and it's absurd to even debate it. Geogre 15:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Made into a redirect. The poem, "Refugee Blues," was mass e-mailed after 9/11, since it seemed prescient. It's a fine, fine poem from Auden's middle period, and I recommend people read it carefully, without thinking about 9/11. Geogre 15:30, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Untitled

From VfD:

I'm sure she's a wonderful entertainer, but is the winner of a drag beauty pageant sufficiently notable? Geogre 16:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• thought about listing this one myself, but a quick googling [25] revealed a certain amount of fame, which might just translate into notablity. Abstain awaiting comment from those more versed in the Dublin transvestite / cross-dressing bingo scene than I am. --Ianb 20:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. A weekly bingo event in a gay bar? I wonder if that's to tempt the blue rinse brigade away from Mecca Bingo halls in Dublin? The mind boggles. Saint will 20:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• weak keep. I'm not exactly involved in the gay/trans scene but I have heard of this person. She's had reasonable TV time on RTÉ as far as I know. Given a week to expand I think this article could be worthwhile. If it stays as it is I don't care one way or the other.—Rory ☺ 01:33, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, noteworthy enough and hundreds of Google hits. ··gracefool |☺ 09:57, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. anthony (see warning) 14:25, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Comment

Shirley is also a TV star in Ireland on RTE (the national broadcaster) for about three years now and is regularly commenting in Irish media.

Redirected

I have redirect to Declan Buckley, as this is more common at present. It was just a mirror page under a different title. Murry1975 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Freundster -- Add to this discussion

• Neologism/pun. Does this exist outside of a small collection of slang users somewhere? (Besides, wouldn't Froindster be better than invoking Sigmund?) Geogre 18:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • that would be a "Freudster" --Ianb 12:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • quite. I wonder what that lapsus lingua says about me? Geogre 18:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, dictdef. — Gwalla | Talk 01:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Ianb 12:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Rossami 20:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. BTW I just added the VFD header on this after finding it on my own; it wasn't there. KeithTyler 00:05, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Wayne township -- Add to this discussion

A US School district which doesn't seem notable. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Additionally, the Revolutionary War Wayne has a lot of things named after him around the country. I once taught at Wayne Country Day School. It's half the continent away from Wayne County, Michigan, or this Wayne Township in Indiana, or Fort Wayne. Also, the article is misnamed. Also, people in Australia adding the names of all the suburbs of Canberra have even less interest in this, I'm afraid, than I do in those. Geogre 21:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• In Indiana, townships are administrative divisions of unincorporated parts of counties. This article doesn't say that this one is notable, it's factually wrong cause it says it's a school district, and it doesn't reflect the naming conventions. Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 22:11, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. This gets complicated. At a minimum, the title's got to change. "Metropolitan School District of Wayne Township"[26] is different than "Wayne Township"[27], although the township used to manage the schools before the school district was split off. I suppose an argument could be made that one article could cover both at Wayne Township, Indianapolis (or Wayne Township, Marion County, Indiana) (there are three other Wayne Townships in the US, one of which is also in Indiana), with a redir from the school district's full name, although the boundaries of the two bodies are no longer identical. If not, this should be moved to the SD name if kept with this content. If it stays just Wayne Township, it should cover the services it still provides--"township assistance, formerly known as poor relief; EMS and fire protection[28]; parks; maintenance, preservation and restoration of cemeteries; assessing property for tax purposes; weed control; and paying livestock claims."[29]. Niteowlneils 22:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and change the title. ··gracefool |☺ 09:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid reason to delete. anthony (see warning) 14:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Plàcid -- Add to this discussion

Vanity. The refered page ca:Plàcid_Pérez_Bru seems to have also been deleted -Nabla 21:05, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

• Speedy delte candidate for a substub out of which nothing can grow (because it's not the name of the place, but just one word of it, as if the above were "Wayne" instead of "Wayne township"). Geogre 21:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - no context. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Postcodes: New South Wales -- Add to this discussion

Postcodes: New South Wales 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. (6 delete, 9 keep, 1 ambiguous) Rossami 05:13, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

co-listed: Postcodes: New South Wales A-M, Postcodes: New South Wales N-Z A list of 2610 (!) postcodes. Unencyclopedic-Nabla 21:17, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Other Australian postcode lists :

1. Postcodes: Australian Capital Territory
2. Postcodes: New South Wales A-M
3. Postcodes: New South Wales N-Z
4. Postcodes: Northern Territory
5. Postcodes: Queensland
6. Postcodes: South Australia
7. Postcodes: Tasmania
8. Postcodes: Victoria
9. Postcodes: Western Australia

[[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 21:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I propose colisting List of ZIP Codes in the United States and sections thereof, as a very similar page. That being said, I vote keep on everything. Postal codes are certainly notable. {User:Yelyos seems to have forgotten to sign. Niteowlneils 22:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)}
• I vote delete on all. Tabular data like this is not encyclopedic. It's something for an almanac or gazette. It's a flat record, with no commentary or contextualizing of the information. It is, therefore, not fitting into declarative sentences, not encyclopedic. Geogre 21:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. I doubt that these lists will be maintained for changes. Mikkalai 22:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. De ja vu all over again (see Wikipedia talk:Do lists of postal codes belong on Wikipedia? from VfD less than 5 months ago). As I said then, "According to Wikipedia:What is an article, "A Wikipedia article is defined as a page that has encyclopedic or almanac-like information on it ("almanac-like" being; lists, timelines, tables or charts)." Almanacs do have ZIP Code lists in them, although in a slightly different presentation (numerical only within state). ...Finally, I don't believe there is anyway to find out what city a certain ZIP Code belongs to on usps.com, so there is value to the lists."I hardly think mapsonus.com is common knowledge, but since this point seems to be a distraction, I'll remove it to focus on my main two points: 1) I don't think ANY article should be subjected to VfD anything less than six months apart, and 2) Wikipedia, by definition includes "almanac" lists, and ZIP/Postal codes are included in almanacs. Niteowlneils 22:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Sure you can find a city with a zip code. Go to http://www.mapsonus.com/db/USPS/, put in the zip code, and click on Find MyPostOfficeTM. Delete all Zip code articles. RickK 23:11, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If you want to find beginning of the postal code for a city, just search on the city in Google and look at any address in that city. If it's a reasonably sized business you are looking for, you can usually find the exact code that way. Bad use of technology. Jallan 01:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep all. -Sean Curtin 02:45, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. As much as I'm not a huge fan of this kind of stuff in an encyclopedia, it has been long-standing policy (at least on VfD) that we do not delete information of this type (besides, postal codes don't need updating, at least in the short - ie, decades - term) Denni☯ 21:48, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Comment: Postal codes in Canada are updated to some extent every month and a new postal code data file issued for address correction purposes and postal sort purposes. I believe it is every three months for zip codes in the United States. I have no idea about Australia. Jallan 03:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Perhaps a short explaination of the postcode format and an off-site link to http://www.auspost.com.au/postcodes/ on the Communications in Australia article would do. Also see Talk:List of Australian post codes -- Chuq 05:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Alamanc type information. Similar to a large majority of Wikipedia. Wodan 00:09, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid data. Changes to codes are rare, so maintenance is not an issue.--Gene_poole 02:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not a big fan of almanac-type data in an encyclopedia, but since a virtually identical article (topic) survived VfD less than six months ago, I have to vote to keep this one. SWAdair | Talk 04:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Postcode: New South Wales since it only contains links to two other pages, but Keep the actual postcodes. No less encyclopedic than "Lists of". ··gracefool |☺ 10:01, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, unless someone wants to make a wikibook of world postal codes, in which case move thither. Valid and possibly even useful information. Dukeofomnium 02:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all postal codes. Other sources cover this more thoroughly and more accurately than WP. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:47, 4 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.

Field name -- Add to this discussion

Dicdef, doesn't look expandable. —siroχo 22:25, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to record. — Gwalla | Talk 01:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't agree with a redirect at all, and therefore not with a merge. The reason is that "field name" is at least as common in botany and ornithology and entymology for living critters, and the last thing I expected to find, when I clicked on the link, was a definition for computer science. Geogre 02:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: what about a disambig page? — Gwalla | Talk 05:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Possibly so, yes. I suppose the disambiguation would be to the various fields, so to speak. Geogre 12:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to record, on its own it can never be more than a stub. ··gracefool |☺ 10:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Along with Geogre, I expected to find something different to computer science, only my expectation was for something on field names in the UK: every single field (bit of land with a fence around it) has a name and some of them are quite fascinating how they came about them. Turn into disambig page is my vote. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

August 30

Orion (names) -- Add to this discussion

Aside from terrible naming conventions, I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia (while I'm on the fence about this). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: "Orion" = "O'Ryan?" Nooooo. There aren't really variations, and we should already have plenty on Orion without this. Geogre 02:35, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Looking at the edit history all I can say is that it is a shame that the people who edited this spent so much time with so little useful result. Delete. Fire Star 05:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I'd say include the info in one of the articles on the disamb page and delete. MGM 07:31, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Ridiculous --Tonioto 22:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Definitely Delete. A poor sub-stub and inferior to the Orion page. Saint will 11:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Mesmerizing in its non-notableness. delete. Terrapin 13:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I can't even see anything from this substub that'd be useful on the disambiguation page. Delete. Spatch 18:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. And O'Ryan quite clearly isn't derived from Orion! Trilobite (Talk) 02:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. And I believe the eytmology of Orion is unknown. The two translations here might be legitimate guesses by genuine linguists, but I'd like to see sources and reasoning. One Greek myth connects the name with "urinating" because Orion was born from an ox's hide onto which Zeus, Poseidon, and Hermes had urinated. Probably folk-etymology. Jallan 02:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with and redirect to Orion, or simply merge and delete. Aecis 22:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Orion. That's the template followed by other disambig pages. ··gracefool |☺ 04:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep! The name is legitimate. -- Crevaner 05:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Mitre -- Add to this discussion

Article listed on WP:VFD Aug 30 to Sep 22 2004, consensus was to merge and redirect. Discussion:

• Delete. Non-notable. RSpeer 04:32, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• At least Merge into University of St Andrews. A publication at a very notable university. I can't tell be reading this whether the publication is notable enough to merit its own article: can someone from Scotland weigh in? -- 05:06, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• I agree, this needs to be Merged with the Uni website. It's fairly interesting, but doesn't deserve a page on it's own. Besides, isn't a Mitre a kind of hat that Bishops wear? Saint will 11:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It is a one year old paper, so it's not the student newspaper. It seems like this is the St. Andrews version of The Dartmouth Review: a counter paper. Further, a redirect of this term to University of St Andrews is going to be iffy, because it is an ecclesiastical item. Geogre 12:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • To clarify: I would merge without redirection. Yes, the analogy to The Dartmouth Review seems spot on. I see we don't have an article on that. We should. If this paper has even a fraction of the same impact, it deserves at least discussion in the article on the Uni it is attached to. -- Jmabel 16:27, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • The general opinion I've seen is that merging without redirection violates the GFDL. RSpeer 17:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, the ecclesiastical item would be at Mitre or Miter. RickK 19:07, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Righto. Just thinking of who-knows-what that could grab the title (the Freemason's newsletter? the BPO Elks meeting hall? dunno). Geogre 19:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The author has written quite a few lines on the subject. It would be too big just to shove it in the uni article. Trilobite (Talk) 02:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I would recommend a merge, with a dab link to the uni from Mitre... if the vote ends up to keep this article, though, I recomment moving to The Mitre (periodical). We also need to do some disambig work for Mitre vs MITRE. -FZ 13:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• What FZ said. Incidentally The Mitre is also the name of a pub in Oxford. Highly unnotable bar the fact that it's a decent pub, just thought I'd mention it... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, managing to find a decent pub in Oxford is notable. -FZ 16:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. What Trilobite said. ··gracefool |☺ 04:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a worthy article! -- Crevaner 05:47, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Danebod Family Camp -- Add to this discussion

• Uh, wow! It's a camp... with games... and get this, crafts! It must be notable! Delete. RSpeer 04:40, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Notably non-notable. -- Jmabel 05:07, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Martinl 08:18, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm so amazed by the non-notability of this! Saint will 11:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A camp, but a concisely written article. Geogre 12:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm tempted to say keep, as we have plenty of articles on tiny non-notable villages, suburbs, schools etc., but there's really no information of value here. If the author can make it interesting I will change my vote, as I think Wikipedia should in general be covering topics considered non-notable by dead tree encyclopedias. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. My major concern with this type of article is that even though it may be relevant today, what will its value be in ten years five years two years from now? Does the topic of this article have sufficient staying power that it will be on anyone's radar in the short term (never mind the long term)? I think this does not cut it. Denni☯ 02:04, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
• Keep. What harm is it doing? It's relevant to thousands of people, which is more than can be said about many articles here. ··gracefool |☺ 04:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Andris 20:01, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Index.dat -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

This seems like the author has a hidden agenda and non-notable subject. I looked in my Windows machine and didn't find this "index.dat" file. The author might be some privacy advocate trying to cause unnecessary negative publicity towards Windows. Passion 06:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, it's highly POV. If it was an encyclopedic subject, a rewrite should begin with a blank page. Passion 07:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, using Google isn't reliable because there are lots of different files - not related to Windows - called index.dat and it's where shareware developers hawk their "privacy programs". Passion 07:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Relevant and clearly notable (149,000 Google results.) Keep. - Mustafaa 07:18, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I agree. There are at least one Internet Explorer vulnerability connected with this file. BTW, there are seven "index.dat" files on my Windows machine. Keep. --Martinl 08:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect: A single Windows file doesn't really need an encyclopedia entry, even if it is presented like this. Merge and redirect to Internet privacy or Internet Explorer. Geogre 12:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Don't merge/redirect. A legitimate topic. May need some NPOVification, like adding Microsoft's argument in favor of it. — Gwalla | Talk 17:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep but only with a POVectomy. Spatch 18:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Not only a legitimate topic, but a notable one, too. Please don't merge/redirect. As for NPOV, that's an issue to deal with after we resolve the Vfd issue. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 18:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Written somewhat unprofessionaly though, send to cleanup. Kim Bruning 18:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• keep, but with urgent cleanup. I don't like how that "deltree" is placed there. WolfenSilva 19:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Merge I agree that this is indeed a large, encyclopediatic issue (though probably not as currently written as much) it doesn't warrent it's own article. -TheFed 00:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • wikipedia is not paper Kim Bruning 07:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep While the subject is, in my opinion, just pure paranoia and MS bashing, it is real (hidden in a super-secret folder). [[User:Anárion|File:Anarion.png]] 15:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Real file, real concerns. Does need some NPOV washing. Key45 22:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Ah the days of fine-tuning my roaming profile size in Uni (deleting such files!) zoney ▓   ▒ talk 00:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. There are many legit Google links. It needs cleanup, not deletion. ··gracefool |☺ 04:19, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discusiion

