Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004

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

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

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

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

More information.

Things to consider:

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

AfD etiquette:

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

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

Current votes - 17^th 16^th 15^th 14^th 13^th 12^th        edit

Old votes - 11^th 10^th 8^th 7^th 2^nd 31^st 30^th 29^th 25^th 24^th 23^rd 22^nd 15^th 12^th

Template:VfD frontmatter VfD was archived on 28 May. If you need to look at old history please see the history of Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_May_2004. Note that listings more than five days old should now be moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old.

See also Category:Pages on votes for deletion

Decisions in progress

September 12

Programmer's Day -- Add to this discussion

There is no evidence or source provided for the existance of this holiday. I've been involved in the realm of technology nearly my entire life and never have heard of this. --Lysol 19:42, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• I have read about it somewhere, but was it this Wikipedia article or some other place? Googling for "Programmer's Day" -Wikipedia 256 returns 17 hits, including a few weblogs and an electronic version of a Latvian IT magazine [1]. So, it's not a fabrication but might be quite obscure. Delete because of obscurity. Andris 19:56, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for social change of this sort. Further, this is by no means notable. Delete.
    • The above vote was cast by User:Pgunn.
• So this holiday exists, and the fact that it's obscure isn't a good argument to delete it, in my opinion. My vote is Keep. --positron 23:11, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
• Keep. I celebrate this with my friends/neighbours/coworkers, its a lot of fun. obscurity should be no reason for deletion. Applegoddess 01:18, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. God doesn't exist either and he gets a big article.Lmno 13:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Obscurity is, in fact, a perfect reason to delete it. Encyclopedic content is of notable items. If no one knows about this but the blogosphere, then it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. By all means, though, the folks at Everything2 will want to know about it. There are many places on the Internet to write about it. An online encyclopedia is not. Geogre 02:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. No one's paying me to stay home that day. Denni☯ 03:50, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
• Delete. What Geogre said. Also, something that's a significant part of hacker culture ought to get more Google hits than this does. —Triskaideka 04:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, if reference provided. - pir 10:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 09:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't believe it exists in any meaningful sense. I've sent my system administator an e-card on System Admin's Day, but have never heard of "Programmer's day". Only 150 Google hits and a lot of them irrelevant ("hi i am student in usa i was just curious how does an average programmers day goes by", "For system design, smart card project manager, engineers and programmers, day 1 of the training serves as a foundation and overview"...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Dpbsmith, you're my idol! Dpbsmith2 21:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You can say that again! Dpbsmith3 21:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Dpbsmith, you're my idol! Dpbsmith2 21:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Dpbsmith's vote should be counted a dozen times! NotASockPuppet 21:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, a hundred times! A milliard! A googol! AnotherRealUser 21:69, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Part of silly hacker culture, but so what?
  • The above vote was cast by User:Frecklefoot.
• Redirect to hacker culture, with its own section. It seems to me that a lot of deletion occurs around here, where a simple merge and redirect to an appropriate article is possible. func(talk) 18:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Delete. I can't find any reliable confirmation on this thing's existence, (and I apologize for voting without looking it up in the first place). func(talk) 15:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - mathematical fantasy with more to do with numbers and nothing to do with programmers - Tεxτurε 20:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I further propose that wikipedia be renamed to triviapedia and nominate Trivial Pursuit as the official game of triviapedia. The Steve 00:01, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I bothered to vote on this one only because of the barrage of phony "Keep" votes. If the time spent trying to stuff the ballot box had been spent researching and writing a legitimate argument for retention, this might've had a chance. JamesMLane 03:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. SWAdair | Talk 04:16, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably my vote is unnecessary but we have recently seen votes from what seemed to be equally obvious sock puppets being counted. Jallan 21:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - does not appear to exist. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anon (invalid) votes

• Can't find any solid evidence (most pages use Wikipedia as their source) except for a few weblogs. Googled for "Programmer's Day" -Wikipedia -Encyclopedia September: found an article suggesting that a Russian petition was set up to make this an official holiday, once. In any case, some friends and I celebrated it and will continue to do so in future - is that enough? =o) [IP]
• It is real, but it is part of the "Hacker Culture", not mainstream. I think that is a fine thing though. I would like to see more Hacker Culture become mainstream. Let's keep it. David Battle [IP]
  • Keep: I vote, one day, I hope this will become an official holliday, I'll continue to celebrate it with my programmer friends. ToS[MTS] Sep 13. 2004 [IP]
  • Keep: My friends and I celebrate it. My wife is a sysadmin and she has a professional holiday, programmers need it too to have a reason to drink yet more beer. Izard Sep 13. 2004 [IP]
• Comment: Votes from IP-only users and brand-new user IDs are likely to be discounted; see Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. I've marked these votes with [IP]. I've also unified a single contribution that was mistakenly split into two; see [2] and [3] to see what happened. —Triskaideka 16:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: I disagree that obscurity is a good reason for deletion. If I already know something, why would I come to an encyclopedia to find out about it? User:CMShawn|CMShawn 16:00 2004 Sep 13 (PDT) [IP] (contributions)
• Keep. Rename to "Unofficial Programmer's Day" and keep it. [IP]

(contributions; up to a sysop to decide whether to count this vote)

• Keep. sena 13:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) Rename to "Unofficial Programmer's Day" and keep it. [IP?] *Keep. One person's (or one group's) interpretation of what is notable is not the measure of what is worth keeping. More people observe this holiday than exist in the Jon Frum movement in Vanuatu. Should information about that also be excluded? You are not an encyclopedist any more or less than the rest of us. Encyclopediae exist to chronicle fact. Programmer's Day, and when it falls, is a fact. The holiday's existence is not misleading, or contradictory, or based in opinion. If this is deleted, be consistent in your opinion and also delete any nodes on Christmas, Yom Kippur, Secretary's Day, Father's Day, Casimir Pulaski Day, and definately Pi Day. [IP]
• Keep If people are celebrating this it should be kept. Even if it's a new thing to appear among programmers, it does no harm. [IP]
• Keep Bottom line - this IS celebrated, it doesn't matter who/when it was made up. Our boss bought us pizza for programmers day this year. Should we remove Christmas as well because not everyone celebrates it? - SuperJason [IP] (contributions)

Above are invalid anon votes - not counted

• Delete. Too many suspicious Keep votes. RickK 19:36, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Robert J. Anderson -- Add to this discussion

Mr. Anderson appears to be a successful Knight of Columbus, but I don't see much else that signifies notability. Joyous 01:55, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: With an article that long, I was sure that something was embedded somewhere, but Joyous is right. He's a Knight of Columbus. Geogre 02:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. — Gwalla | Talk 03:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Wow, he went to Niagara Falls and the World's Fair on his honeymoon! Delete. RickK 06:20, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. not notable. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 09:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Err... Wow, indeed. Delete. crimmer 22:26, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
• He's not even the most notable of the non-notable Robert J. Andersons- there's a U.S. judge, a U.K. military officer, & several academics. There's even a former director of the American Centers for Disease Control, who might concievably merit an article. This individual, however, is completely non-notable, from what we see here. Delete. -FZ 14:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Promoting under-age sex?

How come Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z, according to Wikipedia, only have 15 years per generation? That would mean the people of each of those generation have an average of 14.25 years from birth to their own pregnancy (and then give birth at 15 to the next generation baby). Something is very wrong here. 185.13.50.211 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to biological generations. This article, and the other ones you mentioned, discuss social generations. Nerd271 (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment

Well, I'm glad that the list was kept. If you care to check, it is developing nicely, and even subbing off lists of its own. How about some assistance? Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden are all well under-represented at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I noted your comment was in response, delayed, to a deletion discussion back in 2002-2004, that i just chose to archive. Rather than to start off the Talk page that way, possibly a turnoff to new editors. By the way, have all those separate lists of windmills, by region in the Netherlands, been developed since your comment in May? Well anyhow the list has developed. User:Swampyank created stub articles for most of the United States ones listed, i noticed, too. doncram (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wind farms

I think the scope of this article needs to be discussed. So far, the list and its various sub-lists have dealt with traditional windmills. Modern wind generators are a kind of windmill too. Question is, do we include all windmills however powered and whatever their function (which would include iron windpumps and modern wind generators) in the one list, or do we have a separate list for iron windpumps (which I think would possibly mostly fail WP:N) and a separate list for modern wind generators / turbines? Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

'Fake' Windmills?

I just fleshed out the entry previous marked as 'unknown location' (actually located in Setouchi, Okayama, Japan). However, this 'windmill' is not really a windmill, but a public toilet built in the shape of a windmill. Sure, it's tower-shaped and has a wheel turned by wind, but it doesn't function as a mill in any way. Even if it did, I don't think anybody would want what it produces. Should such fake windmills be included in this list at all? 119.241.29.148 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of windmills. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210025832/http://www.windmill.org.nz/ to http://www.windmill.org.nz/

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) 10:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Names of windmills, location info, other formatting for non-U.S.

