Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andris (talk | contribs) at 16:52, 16 September 2004 (unlist TI-84 - decision to redirect). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page contains Votes for Deletion listings that have finished their voting period and are eligible for either deletion or removal from the list as appropriate following the deletion process. Sysops can delete those articles for which a consensus to delete has been achieved. You can still add your votes to these listings if you feel strongly, but please be aware that once an article listing is on this page it can be deleted or removed from the list at any time.

See also: Wikipedia:Archived delete debates

Ongoing discussions

Needing Transwiki — Wikipedia:Transwiki log

Individual debates older than five days

August 12

User talk:68.48.167.231 -- Add to this discussion

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

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

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

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

August 15

Template:Bmoviebandit1 -- Add to this discussion

Template:Bmoviebandit1 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. Failing to acheive a clear consensus to delete, this template is kept. However, I note that the Bmovie Bandit phenomenon seems to have died down and this template may no longer be necessary. It is no longer in use on any article. I also note that a majority of the keep the template votes came early in the discussion while a majority of the delete the template votes came late in the discussion. If after a reasonable period (perhaps another month) the issue remains calm and the template remains unused, this template may be renominated. Rossami 23:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

August 20

August 21

Matt Couper -- Add to this discussion

I am renominating this page for deletion. I googled "Matt Couper" artist and received only 194 hits. i know garage bands that get more hits than that and I believe Wikipedia has a policy against them. from reading the article, i did not read any notable information...seems like vanity more than anything. Examples: opening sentence describes Couper as "a New Zealand artist who lives in Wellington", implying that he is not notable for anything...contrast with Jack Nicholson: "highly successful, iconic American method actor" or Pablo Picasso: "one of the recognized masters of 20th century art, probably most famous as the founder, along with Georges Braque, of Cubism" (extreme examples of course but the point is made). -- Bubbachuck 13:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC). that said...[reply]


Old VFD circa August 2004

Matt Couper 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.

  1. The Talk page issue is clear. The talk page has been DELETEd.
  2. The article was rewritten during the discussion period. The votes after the rewrite tended more toward keep than delete. Most of those who contributed early did not choose to come back to this discussion.

Failing to achieve a clear consensus to delete the article page, the default decision is KEEP. It may, of course, be renominated after a reasonable time. Rossami 03:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vanity. -- Grunt (talk) 21:39, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

  • Delete: 1st half is vanity, 2nd half is a help wanted ad. Geogre 00:11, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • What the heck is going on with this article? It's been a target of anon vandals for months! It has about 700 edits! Delete. RickK 05:04, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising and self-promotion (#18). --Slowking Man 06:44, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • talk:Matt Couper seems to be being used as a sandbox too. Delete both. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:51, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It's being used as a message board: We need to watch carefully. After we delete this, the marooned kiddies are going to look to make/use something else, I'll bet. The edits are coming too fast. Wikipedia is not a Post-It note on a corkboard. Geogre 13:37, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • But they're not talking to each other, they're just using it as a sandbox. Anyway, here are the IP addresses: Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:14, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I have also established email contact with Matt. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:14, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC). As a result of which, I vote to keep but cleanup. He does seem minorly notable, certainly as notable as fellow Kiwi Francis Uprichard. he says that the article was written by some guy called Aaron Lister. I think what we basically have is a Dartmouth College sandbox. Still, delete the talk page. Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC).
  • Keep now, but edit perhaps. Did get an art gallery in Wellington during a quick google search. Kiwis will always be less notable, what with living on an island and all that, but this person is probably still minorly notable. Further, what Dunc Harris says. I take it it's fixed now? (thanks dude!) Kim Bruning 13:25, 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.

August 22

Drinking_Water_Equivalent_Level -- Add to this discussion

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

This article has no potential to be encyclopedic. Google finds [1], which defines DWEL as a measure used in defining the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal. MCLG seems to be a useful measure, judging from the referenced page, but DWEL is not. This article also has an associated redirect DWEL, which should also be deleted if this article is. 141.211.62.118 22:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge material to one of the articles on sewage or water contamination or pollution. It's a small definition of something that might well be a useful term (e.g. when does water get pure enough to be equivalent of drinking water?). Delete. Geogre 13:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Agreed with User:Geogre's rationale, but, AIUI "merge and delete" is not considered a valid vote (as it loses edit history). Besides, since the current content is inoffensive, and it's conceivable that someone may search for the term, I see no problem with a redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 21:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I know the point you're making, Gwalla, and understand it, even as I have my own private quibbles with the policy in question. What I am essentially saying is "delete" and "if someone would be so kind as to paraphrase this and put it in another, more appropriate article, it would be good." I.e. not "copy and paste" (destroying history, which is just one author in this case), but "delete but preserve the information, if someone is inclined." It's a technicality, I know, but it's a delete decision, with a preservation as an after thought. I have no quarrel at all with a redirect and actually think you're right that a redirect is better than an outright delete. Geogre 01:09, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • merge/redirect. I'm not sure I see the point of preserving this page's history, but it seems possible someone could search directly for this term, so I suppose redirect is better than delete. --AHM 18:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I am merging DWEL with water pollution and redirecting the page to water pollution. See if it looks OK. -- CDN99 20:26, 6 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.

Dartmouth Wind Symphony -- Add to this discussion

Dartmouth Wind Symphony was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the article defaults to KEEP with a recommendation to redirect. Rossami 23:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Someone is late with an entry, it seems. Another valid contribution to the Dartmouth College "Student Life" section that is not sufficiently notable for an isolated article. N.b. that the assignment students are pursuing does not instruct them to write about Dartmouth topics, and it appears that some of the students are not taking the time to, for example, find our "Requested Articles" list. Nevertheless, this is insufficiently notable. Geogre 18:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge and Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 19:17, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Dartmouth College. Kevyn 21:27, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Merge/delete destroys edit history (the delete would be pointless anyway). — Gwalla | Talk 22:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Dartmouth College after boiling down to a few sentences. Comments follow. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think: Eastman Wind Ensemble, notable; Dartmouth Wind Symphony, non-notable. Now I'm going to check my belief. "Eastman Wind Ensemble:" 9250 Google hits. "Dartmouth Wind Symphony:" 92 Google hits. Amazon.com, search Classical Music for Eastman Wind Ensemble. 34 results. Dartmouth Wind Symphony: I was momentarily surprised by the 382 results until I read the caption, "We found no matches for 'Dartmouth Wind Symphony'. Below are results for wind symphony."
But I have another question. Not rhetorical. Is it a notable group on the Dartmouth campus? If I look at hop ensembles, I see the Barbary Coast Jazz Ensemble, Dartmouth Chamber Singers, Dartmouth Glee Club, Dartmouth Gospel Choir, Handel Society of Dartmouth College, Dartmouth College Marching Band, Dartmouth Symphony Orchestra, Dartmouth Wind Symphony, and World Music Percussion Ensemble. And that's just at "the hop." There are probably at lot more (I don't see the Dodecaphonics on that list, for example). Well, if you had to pick the most notable, would it be the Wind Ensemble? If you had to pick the three most notable, would it include the Wind Ensemble? That is, does it even deserve two or three sentences or should there it just be one in a list of musical groups? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge. No evidence of notability, local or otherwise. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:16, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like Darthmouth is FULL of wind. RickK 05:34, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Die, die, die. (*posts, what, my twentieth delete vote on these?) Ambi 10:46, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:10, Aug 25, 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.

Z-box -- Add to this discussion

Z-box 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. I count 2 clear votes to delete, one vote to send to clean-up and one ambiguous vote. Looking at the article, I also note that it is an unedited orphan lacking context and add my own vote to delete. Rossami 23:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is confusing, short, and has no incoming or outgoing links. It has been over a month since it was last edited, and that was by an anonymous user who has edited nothing else. -- Creidieki 19:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, this seems to be a standard sort of genome/string matching definition: so I say keep and clean up first. Charles Matthews 20:00, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Question: Not familiar with what a Z-Box is. What broader topic is this a sub-topic of? Is there an article this would be appropriate to Merge and Redirect to? Kevyn 21:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: Apparently it is part of some programming algorithm for string matching. See [2] (it's a PDF)--Nabla 23:22, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
  • Transwiki (Wiktionary maybe?) and delete OR Merge and delete (maybe to something about string matching?) Apparently, I get more Google hits about some type of computer called the Z-box --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 08:35, 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.

August 23

Peter Weibel -- Add to this discussion

Peter Weibel 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. On 29 Aug 2004, this article was extensively rewritten. The preponderance of votes after that rewrite are either keep or neutral. Failing to reach a clear consensus for deletion, the article defaults to keep. Rossami 00:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

German and possible copyvio. Too tired to check myself.  :^) - Lucky 6.9 09:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Its a copy of his CV, which is probably not copyrighted. It's online as a Word doc at [3]. Probably worth translating and then deciding if he's notable enough; if he is, then we can deal with the form of it. -- Jmabel 15:27, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • And the same CV is also on his personal wbsite, here. Would that make it copyvio? Anyway, he seems reasonably notable, but isn't this the kind of thing we're supposed to not encourage? How is it more laudable and appropriate to upload this German document than if the same thing had existed on German Wikipedia? That seems pretty hair-splitting. Btw, what does exist on German Wikipedia is a much shorter version, a stub, about the same person , here, created in August 2003 and last updated July 2004. (Wouldn't it be sort of more logical the other way round, with the long version on de.wikipedia and the short one here?) Bishonen 17:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I say we just translate what's in the German Wikipedia. -- Jmabel 00:33, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Right ... except why do we want to help this guy promote himself on en.wikipedia, again? If Wikipedia policy says we have to lick anything he plants on us into shape, then I'm not happy with that policy. Look at this ridiculous substub, for instance, that people will find by following a wikilink in Peter Weibel. Or actually, don't look, Lucky, it'll only remind you of the postings of you-know-who. ;-) Bishonen 08:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • So we are assuming that Weibel posted it himself and that it's vanity? I didn't look closely, just closely enough to see that it was an academic's CV. Should we skip translation an go directly to VFD as vanity? -- Jmabel 19:18, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Right. I think a look at the page's What links here plus at the links on the page itself justifies assuming that it's vanity and linkspam. And I advise VfD'ing the ZKM substub too while we're about it. --Bishonen 10:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**I agree, this should be put up for Vfd. Vanity --Fenice 20:39, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