John Wilding -- Add to this discussion

John Wilding is an advertisement. Delete this, and also the duplicate article John Wilding Ltd. Lupo 11:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• And also delete Contract Hire: it's also an ad for the same car dealer. Lupo 11:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I say delete. The saint has spoken. Saint will 11:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for advertising and Misuse of Capital Letters. --Ianb 11:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Sorry but the site does not make plain that a company cannot put links to itself. However, John Wilding and John Wilding Ltd will happily amend the article to give just a history of the 20 year old Company. We trust that this will satisfy users.
  • post by User:213.122.106.236, 11:55, 30 Aug 2004. To that user -- you have a few days to improve the article to show is noteworthiness. Otherwise, if there is a consensus to delete here, because users vote on its notability, it will be deleted. Writing about yourself is generally frowned upon, see Wikipedia:Autobiography. Wikipedia is not a web directory, it is an encyclopaedia. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The new page form clearly states "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business". -- Cyrius|✎ 05:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert for a non-notable car dealership. — Gwalla | Talk 17:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• curius comment to talk page "Search "McDonalds" or "KFC" and see if you still think that Wikipedia is non-commercial" 19:29, 30 Aug 2004 User:2004lionheart
  • McDonald's and KFC are notable multinational restaurant chains. Their entries were created by Wikipedians, not the press department (it probably says rather nasty things about McDonalds (in fact just thinking about eating meat makes me rather queasy)) as for garages, Kwik Fit might be notable (cos you can't get quicker than a kwik fit fitter) but others? Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete both John Wilding and John Wilding Ltd: advertising. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete car dealership. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Please Delete, useless advertisement fullerton 05:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Local business listing. Geogre 01:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

keepVagrant 19:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete -advertisement, not noteable--Fenice 20:48, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Netline -- Add to this discussion

Insignificant company. Wyllium 12:34, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Reads like an ad. Delete. RSpeer 12:47, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. WikiSpam. — Gwalla | Talk 17:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Reads like an ad, dies like an ad. The product might be worth mentioning. --Ianb 18:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: wikispam. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Reading like an ad is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. anthony (see warning) 14:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Since it's an ad, delete. The author can recreate it as a proper article if they want. ··gracefool |☺ 04:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SimulaWorks -- Add to this discussion

Ad, Gets fewer than 100 google hits, certainly non-notable for a computer-related topic. —siroχo 13:02, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Ad for non-notable software. — Gwalla | Talk 17:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not look notable. --Ianb 18:38, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete if evidence of notability not provided in article. The software looks like something that could be notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. anthony (see warning) 14:33, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Please provide a case for notability, as I did for non-notability. —siroχo 19:16, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • The number of google hits something gets is not a case for non-notability. It's even more important for us to have articles on things with few google hits. anthony (see warning) 19:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert/non-notable. Andris 15:26, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

2004 Summer Olympians who attended Dartmouth College -- Add to this discussion

Mmm..kay... Terrapin 13:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Nooooohhhh... The same goes for 2004 Summer Olympians who did not attend Dartmouth College, 2004 Summer Olympians whose relatives attended Dartmouth College, 2004 Summer Olympians who failed entry to Dartmouth College ... --Ianb 13:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• If they're olympians, they're notable. Merge with Dartmouth College under a general list of alumni. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Same for 2004 Olympians who failed to get into Dartmouth College and Olympians who competed for the EU who went to Dartmouth College. If they're Olympians, they should have separate articles. If the author wants to note them as famous alums, that's fine. The next logical step after this would be 2004 Olympians who went to University of North Carolina, 2004 Olympians who went to UCLA etc. Far too minor. Geogre 14:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: What with all the controversy surrounding the articles about Olympians from EU countries and about Dartmouth, I'm surprised someone actually decided to put up this un-encyclopedia-worthy article. I really fear soon we'll be seeing things like People from Dartmouth who prefer Colgate toothpaste and Olympians whose weight is a Harshad number on this page. Livajo 16:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• How about the impending article on Dartmouth College undergrads who didn't make the 2004 Summer Olympics but watched it on TV? -- Jmabel 16:31, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - This has got to be a joke. - RedWordSmith 17:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Please don't create joke articles just to "prove" a point on VfD. — Gwalla | Talk 17:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious joke. This one isn't funny, though. Lacrimosus 21:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, joke. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, this kind of information can be noted in articles about Dartmouth or the Olympians who attended Dartmouth, but a separate list is not justified. --Michael Snow 17:26, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously; but this made me laugh. We couldn't work a Pokémon or an obscure Middle Earth character in there?—Rory ☺ 17:47, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with 2004 Summer Olympics or some other subpage. anthony (see warning) 14:35, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with Dartmouth College. -spencer195 21:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, merge with Dartmouth College. ··gracefool |☺ 04:27, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

AzurEeL -- Add to this discussion

An FRP character. FRP is Fibre Reinforced Plastic. Anyone have the foggiest idea what this is about? According to google [30] it seems only to be a user name in Turkish-language internet fora. --Ianb 13:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • Also Azureel. --Ianb 13:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Azureel is now no more, it is an ex-AzurEel. --Ianb 18:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Nonsensical vanity. One ought not write an article on one's 44th level illusionist mage. Geogre 14:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• "(the last letter is big due to emphasize the long tail.)" Whether it's patented or not, it's still nonsense--quite funny nonsense, though. Delete -- Bobdoe 16:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. In coherent nonsense about some kid's roleplaying persona. Somebody also edited FRP into a disambig between Fibre Reinforced Plastic and Fantasy Role Playing—possibly the same user. — Gwalla | Talk 17:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. (By the way, the disambig was created by The Anome, not the same user.) Rossami 21:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Speed deleted as patent nonsense. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gold V-dramon -- Add to this discussion

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

No idea what language. Andris 12:20, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Looks Indonesian, and unencyclopedic - any speakers? - Mustafaa 19:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The presence of pun and digimon make me seriously doubt it is an authentic system of writing. - --67.65.112.151 04:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, it's real. It's either Indonesian or Malaysian, it seems to be about a digimon character of some sort. "pun" is a real Indonesian word. - Node 04:54, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gold V-dramon is a very unimportant character encyclopedically (a possible evolution of an unused form of a Digimon used only in one season). It may be a Digimon in the card game, but even so, it's not worth an article. Delete. --Geoffrey 01:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

<end moved discussion.

• Delete. Untranslated in the allowed 14 days, and apparently not worth translating. -- Jmabel 16:21, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Untranslated substub about a non-notable Digimon creature. This one runs the gamut. — Gwalla | Talk 17:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - it is, in fact, a Digimon critter. [32] Smerdis of Tlön 18:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - yay, one less Thingymon. --Ianb 18:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Ick! Ick! A digimon! Get can of Raid. ("Subtrivial fancruft" + foreign language = "subcomprehensible subtrivial fancruft?") Geogre 18:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. So short it's hardly worth translating. Trilobite (Talk) 02:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. My deletemon attacks your indonesianthingymon and throws it out the plate glass window at the front of the Wikipedia server building. 'Nuff said. Suntiger...(mon) 0:20, Sep 2 2004 (UTC)

Matter/electrus -- Add to this discussion

Re Matter/electrus
Non-encyc orig research by editor who is still vandalizing Matter in connection with the same content. --Jerzy(t) 18:49, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

• Sigh. Delete. RickK 18:56, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• move to bad jokes and other deleted content? :-) Kim Bruning 18:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No original research please.--Ianb 18:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • One of his edit summaries for the nominated article: "Summary: Primal Electromagnetic Fields are the essence of mass: the quanta of unstructured Matter, basically electrons. Primal Energy is Kinesis transported by PEMFs as photons. Space is the source of" --Jerzy(t) 18:59, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)
• Delete. Incoherent, not an encyclopedia article, original "research". — Gwalla | Talk 21:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Now why did we get rid of the ((insane)) template? Rambling, incoherent, bizarre, private vision of reality. Geogre 21:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Speed deleted as patent nonsense. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Amphigory -- Add to this discussion

Amphigory - Ad for an online business. --Ianb 19:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Advert, non-notable company, Wikipedia is not a web guide. — Gwalla | Talk 21:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia is not a web guide" - who says? Not Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 04:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's just another ad. Geogre 21:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this article, but we could use an article on the topic of amphigory, a type of nonsense verse that at first seems meaningful but whos meaning does not survive scrutiny, e.g. many of the poems of Lewis Carroll. -- Jmabel 23:11, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • And the title of some of Edward Gorey's books - Nunh-huh 02:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • That's Amphigorey, a pun on this word. -- Jmabel 05:02, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

And Amphigorey, Too. I promise to pay more attention to my silent e's. - Nuenh-hueh 06:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. It's an advert. Trilobite (Talk) 02:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Use namespace for article on verse. -FZ 13:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't look much like an ad to me. anthony (see warning) 14:38, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Marginal delete, its not too ad-like but it's still just an ad. ··gracefool |☺ 04:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VfD

From VfD:

An odd disambiguation page. RickK 20:11, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

The page is intended to help those people who do not know the exact spelling. So keep it. — Monedula 20:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep perfectly reasonable spelling-disambiguation. — Gwalla | Talk 21:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• A disambiguation page is defined as pointing to other pages that might otherwise have the same name, so I suppose this isn't strictly one. But it's a good idea, IMHO, to have pages like this for words that are hard to spell. Perhaps they could have a category of their own? (Or perhaps they already do?) Meanwhile, keep. Bishonen 22:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Change to a redirect of Butan for Bhutan. -TheFed 00:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: Why that and not the disambig? The misspelling could easily be either. — Gwalla | Talk 01:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful in its present form. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bhutan. It's quite possible people will misspell the country this way, but it's hard to see how someone could do it with butane except as a typo, which they will notice themselves when they end up at the wrong page. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, "butan" is how butane is spelled in German. Fwiw, Wile E. Heresiarch 04:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • What Wile E. said, and in many other languages too. I was just thinking that butan for butane could easily trip me up. Keep as is, please (I already voted), as better than a redirect for non-native English speakers. Bishonen 06:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect exactly as Tilobite says. Jallan 02:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in the spirit of misspelling redirects. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as it is. Non-native English speakers could misspell either one as "butan". Andris 12:36, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Fuelbottle | Talk 20:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Why would you want to get rid of something that helps people to navigate Wikipedia? ··gracefool |☺ 04:32, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Wisconsin Gamma chapter of Phi Kappa Psi -- Add to this discussion

Wisconsin Gamma chapter of Phi Kappa Psi 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 into Phi Kappa Psi & redirect

I found this on the old pages report; it hasn't been touched since it was created in 2002. As much as I admire Beloit College, this looks like a vanity article by a fraternity member. I recommend a delete. - RedWordSmith 20:17, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. It's vaguely possible that there might be information about this group that is worth having in an article (such as, say, either the main Beloit College article or the main Phi Kappa Psi article, but not this one), but the chances of someone coming along to provide us with that information are pretty slim. --Aranel 21:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Phi Kappa Psi. Maybe merge, but it doesn't look like there's much there worth merging. — Gwalla | Talk 21:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Chapters are too minor. A redirect isn't needed, given the unlikeliness of a search or the need for a search. Geogre 21:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge extremely minimally into the Chapter Roll section of Phi Kappa Psi. - KeithTyler 18:59, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. anthony (see warning) 14:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, thousands of people think it's important. Who cares if you guys don't? What harm is it doing? ··gracefool |☺ 04:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Andris 20:04, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

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

Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio, County Auditor and Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio, County Commission -- Add to this discussion

Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio, County Auditor and Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio, County Commission 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. 9 delete, 3 clear keep, 6 keep with a strong recommendation to merge and 2 ambiguous votes. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the articles are kept for now. Rossami 05:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Please? RickK 21:04, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