As I noted at Talk:List of windmills in the United States#Names of windmills, location info, other formatting, I have been changing over U.S. table formatting to lead each entry with name of windmill in "Windmill" or "Mill" field, then give all location info including coordinates in 2nd field.

For the U.S., many/most existing windmills have proper noun names. For example any one listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places has a name assigned by that program, which has good guidelines for how NRHP nominators are to choose names. Where a proper noun name is not immediately available, I have just put in "Windmill", or given a descriptive title such as "Windmill at Smith Cottage", which I think is okay. I don't mean for it to appear as if Wikipedia is coining a new proper noun name.

This list system was built using town or village names as the first column, as if that signifies enough. That didn't work well especially for some U.S. towns like Hempstead in New York which have multiple windmills, and it seems wrong to seem to identify them all as the same. Perhaps formal proper noun names are not as widely available in many other nations. But I wonder if names assigned by heritage registers can be found and used in some cases. And, is it okay/good to proceed with putting a name column first, even where just "Windmill" is the generic name, or non-name, being given at least for now? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

must a "traditional" windmill be a gristmill? and what does this list cover?

To User:Mjroots, User:Djflem, User:CaptJayRuffins and others: This list and various sub-lists are to cover what kinds of windmills? And how can that properly be defined and explained. This world-wide list is currently introduced as covering "all" windmills and wind pumps. And the windmill article says, I think accurately, that "windmill" is the term for other wind engines and for wind turbines.

In the lead of the List of windmills in the United States, in [ this version], I have tried to make distinctions using a photo gallery of a (perhaps-"traditional") windmill that is a gristmill, a wind pump, a modern wind turbine, and one odd plow-powering wind engine.

However, I fail to understand what is a "traditional" windmill or how we can define/explain that encyclopedically. In the U.S., "windmill companies" were founded in the 1800s to make wind pumps, and there have only ever been a few ones of the historic Dutch kind, which are imported, or built by immigrants, or are one-off architectural follies (some with moving parts and actually able to grind grains, some not ever functional). And the wind pump ones across the U.S. west are regarded as iconic, as symbols of American hard work and the cowboy life, etc. So "traditional windmills" in the US would naturally be the wind pumps, and the few Dutch-type ones are in fact really unusual and not "traditional" at all, despite some of them being the first and oldest windmills in the U.S. Some wind pump ones look to me a lot like Dutch-type windmills, too.

I wonder, is there a wish here to define "traditional" windmills as wind-powered gristmills?

And, especially in the U.S. and Canada, where companies such as Eclipse Windmill Company (1873) and Aermotor Windmill Company (1888-today) have been the main suppliers of "windmills", I come around to thinking a "List of windmills" should simply allow all kinds. Even modern wind turbines that are notable, e.g. for being the first one of a given design, or e.g. as the first off-shore wind turbine in the U.S. (which may be one in Castine, Maine, I am not sure). So should I start adding a few modern ones, or is there some distinction which can be made (attributed to sources)? I am afraid it can look like we are randomly calling some "traditional" and some not. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I see that Windmills lead gives supposedly Merriam-Webster-sourced assertion that "A windmill is a structure that converts wind power into rotational energy using vanes called sails or blades, by tradition specifically to mill grain (gristmills)..." and I just tagged that as {{not in reference}} because that is not what M-W says.

Historic Dutch windmills may have been mostly NOT gristmills, but rather more sawmills and powder mills (including gunpowder mills) and other, per Boomgaard article I cite in Indonesia section now.

In 1630, there were already 86 windmills in Holland for sawing timber alone, of which 53 were along the River Zaan (to the north of Amsterdam). In 1730, the number of sawmills driven by wind in Holland had increased to 448. Beside sawing timber, windmills were also used, among other activities, for the production of flour, vegetable oil, paper, tobacco, paint, and hemp.Footnote 9.

And weren't some of the historic ones pumping water to reclaim polders? I am whipsawing, but is the idea that traditional = gristmill simply false, and should we strike that out of Wikipedia articles? -- Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

As covered above, many processes could be performed by windmills. So, the answer to the question is "no". A "traditional windmill" is generally a post mill, smock mill or tower mill (this covers 99%+ of traditional windmills). Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Abc home and carpet -- Add to this discussion

Originally listed for speedy deletion but does not meet the criteria. Entry for a carpet shop that for someone who's not been to New York appears non-notable. Can anyone verify its notability or should this page be deleted? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 08:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Ick. Advertising. As for the truth, let's put it this way: the article lists a street corner (19th & Broadway) and says that this is one of the two leading stores there (i.e. on that corner). ABC (n.b. title is wrong) Carpet, as it is usually called, is successful. They advertise on the TV quite a bit. That said, they're indistinguishable from Empire Carpet, from any area's local carpet king. This is advertising, and the company hasn't much to recommend it except for selling carpets. Geogre 13:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. — Gwalla | Talk 18:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 22:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral (but Geogre is correct about the name; if kept, it should be moved to ABC Carpet & Home). I don't think an article can be called "advertising" just because it's about a business. We need more articles on notable businesses, and this article's author appears to have no connection with the store. Is it notable? The biggest carpet store in the world would be notable for that reason, but I'm not sure whether ABC is really the biggest. (It might be -- it's huge.) In a quick tour of the store's website, I didn't even find that claim made there. I would vote to keep if there were some support for that point. JamesMLane 04:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

N.b. the article has improved during its time on VfD, with more grand claims made for the store. When it was listed (see the history), it was one line and then straight to the website, so that's why folks were calling it a pure ad. It has not improved enough for me to change my vote, I'm afraid. It is a successful business, but I see too many problems with the present article (name change and the likelihood of languishing without being filled out, even if sent to Clean Up). Geogre 20:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mullet (slang) -- Add to this discussion

Mullet (slang) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. As of 17:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), this article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

---

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. I'm not sure this entry can go beyond that. Delete. —Morven 08:52, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Hmmm, it's being defined in its UK meaning. In the US, "mullet" only refers to the fish or the haircut. It's kind of a word's story, though I'd prefer an entry on the fish. Abstain, because it's not entirely dictdef. Geogre 13:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Same idea is expressed by any of a number of words, such as "sheep". - Furrykef 15:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Leave the thousands of regional, dialectal and idiolectal slang words (which are coined all the time and whose meanings can change quickly and vary widely) to the folks at urbandictionary.com. Livajo 16:33, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I split this page off of mullet (haircut) because the content was unrelated. If people think it should go entirely, I'd have no objections. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:00, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Slang dictdef. Maybe transwiki to wiktionary if you're feeling generous. — Gwalla | Talk 18:48, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Rossami 02:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Wikitonary, because I don't believe there's much to say on this topic, although it is a fairly common word. -- KneeLess 19:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Perhaps a mention in the haircut or fish article. -- Deepak 19:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