<end moved discussion>

  • In short, vanity by a non-notable academic, delete. -- Jmabel 00:40, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Pride is a sin: delete. Geogre 01:08, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Darn it all! Jmabel, you're right, but we're in a jam, here. The article as it stands should be deleted. The article as it should be should not. We can send it to Clean Up with a note suggesting a re-nomination to VfD if not improved in 60 days. Geogre 00:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, definitely no need to bother translating this. This guy is an undistinguished arts professor nobody has ever heard about; his claim to fame is that he also plays a minor role in Austria's federal art endowment bureaucracy. Ratatosk 02:28, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, see moved discussion. --Bishonen 06:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not in English, looks like a CV. Average Earthman 11:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Now it's in English and looks like an article, so it's now a keep. Still should never have been in German on English wikipedia... Average Earthman 20:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 20:32, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Not in English + probable vanity = delete. Isomorphic 19:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Since it turns out that he's notable, keep whatever translation and expansion is made (of course.) Isomorphic 21:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • BOY, some of you people should really do some homework! This person is one of the first most important video artists per se! Not everyone or everything happens in your 'new' and seemingly uninformed and insular world across The Pond. And, PS, I am not Weibel!!
    • The anonymous entry above (which Bishonen reverted as vandalism & I restored, because it apparently is nothing of the sort) got me to go to Google rather than just look at the article itself. I searched for '"Peter Weibel" video'. Looks like this person is notable, even if the article as it stands is not what we should have. The Tate Gallery describes him as one of "curators who have been essential to the presentation of new media art over the last forty years". [4] The Gallery of the Austrian Cultural Forum in Prague did an exhibit of his work that all on its own would suggest notability [5] and here isa pretty solid interview with him. I reverse my earlier vote. Keep and clean up. -- Jmabel 23:36, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • I am the anonymous intruder above and am relieved someone did a little research! Europe has many significant artists in this field, and has done so since the technology was launched in the late 60s (In fact, working with and commenting on 'TV culture', before non-broadcast technology was available, started in the early 60s with TV 'sculptures' by Wolf Vostell, a German, simultaneously with Nam June Paik - soon to be followed by a Swede, Ture Sjolander, long before Video Art per se was 'invented').To be of value your encyclopedia MUST have a global overview not the almost parochial views witnessed on this page. In this respect It is a pity the main Video Art page does not expand to give some brief description of non-American work. Anyway keep Weibel in, but if possible (I agree) get English translation/s.
  • After looking at the new research I reverse my earlier judgement of this beeing vanity. It's not vanity, he's notable, German Wikipedia just has a stubby entry, and at the time I did no further research. Now I also did a Google-search and it showed that Peter Weibel's art has had several exhibitions in the German-speaking area of Europe. For some reason the CV does not list his exhibitions - so I don't believe Weibel posted it himself. We'll have to translate it and expand it. Keep. --Fenice 11:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that an article about Peter Weibel the video artist would be encyclopedic, and change my vote to neutral, but I feel that's the most I can do. The page listed is just a list of Peter Weibel's academic posts (his artistic achievements being polished off with the single word "Künstler" = artist). Some of these should go in the article, indeed, and I don't have much experience of Wiki policy on translating raw materials like these. Perhaps it's what we do. On the other hand, how about sending the CV to the German Wikipedia, where any potential originator of a real en.Wikipedia article would be able to mine it for information and German terminology? To translate professional titles from other languages into English is difficult and full of traps. It seems to me that any German titles incorporated in an English article would be both more economically and more safely (because of fewer steps involved) done after the article has been written/drafted. Bishonen 19:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The translation will be no problem. I just started the translation and expanded it.--Fenice 20:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and evolve the article. -- Pjacobi 22:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe the article now addresses all of the objections that have been raised above. -- Jmabel 22:44, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

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

August 24

Nelson A. Rockefeller Center -- Add to this discussion

Nelson A. Rockefeller Center 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. It has subsequently been merged with and redirected to Dartmouth College#Nelson A. Rockefeller Center. Rossami 00:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Dartmouth College department. Has had famous visitors. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: It's the student center! Sure, folks have gone there. The same would be true of The AMOC at Emory, the Great Hall at UNC, the Student Center at UGA, etc. You can't borrow notability from your husband/wife, or your visitors. Was the "Iron Curtain" speech delivered there? No redirect, as Rocky got other things named after him. Geogre 18:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Elf-friend 19:49, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge a short summary into Dartmouth College. (I would guess that the notables mentioned didn't just stop there to visit the john and buy a candy bar from the vending machine; they probably were invited speakers at those dinners. But possibly they were paid an honorarium for their attendance). Incidentally, if you want to see promotional language, take a gander at http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/about/index.html : "Located at a busy cross-roads of campus, the Rockefeller Center is a lively, intellectual gathering place for students and faculty. It is a catalyst for public policy research and education and prepares students for lives of leadership and service in a diverse and globally interdependent world." Give the author of the Wikipedia article credit for exercising some restraint. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:49, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Dartmouth College student life. 21:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It would be nice if people actually looked at the article before they vote to delete it.
This is not a student center.
      • It is a research institute. Now, it may not be notable, but at least figure out what it is before you trash it.--Samuel J. Howard 00:37, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
        • I read it. Both Dpbsmith and I seem to have missed what it is. This article is so poorly written that it doesn't even indicate clearly what it is about is the conclusion I draw. If we weren't so bombarded with these, I might have gone to Google to research the subject to provide what the author did not. I might have spent the time trying to filter out the ad-speak in it. To return to my original argument about notability, then, I'd ask about all the other policy centers at all the other universities in America? Emory has The Carter Center, which deserves an article because of what it has done. It has brokered peace agreements around the world, been the election monitor various places, etc. Compare that to Rusk Center at the University of Georgia. Many, many famous people have gone there, and it does good university work. It is normal that way. It would not be worthy of an article, IMO. It is the burden of the article to explain significance, and to clearly indicate what it is about. This article fails on both counts. It's a place. Famous people getting honorary doctorates have spoken there. That doesn't make it Oxford Union. Geogre 04:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The article's not much as it stands, but unlike most of what I've seen lately from Dartmouth, this probably has encyclopedic potential. keep. By the way, has anyone worked out exactly what is going on here? Was this a classroom assignment gone awry or was this just a bunch of people from one school who decided to spam the heck out of wikipedia? If it was an assignment, we'd do well to contact the faculty member and see if next time this can be done appropriately. Dartmouth is a rather good university, and surely a bunch of Dartmouth undergrads could actually write useful articles on encyclopedic topics. -- Jmabel 02:43, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: It was a computer science course assignment. The assignment sheet is here. (The due date was Aug. 20, so the worst of the onslaught is probably behind us now). A larger discussion can be found here. -- Kevyn 03:02, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Wow. So they nearly all on their own chose to write about campus trivia instead of encyclopedia-worthy topics. Wow. Sure lowers my opinion of Dartmouth. -- Jmabel 05:29, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
        • "nearly all on their own chose to write about campus trivia?" No, no, no. The latest word from the instructor is that nearly 200 articles were contributed. He happened to mention a couple indirectly in passing to me when I spoke to him; I looked at them and checked them out they were absolutely first rate. They would never come up for VfD in a million years. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 09:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:34, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Needs lots of cleanup and more content, but keep or, if no more content is corthcoming, merge/redir. +sj+ 09:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete. anthony (see warning) 14:13, 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.

Kappa Kappa Kappa -- Add to this discussion

{[Talkheader}}

Culture and politics of Toronto -- Add to this discussion

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

An aged and useless non-article. The little information here is already well covered in the main Toronto article and it is unlikely a joint article on both culture and politics will ever be wanted. -SimonP 21:55, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Cleanup, merge, redirect. There seems to be some information there that isn't in the main Toronto article, just not written in an encyclopedic form. — Gwalla | Talk 22:55, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article topic is not narrow enough. Although, I do support future History of Toronto politics-type articles. Davodd 11:58, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with SimonP. Denni☯ 22:44, 2004 Aug 28 (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.

Dartmouth College Marching Band -- Add to this discussion

Dartmouth College Marching Band 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. It was subsequently merged with and redirected to Dartmouth College#Marching Band. Rossami 00:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

found another one. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:35, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect to Dartmouth College student life Kevyn 22:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: If the author cares enough about his or her material, then he or she can merge it and do the redirect. If the author just came here to be perfunctory, then I don't see anyone doing a search for this lemma. Geogre 00:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:36, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. anthony (see warning) 12:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Elf-friend 13:15, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I still want an article about my high school chess club... - Tεxτurε 17:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redir. Texture, I'd say you can have an article about student life at any institution that has its own WP article, if there is enough student life to merit breaking out a separate title. +sj+ 10:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • How many? 5? 15? 25? - Tεxτurε 19:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:41, 2 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.

August 25

Festa -- Add to this discussion

Article listed on WP:VFD Aug 25 to Sep 21 2004, consensus was not reached. Was merged and redirected to Culture of Malta until further action is taken. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(begin moved from Cleanup/Leftovers)
Festa Needs other "festae," as it's also a Latin word, and this article bleeds into 'fete' and 'feast days,' doesn't it? 206.205.115.3
(end moved from Cleanup/Leftovers)
Non-relevant. The word festa is a Latin word, plural of festum. It is excatly the same in italian and portuguese. And there are very similar variations: fiesta (Spanish), feast (English), fête (French), maybe more. Also almost equal religious festivities as the one described can be found in many other countries, including almost every, no matter how small, town here in Portugal--Nabla 16:44, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

  • Sorry, what's your point, Nabla? Bishonen 23:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Festival, possibly move content to Culture of Malta as well. Kevyn 23:27, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • One of those comments up there is mine, from Clean Up. The problem I had then was that it took the word "festa," which is "feast" in Latin, and presumed that there was only one, and that one being the Maltese one. I had been trying to insinuate that a cleaning meant coming up with all the languages that had that formation and possibly talking about how festa becomes the fete, the festival, and the feast day. I know that such has not been done, and I think it cannot be done. Delete. Geogre 02:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion

Bradley Amendment -- Add to this discussion

Political capital

Has anyone looked into the how much political support if any Bradley garnered from this bill? Has he commented on special cases - coma cases, etc? Has he ever been extremely poor? In other words, is he able to empathize with the plight of a poor father whose wife decided she perhaps could do better and whose job was outsourced to India or Mexico, for example?

I think that answers to these kinds of questions would improve the article.

24.206.125.213 10:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI[reply]

Votes for deletion archived debate

Article listed on WP:VFD Aug 25 to Sep 21 2004, consensus was to keep following reqrites. Discussion:

Nothing much but POV, and very whiny POV at that. KeithTyler
Rossami pulled it off. I rescind nomination to VFD and change vote to Keep in its new form. - KeithTyler 05:22, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • It could be worth having an article on this. Has it been on cleanup?—Rory ☺ 19:27, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Vote delete; this is always going to be contentious in this incarnation.—Rory ☺ 13:17, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Much better now. Good job. —Rory ☺ 10:53, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Real law. Real social problem that has been independently discussed. Unwikified and POV first draft, but that's cause for Clean-up, not deletion. Keep. Might need renaming because essentially every amendment proposed by Senator Bradley gets called the "Bradley Amendment". Rossami 22:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I am the author of the Bradley Amendment page, Jeff relf 23:03, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC) .

I prefer the term Bradley Amendment because that is how it is referred to in technical articles: 

 The 1986 U.S. law nicknamed the Bradley Amendment.

A contents section could be added if someone wanted to add yet another Bradley admentment. This page is about how uncaring the U.S. Congress bureaucracy has become. A bureaucracy that won't even allow a state, much less a judge, to consider individual cases. It is of particular concern to all males, especially those in the U.S.