As the author of the page, I'm wondering why this has been nominated for deletion. Which category do you suggest makes it inappropriate for Wiki? Indeed, I'm still working on this article, and a number of other related articles, on Montgomery County government. If you find something inadequate -- let me know -- I'm either working on it or perhaps it's something I've overlooked. In short, I vote against deletion. Acsenray 21:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• At what granularity of trivia do we let Wikipedia go? Where are the dog warden election results from every municipality in the world? RickK 21:33, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • What official deletion reason is being cited? It is a key municipality in a key swing state in the U.S. that may be interesting for voting trends purposes. Wikipedia has short articles on every municipality in the country, even ones that don't exist as jurisdictions except in the books of the Census Bureau. These are simple facts, not opinion or pontificating, that I myself have taken much trouble in tracking down. Is "no one is interested in this" a listed deletion policy? I wouldn't be averse to merging this information into other information about Montgomery County. Acsenray 21:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Officially, I would argue for deletion on the grounds of notability. While election results on the county level matter to the county, they do not go beyond that. We do not note journalistic items of local import. Geogre 21:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• comment: there's a whole lot more of these under Montgomery_County,_Ohio#Government --Ianb 21:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• The problem I have with these entries is whether someone will be around in 2006 to diligently update them. Does Montgomery County Ohio have a website with this info? If so a link there would serve everyone better (Still, gimme some nice dog-catcher voting statistics against information on Star Wars fighters which weren't even in the films any day... )--Ianb 21:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Second the county website link idea. As for the updating concerns, that's not a valid reason to delete. • Benc • 16:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Simply not notable enough, I'm afraid. Delete. Lacrimosus 21:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, if the tide is turning against me, I'll have to keep in mind the boundaries of minutia. And then wonder how it compares to using a separate page for each of the (fictional) rulers of Numenor, most of who were never mentioned in the actual text of the work in question. Hmm. Acsenray 21:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, delete those too! Terrapin 15:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: If you think those are not notable, please tag and nominate them for VfD. Geogre 00:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Result of these elections is not significant enough. Appropriate for 1-liner in an article about Montgomery County, Ohio. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. And if there are separate pages for every ruler of Númenor, put most of them on this page for deletion as well. I hate cleaning up after that kind of mess myself. Jallan 02:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • You may want to check out the information on the ruler of Numenor articles. They're rather more extensive than the stubs we're discussing here. RickK 04:17, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment - It doesn't matter how extensive the article is if it is about something of no importance. We've deleted some very long vanity articles in the past. Average Earthman 10:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • An article about a known fictional character in a known universe read by millions of people is not vanity. Do we really want to start this downward slide? Because if the Numenor articles start getting deleted or merged, I WILL start doing the same thing with the thousands of Pokemon articles. RickK 19:24, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with RickK, this is just too far down for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a simple compilation of election results. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. What's next? School treasurer? Parks superintendent? For all 10000 counties in the U.S. (or however many there are)? Terrapin 15:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I've just been told that encyclopedic means comprehensive in reaction to my proposal to limit excessive detail copied out of works of published fiction. Does that have any bearing on this discussion? Acsenray 16:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • For the curious, this discussion is located here on DP. • Benc • 16:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This is borderline notable, but consider that Montgomery County, Ohio has over half a million people living in it. Also consider that this is really a subpage of the main county article. It would be in the article itself if it weren't too long. Ask yourself this question: would the Montgomery County, Ohio article be stronger without its election data? • Benc • 16:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Merge. I'm actually from the area, and I really truly don't care what the election results were in Montgomery County at any given time. However, the information isn't hurting anyone by being there, and it might be very interesting to someone who is interested in the state of Ohio local politics - it would, however, be more useful if it were all merged into one Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio. Also I would recommend removing the red links. If any of the officials or candidates mentioned merit their own articles at some point, the links can be added later. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, excessive granularity. Also, see Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. SWAdair | Talk 04:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Link to the appropriate part of the county website instead. --Michael Snow 17:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge as per Aranel's suggestion (though I suggest Election Results of Montgomery County, Ohio).

That was User:KeithTyler. [33] --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep (though I'd be happy with merging) - Why should we delete this? And what's wrong with granularity, if people are ever to come here looking for, uh, grains? OK, so the odds are fairly long on someone looking for this, but they're unlikely to find it too easily anywhere, and as has been pointed out above, there are plenty of far more obscure articles on the wiki. --DMG413 00:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 06:05, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge --Allyunion 10:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into one election results article for the county. I agree that the red links should be removed—I find it highly unlikely that articles about every mundane Ohio official will ever be created (or should be created). Though then that begs the question of what it gets us to just include data on when they were elected... Postdlf 19:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested above until a better guideline regarding such articles is drawn up. —siroχo 19:24, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
• I'd be happy to merge these articles if that's what is determined to be the better route. Acsenray 21:12, 3 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.

Jiacam -- Add to this discussion

Jiacam 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

(Jiacam) Significant portions of www.jiacam.org are still under construction a month after the journal's projected launch date. Also, the current article appears to be an advertisement. If and when the journal becomes notable, an article about it can be created anew. —Triskaideka 21:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• delete, but allow to be recreated if it is launched, and everything goes okay. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: there is no article here, just a link with a sentence or two saying what the link is to. An article would look different, even if the journal were up and running. Geogre 00:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. Wikipedia is not a web guide. — Gwalla | Talk 02:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory, especially for sites that aren't finished. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:47, 31 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.

BlueHereNow -- Add to this discussion

Site with Alexa ranking of 1,492,052. Links in List of websites and Open source journalism from same anon user. --Ianb 22:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)--Ianb 22:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Andris 22:06, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - I responded to the original tag for speedy deletion (it doesn't qualify under the guidelines) and was surprised to discover that it was an interesting site. I was expecting it to be just an advert for a single blog but instead it seems to be a continuous news photo community. (My interest in it may not make it notable enough, however.) - Tεxτurε 22:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Looks like just another collaborative moblog. Is it the first, or particularly popular, or something? Abstain for now. — Gwalla | Talk 02:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• It may be an interesting site, but Wikipedia isn't a web directory. Is it a notable site? Can anyone provide evidence of significance? Average Earthman 10:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable based on Alexa Traffic Ranking. Interesting site, but the developers thought it so interesting that they took the liberty of disabling my "Back" button. We should not knowingly link to any site that tampers with a user's browser settings without permission. SWAdair | Talk 04:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Not voting. Tested with three web browsers, no disabling of the Back button... however, (for IE only) going to http://www.blueherenow.com/ does make some sort of immediate redirect to http://www.blueherenow.com/blueherenow/now/home_mar_12.php, which means that (again, for IE only), hitting the back button repeatedly hits the redirect back to where you are. Recommendation: (1) Use the history list to go back, (2) don't use Internet Explorer, (3) don't use Internet Explorer. ;-) P.S. I'm on a Macintosh. AdmN 05:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Ah, so that's what happened. Yes, I'm using IE.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 07:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid reason for deletion. Alexa ranking is good enough. anthony (see warning) 14:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dartmouth Review -- Add to this discussion

A student newspaper, not significant. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I'm admittedly the author of this article, but: the most famous right-wing independent college newspaper in the United States ought to be considered encyclopedic. 6,130 Google hits, including articles from The Nation, National Review, and New York Review of Books. Keep. -- Jmabel 23:07, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly keep. The Dartmouth Review is probably the most well-known right-wing college newspaper in the U.S. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I thoroughly hate the paper and all it stands for (off campus right wing groups funneling money into college causes because they think they're fighting the "liberal bias" of universities, said papers losing money hand over fist but proclaiming the virtues of the free market, etc.), but it's the college newspaper that started the whole trend. Every college, just about, gets its own version these days. Most of them don't end up with off-campus angels and therefore go under or file numerous frivolous lawsuits about getting the regular university paper's newsboxes, etc. Geogre 00:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely notable. — Gwalla | Talk 02:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Quite possibly the most influential college newspaper in America.--Samuel J. Howard 03:56, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason not to keep it. — LegCircus 04:02, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. For all the mess we've been getting with Dartmouth articles lately, this one actually is worth having- it's widely read outside of the immediate community, and has historical and political significance. -FZ 13:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard of it for years. Gwimpey 23:01, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. An important part of US conservative history. ffirehorse 06:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, good start for a perfectly legitimate article. Kudos to everyone for not reflexively voting delete just because it's from Dartmouth. --Michael Snow 17:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Ah, but the key is that it's about Dartmouth but not from Dartmouth. I wrote this piece partly because I couldn't believe that with all the trivia they added, they neglected one of the most encyclopedia-worthy institutions on their campus. -- Jmabel 21:14, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - It's a legitimate newspaper! -- Crevaner 01:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

August 31

Arigma -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable. Less than 70 displayed hits for Arigma -wikipedia -israel, most of which are forums or an Israeli textile co. allmusic.com hasn't heard of Arigma or their former name Nutwood. They do have a sad story[34] (bottom), but that doesn't make them encyclopedic. Niteowlneils 02:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: No record, no contract, no notability: band vanity/ad. Geogre 03:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity. Their "debut album" (see "The Chronicles of New Corsica", also on VfD) hasn't even been released yet. — Gwalla | Talk 03:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Google hits do not determine notability. anthony (see warning) 14:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • No, but the fact that I can't buy their album from a major music store or an online website like Amazon or CD Universe is. Delete --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 09:50, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Andris 20:05, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Looks like vanity to me. Delete. john k 05:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Chronicles of New Corsica -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable and 'Wikipedia is not a fortune teller'. Two hits, one a WP mirror, and one doesn't include the article on the page displayed. Album by Arigma (above) due out later this year. Has a speedy tag, but I don't know what case it could be speedied under, considering it's coherent and factual (if speculative). Niteowlneils 02:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-existent, not on a contract = band vanity/ad. Geogre 03:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert for nonexistent album. — Gwalla | Talk 03:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree to reasoning above. Andris 20:06, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe some day later... famous, but just right now a small fry... --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 09:54, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. john k 05:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

totally inadequate

OK, so what I've written is totally inadequate, but I couldn't believe there wasn't already an article. I almost wondered if it wasn't already there for a reason - like it's bad luck or something. Gyrofrog 07:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Metal Box vs. Second Edition?

I originally set up Second Edition as a re-direct to Metal Box. But since Second Edition has its own album cover, I decided it deserved its own article after all, if only as a placeholder for its Wikiproject Albums table.

Any further information about Metal Box or Second Edition that isn't specifically about the latter should probably go in the Metal Box article.

Gyrofrog 21:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merge of Articles

I feel there is not enough to justify the two seperate articles, so would support a merge. Both covers pics could still be used, and any onfo not otherwise in the Metal Box article (which should remain the article header, with a redirect from Second Edition).LessHeard vanU 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• merge with Second Edition--Design 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the two articles. I've left Talk:Second Edition as-is. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Previous Content

The following text refers to this article's previous content, which has been merged to Super Mario 64.

I've just looked at Super Mario 64, and the most of this information is already there (though the object is referred to as "Green Block" rather than "Metal Box"). Also, I'm wondering about moving contents of Metal Box (disambiguation) to this article, instead of changing this article to an automatic redirect (but then what do we do with the existing disambig page, redirect it to this article?). That way, anyone who types in "Metal Box" while looking for Metal Box (album) won't get redirected to Super Mario 64 (where it wouldn't make any sense to put "For other uses, see Metal Box (disambiguation)"). Or move Metal Box (album) here. (And in the time it took me to write about this, I could have gone ahead and done it, but I thought it better to ask first.) Comments? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion

This page was recently nominated for deletion, and the consensus decision was to keep it. The deletion debate is archived here. ugen64 21:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

From (a previous) VfD:

Metal Box: subtrivial fancruft. No redeeming value and a waste of resources. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete after merging into Super Mario 64. The "metal" power-up is a recurring element found in several Nintendo games, though, so SM64 might not be the best permanent home for this info. OTOH, I'd rather not see individual articles about the Tankooni Suit and the Goomba Shoe. Maybe a single article about Nintendo paraphenalia could be created in the future, but Metal Box needs to go. • Benc • 05:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm sure that it's a cool thing to console game players, but it's trivia that belongs elsewhere. Geogre 11:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. Possibly merge to Mario 64 Page, Super Smash Bros. Melee Page, or an entirely new article entitled something like List of Nintendo Items or List of Nintendo gizmos. 67.84.138.44 01:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. anthony (see warning) 14:46, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete after merging into (something Nintendo-ish) zoney ▓   ▒ talk 21:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 07:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Disambiguation

I was expecting an article about the album Metal Box by Public Image Ltd. I guess the deletion discussed above didn't happen, so I've added the disambiguation. Gyrofrog 07:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

John Lydon did not actually hate Pink Floyd!

Smiloid 09:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

...but Johnny Rotten did!LessHeard vanU 20:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he borrowed that T-shirt from someone else! LOL Smiloid 01:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

CD Label misprint, common?

I just noticed that the Metal Box CD I've had for several years had it's label misprinted as "This is what you want ... this is what you get" (which is really confusing since I own that CD as well, and they look identical). It's tracklisting is the same, but still. I also saw one review on Amazon of someone who had also got a copy with that misprint, now I wonder if it's an error that is on most of the copies or if I've had a rare collectable for several years without knowing it? - 213.89.251.44 (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Second Edition / 45rpm

I was under the impression that Second Edition was remixed slightly, and has a different sound to Metal Box (the explanation being that Metal Box was a set of 12" records played at 45rpm, which allowed for deeper bass). This discussion dances around the issue but at least mentions it. In fact, was Metal Box a set of 45rpm (rather than 33rpm) discs? 2/metalbox.html Fodderstompf says yes, but Wikipedia says nothing. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, it was 45pm and had different sound. See also: TrouserPress.com. (In fact I thought this had been cited in this article, perhaps in an earlier version.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. 12 years on now! The 33rpm records require different EQ in the cutting process, it has to be different, that's physics.Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Metal Box. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111211182223/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-19691231/metal-box-public-image-ltd-19691231 to http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-19691231/metal-box-public-image-ltd-19691231
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060430185521/http://www.bluedrums.co.uk:80/ to http://www.bluedrums.co.uk

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Some serious problems

The Keith Levene interview cited http://www.furious.com/perfect/keithlevene2.html is littered with impossible claims and false memories. Poptones was not recorded at The Manor but at the Townhouse. The drums in the billiard room at the Manor were played by David Humphrey and were not used for Poptones. The claim that Death Disco was recorded at a hall in Brixton says that they worked with Jim Walker 'but didn't record with him' - this is self contradictory. Death Disco was recorded at The Manor with Humphrey on drums not Walker or Dudanski. I'll find correct citatins and work on this. I don't think this interview is a reliable source. Any thoughts? Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wobble's book is cited as saying they were at the Manor for "Poptones", He is also wrong. What can be done when citations to interviews with musicians who played the music are wrong? Isn't that primary source? 'Memoirs of a Geezer' also talks about a trip to the forest in Joe the roadie's "Japanese Car" and says this took place "around the country lanes of Oxfordshire" - at the Manor. The reference to that trip could not have come before it and the song did not get written and recorded instantly at the Manor. It came weeks later. I'll try to find citations. Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

List of 24 episodes -- Add to this discussion

As much as I love this show, this article is completely useless. (Take one look at it and you'll see why.) • Benc • 05:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not too unusual. It only looks strange because the episode titles are really "12:00 A.M.-1:00 A.M." and such. I vote keep, because it looks like a good start of an episode summary article, if someone were so inclined. Perhaps some re-formatting to encourage that effort, because we surely do not want separate articles for each episode. -- Netoholic @ 05:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• FYI, it looks like work has been proceeding at a steady pace on 24 (TV series)#Season synopses on the main 24 page. If the synposes get down to episode granularity, they can be split off from the main page. I don't think the episode list is very helpful. • Benc • 12:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: As Benc says, the material is already covered in the 24 (TV series) article, so there is no need for this. Secondly, the title is such that a redirect isn't needed, since no one is going to search this. Third, the material at the TV show article is better. Geogre 12:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. In principle I have no problem with list of episodes, but since these titles are entirely deducible from the timeframe of each series this is unnecessary. DJ Clayworth 15:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Duplicates material in main article; no need for list of episode titles since they're just a simple chronological numbering scheme. — Gwalla | Talk 16:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm a fan, and I think this is useless, as the series really is just one big episode in 24 pieces. Episodes by themselves are rather irrelevant. -- user:zanimum
• Delete, as the info is already covered in the 24 (TV series)#Season synopses article. Also, it seems to be a really hilarious way to waste bandwidth and disk space. Note this method for future use. Suntiger 0:27, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reciprocal System of Theory -- Add to this discussion

Reciprocal System of Theory

(William M. Connolley 12:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)) RST is psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and should not be in wikipedia. The wiki article has no mathematical content; the theory itself is vague, untestable and unfalsifiable. It is also non notable: of the google hits for it, all (except its own homepage) are wiki and wiki clones: a deeply regrettable example of wiki propagating psuedoscience.