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

0/0 -- Add to this discussion

This a rambling discussion of the indeterminate form 0/0, which is quite adequately handled elsewhere. The page has been revived after being redirected to indeterminate form. The style of discussion is not likely to be helpful to anyone studying mathematics. Delete Charles Matthews 09:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Change back to redirect. - Evil saltine 09:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• ERROR: division by zero. Revert to redirect. --Ianb 09:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect back to indeterminate form. --Chessphoon 11:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Nothing plus nothing is nothing, you gotta have somethin'. Go back to redirect. Geogre 13:34, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• "Nothing will come of nothing... mend thy speech a little." (King Lear, I, i). Redirect to indeterminate form and discuss there. Keep; changing vote 17:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC); article makes sense now. Antandrus 15:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Revert to redirect & protect the page for a few weeks. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense, revert to redirect. I'm peeved that a perfectly good discussion on indeterminate forms was replaced with something so foolish. Why strive for such mediocrity when excellence is staring you in the face? --Ardonik.talk() 17:47, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Revert. What a mess. — Gwalla | Talk 18:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Or, better, redirect to indeterminate form. The language is childish, and I'm not just talking about weird spellings like "oppininions" or "it's self". The author speaks of "solving 0/0". One solves equations. "0/0" is not an equation. The author is not very familiar, if at all, with mathematical jargon -- this is one of those cases where you should learn what the rules are before you break them. The article titled indeterminate form and others already treat the topic. Michael Hardy 23:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to indeterminant form, this stuff is patent nonsense. --Starx 00:10, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to indeterminant form. No compelling reason not to. Livajo 00:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Cleanup, merge into indeterminate form, and redirect. Redirect, because 0/0 is a plausible encyclopedia entry under which someone might look it up. Cleanup and merge because I see a diamond in the rough here. The existing article on Indeterminate form is formal, correct, and written at a college level. And it does nothing to help a nonmathematical person understand the issues. The existing article is confusing because the author does not seem to understand the issue and believes there is a dispute of some kind. This is, however, the common reaction on first considering the meaning of the fraction 0/0. It is further confusing because he includes several different interpretations by people who don't understand 0/0, either. Nevertheless, there could be a good introductory section to Indeterminate form that lays out why 0/0 seems puzzling and why mathematicians resolve it the way they do. One of the barriers to learning is that once one learns the resolution to a seemingly paradoxical issue, it is difficult to regain the naive mindset and therefore difficult to explain the resolution to someone with that mindset. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) P. S. I once used a rotary calculator which exhibited very different behavior if you asked it to divide, respectively, a nonzero number, and zero, by zero. If I recall correctly, dividing a nonzero number caused it to run endlessly and created serious danger of the motor overheating and jamming, while I believe 0/0 yielded 1111111111 and then terminated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • That's an outstanding idea. Changing my vote from "revert to redirect" to merge and redirect. --Ardonik.talk() 15:37, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Considering that the article as it stands is simply text copied from a math forum and it discusses 0/0 as if it hasn't been "solved" and it implies that it is a controversy among mathematicians (which it is not) as Michael Hardy points out on the talk page, I don't really think that there is much salvageable to merge into the indeterminate form article. Rather, if something less technical is to be included in the indeterminate form article about 0/0, first, it would need to be written from scratch, and second, it should not present 0/0 as an opinion (like this article does), rather describe it factually in terms that are easier to understand. --Chessphoon 00:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Also, I think some of the comments on the indetermine form's talk page might be useful to be included in the article as a simpler way of explaining why 0/0 is an indeterminate form, or the article can just remain as it is and people can look at the talk page for that explanation. --Chessphoon 00:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect -FZ 14:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Veto: redirect to indeterminate form --Merovingian[[Image:Atombomb.gif|]]Talk 22:46, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect - I was going to go with delete and redirect, but User:Dpbsmith has a good point -- Solipsist 07:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  One other point. Everything seems to work, but does the title containing a / actually create subpages. -- Solipsist 07:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  There is no "< 0" notation at the top of the article so I'm guessing that it's not creating a subpage in this case. Even if it did, it would be a subpage of 0 which redirects to 0 (number), a connection that seems reasonable. Rossami

• Redirect to indeterminate form. Shimmin 14:07, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to indeterminate form and write a section on naive arithmetic into inderterminate form. Barnaby dawson 18:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Have rewritten the article to be more mathematically rigorous but (hopefully) accessible to amateurs. Barnaby dawson 12:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: User:24.73.204.67 blanked this page and removed the VfD notice from 0/0. --Ardonik.talk() 19:38, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten by Barnaby dawson. Good article now. I don't know where this new material properly belongs; perhaps where it is, perhaps in Division by zero, perhaps in Indeterminate form, perhaps on a new page named Zero divided by zero. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:20, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to change your vote twice? I think Barnaby Dawson's rewrite addresses all our concerns. I'm changing my vote from merge and redirect to keep (or at least, I will if it's not against the rules.) --Ardonik.talk() 17:26, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Of course. You can change your vote as much as you like. — David Remahl 19:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Overall, an excellent rewrite. There are some oversimplifications made, but as it stands the article is definitely a positive contribution. Deepak 19:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete; the "excellent rewrite" is not as bad, but is still bad. One could fix the TeX errors (e.g. $loge^{3}$ could be changed to $\log e^{3}$ and the ridiculous asterisks could be fixed, etc.), but the thing reads like a secondary-school pupil's examination answer. And why the link to undecidable?? That's absurd! And to philosophy of mathematics? Is there something philosophical here? (Rhetorical question, in case someone wondered; the answer is no.) And why the link to infinitesimal? It's very clumsy and contains nothing that is not treated at indeterminate form. Michael Hardy 21:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

... and I just added some specific criticisms on the page itself. Normally I would attempt to fix the page and put those on the talk page, but this page isn't worth saving. In particular, the statement about what an indeterminate form is could not be allowed to stand, even if readers could see the link and the fact that the page is a mess. Michael Hardy 22:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tran Van Ba -- Add to this discussion

Below are the votes extracted from the discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Tran Van Ba. Note that this is also now discussed on RfC, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tran Van Ba and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tran Van Ba.

Vanity page by User:Tran Van Ba. He claims to be the His Excellency the Imperial Dragon of Ping Pong (or whatever it was), but appears not to have done anything notable except flood the wiki with lots of POV pages on Asian royalty who are "tirelessly campaigning for human rights", etc etc etc. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I am not an Imperial Dragon. ping 08:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment What he claims to be is "Chancellor of The Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam to Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh." I see no reason why you should not state this claim correctly. I think the opening paragraph should be edited to read as follows. I considered doing this myself but decided that would be out of line. If you accept my suggestion, then please delete this comment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:17, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposed rewording: He claims to be the Chancellor of The Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam, but appears not to have done anything notable except flood the wiki with lots of POV pages on Asian royalty who are "tirelessly campaigning for human rights", etc etc etc.

• Delete. Sorry, Tran, but you're just not supposed to write articles about yourself. — Gwalla | Talk 18:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Gwalla is quite correct. Fire Star 19:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• If autobiography, delete. The page and most of the edits were done by User:Tran Van Ba. The similarity between this user's name and that of the subject of the article creates an impression that the article was written by Tran Van Ba, the subject of the article, himself. Long-established Wikipedia policy calls for deletion of autobiographies. This is completely separate from any issues about the importance of Asian royal families. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:10, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tran Van Ba's racism accusations are nonsense. And until he calms down and stops foaming at the mouth, nobody is going to take him seriously. Delete. RickK 02:57, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete for being vanity/autobiography. If the subject deserves an article, let it be written by an unbiased and hopefully more reasonable third party. —Triskaideka 05:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Looks like the issue is about to resolve unexpectedly. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Tran_Van_Ba. If Tran Van Ba is not real-life Tran Van Ba, then the "autobiography" argument is inapplicable. Mikkalai 08:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My vote(s): If an autobiography, then delete, if a biography, then clean up. Aecis 16:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Comment edited afterwards)

• Delete with extreme prejudice. Kook, vanity entry, inaccuracy. --Improv 20:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I have done corrections and this biography and stated in my summary (The biography is neutral and strictly to the work he has done and his Appointment) It is not autobiography Jimmyvanthach
  • This appears to be User:Tran Van Ba's sockpuppet, but I think we need to go to the requests for comment first. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Since we apparently must vote or have our comments removed, I vote Delete. Those interested in Tran Van Ba and the recent "revival" of the Order of the Dragon should read the correspondance on the [alt.talk.royalty] group. It would seem that Wikipedia is once again being used to present questionable claims as if they were unquestioned, and as a mean of publicising those claims. Also probably of interest will be the posts from the same group regarding Carl Lindgren - Nunh-huh 22:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Only lengthy discussions have been moved, see Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Counter-proposal. Andrewa 00:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment 2: Unfortunately, this may be an example of the dangers of moving comments out of the discussion thread. It can create more work (and ill will) than it saves. Rossami
• Delete. Ambi 09:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 22:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: members of any organization, be it the Order of Annam or the Skull and Bones, do not get their own entries just for being members if they are not individually notable. -Sean Curtin 00:08, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, non-interesting. Terrapin 16:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete garbage from person with history of spewing such garbage across the internet. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Refracted Mandog -- Add to this discussion

Advertisement for an amusingly named but non-notable game design company that hasn't released their first game yet. Joyous 15:47, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• In the 60s, that would've been a great name for a rock band. Nowadays it's a software company. I vote delete for now and let them come back when they have something notable to show. Spatch 16:14, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. WikiSpam for software company with no released products. — Gwalla | Talk 18:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Litter, advertising, spam, empty. Geogre 19:25, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Litter of puppies, advertising paper-trained, spam chow, empty water dish - Tεxτurε 22:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Asteroid hunter -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable Java game. Google gives just 6 hits. --Diberri | Talk 16:23, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a web directory. Almost a speedy, but not quite. Livajo 16:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete poor attempt at non-notable website promotion. I think it should have been speedy. --Ardonik.talk() 18:47, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable game, Wikipedia is not a web guide. — Gwalla | Talk 18:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising, web listing. Geogre 19:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 22:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Skaarj -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable fictional (obviously) video game alien race. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 17:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - non-encyclopedic Redirect --Chessphoon 17:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Unreal series. Livajo 17:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Unreal series but include original information. --G3pro 18:06, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Unreal series. — Gwalla | Talk 19:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, Cleanup: I don't see any reason to add detailed information about one particular race to the page for the series in general. -- Creidieki 19:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well the Skaarj are not just one particular race, but the group of people which the "unreal world" is fighting against. Merge and redirect --G3pro 21:06, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: fancruft. Another one for the fan sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect and delete: Merging this much information from the game manuals to the article seems kind of useless. It's just a game, folks, and if people bought it legally, they get the manuals and don't need us. If they do need us to tell them what's in the manual, then they have GameFAQs. Geogre 02:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 22:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Unreal series. —
  • Note: The above was posted by 217.25.84.124. Livajo 11:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Rm Unreal was a great game. They don't deserve their own article, but could easily do with a seciton on Unreal series. Redirect/merge. Chris 01:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tottaly silly to delete this and not delete the massive amounts of fancruft from the Star Wars EU that litters wikipedia.