Boy, this needs MAJOR work! At least cleanup, at best, delete it and start over. RickK 23:15, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Rossami is right that clean up is appropriate, if clean up can do it. We need a lawyer or a contemporary historian, and no divorced fathers or ideologues. That's a tall order for Clean Up. Let it go there with an amendment in its discussion saying that it ought to come back here, with prejudice, if it is unimproved in a month. Before anyone says it, I do have a reason for putting a time limit on it: the persistence of a rant on our space is unlike the persistence of a stub. It leaves us prejudicial and POV. Geogre 23:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to delete: I think we'd be leaving a rant too long, and we're just going to have an edit war with one or another person. Better to have a hole, IMO, than to give the world the wrong impression of our goals or practices. Geogre 12:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Rossami's rewrite and efforts and helping the article along have convinced me to say we should keep it. Geogre 04:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

____

Hah.

All *knowledge* is subjective. The winners write the histories as it was once said.

If you think that you can write some kind of antiseptic "truth" in this Wikipedia -- I think you are sorely mistaken.

I know Jeff. I know that his life has been severely affected by the Bradley Amendment.

Is that not knowledge?

Jeff is exposing not only the Amendment, but its deleterious affect on Men. And why not? He "knows" through experience.

The Wikipedia claims to be an "encyclopedia" -- and it uses a form of Open Source Knowledge to do so...yet, here you are, the Pharasees of truth, trying to censure it.

For shame...for shame...

john bailo http://home.earthlink.net/~jabailo

We're not trying to censure, NOR censor anything. We just want an article that makes some sort of sense. RickK 07:29, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • You, Rick K., want:
" an article that makes some sort of sense " ?

I think the page that I created does at least a fair job of explaining a very important U.S. law. One that is much discussed by the U.S. government itself, state and local. Feel free to do better yourself.

I provided an example, the only one I know about. Examples are not evil POVs, they are the best teaching tool.

I welcome you all to also add your own examples, if you have them. The more the better. And no, I don't care if your examples are radically different than mine. --Jeff relf 09:47, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


It is not sufficient to couch your own personal opinions in wording such as "some people say" or "it is believed by some". You cannot possibly claim NPOV for this article, because not only does it slant the treatment of the subject very narrowly towards your own opinions (there is nothing from any opposing view, no pro- arguments taken from Congressional records or court cases to baland the con- arguments, etc.), but it is deliberately written to evoke a certain value judgement in the reader, with off-topic details of worst-case exaggerated hypothetical cases. After all of that, the article ends with "One way or another, this is an abuse." (Plenty of other statements are borderline POV though written as if to pretend that they are not, such as "This renders all state statutes of limitations meaningless.")

It is clear, if only from that last statement, that the purpose of creating this article on the subject was for you to push an agenda, which is POV.

Nor is NPOV best achieved by a battle of contrarian examples (which I could easily give you from my own family's experiences) being waged in the edit history of an article. An encyclopedia is the summarization and culmination of facts and considerations, not a battleground for opinion or even debate. No, an encyclopedia should stand back from the battle and then report on how the dust settles.

It should strive not to take sides, as your article plainly has.

I don't think there is anything much at all salvagable in the current article. There is too much to strip away and nothing readily available to replace it with.

KeithTyler 19:50, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article is so POV and confused that it might be a parody intended to mock those opposed to the Bradley Amendment. Jallan 20:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Clean up.
 But show real-live examples, 
 as vague notions of so-called noncustodial parents 
 is damn near incomprehensible.
 If, as seems likely, no one is interested in doing that,
 and if, as also seem evident, 
 you don't trust me to do the cleaning... 
 Then remember this: 
   People will remain ignorant of this law.

--Jeff relf 05:43, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

    • People are already ignorant of thousands of laws. This is not a vehicle to push your own agenda, even just to selectively promote the one law that you are most concerned about. That's the point. This is an encylopedia, not a pamphleteering forum. KeithTyler 17:17, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • This law effects all Americans, not just me. It also effects people in other countries, as we live in a very global society. The law is not being promoted as you claim, it is being explained. I created the page, people were repulsed by my example, so I hand it over to you guys. If you want to clean it up, as you say, then I think that'd be a good idea. If you don't... well, all the more ignorance will prevail. How would that benefit you, Keith ?

--Jeff relf 23:39, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - if the author put half the effort into trying to make a real article out of this that he's putting into arguing to keep it, we wouldn't be here. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • You imagine that I put in too little effort, do you Cyrius ? This Bradley Amendment page is the result of years of research using all the facilities at my disposal here at the Univeristy of Washington, including many technical magazines on the topic and full-text search engines like Lexis-Nexis.COM . Feel free to do a better job... if you can. By the way, what is it that makes so many people seek to purpetuate such inorance about this vital topic ? It's a total mystery to me. --Jeff relf 04:38, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Rossami's rewrite, while rough, is an attempt at a real article and not a rant. Keep rewrite. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Delete. If there was enough substance in the article to make me interested about it, I'd certainly "feel free to do a better job," and it sure as hell wouldn't take me "years of research." I can't even tell what Act this was an amendment to, though perhaps I missed something as my eyes crossed while trying to read through the poor formatting. There is nothing worth salvaging here. Postdlf 07:17, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    • The 1986 U.S. law nicknamed " The Bradley Amendment ", ( 42 U.S.C. 666 ( a ) ( 4 ) ) affects millions of Americans, and I explained why using an example. And you claim it has little substance ? Ok, you win... I give up. WikiPedia is off my list of favorite sites. --Jeff relf 08:02, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 13:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I cleaned up the text somewhat (removed leading whitespaces, etc), but the POV rant remains. Article, as is, seems unsalvagable. Delete.Dukeofomnium 13:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • From what I can see, most Google hits for "Bradley Amendment" seem to point to deadbeat dad advocacy sites. It does not appear in findlaw.com Dukeofomnium 13:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • keep as rewritten. Dukeofomnium 17:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I have now completely rewritten the article. Please judge it on its current merits. It's not perfect yet but no Wikipedia article ever is. The facts are all supportable. (I have no idea why Dukeofomnium could not find it in findlaw.com. Title 42 is pretty easy to find and the sub-paragraph citations were correct.) I don't think the current tone is any more POV than the cited Washington Times article or the other najor newspaper articles I found while researching this. Rossami 01:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I found the law in Findlaw.com (Title 42 section 666(a)(9)(c)), but not the phrase "Bradley Amendment". I misspoke myself. I shall try to atone. Dukeofomnium 17:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Now keep. It still has POV problems, but it's now clearly keepworthy. Ambi 02:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • WADR I don't see the POV. There's opinion, but it's both balanced and attributed (not stated as fact). - KeithTyler 05:22, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to keeping rewrite—kudos to Rossami for making this a real article. I still wonder whether or not there is a better name for the article, however—it seems imprecise. Postdlf 13:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Considering the cultural consensus (as determined by Dukeofomnium's Google search, stated above) that "the Bradley amendment" most commonly refers to this particular law, the name is appropriate. In other words, given the cultural consensus, the majority of people looking for info on "the Bradley amendment" will be looking for this one. Given that, I would almost argue that even if we do see articles on other Bradley amendments, that this should be the default topic, with a disambiguation link preface. - KeithTyler 17:23, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep now. The current article seems NPOV, reasonably well written (probably above the Wikipedia average) and is quite comprehensible. The unsalvagable original did not even make clear what the problem was. As to its name, it could be renamed as Bradley Amendment (1986) or Bradley Amendment, 1986 or something like that to avoid confusion with any other Bradley Amendment. But that could wait until such time, if ever, that another article on another Bradley Amendement is written. Jallan 16:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • IMO it is OK for disambiguation to wait until there are ambiguous articles. - KeithTyler

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Challenge to statistics

In a recent edit, this text was added challenging the HHS statistics on arrearages. Unfortunately, I can't figure out the intended meaning of the edit in the context of the article. Maybe I'm just getting confused by the grammar. I'm pulling the comment to the Talk page until we can figure it out. Any help would be appreciated. Rossami (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, the above statistics may be misleading because child support cases are typically closed after four years of inactivity. Closed or not, the Bradley Amendment makes all arrearages final judgements, greatly simplifying collections.

HHS statistics are Very deceptive, because cases are typically closed after four years of inactivity.

Automatically making past-due child-support a Final_Judgement is how the Bradley_Amendment facilitates collection. Collection is it's raison d'etre.

I don't know why I didn't make this clearer before, but it's obvious that I'm not the only one confused by all this.

If you reject my wording or dispute my assertions, please feel free discuss it here and/or do a better job, keeping in mind the vital nature of this information. --Jeff Relf 19:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing your assertion. I just don't understand it. How does the fact that "cases are typically closed after four years of inactivity" create bias or perception of bias in the HHS statistics? If there is bias and if that bias is relevant to the topic of this article, then we must explain it clearly enough to be understandable to any future reader/editor. I still can't make the connection. Rossami (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HHS' statistics omitted closed cases, agreed ?

By some estimates, including U.S. census data, a million or more men have left the official work force in the last 30 years or so, disappearing into the so_called invisible economy, a.k.a. the informal economy.

So there are men and women who are effected by Automatic_Final_Judgements even though the state has closed their cases and HHS' statistics ignore them.

Automatic_Final_Judgements prevent men from reentering the visible economy for fear of losing everything in a seizure. Even when the past-due debt is 40 years old. Even when the obligee has long since become a former_mother.

--Jeff Relf 17:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just being particularly dense today but I still don't understand the relevance of your proposed addition. The paragraph in question currently reads:

According to Sherri Z. Heller, Ed.D, Commissioner of U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement, the child support system collects "about 58% of current support due." The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 68% of child support cases had arrearages owed in 2003 (a figure up from 53% in 1999). Some believe that the process can never collect the full amount because a high proportion of obligors are unable to make the required payments. According to Ford Foundation Project Officer Ronald B. Mincy, between 16 percent and 33 percent of obligors are "turnip dads" (obligors earning less than $130 a week). According to one study (http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/new/csr9701.htm#9701c%7C) 38% of non-custodial parents not paying child-support said they lacked the money to pay.

I find the theme of the paragraph in the third sentence. To paraphrase, "A says the Bradley Amendment is good because so much child support is unpaid and A implies that it's unpaid by choice. B says that A's analysis is flawed because a big chunk can never be paid - a problem the Bradley Amendment does not and can not address." If HHS's statistic had included closed cases, are you arguing that the 68% statistic would be higher or lower? In that case, how would the theme of this paragraph be any different? Rossami (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I made it like this then:

The numbers above omit closed cases. Typically, cases are closed after four years of inactivity. Open or closed, past-due child support is still automatically a final judgement, thus non expiring and easy to collect.

--Jeff Relf 15:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still under repeal effort?

Whats happened to the repeal effort since 2004? theres no current information? Or did it fail?

I'm guessing feminist groups are fighting hard behind the scenes to keep that from happening?216.52.163.1 19:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)LUID[reply]

Lack of Citations under "Controversies" heading.