Connolley, since you are a relative new comer to this subject and you are representative of many others who are now voting on this article, I want to address this topic of the non-notable status of the RST that you raise. Please refer to the article's talk page for the text of my remarks.

Note: the previous (august 2003) VFD vote for this page is at: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reciprocal System of Theory/Old for those interested.

Summary of voting

(William M. Connolley 19:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I've summarised the voting as its getting rather long and we have some dubious votes. If people think Sph, Excal or danmc are real (or less plausibly, the anon votes) then please modify the counts.

Delete (24):

1. Zundark 12:56, 31 Aug 2004;
2. FZ 13:36, 31 Aug 2004;
3. Tim Starling 13:51, Aug 31, 2004;
4. SimonP 16:13, Aug 31, 2004;
5. Gwalla | Talk 16:35, 31 Aug 2004;
6. Bishonen 18:12, 31 Aug 2004;
7. Glengarry 19:23, 31 Aug 2004;
8. Andrewa 21:12, 31 Aug 2004;
9. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:58, 31 Aug 2004;
10. Gwimpey 22:54, Aug 31, 2004;
11. Awolf002;
12. ping 07:49, 1 Sep 2004;
13. Ambi 09:38, 1 Sep 2004;
14. Michael Snow;
15. William M. Connolley 19:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC);
16. Nunh-huh 03:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC);
17. Cyrius|✎ 06:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC);
18. Stormie 06:30, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC);
19. Davodd 12:05, Sep 2, 2004;
20. Pjacobi 10:47, 2 Sep 2004;
21. Rory ☺ 17:26, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
22. Postdlf 19:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
23. CryptoDerk 20:59, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
24. Lacrimosus 22:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep (3):

1. Infradig (andrew);
2. Doug 07:07, 1 Sep 2004;
3. Mike 18:01, Sep 1, 2004 (not totally sure of this one but does have some history).

Not counted (9):

(voted for keep but judged of dubious reality by WMC). These may be Anon IPs, or new users which are potential sockpuppets.

1. Sph 17:30, 1 Sep 2004 (only edit her vote);
2. Excal 16:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) (only 2 edits, on RST today and this page);
3. User:danmc (dan) (only 2 edits this VFD).
4. 211.28.24.206 (jamesrm; only 2 edits),
5. 152.216.3.4,
6. 205.188.116.198 (retrospectively signed as Ronald W. Satz 10:04, 2 Sep 2004),
7. 203.166.108.209 (says he is David Halprin),
8. 63.230.96.174 (retro signed as (User:Wsitze)
9. 198.168.152.20 made unsigned (and hence invalid) votes to keep.

I Don't Think So!

Who made you the voting judge here!? Many people read Wikipedia regularly who seldom if ever make a contribution, but that does not anull their eligibility to vote. If they feel inclined to express their opinion by voting, whether or not they have ever done so previously, then more power to them. You are not allowed to disenfranchise them.

Delete: 13 Keep: 10

• Kind of funny that you forgot to sign that particular one ... still, could happen to anybody. Oh, yes, we are allowed to. People who have never made a single edit have disenfranchised themselves, whether or not they "read Wikipedia regularly". This is standard policy, Dbundy. You can't miss it if you read around a little on the site. Bishonen 19:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Yep, I see that now. Should have checked first before encouraging others to vote. Still, the Admin is cautioned to be careful to remember that we should be working with a "Rough Consensus" here. Though many voters may have a new ID and no edit history does not mean that their vote is a "bad faith" vote, if nothing else it shows interest in the preserving the article. The general policy guidline is:

If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!

The stated criterion is "evidence for the need for an article." That evidence is being demonstrated by input from all over the world in this case, and even if they can't be strictly counted as votes in the decision process, they can certainly be counted as "friend of the court" input. Remember, when "in doubt, don't delete!" Doug 20:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Regarding the unsigned votes. If you've ever had to operate a web site requiring setting up a user account and login, then you know there are always individuals who have nothing but problems with it. To boot, a "back and forth" like this can be intimidating and I can easily picture people casting a vote and leaving just as quickly without taking the time to sign up. It seems unsigned votes cannot be counted, and I can understand the reasoning for this, but please take this into consideration. This man's work, and a place on wikipedia are important to a number of people, including those who first came to Larson in the '60 and '70s and whose internet skills may be limited. -- danmc

Votes

• Delete. Non-notable. The article was created by a proponent of the theory about 3 years ago, and has wasted a huge amount of people's time since then, as can be seen from the edit history and the voluminous talk archives. --Zundark 12:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• It takes some significant effort to come up with a scientific theory that even I think is truly untenable, but Mr. Larson managed it lo those many years ago. This "theory" consists entirely of pseudoscientific catchphrases strung together into semantically null verbiage. Aside from this, however, the article can be deleted as non-encyclopedic original research, not citing any authoritative source. It is also poorly written, unclear, and lacking in the illustrative examples that are neccessary to an encyclopedia article on any actual scientific topic. -FZ 13:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Doug and his ISUS buddies have been defending this article against NPOV since September 2001. For a fair proportion of that time, Doug has had his own way, since there are only a finite number of contributors willing to keep up the required eternal battle against him. The anti-Doug tag-team (Stephen Gilbert, Larry Sanger, Lee Daniel Crocker, Zundark, Sjc, Css, LMS, AxelBoldt, The Anome, Maveric149, Ed Poor, GWO, myself, Daniel Quinlan, Jwrosenzweig, SimonP, Tdent and William M. Connolley) has had some victories over that time, but only at a cost to those Wikipedians far out of proportion with the importance of the contents. I've long since given up hope that Doug would go away, he's been here longer than any of us and there's no sign that he's tiring. It's time for us to get rid of this unimportant pseudoscientific theory, and let everyone get on with writing articles about actual science rather than arguing with this lunatic. -- Tim Starling 13:51, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Your characterization of the history of this debate is as slanted as your scientific view. You came along and made a good-faith effort to improve the article at a time when it had become an unwieldy "tutorial," as you put it. It became a tutorial precisely because the challenge it was forced to meet at that time was to show that it wasn't psuedoscience, had a valid mathematical basis, etc., which it shouldn't have had to do, but responding to the criticism, I endeavored to meet the challenge anyway. I recognized and even praised your efforts and together we rewrote the article, which basically has stood ever since. The change that provoked this latest brouhaha was instigated by Awolf who thought we ought to remove the blatant POV from both sides and just "report" the facts, just reporting what the theory contributes. I responded sceptically at first, because I didn't think it could be done without exactly this kind of reaction, but at his urging I made an attempt and eventually drafted a strawman for his and the community's comment, that was completely neutral and invited him specifically to comment and give me his input. But he ignored it for weeks on end claiming he didn't have time, while in the meantime he spent hours and hours building up his own Wikipedia "portfolio." So, tell me Tim, how do you justify calling me a lunatic? You know what this is about because whenever you've looked into it expecting to easily find the usual crank stuff, you are surprised that it's not there. Still you stoop to call me a lunatic and jump on the bandwagon because it's the popular and easy thing to do. Shame on you, and shame on all of you who are likewise prejudiced and so willing to trample a minority POV for the same unflattering reasons. Doug 14:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable and a burden on Wikipedians. Also see previous deletion debates from September 2001 and July 2003. - SimonP 16:13, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable crank theory. — Gwalla | Talk 16:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete original research, unless it's possible to protect an NPOV version of the page, for instance the first version actually visible under the History tab, 6 Oct 2001 by AxelBoldt. What a nightmare. Surely it's a misdirection of resources to have all these Wikipedians tied up trying to maintain something that still, or again, looks like this after three years. I would theoretically love to have a Wikipedia article presenting (as opposed to propagating!) Larson's system, just as we have articles on Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken. These are encyclopedic topics, they're names people may well want to look up. But the state of the article listed makes me wonder if this type of material — unconventional theories of science — is even possible to present and maintain under the wiki system, considering the untiring commitment of its adherents. Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken unfortunately reinforce the point, as they're also strongly disciple-slanted, bad articles. Not bad on the scale of Reciprocal System of Theory, but bad. Suggestion: would it be possible to create a discussion page specifically for Non-mainstream science POV strongly defended by its adherents, in the hope of arriving at some form of minimum waste of time policy? Perhaps that's the crazy optimism of a relatively new user, not yet worn down by years of familiarity with these issues. Bishonen 18:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with Bishonen's points. I will change my vote if the article is rewritten to present the most important piece of information: that the RST is promoted by a tiny group, is believed to be pseudoscience by essentially all who are aware of it, and isn't used for practical purposes in science or engineering. Detailed information on what the theory actually says should come in at a distant second place. The current article totally misses the point. It seems to me that the most notable thing about the RST is that it's an example of how easily you can promote an crank idea on Google by inserting it (and fighting about it for years) in a collaborative online encyclopedia --Glengarry 19:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Chronic nonsense and pseudoinformation that has resisted all attempts to fix it, no evidence that it will ever be a useful article. IMO Immanuel Velikovsky, Erich von Daniken, Time Cube and even David Rohl are not in this league at all, at least these articles give some verifiable information. Andrewa 21:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • No, no, I didn't think I said they were. This league is some league. Bishonen 22:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• being pseudoscience is not a reason to delete because pseudoscience has important social effects. However, this seems like patent nonsense, delete and protect the page from recreation. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. My brain hurts. Gwimpey 22:54, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Some cranky people call it pseudoscience and some rude people label anyone as a lunatic just for being associated with it, but it is scientifically based on a set of postulates, and uses logic to deduce testable results. So none of those style criticisms should apply. I would be happy to see it revert however to the version before the current one which contains a long string of negatives mainly, if that would satisfy people. Infradig (andrew)
• Okay, the argument is two-fold: non-notable and current form not acceptable, if I see it right. I tried for a few days to help out when this page appeared on the 'Cleanup' page. I found that this would need a lot of work, and so the non-notable argument clinches it for me. Please, save us all that work and delete! I hope Infradig can tone down his words, and recognize that Wikipedia does contain pseudoscience when it is notable (see phlogiston), even when it is already disproved. Awolf002 00:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Doug (a gentle and kind man, and eminently reasonable) gets called a lunatic and I say that's rude, and I get asked to tone down my words? As for the other's comments, well my 2 yro daughter has a word: cranky-pants, that aptly describes them to me. Infradig (andrew) 01:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Fine, let's all be careful with our words! Still, this article does not seem to be worth the effort. Awolf002 01:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • You made that clear on the RST page a while back by offering to help then doing nothing. Also, I think phlogiston a bad choice example of a pseudo science, it was just speculative science that was eventually proved wrong in the normal course of events. The RST on the other hand makes scientific predictions based on it's methods that have long been testable (eg. in 1959 it predicted high red-shift explosive galaxy scale objects... laughed at at the time but jump to the 1960's and the discovery of quasars; again in 1959 it predicted an accelerating expansion of the universe... laughed at but jump to the 1990's and the discovery of dark energy). So I reject vehemently the pseudo-science tag. So how can a theory that made those two predictions (huge scientific discoveries each in their own right) be non-notable? There should have been headlines at the time saying, "Sorry, we were wrong and Larson was right after all. Let's see what else he has to say.". Infradig (andrew) 02:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I got involved in more interesting topics to use my limited time on, sorry. As I said, looking once more at it, I feel it's not notable enough for all this. Awolf002 03:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. Infradig (andrew) 06:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) I'd like to challenge the validity of even holding this vote. For starters, William Connolly has come along after years of work by a number of people, and has contributed nothing. After just 16 hours from his first comment on Talk:Reciprocal_System_of_Theory he listed for VfD! What was his actual reason? He misconstrued a comment I made about Wikipedia not allowing ISUS to say precisely what the RST was (which people say they actually want), into the idea that ISUS wouldn't reveal what it was about (like it was some secret a la Scientology or some such cult). I'd like to remind people that the deletion guidelines state "To request that a page (or image) be permanently deleted, the request made on VfD, ... must be made in good faith." As far as i'm concerned the debate is now posioned and needs to be let rest for some period of time. It was listed for an invalid reason and no-one has come up with a specfic charge that can be substantiated. The page should be left for that time or else reverted and the status quo continue.
  • (William M. Connolley 19:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)) It doesn't look like anyone is taking the above challenge very sreiously, but for the record: my reasons for listing are those at the top. Infradig misrepresents me above: see the article talk page. This vote remains valid.