• Retodon8 I just checked some pages on Half-Life (2), and there are pages on:

Gordon Freeman, Barney Calhoun, Alyx Vance, G-Man (Half-Life), Dr. Breen, Black Mesa Research Facility, Combine (Half-Life 2), Vortigaunt, and so it seems every single enemy you can come across in the series, yet a page on the Skaarj, synonymous to the Unreal series gets deleted? That just doesn't make any sense...

OPWTN -- Add to this discussion

A neologism from the newsgroup uk.politics.misc. OPWTN gets 20 unique Google hits and OPW3N only 3. Livajo 17:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable (yet) --Chessphoon 17:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Kbh3rd 17:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - nothing Wotan (Bob Sims) does is going to be notable. Dbiv 17:21, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, neologism, dictdef. — Gwalla | Talk 19:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Unsigned anon) - Keep. Interesting!

• Delete - Tεxτurε 22:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VfD (2004)

VfD: Space Combat

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

Non-notable computer game with no google backlinks to game's homepage and an alexa rank of 5,660,799. --Chessphoon 17:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. — Gwalla | Talk 19:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. Geogre 19:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 22:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't think its advertising at all. It's a well-written page. -- Crevaner 16:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - I feel that while it may increase awareness of Space Combat, as it's freeware, the negative sides of any advertising claims are moot. Also, I feel it's better for people who don't have any idea what Space Combat is to get linked to a non-partisan (and peer-reviewable - If you think there's stuff in the article that's blatant advertising, get out there and tweak it) page here for a brief explanation (and then return to their regular viewing), rather than just being dumped off to a site made by the manufacturer which will be advertising. As for the minor game accusations, it isn't all that well known, but it is one of only a few that do model physics with any degree of realism, so it hence deserves a page of its own for similar reasons to X-Plane. AS2 20:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment: The issue isn't the harm of advertising. When the deletion guidelines mention advertising, it's because they're trying to outline some of the things that make something inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm sure that the game is good, but this is an online encyclopedia. There are lapses. No doubt you can find other games mentioned. However, we reserve article space for notable things that, well, ought to be in an encyclopedia, so we are most emphatically not here to raise awareness. We try not to raise awareness of political issues, gender/social issues, programming issues, or any other current concern. Instead, entities that are notable (first, pioneering, popular to a degree that non-initiates know about them, affecting the outside world, influencing later development) are worthy of inclusion. This is no comment on the worth of the game, just the encyclopedia-worthiness of this entry. Geogre 20:11, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, notable things. Such as, "Styles of lightsaber combat" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.40.217 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC). (I.E. after debate was closed) --Scott Wilson 16:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I agree with Crevaner and AS2.
• Keep dangit! I just downloaded this last week! ;-) Kim Bruning 11:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --Farside 11:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems to have significant worth in that it is unique even if not well known. It's also well written and doesn't seem to advertise (in that they stand to make no profit and doesn't use sensationalistic language "a revolutionary new game..." and actually points out many flaws). Notwithstanding questions of it's encyclopediac content, I think we ought to keep it until those issues are more fully reviewed. If we decide at a later date that all articles of this class aren't for wikipedia then we can purge them in one Great Purge of Articles, but for now, let's keep this interesting article! -SocratesJedi 22:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

Is the disambiguation really neccesary? I wouldn't have thought many folk would mix Space Combat up with other space simulations. A disambig with general discussion of combat in space, or a link/category to the space simulations page, yes; but not a disabig, surely. --Scott Wilson 20:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dot-compost -- Add to this discussion

Not a common term; meaning fairly self-evident; main idea already described in great detail under dot-com; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - Furrykef 17:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete and add a note on dot-compost, dot-gone, etc. to dot-com. TPK 18:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• The gist of dot-compost is already in the dot-com article. Redirect. Spatch 18:26, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to dot-com and remove the link there so the article doesn't link to itself. Livajo 18:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. (Sorry, I had forgotten to put my own vote!) - Furrykef 18:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: If your original nomination would have been to redirect, you did not need to list it here. VfD is for discussion of deletions only. Anyone can turn an article into a redirect because redirects do not affect the history. Rossami
• Redirect to dot-com. — Gwalla | Talk 19:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, is this even a well known slang term? HRpufnstuf
• Delete - Not common use - Tεxτurε 22:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete no redirect --Improv 02:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect, Wiktionary? -- Deepak 19:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Meadows of Franklin Pond, Cambridge, Ontario -- Add to this discussion

Advertisement. Another housing development in Ontario. Joyous 18:01, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - and what an advertisment! It even has a ® for good measure. TPK 18:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• "The development bends the limits of what can be considered the Greater Toronto Area." Warping time and space surely seems notable, but not without scientific proof. Delete. Spatch 18:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Real estate advert. — Gwalla | Talk 19:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Real estate ad. Did User:Zanimum do the other Ontario real estate ad, above? (Will check & make a note on user page, if so.) Geogre 19:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete audacious advertising. Fire Star 19:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 22:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Googolgon -- Add to this discussion