The "Controversies" heading lists several "notorious" cases of unintended consequences to the law. If these cases are so "notorious," then why are no sources cited? Without specific sources, there's no way to tell if these examples are real or apocryphal. Captain Bathrobe (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already cited in the section above. See the comments attributed to McLeod. Rossami (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some independent verification would be a good idea, don't you think? (Captain Bathrobe (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Just reviewed McLeod's "testimony." He provides no evidence of these claims, names no names. Yet the existence of these cases is being cited as "notorious" cases of unintended consequences. In fact, McLeod isn't even saying that he has specific examples; he just make vague reference to "endless stories." If the story are endless, why can't he cite even one. I say, unless these cases can be substantiated, let's delete the "controversies" heading and keep McLeod's testimony as just that--his testimony. (Captain Bathrobe (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
When the content was added, it was attributed to his book (The Multiple Scandals of Child Support, I believe), not to his testimony. To be honest, I would not have expected anything qualifying as encyclopedic sourcing in congressional testimony - the session is just too time-limited. Any sources backing up the testimony would be in supplemental filings if the congressional audience allowed it at all. Rossami (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work on this section and now all the examples should have several properly formatted citations. Wingman4l7 (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bradley Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bradley Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chi heorot -- Add to this discussion

Psi Upsilon Zeta Chapter -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Psi Upsilon Zeta Chapter

August 29

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

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)

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. [7] --[[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.

September 2

Nation of Islam anti-semitism -- Add to this discussion

Nation of Islam anti-semitism 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. I count 6 delete, 3 straight keep, 2 keep merged into Nation of Islam and 2 keep merged into Louis Farrakhan. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the article is kept.

  • This article conforms with points 6,9,10 and possibly 11 of What Wikipedia is not. This is a one and a half year old rant by RK that now unfortunately looks too much like a real article because someone decided to wikify it... My objections are: It is original research (see Wikipedia:No original research) and argues a point. It is therefore inherently POV. It doesn’t start with a definition, it starts with a topic sentence. Therefore it is an essay and thus not encyclopaedic. 3/4 of the text consists of quotes, so it is also a particularly bad essay. While the point is probably valid to some degree, it really does not need an article of this length that enjoys flogging dead donkeys so much and any usable parts should be merged with the anti-Semitism, NOI, Farrakhan etc. articles. Please delete. Pteron 13:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Pteron.--158.112.84.2 13:14, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • That was my vote.--MaxMad 13:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no merge and delete. Merge and redirect to Nation of Islam.--Samuel J. Howard 13:18, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: You pretty much summed it up. It's actually more than 3/4 quotes. Character counts before and after quotes show that there were 4641 characters in the article, and only 614 of it wasn't quotes. That shows that a nauseating 86.77% is quotes. When you look at the actual text that's left over, it's mostly just a quick synopsis of the quotes to come. How about moving to wikiquote? -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 13:24, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This appears to be factual. If we would allow Antisemitism why wouldn't we allow this? I disagree with Pteron (above) in that I do not see this as either propoganda nor advocacy (#6), if the quotes are accurate. It may be unpleasant to those who belong to Nation of Islam, but just because it is unpleasant does not make it false. Since it is mostly quotes, it cannot be an essay (#9). I do not see it as primary research, either (#10) as there is no scientific discovery here. Nor is it a List repository of loosely associated topics (#11). While it may come close to a "list" of quotes, they are not loosely associated as they are very on-topic and cohesive. Those who support, or belong to, the Nation of Islam may not want to see this here, but if it is factual it needs to stay. We don't delete entries on Hitler because Austrians may object, nor do we delete entries on The Crusades because Catholics may object. KeyStroke
  • If you think the percentage of quotes to original content is small, then follow Wikipedia procedure by helping write more original content on this topic. It is not Wikipedia policy to delete articles for having a high percentage of quotes. Our job is to improve articles we already have, not delete them if early drafts are not up to highly edited standards! RK 14:22, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no "rant" against the Nation of Islams. Why are people trying to hide the NOI's own views? The quotes are necessary, because when NOI positions were mentioned in the past, people denied that NOI held such a position. So quotes were added to show that they indeed have such positions. Yet now people want to remove the quotes, leaving us back where we started...with no documentation or proof. That's is not progress.
Anyone who claims that this article is "original research" is trying to hide facts that make them feel uncomfortable. Ironically, they are violating NPOV by hiding beliefs that the NOI proudly has always held and public preached. We may not like such beliefs, but NPOV policy demands that we report the existence of them. I am not aware of any scholars on the subject who deny any of the views attributed to them; I personally have been to NOI speeches (featuring Khalid Muhammed back when he was in the NOI) who stated precisely such things. RK 14:19, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not NPOV. WhisperToMe 22:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge all content into Louis Farrakhan and work out the POV issues there. The current content is exclusively about Farrakhan's attitudes and statements, not the policies or practices of NOI. In this case, I'd like other thoughts on whether it would be appropriate to copy/paste the history page into Talk:Louis Farrakhan so we can preserve GFDL and still delete this page because I consider the title inherently POV. Rossami 00:01, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Rossami's right that this is really about Farrakhan. NOI is led by him, but it isn't just him, and there is a lot of dissent (sometimes violent) within it, I gather. Who and how, though, is anyone searching this article title? I'd also agree with his idea of merge and delete. Geogre 00:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The "Nation of Islam" is virulently and systemically anti-semitic. If this page is not accurate, improve it. But do not delete it. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 05:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This topic is fine, though I'd rather it was included in Nation of Islam than separate. However, the article as it stands is dreadful. No source is given for any of these "quotations". Where are they from? And, yes, I can read very well thank you; I am saying that whoever put those quotations in the article (this is you, RK) did not take any of them from the sources or events listed after them. They are from a secondary collection. What is it and why should we trust it? --Zero 14:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I knew I'd be accused of trying to 'hide' NOI's anti-Semitism and of historical revisionism and so on... The problem, however, clearly isn't the topic, as Zero says. I never said I disagreed - but this article must go anyway. How can an article called 'NOI anti-Semitism' ever be NPOV? Just because something is ostensibly true, doesn't mean that there isn't an appropriate way to address it in an encyclopedia. And, Keystroke, I reject the argument that this page should exist, as there is also an article on 'anti-Semitism'. You must see the difference between a discourse as historically improtant and far-reaching as anti-Semitism and its implementation by some now-marginalized religious organization (although they did get back into the media through the Michael Jackson case). Also, your argument backfires, because there is an article on 'Adolf Hitler' - but fortunately not on 'Adolf Hitler anti-Semitism', as this information belongs on the 'Adolf Hitler' page - just as 'Nation of Islam anti-Semitism' belongs on the 'Nation of Islam' page. Therefore merge - and get rid of all the quotes. Pteron 15:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Gary D 07:50, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. BCorr|Брайен 14:44, 21 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.

September 7

Iranian Contributions to World Civilization -- Add to this discussion

Iranian Contributions to World Civilization 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 but merge into the appropriate article(s) of Iran. Rossami 06:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pointed, non-Encyclopedic title. Should possibly be merged with other articles if there is any new info in the page. roozbeh 13:07, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Move. Change name to List of Iranian contributions to world civilisation, and maybe tidy and so a bit, don't see much trouble with it, I'll just go ahead and do that. Kim Bruning 13:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Page Moved to the appropriate title for this kind of thing. Vote Keep Kim Bruning 13:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm still not a big fan of the title, seems POV and vague--what exactly constitutes a "contribution to world civilization"? Can this be merged with History of Iran or some such? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:46, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)
  • Either merge and redirect to History of Iran (which has plenty of room for this content) or use it as the basis for the requested article Culture of Iran. As written, the title is just an invitation for accusations of POV. Rossami 15:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll support Use as basis for Culture of Iran also. In any case content needn't be deleted. Kim Bruning 15:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The current list is useful, but I agree about the name being questionable. I think that History of Iran or History of Persia would be a suitable place for this data. Average Earthman 16:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The content is good. Merge with History of Iran. Can be kept as a separate list of contributions, but incorporating the content into History of Iran is more important. Antandrus 17:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The content is good, the title is somewhat POV. Merge with History of Iran or Culture of Iran. Andris 17:23, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Certainly merge and redirect to History of Iran. Keep the redirects in place as harmless. -- Netoholic @ 18:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge, but delete the redirect, which is POV. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with the name. No reason why other countries shouldn't get such an article either. DJ Clayworth 20:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to History of Iran. Good content, POV title. — Gwalla | Talk 04:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Ambi 12:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, move, merge, redirect, cleanup, something - shouldn't be on VfD. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 15:27, 12 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.


September 8

Phrase samples -- Add to this discussion

From cleanup: Phrase samples, unencyclopedic - SimonP 22:07, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, no utility. Lacrimosus 23:55, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC).
  • Looks like its a refugee from Papiamento. Suggest merge (anything useful?) and redirect (only since its been here awhile and redirects are harmless). -- Netoholic @ 00:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with no redirect. Since the section at Papiamento appears to contain those phrases and more, there is no need to merge. Redirects are generally harmless but not in this case. Phrase samples is a general term that is not specific to Papiamento language and redirecting it there would be misleading. And thanks to Netoholic for finding this out what this is. I would have been really puzzled by this page otherwise. Andris 00:44, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the page does have useful edit history. If someone were to make this a redirect, WP:RFD would not delete it for that reason. Suggest merging the page history of Phrase samples into the history of Papiamento. -- Netoholic @ 00:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I do not quite see how the history is useful in this case. It consists of three edits:the user creating the page, SimonP tagging it for vfd and Netoholic putting a note about relation to Papiamento. It is certainly true that RFD cannot delete redirects with history but there is no reason to make this a redirect before deletion. Andris 19:47, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; as Andris points out these are already in the Papiamento article. No need for duplication. Antandrus 00:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: No redirect, no need, no use. Geogre 00:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; no utility, no need for redirect. jni 09:04, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stage Hand Publishers, LaHave, N.S. -- Add to this discussion

From cleanup: Stage Hand Publishers, LaHave, N.S. not notable. - SimonP 22:07, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • And here was me thinking plays had appeared in print for the last 400 years. Delete. Lacrimosus 23:57, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I think they're actually going to act the plays in print, which is a heck of a thing. Advertising. Geogre 00:49, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RACA index of articles -- Add to this discussion

RACA index of articles 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

From cleanup: RACA index of articles and everything listed there, not notable - SimonP 22:07, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Portal page, qualifies as a speedy as an article that is only a collection of (in this case internal) links. I can't say everything listed in it can be deleted. As laborious as it is, they'll need individual consideration. Geogre 00:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I can't find support that its a speedy deleted candidate only because it is a list of links. Please provide that justification before someone goes and does it. -- Netoholic @ 01:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      1. 4: Articles that have no description of what they are. Any article that goes immediately to links is such. I.e. there is no content there, just reference outward. Geogre 14:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Nice "interpretation" of the policy, but it actually reads "4. Very short articles with little or no definition or context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Turning such pages into relevent redirects may sometimes be appropriate.". List of internal/external links hardly is similar to that example. This article gives its definition "The Royal Automobile Club of Australia (RACA) Index of articles" - its more verbose than many disambig pages. -- Netoholic @ 17:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This has been on cleanup for >2 months. rhyax 05:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:42, 16 Oct 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.