• Keep Connolley is just resurrecting the same old non-issues that have long since been dealt with. He says, the RST is psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and should not be in wikipedia. However, that's the POV to which pages and pages of rebuttle have gone unanswered for years. Now, he brings it up again, sorry that just won't wash at this late date unless he wants to provide support for such a gratuitous charge. Then he says, The wiki article has no mathematical content. Since when has this been a requirement for an article? The old charge, long ago met, was that the RST itself 'has no mathematical content,' which was not only shown to be untrue, but simply an absurd POV to boot. Next, he says, the theory itself is vague, untestable and unfalsifiable. This too has been soundly refuted in the long history of this debate. However, by this standard, even string theory, the most popular physical theory extant, would also fail to make the grade. Finally, he asserts that the RST is 'non-notable,' by citing the Google hits. But think how ridiculous this statement is when Larson's publications are in every university library in the country and in many of those in foreign countries as well. When Larson was alive, he was invited to address audiences at university campuses, and even had a small group of NASA scientists taking his work seriously (some are still around and have an active interest in his work.) But all this aside, the man's work has been selling for 65 years, and is a historical fact, even though many Wikipedians who fancy themselves scientists have their own hidden agendas (POV) that drives them to distraction over it, not because no one would ever want to look it up to see what it's about, but because they disagree with the content of the theory, which shouldn't play any part in the article because it's purely and unabashedly their POV. Obviously, what they want in the article is their own POV, not the report of what the darn thing is and how and where and why it differs from current theory. As they freely admit above, if anything, just state that the "RST is promoted by a tiny group, is believed to be pseudoscience by essentially all who are aware of it, and isn't used for practical purposes in science or engineering." All of which has nothing to do with the RST itself, but only a POV evaluation of its current status, which is totally irrelevant with regard to its merits, which also is irrelevant by the way, but is nevertheless cited as sufficient cause as well, almost in the same breath! The point is, ladies and gentlemen, the RST is real, it's serious, it's historical, and it's soundly scientific, much more so than many popular theories given ample coverage in Wikipedia. Nevertheless, since arguments to the contrary can be easily refuted, the tactics have now turned to the issue of "resources." Since when has this been used as justification for deletion? If you can't make a case for claims of false science, untestability, no mathematical content, original research, non-encyclopedic, non-notable, etc, then by all means make a case for not having time to make the case! You cannot delete this article because you disagree with the premise of the Reciprocal System. While it's true that the purpose of Wikipedia is to report the existence of notable people, places and things; to explain historical events and the milestones of mankind's experience, it isn't appointed as the watchdog or arbiter of the value of the ideas, the works of men, or the issues of science. If it happened that a man challenged the very foundations of physical science, and he did so in an honest, straightforward way, presenting his rationale in his life's work, and that work is in the Library of Congress and in countless libraries of the world, and challenges the world's assumptions regarding the properties of space and time that are at the very heart of its scientific endeavor and the perplexity, and the present untenable predicament that it now finds itself in, then it certainly deserves to be reported in a few measly kilobytes of space in the Wikipedia, which is full of thousands of articles that are simply frivolous by comparison. Doug 07:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, it is merely using Wikipedia as a platform for debate. The topic may be worth a brief description along with other alternative theories. Incidentally am I right in thinking that the author uses Newtonian mathematics to try and disprove Newton's Theories? ping 07:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. No, you're not right. Is that surprising among someone expressing an opinion here? The mathematics of gravity in the RST are substantively in agreement (with corrections for dark energy) with both Special Relativity and General Relativity, except 1) the effects are instantaneous, and 2) there are no gravitational waves to propogate. Infradig (andrew) 09:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, original research. Non-notable tripe. Ambi 09:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually most of the vanity/original research part was deleted back in July 2003. This article is mostly about Dewey B. Larson's work. Larson is pretty much immune to allegations of sock puppetry, due to the fact that he died in 1989. -- Tim Starling 12:55, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Which brings up a good point. This article has already passed VfD. How many times must we go through this, everytime a new editor comes along who has the common, uninformed POV? Doug
      • Don't worry Doug, just this one last time. The consensus so far is in favour of deletion, so it looks like in the future we'll be able to delete any reposts without going through this time-consuming process. -- Tim Starling 13:52, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep agree with Andrew and Doug

Keep agree with Andrew and Doug

Keep at least until Gravity Probe B's findings on Gravity waves/frame-drag. jamesrm

• Keep even if it means reverting to the last version which seemed to have at least some kind of consensus. Larson is a name that people, maybe not everyone, will want to look up. Why the subject matter is referred to as non-encyclopedic is beyond me.-- User:danmc (dan)

• Keep You guys are railroading proponents here. You obviously are more interested in eliminating the article for other than Wikipedia related reasons. Don't change Wikipedia into "Wikedpedia" to satisfy your own unjust prejudices. If you don't have time to verify and establish your charges, then cease and desist. Excal 16:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I won't enter into any general debate with Doug, but speak to a couple of points he makes about the physical book, which might be taken to prove notability. I don't doubt that Larson's work is in university libraries, just that library presence proves anything. As Geogre (a librarian) pointed out, with many striking examples, on VfD a while back, university libraries are omnivorous. As for the Library of Congress, it's a feather in the cap of every single book published in the US (as well as most books published elsewhere). Please see the LC mission statement here: "The Library of Congress is the only library in the world that collects universally." Even the "more recent" edition of Larson's work mentioned in Reciprocal System of Theory is several decades old, yet Doug states that it's "been selling for 65 years". If the book's still in print and/or selling, how is it that Amazon and B&N don't stock it or even link to any second-hand retailers? Bishonen 16:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If you asked the average wikipedia user (which, in the final analysis, is who the wiki is for) what is more important in determining encyclopedic value, google returns or the fact that the work is in university libraries across across the country, what do you thing they would say? I realize they may not be as informed as Bishonen , but, please, surely it carries some weight. Finally, Bishonen's last statements are patently false. Larson's books were published between 1959 and 1995. A quick check at Amazon and BN shows some twenty-five books available from second hand dealers, and I can tell you for fact that ISUS continues to sell the books new. Please, if you are going to make these kinds of statements, at least be fair and get the information correct. -- User:danmc

• I was talking about Larson's The structure of the physical universe, the book mentioned in Reciprocal System of Theory, but I agree that his other books, nine in all available second-hand from Amazon and B&N associates, should have been mentioned too. I just didn't know about them (so much for being so well informed). Also Nothing but motion, available second-hand, was probably the new title of The structure of the physical universe (? new title not given in Reciprocal System of Theory, but it is in three volumes) when it was republished in 1979. However, none of Larson's books remain in print, according to the usual sources. But we'd all be better and more easily informed if you gave some links for your claims. Bishonen 21:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep Larson was a contemporary of Linus Pauling. Pauling choose the mainstream. Larson worked in industry and had some real problems to solve. His solution to the theoretical calculation of physical properties was accurate and simple. This successful work lead him to a theory which makes many more predictions and clarifications. Those who feel it is not worth being included in Wikipedia are clearly not aware of the non-controversial achivements Larson made even if they don't like the non-mainstream flavour of the Reciprocal System of Theory. Either that or Wikipedia just wants to be part of the mainstream establishment. Sph 17:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Brand new user, this vote is his/her only edit. Bishonen 16:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep The Reciprocal System is a unified, general theory and is certainly verifiable by observation and experiment. There is a lot of useful mathematics in Larson's Basic Properties of Matter. In contrast, most of the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics is useless. P.S.: I'm a Ph.D. engineer, member of AAAS, and listed in American Men and Women of Science, and Marquis Who's Who in the World Ronald W. Satz 10:04, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. My GUT instinct is that this isn't notable, since the theory was published however many years ago and has drawn no significant attention from science or society (either would do, I have no biases against articles covering "pseudoscience" if it's notable). Inclusion in Wikipedia should reflect some degree of notability, however small, not be a vehicle to achieve it. --Michael Snow 17:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - Then you should change your vote. Any author who after so many years, and writing on such an esoteric subject as space, time, motion and the nature of reality, including quantitative volumes, as well as qualitative ones, dealing with everything from the nature of radiation, matter, and energy, and grappling with the fundamental issues of science, philosophy and the current predicament and perplexity of quantum mechanics, relativity, and cosmology, as well as calculating atomic weights, molecular bond lengths, periodic order of elements, the explanation of physical constants and so on, and that too in the most dry and unimpassioned manner, AND, inspite of all this, still sells those books at the tune of hundreds of dollars worth per month without the usual channels of textbooks and popular science promotions, has to qualify as "reflecting some degree of notability, however small." Doug 18:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • One thing I would like to add to this. After reading the remarks posted here, as well as in the archive, one would get the idea that science is some sort of popularity contest. If one gets multitudes of google returns one can be in an encyclopedia, no doubt Brittany Spears deserves to be in an encyclopedia more than anyone if that is our gauge, but pretty soon we will have to replace the nineteenth president of the United States, Rutherford Hayes, with "pond scum" which is the clear winner in this case. I am exaggerating (but true!) for illustration purposes, but everyone here knows that science is not a popularity contest. What is, is, when it comes to science. And any man who could accomplish even just 10% of what Doug writes above (which of us is up to the task?) should be given some consideration, and not simply be labeled some pseudo-scientific crackpot spouting patent nonsense. If anyone here were to actually take the time to <>read some of this man's body of work, I could guarantee, whether or not you agreed or disagreed with his conclusions, such arrogant remarks wouldn't be so quick to fall. (And, yes, I am real, for what it's worth) --danmc
    • Which of us is up to writing it? Sheesh, I'm not even up to reading it. Bishonen 21:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • But, User:63.206.94.4 you are not logged in, or have experience with dealing with such articles. Sockpuppets are by their nature dishonest, so anyone who looks like one can be discounted. You are also not allowed to vote twice.Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree with you, when it comes to what should be in Wikipedia and what should not. Science is both about finding "truth" and finding "consensus," which obviously is a popularity contest, as you put it. That's why theories are notable even when wrong or disputed. However, in this "contest of ideas," as reported in the beginning, RST has not crossed over that "threshold" in my mind. (PS: I believe 'danmc' just forgot to log in. Don't go overboard, guys) Awolf002 20:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Just because a majority of people think theory "X" to be correct, doesn't make it so. In fact, it doesn't even necessarily increase the probability that it is correct since there could be some part of the basic foundation that everyone has left unexamined or misinterpreted (most often times by consensus!). Consensus used to be that the world was flat, that the sun orbited the Earth, but that didn't make it so. Science uses/needs/finds/consensus when it doesn't have all the facts, a perfectly valid approach. Two heads are better than one, as they say. But no amount of consensus can overcome an experimental fact or observation that flies in its face. This is what I meant when I said science isn't a popularity contest. --danmc
  • That's just it 'danmc'. Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed journal, where experimental data and theories can clash and research is vetted! And most of the other Keep votes seem to even think that having an article here would make or brake RST. Sorry, but it's really not such a grave choice. If RST is not notable by its place in the scientific community or scientific history, then it should not be kept. And that's what I think. Awolf002 03:31, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree, this is not a peer reviewed journal environment, nor should it be. But isn't that exactly the character of every call for deletion of the RS article on grounds that its pseudo-science, and patent nonsense? It seems to me the only real basis for deletion, according to the guidelines, that can be leveraged is whether the RS is notable enough for inclusion, or the article is not NPOV enough. I was just addressing the fact that is seems like patent nonsense to me to base the former on a popularity contest (yes, I realize that's my POV), but please explain to me how the prediction of quasars, before they were discovered by observation, can be considered non-notable? As far NPOV, deletion is not the answer, editing is. --danmc
• Keep I vote with Doug and Andrew to keep the article. Why? I've read the POV article guidelines. I've read through the entire article history in its discussion pages. I believe that the conclusions reached by Larson have sound basis in logic. The consequences of Larson's 1959 system of theory are still finding agreement today with new observation and experiment. What is remarkable is that these agreements are NOT due to a an ad-hoc reinterpretation or reconstruction of his theory. If the format of the article is not within the guidelines, or if there is indeed some kind of bias evidenced, then that would be another story. Mike 18:01, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Another likely sockpuppet, only edits to this vfd debate. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Mike has been a contributor to the RST page for quite some time and is well entitled to vote. Infradig (andrew) 22:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Ah yes, not a new sockpuppet at least, though his contribution to the wider project is doubtful. Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Larson's work certainly merits an encylopedia entry. Pseudo-science or not, the RST is certainly notable. I think it'd be extremely unfair to remove a record of Larson's contribution to science. For example, Larson's book, "The Case Against the Nuclear Atom": reviewed in science journal "Chemical Engineering" by Issac Asimov: "As an iconoclastic work, Larson’s book is refreshing. The scientific community requires stirring up now and then; cherished assumptions must be questioned and the foundations of science must be strenuously inspected for possible cracks. It is not a popular service and Mr. Larson will probably not be thanked for doing this for nuclear physics, though he does it in a reasonably quiet and tolerant manner and with a display of a good knowledge of the field." BTW, I resent being called a "sockpuppet" Dunc. I've had an interest in the RST for over 12 years. Yes, there is a current lack of mathematical expression for the theory. However, since Larson's passing, the theory has been undergoing slow development, in earnest, by a number of unpaid researchers. The main focus of that development is to produce a mathematical model. I do not know what evidence needs to be presented, in defense of the RST, that would make the article worthy of Wikipedia. It's true, Larson's work is currently somewhat esoteric. However, I believe that recent, unrelated research into discretized, models of space-time, some employing 3D time, serves to reinforce the viability of the type of model postulated by Larson. I could find at least 6 different RST books, by Larson, available on amazon.com. In addition, there's Quaternion Organon - George Hamner, Pari Spolter's book Gravitational Force of the Sun references Larson, A Ph.D dissertation by Arnold D. Studtmann (Approved by the National Graduate School, June 10, 1979), and some references in some "New Age" books called "The Ra Material" by Carla Rueckert and Dr. Don Elkins. Mike 04:50, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep As the editorialist John Campbell said a number of years ago, the only thing one has to know about any given discipline to know whether it is Science or not is whether or not it can make accurate predictions. Current mainstream theory does not, and has not for about 50 years. On the other hand, RST, and Larsen, have consistently done so since his first publication. RST is exactly what Einstein was looking for, and couldn't derive himself. If he were still alive, there would be no question about the acceptance and viability of RST. W. Sitze -- Now logged in - Wsitze
  • User:63.230.96.174, who then loggin in as User:Wsitze, another likely sockpuppet who has no other contribs apart from this vfd debate. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - I've come into the voting rather late in the game and I hope this is a proper procedure to add to the discussion. I am George Hamner. I am familier with Wikipedia since Doug went to all the trouble to register our system of theory with this most valuable volunteer service.