A geometric object that is not and will never become notable. Articles like this are doomed to permanent stub status; this seems to be a case of people creating pages just because they can.
If you look at Talk:Googolgon, you'll see that I actually anticipated the creation of a similar Googolhedron article (!) If the community's consensus is to delete Googolgon, Googolhedron should also go. --Ardonik.talk() 18:37, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Can anyone explain why googolgon was put on Vfd?? 66.245.110.11 18:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • You didn't let me put in the rationale! --Ardonik.talk() 18:37, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems even mathematicians have little to no use for googolgons and googolhedra. Google searches give results mostly to Wikipedia and its clones. They are theoretical shapes that will never exist due to physical limitations. If the article goes, the image should too. Even if the article stays, is it necessary to illustrate it? Isn't just saying it looks like a circle sufficient? Livajo 19:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Good stub. Possible neologism, some attribution would help here (and grow the article), but the Google test tells us nothing other than the topic is not yet well represented on the Web. Mathematicians have a great deal of use for theoretical shapes that will never exist due to physical limitations, see projective geometry for a start. Andrewa 20:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I am aware that there is valid mathematical use for theoretical shapes, but I see no reason why a shape with 10¹⁰⁰ sides would be any more useful than say, one with 1.3954987021465*10¹²⁴ sides, for which I could create the neologism flumpetydump. Livajo 21:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You seem to miss the point here. Flumpetydump should certainly be deleted as a neologism, although it might be equally useful ro Googolgon and in many ways equivalent. The question here is, is there significant usage of Googolgon outside of Wikipedia, as there is for Googol? This is important, and is not answered by the Google test, which only shows it's not used on the WWW. Andrewa 20:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, lanl math arxiv, the U.S. Library of Congress, and the Science Citation Index also list no uses of the term. This seems to indicate a definite lack of usage in technical forae. The Google search, btw, once you weed out wikipedia clones and other reference-work entries, shows about two usages- one math Q&A site, and one poem by Dean Blehert. It looks pretty obscure.-FZ 20:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless neologism. Just about every Google hit appears to be a mirror of this article. The googol article says "The googol is of no particular significance in mathematics, nor does it have any practical uses." That goes double for a googolgon. There are hundreds of numbers with names, but coining terms like Hardy-Ramanujangon or Avogadrohedron is of no use to mathematicians or to anyone else. Pnot 04:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I think you misunderstand what the article is saying here about the Googol. The Googol does have uses, but these are all uses for which any sufficiently large number would do instead, and the Googol is just used as an example. That's the whole reason for talking about the Googol, see also Googolplex. I admit I don't understand your point about Avogadro's number or the Hardy-Ramanujan number, so far as I know these polygons would both be neologisms (in the VfD sense) and therefore valid deletions. The whole question is, is this also true of the Googolgon? No change of vote for the moment. Andrewa 11:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I'll try to be clearer. I claimed (on the basis of lack of non-Wikipedia google hits) that googolgon is a neologism. My mention of the Avogadrohedron was intended to point out how pointless and arbitrary a neologism it is. I certainly don't think it has any interesting mathematical properties, which is what I thought your comparison with projective geometry was implying. But maybe I am being hasty with the google test: I have access to about a dozen paper dictionaries of mathematics, so I will go and look now, and report back shortly. Pnot 09:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC) ... I'm back again. Tried five mathematics dictionaries, two encyclopaedias, and one encyclopaedic dictionary. No googolgons or googolhedrons in any of them, so no change of vote. Pnot 09:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with and redirect to googol? Silly Dan 20:56, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
• Decent content should be merged with Googol. It is an amusing way to visualize the magnitude of a googol. I think Googolgon itself should be deleted. I don't know how to solve the resulting GFDL issues. It has little merit as a word other than as a an ephemeral coinage made for the purpose of discussing googol. It gets more Google hits than I expected, but few of them are very good. The only one that looks "real" to me is [this poem]. I don't believe this is a real word in wide use. I think it is simply a word that gets coined and recoined whenever someone needs it, is easily understood by any who reads it, and is then forgotten. (Pedantic note: as a word, I object to it as a barbarism, because all of the -gons and -hedra ought to have classical Greek roots and I don't think there's any classical Greek word for "googol.") [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:43, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep both (no redirect), even though "googolgon" and "googolhedron" are barbarisms. Neologisms will little currency, but these articles will certainly be recreated if deleted; we may as well work the existing content into something coherent to forestall revisiting this vfd. The articles could benefit from attention. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into googol and redirect - I think the whole thing works much more nicely as a single article than two short ones. Ditto for googolhedron. —Stormie 00:22, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and improve - mark googolgon and googolhedron as stubs. Other Polygons and Polyhedra have articles for themselves. -- Netoholic @ 01:17, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to googol; same for googolhedron. Interesting information that deserves inclusion. • Benc • 05:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect -FZ 14:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect both. Jallan 19:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete both. Totally non-notable. Eric119 03:06, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect both. - KeithTyler 19:18, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Insufficient evidence presented to convince me that these are anything but self-evident neologisms. Delete both unless better references are presented of use outside Wikipedia. Rossami 03:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• What is the final consensus of this discussion now that enough time has passed?? 66.245.118.119 02:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • My count is delete 6, merge 6, keep 3 - KeithTyler 04:18, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • That's a total of 15, and no choice is a majority, so what will the result be?? 66.245.26.130 13:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I say merge with googol and redirect. Perhaps it isn't important enough to merit its own article, but ... well, I just think it's cool, and would go nicely in the googol article. Timbo 05:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I just put a new section on the googol article that repeats what googolgon says, so I say a re-direct to Googol is perfectly fine. 66.245.126.39 13:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agile programming language -- Add to this discussion

This is not a programming term, nor is it in use outside the field of programming. It seems to be an appeal to the vanity of Kevin Altis, who used the term in an article. This page has been sitting in Wikipedia for some time, being indexed by Google, which accounts for a large portion of its ~1300 Google hits. --Yath 18:38, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: First, it should be Agile (programming language), rather than a programming language called Agile. Second, since this article only covers its use with Python, we could make this a redirect and merge to Python (programming language). However, since it seems that this is a very unusual/uncommon term, this is the presentation of nearly first hand research and neologism. Geogre 19:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I presume this is intended to relate somehow to Agile software development. No vote for now; if someone can make the connection clearer, I may be inclined to keep. -- Jmabel 06:50, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • There doesn't seem to be any relationship. Agile programming language was coined as a category in which to put Python, while Agile software development is a methodology. The proponents of Agile software development have not tied their ideology to any particular language. --Yath 08:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • But we could say that some langauges are more equal than others wrt agile software development relatively safely... I think. Kim Bruning 11:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The trouble is, no one has proposed that this classification (Agile programming language) is related to this methodology (Agile software development). On both websites linked from the article, there is no mention of agile software development. To relate them here on Wikipedia would amount to original research. As far as I can tell, the article is just Python advocacy (read the comments here [4] for more argumentation in this vein). --Yath 20:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism found in a single article on a single weblog. — Gwalla | Talk 01:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for above reasons - Tεxτurε 22:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep (or merge with/redirect to Agile software development), we have Agile software development, and an agile programming language is a language that is suited to doing that. We've got python, perl, ruby, ocaml, java and smalltalk that qualify I suppose (though some folks might disagree :-P ). If we can't keep, then at least redirect or merge. Kim Bruning 10:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

La Boda De Los Ninjas -- Add to this discussion

A "homemade film," with no indication anywhere that it was ever released. I could find no mention of the film's title or the production company anywhere. Joyous 19:25, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. --Yath 23:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• It's good to know that "ninja" is a masculine noun. -Sean Curtin 00:36, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: And many thanks to Bobbie who brought cookies and played Chief Alisondro! Umm, vanity. Geogre 02:31, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable: home movie. — Gwalla | Talk 01:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 22:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List_of_116_alleged_MI6_agents -- Add to this discussion

Doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:16, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of 116 alleged MI6 agents

Stercus accidit -- Add to this discussion

An article about the correct translation of "shit happens" into Latin. Since Latin speakers seem to have used no equivalent phrase, this article is little more than possible BJAODN material. Livajo 00:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Comment. 697 Google hits for "stercus accidit," from a wide variety of sources, virtually all asserting it to be Latin for "shit happens." So I think the expression actually has a real existence as a joke or a legend. During the 1970s and 1980s I frequently saw little signs (samizdat-photocopied) in offices or on desks saying "Illegitimati non carborundum est," put there in hopes that someone would ask what it meant, so that the sign's owner could say that it is "Latin for 'don't let the bastards grind you down.'" The current article seems to be an incoherent account of the origin of the phrase. It seems to me that the phrase is in wide enough use to warrant a good article on its origins. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: The Romans said "sic transit gloria mundi," which had the same general meaning but without the silly scatology. Geogre 02:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for the benefit of our 10 year old readership. Yes, I'm serious. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you meant "keep and clean up????" It needs cleanup and I don't think I'm interested in doing it; are you? The "I" of the article at least needs to be identified, and needs to be checked to make sure it isn't a copyvio... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not opposed to having it fixed up, otherwise I'm pretty sure I would have said "and protect eternally" or something. I'm not volunteering to work on it, but then again I'm not volunteering to work on most articles. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• It may be an accurate Latin translation (I highly doubt this--the article's reasoning looks quite dubious to me), but in any case, it does not deserve its own article. See List of Latin phrases, which is one of the articles I proudly show around to people who doubt the usefulness of the Wikipedia. (Does your precious Encyclopedia Britannica have that?)
  Merge into List of Latin phrases and redirect, but only if the phrase is what native Latin speakers would have used as an equivalent expression to "shit happens." --Ardonik.talk() 16:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete; will never be aught but a foreign language definition. I prefer stercus evenit myself; the root sense of evenio is "to come out," which strikes me as more apropos, and Cicero and Livy frequently say things like pax evenit or forte evenit ut. . . Smerdis of Tlön 16:32, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, no one who ever used Latin regualarly would have ever used this phrase. By the way, the only instance I can think of where a Roman used the word "shit" is "puto concacavi me," which are Claudius' last words, according to Seneca ("I think I shit myself"). Adam Bishop 18:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, by the way, this is a copyvio from here. Adam Bishop 18:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 09:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Regardless of copyright problems, delete hoax. This is a (bad) attempt at transliteration of an English idiom. No Latin speaker would ever have used this phrase. It is not a common enough hoax to deserve mention. Rossami 03:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, then create a new article called List of modern phrases written in Latin. Given the google hits on "stercus accidit", and what Dpbsmith said about "Illegitimati non carborundum est", I think there is probably an article here somewhere, (for someone who took Latin and can actually remember some of it). func(talk) 01:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 13

Iain Cameron -- Add to this discussion

Nothing notable about Iain Cameron. HRpufnstuf 00:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: CV or resume. Appropriate content for a user page, so perhaps a rookie mistake. Geogre 02:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable individual, possible vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 02:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tag Team Wrestling -- Add to this discussion

I have removed the part of the article that says that Technos published the Japanese arcade version of Tag Team Wrestling. (I was the one who originally inserted this sentence on the article). It is unclear whether the Japanese arcade version of Tag Team Wrestling was published by Technos themselves or Data East. There is no mention about Data East in the titlescreen of the Japanese arcade version like it is the case in the US arcade version but that still does not mean that the original Japanese arcade version wasn't published by Data East as well. Technos was very close not only to Data East USA, but also the Japanese Data East and since "Tag Team Wrestling" was Technos first game, it is possible that they had to rely on Data East for distribution of the game in Japan.