September 9

List of people who died with tortoises on their heads -- Add to this discussion

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

Funny. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:04, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Jeez, where did this come from? This has been on BJAODN for months. Delete it as a redundancy. - Lucky 6.9 02:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just plain silliness. Livajo 02:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Make sure that the talk page goes to BJAODN. The talk page is hilarious. Geogre 03:04, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If someone can find another person to add to the list, I'll change me vote. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:42, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless to my great surprise this list can be accurately expanded, in which case I think the proposed name List of deaths by cranial trauma from hard shelled animals from the talk page is better.... Average Earthman 16:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - wasn't this in vfd once before? I can't find an archived discussion on it and it's not at the talk page. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:03, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The talk page shows that someone originally had a "Death by falling tortoise" or something. That was on VfD, and someone flippantly suggested that it be a list article to avoid VfD. The list was created as a joke, after the original article went to BJAODN. I.e. it's a two-for-one. The "List of" hasn't been VfD'd before, but its contents have been. Like I said, the talk page to this article (with the old VfD debate) is very amusing. Geogre 17:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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


Mai Chen -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mai Chen

Chen Palmer & Partners -- Add to this discussion

The result of the debate was keep [added by Andre🚐 23:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC) for afdstats] From VfD:[reply]

Advertising/vanity, from whoever's responsible for Mai Chen. Moved here from Cleanup. Pyrop 02:25, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, unless someone from New Zealand can state this company has some bearing on the political process in New Zealand. --Ianb 05:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • keep, sounding relevant in NZ. Ianb 11:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Send to clean up: I think this is one of the really heavy hitters in New Zealand. Once we say that the top US firms make it, I think we need to say the same of NZ, and this appears to be a major firm in NZ. If clean up cannot make more of it, then it can be renominated. Geogre 13:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It was in the "Leftovers" section of Cleanup, so it looks like nobody can make more of it. Pyrop 16:57, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Right: saw that after I voted (which is dumb of me). If it's a choice of keep like this or delete, I guess I have to vote for keep, with hopes that someone knowledgeable will come along later and improve it. Geogre 17:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • A voice from NZ. I saw this article when it was first posted and felt it was quite interesting. Geoffrey Palmer still as a lot of respect in NZ; far more than we usually give retired poticians and particularly retired Prime Ministers and it was interesting to read what he is doing now. I cannot claim that the firm has had a big impact here but it sounds like an interesting idea. Don't think I know enough to clean it up either. However it is unlikely to be Vanity and is quite harmless. So Keep it. ping 08:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • A quick google search finds a quote from NZ Deputy PM Dr Michael Cullen stating ["The firm has become a prominent feature of the Wellington landscape, and an important catalyst for explaining the ways of government to business, and vice-versa."] Keep. Average Earthman 11:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable in NZ politics. — Gwalla | Talk 21:29, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems once again to be important in NZ. Andre 20:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

GetCheapBooks -- Add to this discussion

The result of the debate was delete [added by Andre🚐 23:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC) for afdstats][reply]

Wikipedia is not a web directory, non-notable (Alexa rank 325,893 - both other websites in Category:Product searching websites are around 10,000-11,000) website. —Stormie 03:53, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete Added to speedy delete as it's clearly spam. rhyax 05:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • looking further it is in a whole category of online retailers, product searching websites delete them all? rhyax 05:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Delete advertisement. Regarding Category:Product searching websites, if BookFinder.com and AddALL are non-notable or advertisements, then they should unequivocally be deleted as well. I don't see why we need a separate category for online retailers--it's not like people will come here, type "online retailers", and click on the first link that we present them. And such categories would encourage linkspam articles like GetCheapBooks, anyway. --Ardonik.talk() 20:52, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory and should only contain websites of encylopedic notability.--Ianb 06:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not of enough significance. Fuzheado | Talk 09:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: We can't say that all the items in the category go, but this one does. Spam. Geogre 13:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 15:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable advert. (deleted speedy tag, as I can't see any case that it falls under) Niteowlneils 01:00, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I would say it's vandalism, "spam with inappropriate external links", but no big deal, I don't imagine it will magically survive this vfd anyway :) rhyax 04:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. WikiSpam. An article on shopping webcrawlers, or maybe a section on the phenomenon in web crawler, could be interesting though. — Gwalla | Talk 21:31, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

delete - advertFBarnes 15:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Clearly spam. Delete. Andre 20:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Military Capability -- Add to this discussion

The result of the debate was delete [added by Andre🚐 23:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC) for afdstats][reply]

  • Badly-named list without any context as to how this ranking was determined, what was being measured, and who was measuring it. Move to List of countries by military capability if this can be determined, otherwise delete --Rlandmann 04:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Why didn't you just be bold and just move the page yourself? Why not try and contact that submitter or raise discussion on the article Talk page? Refer it to Cleanup? This is a very young article submitted by an IP user. We should be encouraging them rather than biting their first good faith submissions. -- Netoholic @ 04:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Move? Where to? If it's a list of nations ranked by their military capability, what objective measure was employed? If the anonymous user got the list from a website, an external link to that website could serve in the article's place, and it would be deleted as a substub anyway. I'll welcome an article on List of nations ranked by military capability when someone actually takes a serious stab at it. Delete. --Ardonik.talk() 20:14, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • I left a message on his talk page a few days ago asking to explain how the ranking is determined. It has not been answered yet and I have not been able to find it myself on the Web. If we find out what the criteria for the ranking are, I would keep it. Otherwise, I will have to join the calls to delete. Andris 20:14, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Orphan. Unsourced. Without sourcing or methodology, there is a high probability that this is original research. As a bald statement of "military capability", it is intrinsically unverifiable (unless you want to start WWIII). Further, it is information that will rapidly go stale making this an inherently difficult page to maintain. I can not foresee how this page can be salvaged but I promise to look at it again at the end of the discussion period. My vote now is to delete. By the way, I agree that we should encourage new users but the anon submitter is no longer online. Judging by his/her other contributions yesterday, this is a somewhat experienced user. Rossami 05:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's just a bunch of country names. Why not move it? Well, who knows what it is? It's speculation that this is a list by military capability. It's a guess that there are any sources for the information. It would be perpetrating misinformation to move this without verifying everything and writing up encyclopedic content. Delete: do not retirect, do not move, do not merge. Geogre 13:32, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Without some indication of actually what is being measured, this is no use. Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Just about the worst article I've ever seen. Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 03:02, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, original research. — Gwalla | Talk 21:33, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It would be nice to have, if it could be verified, cross referenced with sources, etc. --Jpittman 03:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. At best it is a useless and unsubstantiated list, at worst it is just a list of countries. One could do an article on actual military rankings of countries (if that's what this actually is) but this is neither here nor there and having this page in existence is not going to help anybody do that (anymore than it would if it was a list of Lightbulb jokes (country)). --Fastfission 04:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If someone could provide an objective list, it might be nice. Andre 20:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)




2 Gryphon -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2 Gryphon

3909 04 -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

I pulled this off Wikipedia:Cleanup; despite my rewrite, I have no reason to believe this warrants an article of its own. The legend is well-documented on RMS Titanic, in a section which, despite needing a rewrite itself, is longer than this stub. Austin Hair 06:14, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge & redirect - not that we need a VFD vote for that! —Stormie 06:52, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • I was initially hesitant to bring this to VfD, but I figured I'd play it safe (especially given its listing on WP:CU). Austin Hair 06:57, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Do not merge, because, as the nomination says, it's already in the Titanic article. Redirect or delete. Redirect if anyone really believes this is going to be a search term. Delete if not. Geogre 13:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do not redirect. DJ Clayworth 15:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the article, as the subject-matter isn't important enough to warrant its own entry. Also not notable enough for a redirect. Psychonaut 17:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with Psychonaut -- Delete, do not redirect --Improv 05:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If, as the article says, the urban legend is unfounded, then the article should be deleted outright. Do not merge, do not redirect, do not pass go, do not collect $200.00 $3909.04. --Ardonik.talk() 20:03, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't care whether it is kept as a redirect or not, but that a legend is unfounded is not a reason why a redirect should not exist or even whey there should not be an article on the subject. We have various articles on Hoaxes. In this case, should the RMS Titanic article increase greatly in size, this article might well be recreated, especially if someone produced information on the source and spread of the story. Jallan 23:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The Titanic's hull number was 401. Several of the external links listed in the RMS Titanic entry corroborate this as well as Google. An entry on a thoroughly debunked urban legend should be deleted. Spatch 22:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The article is quite clear in its presentation of the claim as an urban legend. We also have articles on conspiracy theories and classical mythology; these exist because of the noteworthiness of their respective subjects rather than their solid basis in fact, but nobody's suggesting that we delete them. The issue here is not the veracity of the legend, but whether or not the article has any hope of being developed further (no), and whether or not we should keep the title as a redirect to the topic's more comprehensive treatment in RMS Titanic (current consensus says no). Austin Hair 02:20, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak merge and redirect to RMS Titanic, or else keep. Perfectly legitimate info about a reasonably common urban legend. — Gwalla | Talk 21:40, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • As I mention above, twice, the topic is already discussed in a subsection of RMS Titanic. Do you have any reason to believe that readers will look for this information under the title 3909 04? Austin Hair 00:17, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • comment: Somebody must have, or else they wouldn't have created the article. — Gwalla | Talk 01:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge any relevant info from this and then Delete. Andre 20:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Order of Mars -- Add to this discussion

The result of the debate was delete [added by Andre🚐 23:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC) for afdstats][reply]

Order of Mars: either patent nonsense (even after NPOVing), or if true, totally, utterly unnotable (the fantasy of some individual). I suspect this might be an attempt at some form of character assassination, as the individual concerned, John_L._Westbrook, seems to be a controversial political figure in his locality.--Ianb 06:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


  • Keep Mr. Westbrook appears to be a very prominent occultist. I believe it is notable to mention his group if you are going to mention other groups such as the Temple of Set or Church of Satan. Moreover, Mr. Westbrook has been very open about his "lifestyle," I don't see why he would mind being properly defined on this site. While his quotes could be misconstrued as a sharp blow to Michael Aquino as well as some of the other members of his former occult group, the Temple of Set, they are nevertheless his own words as he was quoted in the February 2004 issue of Penthouse. Besides, Westbrook's Order of Mars is an incorporated non-profit organization, recognized by both the IRS and the State of Oklahoma. Check the facts.
    • (Note: above comment was by anonymous User:207.69.136.201 and subsequently copyedited by anonymous User:4.244.87.244.) --Ardonik.talk() 19:50, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • The above is Sock-Puppetry. Delete, Google search +"Order of Mars" and +Westbrook produces 0 results, which is other than expected for a "prominent occultist" and politician. -Vina 16:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable. Article also doesn't read like a proper encyclopedia article. Psychonaut 17:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; the above named "sock puppet" hath modified the article to contain some of the more inflammatory remarks made during the Penthouse interview. Puppet motions that this article be retained in its updated format. Motion is put before this honorable commitee.
    • (Note: above comment was by anonymous User:207.69.138.198.) --Ardonik.talk() 19:53, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: the article now looks a lot saner. However, how exactly is this tax-exempt, non-profit neo-satanic fraternity from Oklahoma notable? I'm minded to merge the little information it now contains with the article on Mr. Westbrook. --Ianb 19:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment; I would think it would be better to merge it with the Satanism article, however I'd like to hear your comments first.
    • (Note: above comment was by anonymous User:207.69.136.202. In the future, sign your edits with four tildes, like so: ~~~~) --Ardonik.talk() 19:53, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • After having read both Order of Mars and John L. Westbrook, I don't think there's anything that could be said in the former that wasn't already mentioned in the latter, unless we were going to transcribe the entire interview (and the Wikipedia is no place for such things.) My vote is to merge with John L. Westbrook and delete or redirect (though I don't feel that it's notable enough for a redirect, doing so will discourage others from re-creating the page.) --Ardonik.talk() 19:59, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • There is no "merge and delete". There are delete, keep, and merge and redirect, or redirect, or No vote. No vote--Samuel J. Howard 03:00, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • Alright, merge and redirect then. --Ardonik.talk() 03:26, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment; Sock Puppet concurs......Merge with John L. Westbrook article.
  • Delete. Promotion of an unremarkable person. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:05, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 03:37, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Information is unverifiable and probably fictional. If he was as controversial a figure as this and John L. Westbrook make him out to be, there would be something about him accessible through Google. But I can't find anything relevant. — Gwalla | Talk 21:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless anyone can show how this is notable. Andre 20:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Human Face of Pedophilia -- Add to this discussion