I have a degree in Physics, but have made a career in business. I discovered Larson's RST in 1997 while doing the research for my Book "Quaternion Organon," published in 2001. After having spent a lifetime following all the advanced theories of my undergraduate degree, and thinking that superstring theory was finally the answer in the mid-1980s, I stumbled across Larson's RST, and broke through to the clarity of the dual universe RST system. If you will read the later articles of the journal, "Reciprocity," you will discover that the mathematical foundations not covered in Larson's original work have been laid.

Removing the Reciprocal System of Theory from Wikipedia will deny a breakthrough of understanding from an entire generation of aspiring young physicists. I certainly vote to keep whatever version that the Board of Directors of the ISUS society believes best explains the theory.

• Delete - non-notable pseudoscience. Ban the sockpuppets. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• When we are unable to defend an article against a coterie of "believers" determined to subvert our policy of NPOV, it is better that we delete that article. This is, in my estimation, not the only instance in which we have such a problem.... - Nunh-huh 03:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Except NPOV-violation is not the charge. It was listed for delete because an editor thought that ISUS was a secret cult attempting to use Wikipedia to subvert and brainwash the masses by not publishing what it actually believes. Strange but true. Infradig (andrew) 04:04, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This is not a court: there are no charges. I have simply stated my opinion and voted. The fact that you felt compelled to comment on that is indicative of the problem. -- Nunh-huh 04:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry to get your back up. I feel there are charges, it certainly looks like a court with jury. Since the VfD listing was prompted by a misinterpreted remark by me I feel kind of responsible for what's going on here. Also, since you raised the subject of peoples comments being indicative of something, the pro-delete crowd have made 14 comments in reply to peoples votes, while the antis have made 11 (by my rough estimation). Infradig (andrew) 04:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable pseudoscience using Wikipedia for self-promotion (quite successfully, judging by Google). —Stormie 06:30, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless we can make it into a completely different article. This is really bogus physics, you can learn more about it in the USENET archives. But as bogus, it's famouse. See also Gary Larsonian Physics -- Pjacobi 10:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If it survives this vote, it needs a DISPUTED tag on it. Davodd 12:05, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
• I vote to keep the article on RST for a multitude of reasons. I started writing letters to Dewey Larson in 1968 and continued until 1990. During those years I attended 7 annual conferences on the reciprocalSystem of theory. I met manty university academics, who advocated RST, many holding doctorates and/or professorships. here was not one kook amongst the attendees. Larson was interviewed at great length on his theory, which is published on the RS web pages. There are many marthematical papers that produce valid results. These would not be suitable in Wikipedia, since they woukld appear ,meaningless to the untrained eye. One must read the many publications by Larson both as books and papers in the ISUS journal called Reciprocity. Those readers amongst the nay-sayers for RST being in Wikipedia, are just showing their ignorance. I wouldt not have kept my association with RST and its advocates for 36 years and travelled from Australia to USA for the conferences, had there been even a smidgen of kookiness about it. My name is David Halprin, and I am nobody's fool.
  • this is anon IP User:203.166.108.209, another user of dubious credentials. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:22, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Since Tim Starling is a PhD student in quantum computation perhaps he would like to pose a real question about the substance of RST. I assume Tim that being a physicist, you are familiar enough with the special theory of relativity (STR) to see the compatability of RST with STR and be able to see that RST offers new insights into it. Then again, maybe you are in awe of your profesors too much. Sph 17:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) And yes, I do exist as a male entity distinct from all others in this discussion. I don't have time to waste on writing frivolous entries into Wiki, so yes this is my second post. I wouldn't be bothering if I thought this was not important. Until yesterday I was impressed with Wikipedia and I have used it a lot for other topics. If this is the way real science gets treated, Wiki it is as bad as the academic establishment that has supressed RST for decades.
  • This sockpuppet was 16:27, 2 Sep 2004 User:Sph, special:contributions/Sph only edits to this debate. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I posed questions about the substance of RST back in July-August 2003. See talk page archives 3, 4 and 5. I tried hard to mete out a compromise, but Doug just waited until I lost interest then re-established his point of view. I'm aware of K.V.K Nehru's work linking RST and SR, in fact I made some edits to that area of the article: [35], [36]. However I'm no longer interested in discussing the substance of RST. Doug is not interested in compromise, so my hand is forced. -- Tim Starling 02:40, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • Tim, This is one more, totally false, allegation. I not only have compromised, I have gone to great lengths to accomodate you and others like you. In fact, that's why the article is up for deletion now, because I attempted to rewrite the artcle that you abandoned, in spite of my compromises, to suit the criticism of Awolf. Nevertheless, I am still willing to compromise, to great lengths. To prove it right here and now, I challenge you to write a short, NPOV RST article that I promise that I will not edit, but will only make suggestions for on the article's talk page. Now, let's see who is willing to compromise and who is not. Doug 13:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• The sock-puppetry would be enough on its own; the non-notability would be enough on its own. With their powers combined: delete this rubbish.—Rory ☺ 17:26, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Yep. Delete. Nothing more for me really to say that hasn't already been said. Postdlf 19:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. CryptoDerk 20:59, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Empathise w/ Gwimpey. Delete Lacrimosus 22:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: This vote is now 43 kb. Why on earth is this fight taking place? The information here is not sufficiently settled to be in an encyclopedia. The only part that could be in would be something like this: "Reciprocal System of Theory is the name of a work by Dewey Larson that proposes a highly controversial physical theory. External link: The site of people who follow it." Other than that, any article is either forced to endorse or deny the underlying theories, which offends two camps that cannot budge. We're far better off not acting as an organ in the battle. Geogre 01:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • At last someone with something sensible to say. Why flog a dead horse? I'll certainly admit defeat on this vote. Infradig (andrew) 01:24, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Compromise Challenge

Just to make sure it's not lost in the pile of comments above, I am highlighting here my challenge to Tim, and by extension to all other opponents, to compromise:

Nevertheless, I am still willing to compromise, to great lengths. To prove it right here and now, I challenge you to write a short, NPOV, RST article that I promise that I will not edit directly, but will only make suggestions for on the article's talk page. Now, let's see who is willing to compromise and who is not.

Typically, this offer too will be rejected, not because the Wikipedia guidlines are so important, but because this is not an article about a computer club, or the inventor of the thermos bottle, but about the nature of reality. Physics has actually become more like the religion of the dark ages, enforced by the "priests" of the establishment who strive to protect the sanctity of the canonical doctrine, which explains the cries of "rubbish", "psuedoscience", "mumbo-jumbo", ad nauseum, from those who, like the priests in Galileo's day, refused to look through the telescope. However, we cannot argue against the point that Wikipedia is not the place to establish the validity of any theory, and do not wish to do so. We concede that it is the place to record the notable events, people, places, and things of human experience and history.

Regardless, whether some hate the idea or not, however, it is a fact that Larson did live, he did publish a new system of physical theory, many people are interested in his work, they have organized themselves as a legal entity, which has existed for more than thirty years, they have held conferences, published a journal, established a website, established a discussion forum, and are in the process of building their own "Wikipedia," called the RST Wiki to help educate the public as to what the RST is all about.

In my mind, such events constitute as much notability as many, many others that enjoy the privilege of a Wikipedia article, "the free encyclopedia." The only difference is that the hostility engendered by the scientific ideas of the work itself invokes so much opposition that it is impossible for proponents to "report" on this development in any unchallenged fashion. Therefore, those who have worked so hard to get it established, now see it about to be "banned" from even a mention in this major online history and account of human endeavors. To prevent this, we are offering to let the opponents write the account in its entirety, and offering to not edit that account in any direct manner, in order to seek some degree of equitable treatment in this biased environment. What say ye?

We have fine articles on the dynamic theory of gravity, Gene Ray's Time Cube, plasma cosmology and cold fusion, and I hope they all stay. What you have to understand is that by going back on our mid-2003 compromise during late 2003, you lost your last ally here. I argued to keep the article in 2003, both publicly and privately. You can call me a liar all you like, claim that you never went back on any compromise, but it doesn't help you because no-one else cares. It's unfortunate when inclusion is determined by the personality of the proponent, but that is the grim reality of Wikipedia politics. -- Tim Starling 05:15, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

So now the issue has changed again? Now, after all this, it comes down to my attempt to edit the article? I assume that you mean by the "mid-2003 compromise," the VfD in which all but the main article were deleted. So, "by going back" on it, you mean what exactly? That I edited the main article from time to time? How can you construe that as if it were a covenant-breaking breach of confidence? There was never any agreement entered into that I would never attempt to edit the article again, what are you trying to say? If you look at the article, it's substantially the same as the mid-2003 article. Any attempt I made to edit it was summarily reverted for the most part, even though the article always remained intact as far as your edits are concerted. I never attempted to take them out at any time, but notwithstanding this, and more to the point, never at any time did you or anyone else mention that these efforts constituted "going back on our mid-2003 compromise." As for the page that was current when Connelly listed the article VfD (which is completely new), that article was first drafted at the behest of Awolf002 who was disconerted with the POV in the "compromise" article. To quote him:

After reading this current discussion, I'm not sure if there is anything to help it but to make sure we want the same thing: NPOV!

That started me, relunctantly (see the talk page), down the road to completely redraft the article. After some false starts, I wrote the following to Awolf002:

Trying to explain what it is (the RST) in terms of its results from a factual standpoint by definition is controversial, even in a general way, because, as I stated above, it is not a new theory, but a new program of physics. Maybe, if we rewrite it along those lines to begin with, we can avoid the comparisons with current theory altogether by emphazising that its results are self-contained - that is they are theoretical conclusions reached by applying the new approach.

Then I showed exactly what my idea was by drafting a strawman along those lines, which sat for more than a month without comment, even though I asked Awolf002 for his comments, even on his talk page, but to no avail. Since no one was saying anything about it, I decided to replace the article with the stawman to test the waters so to speak and that is what brought us to this point. You make me out to be a no-compromising, unreliable, trouble maker whom you finally have on the ropes here, but that's not what the record shows. I've put a lot of good-faith effort into trying to meet all the many and varied demands placed upon me, jumping to accommodate one criticism after another in an effort to satisfy a seemingly unending stream of challengers. But the list is so long, by the time the next one comes along, no one remembers the earlier ones, forcing me to start repeating arguments long since settled.

That's why I thought the new approach, describing the RST not as a new physical theory, but as it really is, a new system of physical theory, would permit me to avoid the POV and other issues that can't be avoided otherwise. Notice how the strawman (I reverted the article) reports what the RST is without resorting to comparative results with current theory. Even in the section "RST and the Foundations of Modern Physics," the emphasis is on the difference in the concept of a "fixed background," not on comparative results. So Tim, I've tried to write an acceptable RST article in good faith. Having failed at that, I've asked you to consider writing it without any interference from me, since that, heretofore, has resulted in such a strenuous struggle. But, if I am understanding what you are saying here, you are telling me that it's too late? That notwithstanding any other considerations, you will not do it because I have committed an unpardonable sin? Well, as you admit, and I have learned, it's not so much the so-called "consensus" that matters, it's the politics of the consensus view that determines things here in the long run, something that we all know can be as tyrranical as any dictator, if not more so. I guess I'll just have to take comfort in the knowledge that Wikipedia is not some all mighty arbiter of truth, but, in the final analysis, is only a few machines whirring quietly in some dark room, albeit a very dark room. Doug 18:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC

P.S. I've expounded somewhat on the viability of the new approach for ending this controversy without deleting the article, in the non-notable argument on the article's talk page here.