From VfD:

Video game? Breakfast cereal offer? Hard to tell from here. Denni☯

• I have cleaned it up a little and it now has context (also, it has been moved to Tag Team Wrestling (video game), which is what several links pointed to). Whether it's worth keeping or not depends on whether you think crappy 80's NES games deserve articles or not. I don't have strong feelings either way, so no vote from me. —Stormie 01:54, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's clean, but it's not a notable game. Video games have to be notable, just like anything else. I do not like seeing the one IP fellow who comes along and writes half a par on every single console game. Industry leaders, innovators, biggest sellers, all welcome, but just another game for the console? Geogre 02:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable article. Guanaco 02:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, inspired Strong Bad. - RedWordSmith 02:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Then merge with Strong Bad and delete. I see little point in keeping it here for the 1.5 people who might be interested. Denni☯
• Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, Verifiable, objective. -- Creidieki 22:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Surprisingly, there's no article on tag team yet. -Sean Curtin 01:37, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: It's covered in List of professional wrestling match types, an article that needs cleanup and possible renaming. — Gwalla | Talk 02:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable mostly for inspiring the character of Strong Bad, but that counts, I think. — Gwalla | Talk 02:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not independently notable. Already mentioned in the Strong Bad article. Note: If kept, recommend making it a redirect. Rossami 03:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved dicussion

Hyphen in title

On December 10, 2010, Parrothead1983 moved this page in order to rename it with a hyphen. However, there is no evidence to support that the game's official title contains a hyphen. All reference-able external sites do not include a hyphen in the name, and the title screen of the arcade version omits a hyphen as well. The only suggestion of a hyphen in the title is the star present in the artwork provided for the title, which itself does not constitute a hyphen. I moved the page back to its original name until more evidence can be shown that a hyphen should be included. Plotor (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plotor (talk • contribs)

Andragogy -- Add to this discussion

Copyvio? See here and here.

• Delete: If copyvio, then handle it that way. If not, this is borderline original research. It is an essay, so, whether it's citation stuff or not, it's a plea to readers to change to student-centered learning. BTW, I've done "student centered learning," and neither I nor the students were very fond of it. ("You're the expert, so why aren't you going to tell us what you know?") Geogre 02:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if not copyvio, it has an agenda, so it is POV. Not one graf in the article is free of a POV sentence. - KeithTyler 19:14, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• This is an attempt to explain Malcolm Knowles' theory of adult learning which he called "Andragogy". His work dates back to 1978 so it can't exactly be called a neologism anymore. Since it's an attempt to explain a noted researcher's theory (which has been independently published and discussed enough to be notable), it's not really original research either. See, for example, [[6]] or[[7]]. If it survives the copyright investigation, keep and send to cleanup. Rossami 04:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Copyvio with [8] and reinforced by [9] (PDF, see page 10) dated 1996. It may have been contributed by the author, but I doubt it; the author would presumably have more to say on the topic. - KeithTyler 17:58, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Yeah, I found it too, so I've deleted the text and slapped {{copyvio2}} on it. Bishonen 18:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Skumle humle -- Add to this discussion

The consensus was for this article to be speedily deleted, which it was. The discussion is still available here until this VfD listing expires.

Tintin (movie) -- 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

Speculation. Even http://www.spielbergfilms.com/tintinnews.html seems to be getting their information from non-definitive sources. RickK 02:51, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, this anon is know for adding false informations to articles. --Conti|✉ 14:57, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation stub on movie that may or may not get made. — Gwalla | Talk 02:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 09:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not some movie news\speculation site. — Kieff | Talk 04:11, Sep 18, 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.

Feminist Wicca -- 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 REDIRECT

• delete dictdef - and a poor one at that KeyStroke 03:01, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems like it could be a worthy substub, maybe should be merged with other articles about wicca instead of deleting.--Jpittman 03:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wicca, but don't merge the POV useless content.--Samuel J. Howard 04:22, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No provenance of the usage is provided, so why bother to redirect? What's next, Feminist lunches rogue mid-day meals which exclude men? Fire Star 04:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dianic Wicca. The Dianic Wicca page mentions "Feminist Wicca" as one of its synonyms. Pyrop
• Delete: Criminy, folks. Is there non-feminist wicca? Wicca arose from the first wave feminist movement of the 1910's, after being sucked out of Madame Blavatsky. Redirect what to it? No dang content. We're not a thesaurus, and this stuff doesn't begin to reach the numbers necessary. Geogre 12:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dianic Wicca; this is an inaccurate substub. The data about the more militantly feminist side of Wicca is there. Smerdis of Tlön 17:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dianic Wicca which deals well with this topic. —Morven 19:04, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dianic Wicca, the more accurate term (and better article). — Gwalla | Talk 02:30, 14 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.

Solitary Wicca -- 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 REDIRECT

• delete dictdef - and a poor one at that KeyStroke 03:01, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
  • Keep. This seems like it could be a worthy substub, maybe should be merged with other articles about wicca instead of deleting.--Jpittman 03:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Wicca.--Samuel J. Howard 04:21, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• It is so obvious that it almost insults the intelligence. Until it is shown that the title is a common term with witches or their familiars, I'll vote to delete. Fire Star 04:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I feel kind of dumb now. I don't practice Wicca, but I had friends in college who were Solitary Wiccans. I think this is common. However, I do see everyone's point on Feminist and Solitary wicca. There just might not be enough content to warrant an article. Although I would love it if someone more knowledgeable than me actually proved this all wrong. I give in though. Redirect.--Jpittman 13:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• 'Merge and redirect to Wicca: I have heard this used by a substantial number of wiccans, but from what i've seen it's not much more than the name implies. Pyrop 04:52, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Although this is a term I've heard used by Wiccans, the current article contains no information that isn't in the name. Average Earthman 09:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Come on! We're not a dictionary! Redirect, if people must, but this is one more step in the "let's make sure that we fully serve every niche" project. Geogre 12:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Wiki is not paper and there is nothing wrong with serving every niche provided someone can write an encyclopedic article on it. —Morven 19:10, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Sure there is. This is not an online community trying to express itself. It's still an online encyclopedia. If something is not notable, not significantly different from existing material, there is neither reason nor use in splitting off. The thing about emergent and regressive cultural movements is that they're inevitably fragmentary. The less official a group is, the more often it splits and splinters. It's not an encyclopedia's duty to give equal weight to The People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front. You discuss Judean Resistance and mention as many groups as you know of. Geogre 00:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• This is a real term, denoting a particular vareity of Wicca practitioners; merge & redirect to Wicca until someone writes a real article for here, because this is a term people might reasonably search under. -FZ 14:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: inaccurate substub --- what's this about secrecy? Losing this minimal stub will not prejudice someone who wants to write a real article; its presence misleads other editors into thinking this task is done. Smerdis of Tlön 17:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect (nothing to merge) to Wicca until there's enough material to warrant a seperate article. Solitary practice does deserve some text because it's an important (and later) distinction from the original form of Wicca (group / coven practice) and is increasingly common, and is the source of some tension / differences. —Morven 19:10, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wicca and Delete. There are solitary Christians also and solitary Buddhists and so forth. Jallan 19:19, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• redirect & delete? Umm, how does that work, excatly? -FZ 19:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • This is a term that is in common use, while the equivalent for Christians, Buddhists is not in common use. Thus there is a use to keep this here while not creating same for those religions. Besides, a redirect never hurt anyone. —Morven 20:50, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • FWIW, it's noteworthy primarily because, in the early days of Wicca, at least until the 1970s, there was a sense that you could not "really" belong unless you were initiated by a coven with a lineage to the earlier tradition, which now seems to be rejected. "Solitary Wicca" allowed people to participate without these succession issues. Smerdis of Tlön 20:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Smerdis, please add that info to the Wicca article if it isn't already there. As for this arcticle, I question the factual accuracy that "Solitary Wicca" must be practiced in secret, but in any case I think a redirect to Wicca is the way to go. -- SS 00:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Done --- though I'm sure that an actual Wiccan may want to check what I wrote for tone and accuracy. Smerdis of Tlön 04:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Wicca. — Gwalla | Talk 02:31, 14 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.

Downtown Eagle Corporation -- 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

Non-notable business. Denni☯ 03:15, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable locally. Rhymeless 03:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Iowawiki and delete. Oh, just delete it. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: More or less a news and local interest event. Since this company's activities are limited to two bankrupted stores, there isn't enough notability. Geogre 12:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable local store chain. — Gwalla | Talk 02:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Note: someone removed the VFD notice at the top of the page so I reinstated it. Dralwik

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.