Was asked to be merged with Lindsay Ashford, merger happened, does not need to exist any longer. Get-back-world-respect 06:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: Normally when a page is merged, you leave a redirect at the old title. You generally only delete the old title if you think the title itself is wrong, or if there is a policy reason for deleting the page history (e.g. copyvio). Securiger 07:35, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Undid the redirect while VfD is underway, as that allows us to vote on the article. I would vote delete. Even having the history with this article in it bothers me more than a little. Hidden in it is a link to Lindsay Ashford's website, where pedophiles can swap stories. Delete and then either recreate a redirect article only, if a redirect is really needed, or leave empty, if not. Geogre 13:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect: we can't accept responsibility for the actions on another website that ours used to link to, and we do have a need to conserve the edit history as much as possible. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect. Seems important enough to warrant a redirect, but not its own article. Psychonaut 17:08, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect. Controversy is not grounds for deletion. Sadly the topic is verifiable and notable, so it should be kept. I'm going to restore the redirect but the historical version is viewable, if voters need to consider it. -- Netoholic @ 18:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect. I find the subject matter deplorable, however, I can still see clearly enough that this does not warrant its own article on its own. It does need to be noted, however. Mike H 18:24, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect, just as we would redirect a song title to its author (as I did this morning with the Lords of Acid.) --Ardonik.talk() 19:47, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect, because we must under the GDFL to preserve the edit history of the merged material.--Samuel J. Howard 02:57, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)


Market libertarianism -- Add to this discussion

delete - word doesn't actually exist, somebody trying to play with orewellian newspeak

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Market_libertarianism&action=edit

  • Not sure which article is up for VfD Market libertarianism or Market Libertarianism or both (histories show duplication and redirects added). Looks like an edit war going on. In either case, it seems this information belongs in libertarianism, and I do get some Google hits for the phrase, so redirect (both) there, and protect the pages if the anon IP users continue to edit war. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • None of these redirects are helpful in seeing what the problem was. Here is the "original" version of Market Libertarianism, and here is the original version of Market libertarianism (and by original, I mean before VfD and redirects.) I can't get an exact diff, but both look identical, so if we vote to keep, we'll obviously redirect the former into the latter. The question then boils down to whether or not the content of the article (and I will use the singular here) is factual; the one who contested its factual nature was the anonymous user 203.112.19.195 who also nominated the page for VfD. Can anyone else verify that the term was made up? Can the anonymous contributor clarify his or her reasons for nominating the page? Abstaining for now. --Ardonik.talk() 19:40, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this is probably a legitamite term, but it still makes more sense to redirect it (both) to Libertarianism generally and explain the nuances there.--Samuel J. Howard 02:56, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • To expand/clarify User:Chuck F's comments (unless I'm mistaken, Chuck F is the same person as User:203.112.19.195). This VfD listing and the market libertarianism page originate because of an edit war ongoing on the libertarianism page. One of the participants, User:PoliticalNerd feels that the libertarianism page should be about a variety of definitions of that word, and so he created the market libertarianism as an alternative article specifically about what the libertarianism page used to be about. It's true that the expression "market libertarianism" is very rare ("market liberalism" is much more common). Most listings for "market libertarian" on google are actualy part of "free-market libertarian" which seems to be a little more common, but even then it is usually in the form of "free-market/libertarian opinions", etc.; i.e., two separate, redundant ideas connected with a hyphen, slash, or comma. However, obscure or not, the intended meaning of the phrase is pretty clear (although there could hypothetically be some confusion with various historical libertarian socialists who favored market processes), so I vote to keep and redirect to libertarianism.

Look at Libertarianism this one user has been trying to vandalize several libertarian phrases(with more then 10 reverts in a 12 hour period) , as I explained in the talk for libertarianism, market libertarianism is a real term as much as the phrase "commie democrat" is a real term. Market Libertarianism is only used by random people on the web ideologically opposed to libertarians and is most assuredly a pov Definition. (not all libertarians in that "Market liberation" definition are entirely free-market based. If this term is an acceptably entry, then going out and creating an entry called commie democrat and just putting the definition of democracy in there but replacing every instance of democracy with commie democracy is also acceptable (look on the google, the term commie democracy also has some entries). Hope that clarfaction helps Chuck F 03:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Minor nitpick: the opposite terms are actually communism and capitalism; it's just as possible to have a totalitarian one-party regime in favor of unbridled market capitalism as it is to have a republic where the state owns everything. Economic systems, political systems: two different animals. --Ardonik.talk() 04:23, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • The opposite pairs are socialism and capitalism, as well as communism and fascism. This is the way these words are used.
    • What, User:Daesotho? You could not be more wrong if you tried — you can have a socialist state with a market economy (some who are not fond of liberal programs like public schooling might argue that the US falls into this category!), or a fascist state where the government owns/steals all property (this was a fairly common phenomenon.) What on earth are you talking about? Do you have some definition of those four words that I am not aware of? --Ardonik.talk() 02:40, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Socialism and capitalism are opposing economic philosophies. Fascism and communism are political. Communism is not totalitarian one-party rule, totalitarian one-party rule is an aspect of both communism and fascism. Socialism is not totalitarian one-party rule either, being an economic philosophy. Surely you do not suggest that capitalism is necessarily one-party totalitarian or democratic or aristocratic or monarchic (the conditions under which capitalism developed)? Socialism and capitalism are economic, communism is totalitarian, one party rule by left-wingers, fascism is totalitarian, one-party rule by right-wingers. --daesotho
        • We're veering off topic.
          • Communism - Economic system characterized by state ownership of property and economic equality.
          • Capitalism - Economic system characterized by individual ownership and free market economics invariably leading to economic inequality.
          • Fascism - Political system characterized by authoritarian rule, strong appeals to nationalism, and often by state-sponsored racism.
          • Democracy - Political system characterized by elections and a government subservient to its citizens.
        • Hence my original point -- it is communism and capitalism that are opposed to one another. A government cannot be a pure communism as defined by Karl Marx and a pure capitalism as defined by Adam Smith at the same time. Something must give! Incidentally, a purely fascist democracy is also a contradiction in terms (totalitarians rig elections, when they bother holding them at all), though fascist governments the world over invariably call themselves democracies. "Socialism" is simply a term describing government ownership of one institution or another; public schools in the United States are socialistic, and universal health care would be, too, if our politicians had enough courage to propose it. Socialism and capitalism are not "opposing economic philosophies"; modern capitalist societies are all socialistic to varying degrees. Medicare is socialistic. --Ardonik.talk() 04:44, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
        • The terms have been used in enough different ways that we can't treat them like mathematical entities -- to call them opposites is oversimplifying. We could further note that while Marx's idea of Communism is not compatible with Marx's idea of Capitalism, there are other systems, both within and outside of Marx's imagination that are incompatible with both. In essense, Ardonik, you're oversimplifying. Improv 19:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • That's fair. Personally, I thought that it was the definition of "socialism" (which means different things to different people) that was the point of contention. Still, I don't think my oversimplifications above are overtly inaccurate, and I will stand by them. http://www.politicalcompass.org, in addition to being an interesting survey, has an accessible yet in-depth treatment of the modern usage of these terms. --Ardonik.talk() 20:54, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

If I created a page, say 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit', and made it a redirect to 'Nut (hardware)', as I understand the rules, it would be deleted. If this 'Market Libertarianism' page is simply a redirect from an awkward neologism to a preexisting page, then I think it should be deleted.

delete Excatly my point! if I create a page called commie democracts(again search google, the word has about the same amount as market libertarianism (when you take out the free-market/libertains refrences)) and then just redirect to democracy or the demorcactic party, would that phrase stay or be deleted? please look at this term in that light.

  • delete. I agree with User:daesotho and User:Chuck F, it's an awkward neologism. Also, it doesn't make sense as a home for any of the conflicting meanings of libertarian. BCoates 08:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 18:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contemporary culture- border hopping -- Add to this discussion

POV, factually inaccurate, racist. Should this be speedy deleted? --G Rutter 07:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Part of a little vandalism spree by this IP, most of it racist in various ways and all the rest of it now reverted. Not a speedy under current policy, although IMO the only reason for this is that it's proved impossible to write a policy that would allow it without allowing other inappropriate speedies as well. So leave it as an orphan for five days, blank it if you like. Andrewa 12:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Done that now. --G Rutter 12:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Personally, I'm working on a policy and page that might handle stuff like this sensitively. At any rate, there's no question that this should go. Geogre 13:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing ambiguous about this one. Antandrus 18:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Here's a link to the original substub rant if anyone's interested in seeing what was deleted. Delete, was clearly a candidate for speedy deletion. --Ardonik.talk() 19:27, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incurably POV. — Gwalla | Talk 21:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Unambiguous delete (incurably POV) but not a speedy according to the current policy. (I've added it as an example for Geogre's proposed "Mediated Delete" process.) Rossami 20:58, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Suhag -- Add to this discussion

This is a definition, not linked to by any other pages as of now. I can't imagine it becoming encyclopedic. Maybe move to wiktionary, but that queue is stagnant. rhyax 07:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, and let the Wiktionary folks get Hindi words on their own. Stacking things in the queue to avoid having to delete is lazy. Geogre 13:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Walter Stafford Northcote, 2nd Earl of Iddesleigh -- Add to this discussion

delete. Vanity page --Danny Rathjens 08:58, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

  • Delete. According to Earl of Iddesleigh, the 2nd Earl lived from 1845-1927, so we have a case of mistaken identity too. I would support speedy deletion of this page. --Ianb 09:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity. I do remind us, however, that there are 2nd creations, 3rd creations, etc., so, for all we know, he's the 2nd of another creation. The article is vanity, however. Geogre 13:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious vanity page; should have been speedy. --Ardonik.talk() 19:11, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; there isn't a second creation of the earldom of Iddesleigh, so no concern there. James F. (talk) 08:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity (which, by the way, is not one of the current specific cases for speedy). Rossami 21:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fact-index.com -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fact-index.com