Previous deletion debate, July 2003

• (summary of RST articles proposed for deletion) There are a numerous growing number of RST pseudoscience articles: Reciprocal System of Theory, Tutorial introduction to the RST, Wheel of Motion (Periodic table), Dewey B. Larson. They are all pseudoscience and should be deleted. Daniel Quinlan 04:19, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC); Please note your vote below in short form. If you have longer comments, please direct them to the Talk page for the article in question. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

(UPDATE: Scalar motion, Gravitational motion were deleted. -戴&#30505sv 04:57, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC))

CORRECTION: you're confusing deleted with emptied. The author of the articles emptied a few of the articles as some sort of statement, but they are not deleted. A deleted page is denoted by a "edit this page" link (typically red instead of blue/purple). I added them back to VfD. The consensus seems to be: remove them all but the main article, Reciprocal System of Theory, but we're just waiting for someone to pull the switch. Daniel Quinlan 05:34, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

Keep all:

1. Keep despite RST itself being patent nonsense, rationale at Talk:RST. Kat 18:50, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
2. Doug, the author of the articles, believes they should be kept in Wikipedia (see below)

Delete all:

1. Daniel Quinlan wants all deleted: "Reciprocal System of Theory" has only 258 hits on Google, #1 is Wikipedia.

Keep main, delete rest:

1. Stan recommended deletion of all but the main article.
2. Robert Merkel recommended deletion of all but one article.
3. User:Tim Starling -- keep the main article
4. M123 all but one article should be deleted, the remaining article should be shorter and factual; wikipedia is not free webspace to lobby for a cause (as far as I know)
5. Tb thinks there could be one RST page; the others should go. Especially things like Scalar motion and Gravitational motion which are likely to be very confusing to people who don't know it's all bunkum.
6. Someone else - delete all articles but one, and be sure that one is clearly labeled with the NPOV equivalent of hooey. -- Someone else 07:08, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
7. Jwrosenzweig - keep the main article, delete the rest. The main article, once it's corrected for NPOV and has a good "critics of RST" section added, will be a nice way of demonstrating this particular belief for what it is--ambitious but scientifically unsound.
8. Jake Nelson - Keep the main, delete the rest.
9. Eloquence - Keep main, delete rest.
10. mav - Keep the main RST article (in the shorter form Tim worked on), delete the rest

Other opinions and non-votes:

1. Vicki Rosenzweig previously recommended deletion of Scalar motion, no opinion expressed on the others
2. Marshman 18:43, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC) - Best way to cover these is to provide debunking information
3. I have deleted the text of the Scalar Motion and Gravitational Motion articles, so they can be deleted without further ado. If you want to delete the whole shebang, please feel free to do so. I don't care anymore. Doug 16:48, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

General comments

Stevertigo, I reverted most of your changes to the RST articles. The pages other than the main article still need to be deleted. You seem to have confused "deleted" with "empty". The current RST page is also the work of much work, compromise, and huge amounts of discussion, adding material from the other pages that are to be deleted is a really bad idea. Unless you want to be sucked into the black hole, you might want to wait for Tim Starling and Doug to resolve any irregularities caused by the forthcoming deletions. Just a suggestion... :-) Daniel Quinlan 05:44, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

Oh ok. I was just going by the date more than anything -- it seemed like a beefy issue, that substantial editing had taken place, and that it had all been on VFd for more than a week, and that the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of condensing the material, which it seemed was done. I know youre the one who put it all up for vfd in the first place -- so forgive me if I take your stand on the issue with a grain of salt. ;) VFD is for a specific purpose -- it does appear that the issue has passed the VFD test, judging by the compliance of the original author and the antipathy of the community toward outright removal. 戴&#30505sv 19:17, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC) (comment copied to Wikipedia:VFD:RST theory)

MiXile -- Add to this discussion

This article is created by a user with the same name as the article. As I understand it, it's generally not considered a good practice to create articles about yourself.
Dubidub 12:38, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Leaning towards delete, but undecided pending comment by someone familiar with the venues listed on the article. Are these are major venues, or smaller local gigs? If the latter, delete without question. Of course, this is a vanity page in any case. • Benc • 13:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to user page as suggested by Rossami. • Benc • 02:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Apparently unsigned artist, with only EP's. I love experimental music, but the scene is so fractured that there isn't enough space on all the servers in India for every act. Geogre 14:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Move to user's page on the general principle that you ought not to write articles about yourself. Entire content of the user's current page is a link to MiXile. Comment: User has also created links to this article in Performance art and List of electronic music artists and DJs. I've temporarily reverted those links pending a decision here about general notability. Rossami 15:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The user can put it on their user page, it doesn't belong in the main namespace. Trilobite (Talk) 16:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete/whatever. Sure go ahead, delete it.

Obviously I misread the section on the Performance Art Page where it stated that only an existing author’s favourite artists could be included. Looking at it clearly I can see that working in the area of performance art for almost 20 years counts for nothing when it comes to selection. There again, Performance Art has been an important Artform in Ireland for many years and the ‘my favourite artists’ section contains NO Irish Artists.

As far as the author who commented that I had only done 2 EP’s – yes, I’m very sorry; I could only manage 2 EP’s this year to date. I should have known that the previous body of work stretching back for over a decade would not have counted for anything. Interesting when you consider that the Wikipedia has many listings for artists who are unknown outside of their local town. Oh yea, unsigned? If I make a professional choice to distribute works in a particular way then I don’t see how it is open to criticism by an uninformed person.

Considering the issue of whether ‘these are major venues’ or not, Both the Triskel and Project are major European venues, Garter Lane is one of the largest Art Centres in Ireland.

On the issue of vanity, nothing in my personal life is mentioned. I have purely confined myself to professional activities and if I had wanted to put up a pure vanity page I could have done so anonymously.

Seriously folks, delete the lot. I’m sorry to have intruded on the party.

MiXile

• Mixile: Please read Wikipedia:Auto-biography.
  Dubidub 20:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Björn helgesen -- Add to this discussion

I don't think this is legit -- for one of the "most wanted people in Europe" he doesn't get even one Google hit that looks like him. (That, combined with the obvious mistakes in creating the page, of course). --Fastfission 16:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons above. Trilobite (Talk) 16:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. One ghit for "Björn Helgesen", an entry in a genealogical site. "Vita Bröder" also doesn't seem to get any relevant results. Looks like somebody insulting someone they don't like. — Gwalla | Talk 17:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.. Smells dubious. --Ianb 17:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• No dubiety about it, Ianb, delete vandalism. This is another contribution from the creator of the Famous Unknown Swedes series, Martin Ahnlén (speedied), Martin Ahnlén II, Johan Nyman and Niklas Modigh (speedied, so I can't remember if this seminal article was from the same actual IP, but presumably so). This user also vandalized Beaver and put a witticism about Niklas Modigh into Mental retardation (reverted by AndrewH). There's a motif about Sandviken, a modest Swedish township; I suppose the kid/kids lives there. I'll go report it on Vandalism in progress, if it's not there already. Bishonen 18:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• It's our Swedish vandal back for another run! At least this one's not a fictional hockey player. He seems to be betraying a skinhead background with this entry. Speedy delete if no one speaks up for it in a day. Geogre 19:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as confessed vandalism. The IP's confirmed that they were having fun at our expense and have promised, as I understand it, not to do it any more. Geogre 19:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Self-respect -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

I just can't imagine this ever becoming a valid article - the topic is in itself so subjective. Deb 16:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral. I believe there is a significant psychological literature on the topic of self-image, with self-respect as a piece of that. As a one-sentence dicdef, this would be no great loss, but I could imagine it becoming useful. -- Jmabel 16:56, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Subject is valid, and much has been written about it so there's potential for expansion. Current substub is inaccurate(?) dictdef, though, so anybody seriously writing about it would basically be starting from scratch whether it's deleted or not. — Gwalla | Talk 17:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect to self-esteem. — Gwalla | Talk 23:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Weak delete: It seems to me that the common psychological term is "self-esteem," rather than "self-respect." Geogre 19:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• then redirect to self-esteem, which is good. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• It has been already redirected to self-esteem. Unless someone can present compelling evidence that this is a separate area of research, keep as redirect. Rossami 21:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in some form, redirect or otherwise. anthony (see warning) 14:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Reverse sexism -- Add to this discussion

To begin with, the term "reverse sexism" is self-contradictory - "sexism", by definition, works both ways and therefore cannot be reversed - which is why it is only used colloquially by people who aren't thinking. I'm not aware of companies using this term to describe their policies, but if they do, it is incorrect. What this article is actually attempting to discuss is Positive discrimination, but the author seems to have a few bees in his bonnet that are affecting his ability to write from a NPOV. Deb 17:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I apologise for that last comment, but I still don't think the article is valid. Deb 17:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect to Reverse discrimination, and while we're at it, give that article some seriously needed cleanup/NPOV. KeithTyler 17:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to sexism. The term "reverse sexism" deserves perhaps a sentence or two in *that* article. And for that matter redirect reverse discrimination also to either discrimination or affirmative action. Aris Katsaris 17:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I just rewrote reverse discrimination. The term itself deserves an NPOV treatment to explain its existence. So I disagree with Aris' redirect suggestion for it. :) - KeithTyler 18:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and copy edit some more. The rewrite by bishonen and others makes this useful. Geogre 02:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Reverse discrimination is the best idea I've seen. The last sentence of KeithTyler's rewrite is, essentially, a definition of "reverse discrimination by sex," so the redirect makes sense to me. If we were rewriting, though, we'd have to be perfectly clear: gender is social, and sex is biological. They are not synonymns in a post-feminist age. Geogre 19:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I've no understanding at all of what "gender is social and sex is biological" means. On my part I refer to the "gender" of animals as well. Aris Katsaris 21:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • George, that line went over my head too. Regardless, redirect to reverse discrimination. Rossami 22:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The article in gender can say it more clearly than I, but: gender is the social counterpart to a creature's physical sex. -Sean Curtin 23:54, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I can say it succinctly: masculine and feminine are gender, while male and female are sex. We construct what it is "to be a man" or "to be a woman" socially (gender), but male and female are biological. This is pretty much since the 1950's in feminist critiques. Since this article is about any form of "sexism" it really needs to observe the distinction. Geogre 02:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Well IMO, to "be a man" is to be an adult male human being and to "be a woman" is to be an adult female human being, and I think I generally dismiss any other definition as a stereotype to be combatted (for example e.g. that only straight men are "real men" or that "real women" must be housewives and produce children). Is it only English that bizzarely differentiates between the meanings of "gender" and "sex"? Because my own native language (Greek) certainly doesn't. Aris Katsaris 04:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • There really is more to it than that, but discussing it here isn't really that appropriate on a VfD page. If you're interested, read gender identity/gender role which cover things pretty well. Dysprosia 05:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • As a further sidenote I don't think that "masculine and feminine are genders" works much either -- we may say that a scent is "masculine" but I believe we don't tend to say that "the scent has a masculine gender". Aris Katsaris 04:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Don't worry. It's not your English. English speakers can't even decide what the difference is, and its been changing a lot recently, mainly for political purposes. See the usage note in the American Heritage Dictionary [37]. "This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels." anthony (see warning) 11:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to reverse discrimination. -Sean Curtin 23:54, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a self-contradictory term is not grounds for deletion. Possibly make it a disambig page pointing to sexism and reverse discrimination. anthony (see warning) 14:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Anthony, I'm glad you brought the discussion back to the article, which seemed rather to be getting left behind by the discussion. I agree with Deb that the term "reverse sexism" is illogical, but then the original article, the text that was put up for deletion, explains that it's illogical — what's wrong with that? The present stub by Anthony, on the other hand, which reads in its entirety "Reverse sexism is a term which is sometimes used to refer to reverse discrimination in the form of sexism" I find difficult to understand. Sorry, Anthony, I realize that may be me, not you. (But also, how is it a disambiguation page?) I think the original ought to be reinstated, after cleanup. I'll try to do some tomorrow unless somebody beats me to it. Cleanup may still leave it in need of being merged with reverse discrimination, though, since the term "reverse sexism" is awfully marginal for a separate article. My sampling of the Google hits, which aren't numerous for a phrase so easily coined, suggest that the word is mostly only used in discussions about whether it should be used. :-) There are many self-referential arguments about the term being illogical, few unselfconscious uses of it to refer to a phenomenon in the real world. Sorry, I'm going a long way about giving a neutral vote. More specific input from Deb about her reasons might change my mind. Bishonen 01:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I think calling the term illogical is POV. It's certainly original research, unless you can point to a reference which says that the term is illogical. It's a disambig page because its only purpose is to point to two other pages. A redirect alone is not sufficient. anthony (see warning) 01:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Calling the term illogical is POV ... ? Of course it is. Do you think it's inappropriate to speak from a point of view on VfD? Surely we often use words here that we wouldn't consider putting into an encyclopedia article. (What's the ambiguity that you're disambiguating?) Bishonen 01:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The term as used is illogical. The "reverse" of discrimination (or of forms of discrimination, of which sexism is one) would be non-discrimination. But what the term refers to (or implies in its construction) is fundamentally as much a form of discrimination as any other. That being said... "reverse sexism" is a construction directly descending from "reverse discrimination". Since the only validity of these terms are as similarly-constructed colloquialisms, it should suffice to explain how their constructions came about only once. Ergo a redirect to reverse discrimination for any "reverse [insert type of discrminiationhere]" terms is enough to explain the existence of them all. KeithTyler 05:20, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree that merging Reverse sexism with Reverse discrimination is appropriate, especially since both articles are short. But with respect, Keith, I think "Reverse sexism" is too hot a topic to merely be inserted in a "Reverse discrimination" boilerplate discussion. This because present-day opinions and comments on sexism seem to me to be much more embittered and divisive than opinions and comments (that get aired in public, anyway) on, say, racial discrimination. A separate and not too small space to thrash it out in is going to be neccessary for those editors who will converge on the article to passionately argue that women are already favored and advantaged and have it all (because that is the underlying agenda of the term "reverse sexism"), and for those who will with equal passion contradict them. Bishonen 09:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You asked what's wrong with explaining that the term is illogical. I answered. It's wrong because it's POV. The ambiguitity is whether the person is searching for an article on sexism or reverse discrimination. anthony (see warning) 02:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • • • I apologize for starting an argument with Anthony on VfD. VfD is not the Argument clinic, there's no profit in raking over the same ground again and again, in fact I'll shut up on this thread now, unless it be to change my vote. Anthony, if you don't know that your ball's past the baseline, please take it to my Talk page and I'll explain what "ambiguity" means. Bishonen 09:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Is this just supposed to be rude or am I misinterpreting something? What is VFD for if not for discussing what to do with the article in question? anthony (see warning) 11:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• (No,that was not supposed to be rude, and I have told Anthony I'm sorry it sounded like it.) Several voters have suggested that Reverse sexism be redirected to Reverse discrimination, and User:AndyL did thus redirect it a few hours ago. I've experimentally reverted this redirect and put in my own draft for a new version, which people can now take a look at if they like. Sorry for the way it looks, I'll wikify it some later, unless it's redirected again. I won't burst into tears or anything if the decision is to delete or redirect, but, for now, I'm changing my previous neutral vote to Keep. Bishonen 15:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This new version is POV and original research. anthony (see warning) 03:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The new version is scholarly and analytical. Geogre 12:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It's analytical, similar to much original research, but without having any references I don't see how you could possibly call it scholarly. Scholars don't make things up, they back up their claims with primary sources. anthony (see warning) 23:55, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, I strongly object to your re-reverting the article to stub format, after I explicitly stated above that it had been put there "for people to take a look at". I can't believe you're trying to make it harder for them to do that. Whatever you think of my version, do you really think people should be prevented from seeing it? As I just said, if the outcome of the debate is to delete or redirect it, I'll be fine with that. Now I'm about to re-revert it. Please leave it there. Bishonen 18:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Anthony, wasn't there something about your not doing that any more in the agreement? Why on earth would you do something like that? Geogre 19:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've agreed not to revert a page more than once a day. I didn't revert more than once in a day. Putting something up for people to see should be done on a temp page, not an article page. The article is unacceptable with that POV original research in it. I've already discussed right here that I think the page should be a disambig page. I saw no reason to discuss it again on the talk page. anthony (see warning) 23:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, for Wikipedia, and wikis generally, your idea that a new article ought to spend some time on a temp page (or spend it on the Talk page, as you say on the Talk page) is pretty unique, and I don't understand where it comes from. My draft had no special status that was different from other Wikipedia articles: they're all for people to look at. There was just a bit more of a hurry about it this time, since the discussion was about to roll off VfD. A couple of other points: firstly, you didn't mention that you were about to revert, when you posted a comment on my version above, one minute earlier. Was your intention to do so a secret? Or did the idea just come to you, sometime between 03:25 and 03:26? Secondly, reverting to your substub also meant removing the VfD template! You're not supposed to do that before the voting is over. People who happened to read the stub would no longer know the article was on VfD, which was yet another hindrance to my efforts to get people to actually read it and vote before it rolled off VfD. It's not that I have any great stake in this article — it's not a fascinating subject to me, far from it — it's just that, whatever you think of the text, I had spent some time writing it, and in the end I think very few of the people it was intended for read it. That was somewhat my own fault, for putting it up rather late, but it was your actions that clinched it. :-( Bishonen 15:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I vote to redirect it to Reverse Discrimination and include any relevent content specific to sexism there. --Nabber00 18:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• What was wrong with the original version, it didn't put any assumptions in place, nor did it try to guess what other people in the world believed about the history of gender politics. In its revised state the new author seems to believe that women have historically been the sole victims of sexual discrimination. That men and boys being taken out of their homes and sent down to the mines, or conscripted into the armies, or giveing up their places in life rafts, or putting up with assults and not complaining, or having access to their children denied, or having no say in whether a woman aborts their child is not cultural sexism. Could we revert back to the original neutral version please. :-)