Archived deletion discussion

Article listed on WP:VFD Sep 13 to Sep 20 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

This doesnt seem to fall under any good category. If this is real, which I have to assume it is, then this person needs help and the page should be deleted as it is really personal information. If it is not real, then this should be deleted anyway.--Jpittman 03:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• You gotta feel sorry for this guy, and yes, Cocaine Anonymous is a real 12-step organization. However, you are correct, Jpittman, that this article is not encyclopedic, and thus cannot remain here. Delete. Denni☯ 04:10, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. Kairos 04:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Keep. I like the rewritten version. Kairos 02:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, as the page has been rewritten. (Thanks for the VfD rescue, Quadell.) Delete. The original content was more appropriate for Wikipedia:Reference desk, if anywhere here on Wikipedia. I've left a note to that effect on the anonymous author's talk page. • Benc • 06:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: First hand account of drug abuse and therefore original research/essay. Geogre 12:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite, always happy to change a vote to keep. Geogre 00:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a real organization that is worth an article. The entire article needs to be rewritten, but the topic deserves an article. A good one. Quadell (talk) 20:33, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, I completely re-wrote it now. I think we'll all agree the new version doesn't need to be deleted. Quadell (talk) 22:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Nice job Quadell: that's exactly what it needed. Antandrus 23:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Looks like I'll be in the minority here, but I also vote Keep. None of the existing article can stay though: it needs at least a short writeup of the real organization. Antandrus 20:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Revised article is good. — Gwalla | Talk 02:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - New version is indeed good. -- Crevaner 16:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's completely encyclopaedic now. - Cymydog Naakka 10:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Very nice now. The original "article" is rather moving, I think. ClockworkTroll 07:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion - Graham ☺ | Talk 11:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite

In 2004 the previous version passed as a good article? ... Anyway, I rewrote the article with references to reliable sources to prevent a cocky admin from doing something like this to it. — Craigtalbert 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cocaine Anonymous. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304202508/http://www.ca.org:80/literature/allothermas.htm to http://www.ca.org/literature/allothermas.htm

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) 06:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Trying to join

Thomas Concannon James 174.252.131.85 (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Addiction

Hi there a was willing if a could talk to someone on behalf of myself as a have been taking cocoon for 3 years now it’s not and everyday thing but a do it every weekend Friday to Sunday and a can’t seem to stay away from it just wanted advice and some tips before a loose everything Kylek23091993 (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Manuel J Tejeda -- Add to this discussion

Manuel J Tejeda: undistinguished academic. No evidence of notability. Home page: [10] See also the vfd item for Manuel Jesús Tejeda. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Converted into redirect. Mikkalai 08:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable individual, probable vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 02:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 09:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Manuel Jesús Tejeda -- Add to this discussion

Manuel Jesús Tejeda: undistinguished academic. No evidence of notability. Home page: [11] See also the vfd item for Manuel J Tejeda. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Another misnamed academic from the University of Miami. Geogre 12:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I'm somewhat neutral but that's not the homepage listed home page link Some articles listed below. also see google http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Manuel+J+Tejeda%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N
  • Newman, F. L. & Tejeda, M. J. (Forthcoming, 2004). Criteria for Selecting Statistical Procedures For Progress & Outcome Assessment: New Perspectives. In Maruish, M. (Ed.) Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment Planning & Outcome Assessment (3rd Edition). . Lawrence, Erlbaum & Associates: Mahwah,v New Jersey.
  • Scandura, T. A. & Tejeda, M. J. (2003) Leader-Member Exchange as a Moderator of Fairness Perception. Paper to be presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychologists.
  • Dakof, G.A., Quille, T.J, Tejeda, M. J., Alberga, L.R., Bandstra, E, Szapocznik, J. (2003). Enrolling and retaining mothers of substance exposed infants in drug abuse treatment. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 71(4), 764-772.
  • Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire revisited: Psychometric properties and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 31-52.
  • Dakof, G., Tejeda, M. J. & Liddle, H. A. (2001) Predictors of Dropout in family-based treatment for adolescent drug abuse. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 274-281.
  • Bobko, P. & Tejeda, M. J. (2000). The centrality of the liberal arts to management education. Journal of Business Education, 12, 1-10.
  • Scandura, T.A., Doerr, K.H. & Tejeda, M.J. (2000). Employee Attitudes Toward Organizational Change: The Implementation of Total Quality Management. Advances in the Management of Organizational Quality, 5, 71-94.
  • Newman, F. L. & Tejeda, M. J. (1996). The need for research designed to support decisions in the delivery of mental health services. American Psychologist, 51, 1040 1049.
  • Scandura, T. A., Tejeda, M. J. & Lankau, M. J. (1995). An examination of the validity of the sex role egalitarianism scale (SRES KK) using confirmatory factor analysis procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 832 840.
• Not delete: I wrote the original article adding Miami Cubans who are noted scientists. What are the criteria for notability then? I saw a lack in the List_of_Cubans section and added ones I had heard of.
  • The standard criteria is "above average" and is usually applied as "well above average when compared to all professors in the world". Typical measures include number of papers, evidence that a particular paper or novel thought was seminal (sometimes measured via citations in the papers of others), international awards such as the Nobel Prize, etc. Most professors must "publish or perish" so a dozen or more articles can still be average. Rossami
• Delete. Non-notable individual. — Gwalla | Talk 02:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I have list of papers 30 times longer. The article says nada, nothing, what exaclty notable he did. Mikkalai 08:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 09:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Irc.scene.org -- 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

Irc.scene.org: Wikipedia is not a web guide. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:29, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Kairos 04:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete; clear violation of WP:NOT. • Benc • 05:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I stared at it with finger on the Delete key. Truly clear delete. Geogre 12:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable minor IRC network; so tiny not even SearchIRC knows about it. — Gwalla | Talk 02:37, 14 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.

Zeta Creations -- 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

Non-notable manufacturer of sex toys. Page is only created as an ad for their website. Now excuse me while I go take a shower. RickK 03:56, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect into dildo or some other appropriate page; this doesn't need its own article. Side note 1: apparently this page's existence has come up before on the IRC channel; check out m:IRC channels/Quotes. Side note 2: I'm off to rinse my eyeballs out with dishwasher detergent now. • Benc • 05:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: ad. Who needs the redirect? If a subcommunity of a subcommunity really needs animal shaped penises, then they can spread the joy hand to hand. This project does not serve private needs and does not take advertising. Geogre 12:47, 13 Sep 2004 (UTCC)
• Delete. WikiSpam. — Gwalla | Talk 03:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I'd forgotten about the advert rule. Oops. -- Aphrael Runestar 20:37, 2004 Sep 14 (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.

Edited dvds -- 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

This article is almost all POV -- the author's opinion as to why edited DVDs are preferable to unedited ones. JamesMLane 04:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Kairos 04:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. POV rant, possible advertisement. • Benc • 04:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not an encyclopedia article. I have disabled the external links for the duration of this discussion. —Stormie 05:45, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• The phenomenon of selling DVD movies with sex and/or violence edited out is worth an article; it has a lot of implications for copyright and artistic meaning. Unfortunately, I can't remember what the name for this phenomena is. Where can this redirect to? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:22, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Reads like something from someones weblog. This shouldn't redirect at all, as they're DVDs not dvds. Delete. Average Earthman 09:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 09:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. What a nerd. Binadot 09:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Personal rant. The bowderlized movies can be mentioned under censorship or decency or some other spot. This particular phenomenon is going to rapidly evolve, and in a year ClearPlay and others are going to be as quaint as the PMRC is now. Geogre 12:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Written in the first person, entirely POV, and gave one of those "fake personal endorsements" advertising feel as well. It'd be nice to see an actual encyclopedic article on the phenomenon, but this is most certainly not it. Spatch 15:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete especially now, when the original author tried to remove the VFD-notice --Deelkar 18:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's just part of the author's persistent attempts to spam his censored DVD shop. I've had to block him. -- Hadal 18:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It might be possible to write a more acceptable article on the topic (perhaps something like DVD Censorship), but as is, it's not at all acceptable. --Improv 11:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This seems like an ad.
• Delete. POV rant, incorrect title. A real article on the phenomenon and controversy can be started at a better title (like Edited DVDs or DVD censorship (although the latter is borderline POV)). — Gwalla | Talk 03:25, 14 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.