Fadzly -- Add to this discussion

Vanity page. • Benc • 09:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Young person vanity. Forgot to add hospital of birth though. --Ianb 09:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Student autobiography. We all wish him well in his career, but an article is not warranted now. Geogre 13:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable student. Psychonaut 17:07, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 18:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; poorly written vanity and the Wikipedia is not a repository of biographies. Same old, same old. --Ardonik.talk() 18:54, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 22:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep... isn't it notable that he is hopping to become a doctor? Most people just hope to. Joke. func(talk) 18:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(Anon comment:) Keep

Cacotopia -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

  • Delete. Dictdef. KeyStroke
  • Keep. We have articles on Dystopia, and I think the article on Cacotopia could be expanded. Darksun 13:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Seems legitimate and encyclopedic to me. Not sure what Jary is doing in there, but that's ok. (Father Ubu becomes King of Poland.) Geogre 13:58, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Encyclopedic and an interesting anecdote, but I'd rather merge it with Jeremy Bentham than give it its own article. I wouldn't mind a redirect from cacotopia to Jeremy Bentham, though. --Ardonik.talk() 18:49, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, goes with the other 'topia articles, term invented and sanctioned by Bentham. Jarry is in there for two reasons, 1) the subject of the novel is a cacotopia, 2) the resonance between Turd (Ubu) and caco-. What are the objections to this article? I don't see any given here other than the innacurate characterization as a "definition" (to my mind a low-value objection, as thousands of articles define what they are about, jazz, telescope, rhinoceros.) Its only sin is shortness, but it could certainly be expanded with historical and contemporary examples, Uganda under Idi Amin, Belgian Congo under Leopold. Ortolan88 03:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) (original author, I think)
I don't think anyone has objections. No one has voted delete. As for the caco- root, there is also the infamous Kalicax or Kalikax family used in pseudo biology at the turn of the 20th century, where an eugenicist found a family in southern New Jersey that was "beautifully bad" and "proved" that their bad blood made for bad children, etc. Just seems more natural than Jary is all (similarity of "Ubu," and the first word of the play, "Merdes!" is cool, but I didn't think Ubu's reign was a cacotopia, but I may be reading it only as a reflection of a schoolhouse). Geogre 04:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, as I understand it, Ubu is French nursery talk for merde, analagous to the English poo-poo, hence the translation of Ubu Roi as King Turd. Jarry said his King was based on Adolph Thiers, notorious French reactionary. (I haven't read it in a long time, btw.) Another use of caco- is found in the ship captured by Francis Drake, the Cacafuego, always euphemistically translated as Spitfire, but meaning Shitfire. I don't think the Kallikak business would add much here, or the Cacafuego for that matter. Bentham and Mill are enough. Ortolan88 04:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I think it would be fine to keep it, though I would not mind if it were moved to Wictionary.
  • Keep. Decent stub. — Gwalla | Talk 22:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Wolfy edwards -- Add to this discussion

  • Should not be deleted as it is not a vanity/nonsense article
    • I disagree; the article fits the definition of "vanity article" to a "T." We generally don't allow biographies of non-notable people on the Wikipedia, Ardonik included. If you can demonstrate the notability of Mr. Edwards, the article might be retained, but otherwise, put his biography on a website, not here. Delete. --Ardonik.talk() 18:47, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity nonsense. Above vote is by the original anon author. Fuzheado | Talk 15:26, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - once again, I believe this should be deleted as it is vanity/nonsense. And user 81.134.203.139, please be so kind not to alter my vote. Guus 15:30, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Vanity/biography of a non-notable individual. If user 81.134.203.139 alters a vote again, that will be repeat vandalism and grounds for a quick ban, I believe. Geogre 15:34, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • move to BJAODN Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:04, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • User:81.134.203.139, 9 Sep 2004 15:23 says "save Wolfy" on talk (of course anon votes don't count, but hey. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:08, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC))
  • Delete; nonsense/vanity. Psychonaut 17:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't even see a BJAODN in it. Spatch 17:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, vanity. Google uncovers nothing of note. — Gwalla | Talk 22:08, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FahrenHype 9/11 -- Add to this discussion

A none notable Anti Moore film. Possibly add a sentence on the 'Works critising Michael Moore' section on the Michael Moore page, but I don't think this should have it's own article. Darksun 14:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • The film's own website has no information; a google search on fahrenhype + peterson gets only one (unrelated) hit. This film does not appear to actually exist in any meaningful form; it is not, at this time, encyclopedic. -FZ 15:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Not notable. Delete. Gzornenplatz 15:25, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Invention. Geogre 15:32, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Although go watch the trailer on the site, havn't laughed that hard since Weeble and Bob's anarchistic jams formed a band :P Darksun 15:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Concur with Darksun's suggestion at the top there. Delete. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; not yet notable. Let the article be recreated if/when this film becomes sufficiently famous. Psychonaut 17:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into "DVD release" section of Fahrenheit 9/11 and delete. Keep until movie release. Re-evaluate then. Would be a great counterpoint to the original movie but not an article of its own. No one would look there. - Tεxτurε 18:26, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that having this article would be a good counterpoint (we can put "see also" links between both films), and keeping until release is a reasonable option, but my only concern is that the DVD will be released and still not become notable — i.e., lackluster sales, making barely a stir on the political scene. If that happens, the Wikipedia will not have served as an impartial reporter — it will have served as a free promotional vehicle. (That's why we stick to strictly being a compendium of existing knowledge.) --Ardonik.talk() 23:50, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • 68 hits in a google search. Delete solely due to lack of notability. To add salt to the wound, Image:FahrenHype 911.jpg looks like a copyvio from the official website. --Ardonik.talk() 18:38, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: User:*drew has sent a message to me saying that he has informed the webmaster and is awaiting a reply. Please don't flag the image as a copyvio yet. --Ardonik.talk() 19:09, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Keep - This is done by the Michael and me people , as seen on the daily show and a Varity of right-wing shows. The amount of interviews they have with famous right-wingers will make this eventually hit the news hard on the right-wing side. outfoxed has it's own entry too. *I'm not saying anything at all about poltical slant, I'm simply stating that the movie will be huge amongst the right-wing, it's made by a noteable production company, futures exclusive interviews with major right-wing figures. it just hasn't had it's advertising campaign yet, we delete now, it'll just be re-added it later.

  • It's not the political slant that anyone objects to--it's a question of notability. However noble the intent of an article, the Wikipedia only keeps tabs on things that are important to culture. There is very little mention of this movie right now. --Ardonik.talk() 06:02, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! This is a legitimate film and therefore it deserves an article in this encyclopedia. Deleting it would be completely POV. Moore's film had an article months before its release. -- Crevaner 06:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The minute someone accuses me of liberal bias for voting to delete, I'm outta here. I thought my stance on notability vs. politics was clear. --Ardonik.talk() 06:26, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete! Non-notable. One hit on FahrenHype 9/11 Peterson. Antandrus 06:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Antandrus said it all. Ambi 07:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Due for release in one month, while not notable now it might be later. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:11, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
  • It has exclusive interviews with Zell miller and Ann coulter! how could you delete anything with that!
  • Delete. Non-notable, advert for direct-to-video documentary. Wikipedia does not gamble on possible future notability. — Gwalla | Talk 22:11, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non existent, non-notable, promotional. I think we need to be fairly ruthless about attempts to use Wikipedia to add to the "buzz" about upcoming films, books, etc. When the movie is released and has garnered good reviews and media attention it can be recreated. (I don't think anyone would attempt to enforce the usual ban on re-creation of deleted articles if there were good reason for the re-creation). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. notable. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 20:24, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, advertising. Key45 09:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not IMDB. If film becomes notable, add it then. --Improv 11:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who cares about if it might become popular -- if it's not notable now, it doesn't belong here now. Fahrenheit 9/11 could have an article before its release because it was still notable before its release; this is not. Put it back if the future shows our suspicions wrong. - Furrykef 14:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, I don't think direct-to-video exactly signals prospects of future notability in any case. - Furrykef 14:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Anonymous (and invalid) vote somebody posted at the top, but it had an interesting comment: keep The fact that DICK MORRIS(FORMER ADVISOR TO CLITNON), narrates this makes it instantly notable
    • My counterargument is this is flatly false. Things become notable on their own grounds, not because of who did them (though in such a case the thing in question might be listed on that person's biography page). If Dick Morris did something that nobody gives a flying flip about, it's not notable. That seems to be the case here currently. It can change, of course, but wait until it does. - Furrykef 11:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete future event. No evidence of current notability. If/when the movie is released and becomes notable, the article can be easily recreated. Regardless of your political affiliation, we should stay consistent with prior decisions that pre-release articles are acceptable only where current notability has been clearly and independently established. Rossami 21:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It, indeed, is available on DVD!--xxxxxx 14:16, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Is it relevant how much money it made at the box office? No. Keep. --Rebroad 13:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. →Raul654 08:40, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - The idea that it's "non-notable" is false. ----DanTD (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Regulations -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

A set of links and no article. Simoes

  • Delete, Incorrectly listed by the above user on July 11th, no archive seen. 2 months later, the same concern still applies. -Vina 16:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Straight to links again. No content, and misnamed article. Geogre 17:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • With explication and content, keep. Geogre 04:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I know nothing of this subject, yet could improve it very simply. It's well-linked now, and a stub, but can be expanded. -- Netoholic @ 17:49, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the stub, hopefully it can get some TLC and be expanded into a decent article. Darksun 18:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rather dry at the moment, but it looks like it has some potential. Article will need a better name if it's kept, though. International Telecommunications Union radio regulations, perhaps? --Ardonik.talk() 18:34, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Radio Regulations isn't a general topic, its the actual name of the publications. -- Netoholic @ 19:20, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh. I didn't know that. The article didn't really make that clear, though. --Ardonik.talk() 20:44, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep with expansion. Not all link-only stubs are lost hopes. Spatch 18:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the expansion, still needs more though. -Vina 22:49, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Legitimate subject. Article just needs a little love. — Gwalla | Talk 22:12, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

ITU Website Incompetence

You have to pay 252 CHF (Is that Chinese) to download the regulations. Please list them in this article, as I don't see how international radio regulations can be copyrighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.244.197.255 (talk • contribs)

That is Swiss Francs - the ITU is in Geneva. I am not sure though you should have added the FCC article, that applies only to USA regulations and the ITU is international. Please also add new comments to the end of the talk page. Also please remember to sign yourself. Dsergeant 12:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "free" document added by the anonymous editor is only a list of allocated frequencies, which is a tiny fraction of the complete Radio Regulations, hence I am removing it. A much more comprehensive manual of United States radio regulations is the Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management (Redbook) which apparently contains the allocated frequencies as a single chapter. Should this manual be included as a link? Note that the ITU Radio regulations consist of four volumes, all red. During my search for a substitute I did find three useful links, which I am adding to the article. — Joe Kress 06:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm working on a public policy wikimedia project and I will eventually be editing your page. We took two different perspectives, I wanted to reach out and see if it is okay if I add your entry to a section of my article to combine the two. SIde effeX08 (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)SIde effeX08[reply]

The 2012 edition of the Radio Regulations is currently available for free download from the ITU; I have updated the article with the correct URL, and reference to the 2012, rather than 2008, Regulations. (Neil, 14th July 2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.93.179 (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Radio Regulations