• • Largely the problems with your version are the same as the problems with the current version. It's POV, it's original research, and it's a dictionary definition. anthony (see warning) 12:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • The unsigned comment above is by the original author, and my reply is addressed to him (?). I don't think it's possible to write in a neutral way about a controversial subject that people have very different opinions about. The best we can do is try for NPOV by presenting the subject from several different POV's, and by writing them all up as fairly as possible. Everybody makes assumptions when they use terms like sexism or reverse sexism. You certainly do make assumptions in your version. What I was trying to do in my version was uncover the assumptions behind several different ways of using the word, in fact trying to write from three different sets of assumptions — I numbered them — and especially to put the assumptions themselves right there on the page. That is one of the things you don't like about my version, of course. But I think it's more helpful than to claim that there can be a neutral use of "reverse sexism", without any assumptions. If anybody still looks in on this discussion, I hope they'll go look at the text for themselves, and also use the History tab to get a sense of how it's been edited, and help by editing further. I'm very grateful to the anonymous original author for editing my version, even though he (?) didn't like it, rather than simply reverting to the original. (I think the paragraph about "group 2" became self-contradictory as a result, though, and I'll try to make it clear what I mean on the Talk page). Bishonen 13:13, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Origninal Author: Bishonen could you please tell me what assumptions I made in the original document? I note that you assume I am male, and that both extreem points of view believe in a historic imbalance in favor of men (1 and 2) and that the third point of view is somewhere in between.  :-) I'm not looking for a fight but am genuinely interrested in what you, or anyone else believes are my assumptions or 'bees in bonnet'. I come from a history of hard science and make a living off my ability to 'cut through the crap' and find the core of the problem. In a purely technical sence, sexism does not imply that the sexist believes that one sex is superior than the other, but that they sould be treated differently based on assumed characteristics. I'll give an example; I worked as a Banquets Supervisor while putting myself through Uni. I would always assign tasks to staff based on their qualities and copped a lot of flak for it, usually by other women. We had one girl on staff who was stronger than a lot of the boys and who was very physically competent, so I assigned her to move some of the room dividers along with two boys. She thanked me and said that she never gets to do this and is usually stuck in the kitchen cutting butters with the girls. My boss (female) took her off this duty and put her onto butters. I got a verbal warning for putting an equally paid female on moving walls. Here my boss is treating staff differently based on assumed differences, which sex do you think she believes is superior? The one she has no confidence in (female) or the one she demands do harder work for the same pay (male). The same example is war. Who is seen as superior, the one allowed to defend their country, or the one protected from getting their limbs blown off? It is a very emotive and passionate issue for some people, I tried in my first draft, to make it as unencombered as possible, and wish you had chosen to edit that rather than completely replace it. While I'm being technical, it's also incorrect usage of the term to say someone is discriminated against, you can only discriminate between. The whole 'against' thing is an attempt to portray somone as a victim. Every thing to do with discrimination is a double edged sword. Although I do take on board that it is a Dictionary definition, could the original be moved into reverse discrimination?

The article was, in your version, redundant with Reverse discrimination, and should have been turned into a redirect. Bishonen tried to saved it from that fate by 1) making it more coherent, 2) formatting it, and 3) wikifying it. Unfortunately his definition is completely different than yours.

And while we're at it, both your definitions are different than a survey of meanings used on the Web (do google search for "reverse sexism"). Nearly all sources on the use of the word "reverse sexism" specifically define it as favoritism towards women.

Your own personal definitions of words is not encyclopedic. Meanwhile, Bishonen's version is full of presumption and conjecture. I still vote to redirect to Reverse discrimination. - KeithTyler 18:09, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Anon, I hope I'll find the time later to answer your reasonable question at the beginning of your message (am very busy, though), but just one thing: I made no assumptions about your gender. Do you see the question mark in parenthesis there, when I say "him" or "he", above? It means I don't assume. Do you have some idea that I'm the same person as Deb, who does call you "he", since you also write to me about "bees in your bonnet" — Deb's phrase, not mine ? Please don't fire reproaches at random, but thank you for your input, it's very interesting. Bishonen 18:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I'm changing my vote to Redirect to either Reverse discrimination or Sexism. Now that I understand how much heat the general subject generates, I think it would be as well to not Balkanize it by multiplying articles. Bishonen 19:46, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as we've gone a week and Redirect is the consensus, redirecting Reverse sexism to Reverse discrimination. - KeithTyler 21:45, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

List of failed comic strips -- Add to this discussion

Substub, and fundamentally POV. What makes a comic strip "failed"? The term itself is POV unless you can point to specific goals and expectations for each strip and illustrate that they did not meet those goals. But even if you did that, would a 3 year run for a strip that was expected to run for 5 years qualify as "failed"? - KeithTyler 17:29, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

• In addition, many if not most of these will be non-notable—one definition of "failure" might mean "my webcomic that wasn't popular enough to get into Wikipedia". Delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:44, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject is impossibly vague. Financial failure? Critical failure? Publishing failure? "Li'l Folks" is listed on the page, what if I thought that was the greatest comic strip of all time and just didn't find an audience, is that a failure? Terrapin 17:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I think this is trying to say "List of failed comic strips by established comic strip authors". Too hard to defined, information probably better off in respective author's entry. — Ianb 17:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Well, there is also "failed" like a "failed business": one that is going and then stops. By that measure, the list is all comics ever started that are no longer running. Delete. Geogre 19:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacrimosus 22:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unacceptable title. Fire Star 04:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge with List of comic strips. — 33451 | Talk 11:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete but add information to List of comic strips
• Delete. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Cubaflag15.gif]] 19:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:26, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• merge and redirect. anthony (see warning) 14:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Untitled

From VfD:

"Oscar Herrero is a Flamenco guitarist from Spain" who has a website. Indications of notability, significance in flamenco guitar world welcome. --Ianb 17:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Relax, I'll update the article with more information when I find some. Walden 21:04, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

• any chance you could give a brief clue on this artist's standing? A few words would remove a lot of doubt - if it said something like " ...internationally known Flamenco guitarist from Spain with X hits / Y prizes" or whatever it'd be easier to differentiate a stub with potential from a simple ad for a website, of which there have been too many recently... Thanks --Ianb 21:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Done. I could not find much hard data on him though.
    • Thanks. Sorry to put upon you like that. I think this vfd can be withdrawn as he looks notable to me (not that I have any idea on the subject). --Ianb 20:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How is this a deletion request? Move this discussion to the talk page. anthony (see warning) 14:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Redstar2000 -- Add to this discussion

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

The result was procedural close. AfD was never closed or decided. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"alias of a popular and controversial Marxist writer" with several websites. Indications of notability welcome. --Ianb 17:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Ahh...NO. Proletariat Vanity. When you see phrases like "currently 're-thinking the communist project'" and "new communist paradigm", it SCREAMS "hit me with the Delete stick!". Delete Terrapin 18:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's not so Marxist after all, if it's anarchist, and the proletariat don't never get higher consciousness. You've got to make do with the consciousness it already has. Geogre 19:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• keep: I don't understand what's wrong with it, and as far as I know the man is not an Anarchist. Whoever wrote it was not very well informed on the guy, but your comments stink of personal point of view. It needs reworking, but give the guy a break--Che y Marijuana 22:38, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• We may live to regret this when our backs are against the wall after the revolution. Nevertheless, Delete. Lacrimosus 22:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I don't see a problem, are we going to delete Marx too because he came up with the idea? Or are we selecting only "special people" for this? Pfft, this isn't what the internet is about, this is perhaps the stupidest arguement "OMg, he's a marxist! Let's kick him off our encyclopedia! But let's keep Marx because he's all right with me!"*Kashkin 22:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: the argument isn't that he must be deleted because he's a Marxist. Nobody's suggesting we delete Karl Marx; as a published, well-renowned and extremely influential writer his notability is beyond question. I believe it's not so for our friend Red Star, and so far no-one is yet to prove otherwise. If you wish the article to be kept, please indicate why you think this person is notable. Lacrimosus 23:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Oh, good. Just so long as the internet remains only for the influential people! Thank God, that only the influential orators remain in this internet for the demagog. Please, if the only arguement for deletion is because he isn't a "well-renowned and extremely influential writer", then indubitably this entire site is a waste of time.*Kashkin 22:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Kashkin has made no contributions other than to this debate. DJ Clayworth 15:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It isn't the Internet that's only for famous people. It's an encyclopedia that's only for influential people. This is an encyclopedia that happens to be on the Internet. As a Marxist, I only noted that anyone who detects higher consciousness in the proletariat and thus becomes an Anarchist is not a Marxist. There are lots of people writing web pages and blogs. When they're famous and influential, they go in an encyclopedia. Redstar2000 isn't that yet. Geogre 02:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If you're looking for a website to publish information about little-known people then this site is indeed a waste of your time. DJ Clayworth 04:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Comment: If deleted, also delete the redirect Redstar 2000. Rossami 23:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• The more I think about it, Redstar is more notable than Gounoud. Or, for that matter, more noteworthy than someone like Hitler.*Kashkin 22:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: Redstar2000 claims to have met Ernesto Guevara in 1964, and had a three-hour discussion, along with a group of students through the use of an interpretor. There is credible evidence to suggest such, as there indeed were two groups of students who visited Cuba in 1964.

He made a point of it at one time, and then pontificated on it a couple of times at his "internet message board home" on request. That is little known at any rate, since he doesn't exactly go around boasting about it. The revealing of that claim came about a character question on Guevara. Unfortunately, some of the posts in question the "Chit Chat" forum at the Che-Lives Community have been deleted, as there was a cropping of posts some times ago, but he can relate more details to you if you ask. Here is one reference: Fidel & Major League Baseball Plus, there is the reference to his 1964 trip here. I'm not sure if that is enough for the liking of users here, if indeed notability is a 'policy' for the keeping of pages, but it certainly does add something to his notability, at any rate. It's up to everyone else to decide. The page is only a stub at the moment, and would no doubt be developed given the chance.--C Blackberry 22:51, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

• • C Blackberry has made only one contribution (to a talk page) other than to this debate. DJ Clayworth 15:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Fascist, communist or naturist, one website isn't enough to be notable. Not even if he met Guevara. If more information becomes available I'll change my vote. Delete. DJ Clayworth 04:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. Fire Star 04:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: proletarian vanity. Just when I thought I'd seen it all.... Wile E. Heresiarch 14:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. Andris 15:10, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to note that the page has been edited and expanded with more suitable content. He represents a fairly unique theoretical standpoint and an audience of at least 7500 ain't bad at all. I'm sure we have content on political figures who were involved in much smaller organizations. I also would like to note that the page was not created by him, he was amused to find it as was I. I'm still trying to figure out who originally created it, though I have edited it myself a few times--Che y Marijuana 07:03, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not the quality of the article that's the problem, however, it's whether he should be an encyclopedia at all. On that note, my vote remains unchanged. Ambi 09:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Rubbing elbows with a few top dogs and having dinner with others does not automatically confer notability. I see no body of literature in the reference section, or anything for that matter that would indicate that this gentleman's ideas have much greater following than his reflection in the mirror. I support revolutionary thought, but it does not have a place here unless it has shaped, to some degree, public thought. Denni☯ 00:10, 2004 Sep 6 (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.

St. Dogbert -- Add to this discussion

Page for alter-ego of comic strip character. I merged it into the already excellent Dilbert page, which has it's own section for this character. Delete.

VfD footer

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.

• To nominate multiple related pages for deletion, follow the multi-page deletion nomination procedure.
• To nominate a single page for deletion, you can use Twinkle, or follow these three steps:

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]]