The latest ITU Radio Regulations is the 2016 edition, which is available for free download on ITU's website. Why the page isn't updated to reflect the new Regulations? -ArdiPras95 (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable weblogs -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of notable weblogs


MKNAOMI -- Add to this discussion

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

Conspiracy theory presented as fact. And not even the "facts" which much of the community I pulled up by Google claims -- that this US government office created AIDS. RickK 19:22, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Brain control? MKDELTA? MKNAOMI? Most of the google hits are to Wikipedia clones (never a good sign), but [11] takes the cake. Delete net.kookery. --Ardonik.talk() 21:20, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to CIA World Factbook or redirect to Tin_foil_hat. Seriously, the black UN helicopters will be along in a while to delete this article as original research. Ianb 22:02, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • MKDELETE. Livajo 22:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Some...force...compels me...must fight it, must not vote delete. Geogre 00:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) (but I do)
    • Better, but not as good as we'd like it, so send to Clean Up and keep. Geogre 00:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is closely related to MKULTRA, an article that is not disputed and was even recently on the Main Page. MKNAOMI is the subject of many conspiracy theories (and is probably notable for that alone) but no evidence has been presented that the content of this article represents a hoax. The article does not, for example, allege that the experiments worked. I am not arguing that we keep unverifiable garbage in the encyclopedia but I do think that there is enough circumstantial support to require more evidence than "it sounds like a hoax to me" to delete. Rossami 04:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This Baltimore Sun article was the most reputable hit I found. The Baltimore Sun article corroborates elements of this article.
    • Here are a sampling of different conspiracy theories which reference the MKNAOMI. (Warning - some of them are quite entertaining - others present a disturbing view into the mind and worldview of the author): [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]], [[16]], [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]].
  • Delete if it stays as it is. But keep if someone can add something to put this into a context, can give some information as to where the story comes from, who tends to believe it and so on. Jallan 20:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete if not cleaned up. -Sean Curtin 02:59, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agreed w/ Rossami. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:22, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, cleanup. NPOVify? — Gwalla | Talk 22:22, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. MKNAOMI is very well-documented to have happened. The documents are available from the Library of Congress and other sources. I am sure that at least someone posted them on the internet to be linked to. Search for MKNAOMI documents. People who do not believe in mind-control research are just deluding themselves.
    • Government mind-control research? If you're serious about keeping the article, I highly suggest that you stop insulting those who doubt you, find these sources you allude to, and properly cite them in the article so that others can evaluate the documents for themselves. Quite frankly, User:129.173.208.167, I don't believe a word you're saying, but I'm willing to change my mind if someone can produce the goods. --Ardonik.talk() 19:09, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Now rewritten based on the few references that I could find that I considered even remotely reliable. Still needs to go to clean-up. Rossami 22:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It looks good right now, and refreshingly neutral given the topic. But the article gives us no insight as to what MKNAOMI is, or if it even exists. Saying "information is scarce" about it is the equivalent of spreading hearsay. I'd rather have a red link than that.
      A web search for MKNAOMI tells you nothing but what other disreputable folk think it is. No offense, Rossami, but I'd still rather the article be deleted. If we want to prevent conspiracy theorists from recreating the page, we can redirect it to CIA cryptonym. --Ardonik.talk() 01:26, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • It's a long ways from an article like MKNAOMI to an article like MKULTRA. Solid facts will help, but nobody knows where they are. --Ardonik.talk() 01:39, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

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

Camberwell carrot -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Is this really a common but specific type of joint? Deb 19:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't know about common, but is specific[24]. Probably should clarify what it is, and merge/redir to cannabis or some slang page (doesn't seem to fit well into street name), or possibly Withnail and I. Another option is soft redir to [25]. I have rewritten it to clarify what it is. Niteowlneils 19:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The term was invented in a 1987 movie. I've never heard of the term on this side of the Atlantic. A google search gives 1080 hits--about what I'd expect for a non-notable neologism. Delete. --Ardonik.talk() 21:17, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect or Keep; very common term in the UK, and certainly not a neologism. James F. (talk) 08:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This be real, at least in London. Des-mond 17:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A harmless and mildly interesting bit of popular culture. If we can have articles on every single Pokemon, and vast expanses of prose for obscure Tolkein and Star Trek characters we can surely accomodate a little article on a phrase popularised by what is after all a very notable and popular film. Compare the recently discussed article on the phrase "Does exactly what it says on the tin". You won't find so many references on Google for this, but it's worthy of inclusion all the same. I also don't believe it would fit too well if it were to be merged into another article. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

"Unsmokeable"

I am afraid this is very subjective, but then my reasons for questioning it are also. The Camberwell Carrot is neither "unrollable" nor "unsmokeabe". It can use anywhere up to twelve papers (small by tradition, as the film was made before large were invented) although depending on the method a roller may require more. The easiest way to role a "Twelve skin" Camberwell carrot is in a 1-2-2-3-4 formation, i.e.
____
____ ____
____ ____ ____ ____
____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Hence I have removed the word "unsmokeable". It is actually quite pleasant. Whiskey in the Jar 15:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand, merge or redirect

This page is a mere dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not). It explains the meaning and alleged origins of a phrase . I can't find any encyclopedic content on this page. The definitions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins.

Options to fix the page here include:

  1. Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
  2. Redirect the page to a more general page on the appropriate sub-genre of slang.
  3. Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the {{wi}} template).

Pending a better answer, I'm implementing option 3 for now. Rossami (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manny -- Add to this discussion

                                Manny

Byte oriented -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

  1. Dicdef Guus 21:16, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: dictdefs fail the deletion guidelines, and I've got to wonder if anyone uses this term, either. I didn't get a computer science degree, but this seems pretty fringe. Geogre 00:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Appears to be linked to on telnet. Norm 00:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've never heard the term but RFC documents use it, according to telnet article and google turns out 14,800 hits. Not sure whether this can be expanded but there is no obvious place to merge, either. Andris 01:46, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • General question for voters: Can/shall this expand beyond dictdef? Just seems like that's really where it falls at present. Geogre 04:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. In what dictionary are you going to look for this "dicdef"? It is technical term. The article will be expanded. Mikkalai 05:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep technical term in common use for communications protocols, files and streams. The Steve 07:27, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Potential for expansion, and the move from word oriented computers to byte oriented ones was interesting enough to write about. Prumpf 14:58, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid topic. — Gwalla | Talk 22:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wictionary - not enough for an article. --Improv 05:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Byte orientation vs byte order

“Byte orientation” is also a (quite rarely used) synonym of the byte order. May be, it would be appropriate to merge this article with Byte-oriented protocol and lo leave here a disambig to both that terms only. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quonzah -- Add to this discussion

Neologism. Eight Google hits, including to the blog created by the poster. RickK 21:52, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - should be speedy deleted as nonsense - Tεxτurε 22:16, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. At least the user didn't create articles for his other invented words, "qlyph" and "dimentional". Livajo 23:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • And "septagon". Livajo 16:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nonsense, but probably not speedy delete...really close to it, though. Geogre 00:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Andris 01:41, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • A previous version of this was speedy deleted, I tagged it as it was completly incomprehensible even after several readings. Delete, speedily, if it is a candidate. Darksun 13:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Although, on second thoughts, what about a redirect to Kwanzaa. Darksun
      • There are no Google hits which indicate that anyone has misspelled Kwanzaa this way. I would prefer not to do that. RickK 19:15, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • No. I thought of that myself but, as Rick says, it's not such a likely misspelling as to be worth an entry. Kwanza (!) (hey, I just learned something!) and Quanza would be far more likely. By the way... why don't we have a Soundex search option? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonsense, neologism. — Gwalla | Talk 22:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mr Lawrence -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mr Lawrence


Trnopolje -- Add to this discussion

Nothing but a long rant. RickK 22:53, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Hopeless POV, and I'm not sure anyone seeking information on the massacre, supposed or otherwise, would be searching this way. Geogre 23:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Come on guys, its only a few hours old. Let cleanup take a shot at it. Trnopolje is a real location, and something can easily be written. This is obviously very POV, but should not be deleted. It and many other camps are listed even on Wikipedia at Concentration camp#Bosnia and Herzegovina. -- Netoholic @ 00:50, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I.e. blank this out (so the edit history is misleading, since nothing remains of the "contributions") and start over with what is essentially a brand new article? If you're saying, "Come on, guys, let's create an article for this place," that's fine. I don't disagree. That's not the same thing as "keep," though. Geogre 01:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There are obviously verifiable facts in the article, and the current version can be a starting point for the effort. -- Netoholic @ 01:30, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's not a good starting point IMHO since, the only reason that it's not a copyvio is the clear POV material surrounding the sections taken from newspapers. The author has fair use rights (he has lots of rant relative to his copied material), but if we deleted everything which was POV and only left facts, let alone facts we could back up, this would be a cut and paste from a newspaper. That's not to say there shouldn't be an article, but it would be easier to start from scratch. At best the entire material should move to a talk page and a good stub should be written.Mozzerati 06:37, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)
Agree with Mozzerati -- using it as a starting point is more trouble than starting anew. Delete --Improv 19:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not an article but a rant - Tεxτurε 03:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it is stubified to a verifiable, on-topic, NPOV core, then I will change my vote. This article and a related picture of dubious copyright status are the only contribs from this user yet. I'll try to compose a suitable welcome. Andrewa 03:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for the following reasons: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not #3: Wikipedia is not a soapbox; What Wikipedia entries are not #6: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind, #9: Personal essays that state your idiosyncratic opinions about a topic, #10: Primary research, #16: A news report, #18: A vehicle for advertising and self-promotion; Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Precedents #10.1 Are personal reviews and commentaries encyclopedic? - No. SWAdair | Talk 04:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Content is marginally relevant to title. Mikkalai 05:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - POV. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 10:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the article but remove the content. The subject itself (Trnopolje) merits an article, but the content of this article is clearly a violation of NPOV, among other things. Aecis 11:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Only if you care to write a new content right away. The whole fuss here on VfD is content. It is not that difficult to begian an article from scratch; one doesn't need to "reserve" space, fill permission and export control forms, or so. Mikkalai 14:59, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • If you can write a real article do so now and return here with a request for review of the new article. - Tεxτurε 15:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clear propaganda/advocacy. Keeping this on Wikipedia longer will only serve to propagate it to mirrors. If anyone wants to write a neutral stub from reliable sources after this is deleted, please, do so. Andris 15:19, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No good. Bad. Jallan 20:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 03:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV rant. — Gwalla | Talk 22:32, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hopelessly POV. Nothing here could be used to make a decent NPOV article. Key45 09:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Second the above. NPOV would barely yield a stub; better to just start over. Mashford 17:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Institute for justice -- Add to this discussion

Advertisement. Not convincingly encyclopedic. jengod 22:51, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • I have listed this page on Wikipedia:Copyright Problems, but have not removed the VfD box because I'm not sure whether it should remain or not and decided to err on the side of caution. Livajo 23:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • IJ is a fairly important public interest law firm. An article would be reasonable. Obviously a copyvio is never appropriate. Perhaps we could ask for permission.--Samuel J. Howard 02:47, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but should be turned into a nice stub for further work. Topic should be notable enough for a nice article. --Improv 11:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old&oldid=5927525"