Daniel Santiesteban -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable doctor. RickK 04:16, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Comment, no vote. Google gets 113 hits [12], which is a borderline pass on the Google test (see precedents). ("Santiesteban" is a possible misspelling of "Santisteban".) It does look like he's got a decent publication or two. I could go either way on this one (leaning towards delete), but I abstain. • Benc • 04:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • You may wish to consider that almost everyone with a PhD has a decent publication or two. Getting something published doesn't establish notability, by far. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:54, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Although it certainly can't hurt in establishing notability, which is why I mentioned it for consideration. • Benc • 19:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Google hits given on the bogus precedents page are equally bogus as an indication of anything. We've had articles on people and things with less than 113 Google hits getting accepted and ones with far more that have been rejected. A lot of us on this list get more than 113 hits on Google. Jallan 19:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the Google test is inherently flawed — especially for relatively low hit counts — because certain subjects are more likely to appear on the web than others. The precedents page is likewise flawed as a direct result of this. Despite their flaws, both the Google test and WP:VFDP are worth at least a critical glance in situations like this — which is why I mentioned both in my comment. • Benc • 19:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Article is incorrectly title. I see most of the Santiesteban links referring to a baseball player. If this article is meant to refer to a doctor, it looks like Santisteban is the correct surname(Web of Knowledge finds 18 journal articles by D Santisteban, none by D Santiesteban). Although the number of articles isn't very high, some of them have over 30 citations, so it's borderline to me (no vote). If kept, this article should be moved to Daniel Santisteban. Average Earthman 09:46, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability. Fwiw as the article is almost certainly vanity or friendly promo, I would guess the name is written correctly. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't agree with that guess, and believe that it is an error in the title, because using a Web of Science search, I find there are no papers for a D Santiesteban with a Miami affiliation, and a number for a D or DA Santisteban, affiliated with the University of Miami, and on topics such as Addressing immigration-related separations in Hispanic families with a behavior-problem adolescent - right affiliation, right subject area. I think that's pretty damn conclusive that the surname has been spelled incorrectly. Average Earthman 08:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Needs more evidence of notability. Jallan 19:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable physician. — Gwalla | Talk 03:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 09:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Borderline keep. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 05:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tristen Citrine -- Add to this discussion

Some unnotable cosplayer. Pyrop 05:03, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. I couldn't care less about cosplay, but she gets over 1,000 Google hits [13], so she's apparently well-known in cosplay circles. • Benc • 05:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I'd like to take a moment and note how my name nets over 1,000 hits on google, but yet I don't deserve an article. Can I get one if I wear fake cat ears at anime cons? Delete -- Bobdoe 06:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• The google test isn't that good - someone who posts 1000 times to Slashdot could probably get 1000 hits on Google - does that make them notable? Unless she is an actual organiser of significant events in this 'cosplayer' thing, or appears at these events as a specifically invited guest (and since the article doesn't mention any such thing, I shall assume not) delete. Average Earthman 12:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Many of the points I would make have been made by others: Google is biased to people who post a lot to the Internet, so she probably gets more hits than Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. As for what she has done, it appears to be far and away too subtrivial for encyclopedic coverage. Geogre 12:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. My name gets > 1000 hits on Google, and I'm certainly nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:48, 13 Sep 2004

(UTC)

• Delete unless the article changes to give more evidence of notablility. She does seem to be a true BNF in the small pond of Cosplay from the Google evidence and the vast majority of references are not her own hype. There seems to be some status to having a costume that she has made. But there are various other BNFs in their own fandoms and numerous Bloggers and amateur trampoliners and so forth, save amine costumes are more photogenic and accordingly more likely to be webworthy and so increase the number of hits in revelance to importance. Jallan 19:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless more evidence of notablility provided. FWIW I get over 2000 Google hits on my own name, after removing people with the same name.--Ianb 20:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. My name gets > 22,000 hits. (And my user name here gets > 5,700.) By just putting in my two most-used user names, I can get over 1,200 hits, most of which actually refer to me. 1,000 hits on Google for a person who spends any time on the internet is not terribly significant—it is necessary to demonstrate significance in some other way.--[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 01:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems to be something of a minor celebrity in anime fan circles, invited to cosplay panel discussions and such. — Gwalla | Talk 03:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 09:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Well known in certain circles. Has had her own booth at several notable conventions. Rhymeless 09:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, though I'm willing to change my vote if the article is updated to explain exactly why/how she is notable. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:41, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Namik Kemal -- 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

• In Turkish. On Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English over 2 weeks. Looks not encyclopedic, possibly related to football (soccer). Delete for sure unless translated, my guess is that at least most of it is not worth saving. -- Jmabel 07:11, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• delete. Mikkalai 08:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Not translated, so we're not sure it's about the figure who his maginally notable. Geogre 12:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. Britannica says it's a 19th century Turkish writer, but this may be someone with the same name. — Gwalla | Talk 03:41, 14 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.

Comments

Untitled

"Had he accepted the offer, he would've been the first Turkish player to transfer to a European club." this is not true. Can bartu was the first turkish player to transfer to a european club in 1961 to ACF Fiorentina from Fenerbahce SK. so Bulent defenitly could not have been the first!

Discussion

Article listed on WP:VFD Sep 13 to Sep 20 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

• In Turkish. Footballer. Stub, not sure even if it's on-topic. Over 2 weeks on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Delete. -- Jmabel 07:23, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep fixed stub - Jmabel 23:59, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 08:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Untranslated page on a marginal figure, if it's really about him. Geogre 12:37, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've started a new stub article in English. And the most capped Turkish footballer is certainly not "marginal". sjorford 13:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The new stub looks like something worth keeping to me. Livajo 16:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Turkey is a major national football team (3rd best in 2002 World Cup) and this is their most capped player. That's very notable and we now have a good stub in English (instead of the mysterious Turkish text). Andris 18:03, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable athlete. — Gwalla | Talk 03:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable footballer. Average Earthman 08:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. As Andris said, Korkmaz is the most-capped player on one of today's leading football nations (third at the 2002 World Cup, and in the top 15 of the most recent FIFA World Rankings). Dale Arnett 05:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 08:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bülent Korkmaz. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111112003036/http://www.kardemirkarabukspor.org.tr:80/haber_detay.asp?id=1443 to http://www.kardemirkarabukspor.org.tr/haber_detay.asp?id=1443

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) 17:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bülent Korkmaz'12 (cropped).JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• notable footballer, keep \ wolfenSilva / 15:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Record of September 2004 deletion discussion

Article listed on WP:VFD Sep 13 to Sep 20 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

• In Turkish. Footballer. Stub, not sure even if it's on-topic. Over 2 weeks on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Delete. -- Jmabel 07:23, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep fixed stub -- Jmabel 18:44, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.Mikkalai 08:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Stub on a non-notable figure, untranslated. Geogre 12:36, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've started a new stub in English. As the second most capped player for Turkey, he's definitely notable. sjorford 13:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. New stub looks nice. bbx 17:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable. Not sure if the old stub in Turkish was on-topic, but now we have a nice stub in English. Andris 17:59, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic material, notable, good stub. Livajo 18:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable footballer. Average Earthman 08:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A good start on a very well-known footballer. Dale Arnett 05:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

End discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No source provided

This part has been removed, reason is "no source provided". :His relatives were Albanian immigrants from Kosovo who bared the familyname Shyqiri, that later developped in the Turkish form Şükür. This is what makes Hakan to be loved both in Turkey as well as in Albania. --Ugur Basak 08:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I took it off because the user who added it in has not substantiated his/her claim on his supposed albanian roots. The {{Fact}} tag has been here for over a month now, but still no source was provided. Im not sure about Şükür, but Hakan is a typical turkish first name. KillaShark 11:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I just add this to talk page, if someone can provide sources in the future. Btw, i've added that {{fact}} template for someone to give a source. --Ugur Basak 12:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Şükür is a word close to "thank". We use the phrase "Allah'a şükürler olsun" which means "thank God". -- WiiVolve 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

FIFA Top Scorer Award 1998

Where is there a source on this? I can't find any credible information that he won such an award, let alone finding any information if there was even an award. The European Golden Boot is ruled out, because Mario Jardel won it in 1998. Also, it could not have been the FIFA Golden Shoe, as Turkey did not qualify for the World Cup in 1998. Can 03:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nickname

I removed Torinolu Şaban nickname, because it means Şaban the Torinian. This nickname is only used by rival clubs fans to insult him. --Ugur Basak 10:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

FALSE

Turkish Newspaper:

http://www.milliyet.com.tr/1997/02/27/spor/gs.html

Search Google:

http://www.google.com.tr/search?hl=tr&q=Torinolu+%C5%9Eaban

This nickname is only used by all supporters fans to insult him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.97.151.203 (talk • contribs) .

In milliyet's link, he doesn't say i like that nickname. He means noone can demoralize me with that words. Also GS fans don't call him as Torinolu Şaban, as your link supports, rival fans call him. Cheers --Ugur Basak 21:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugur Basak galatasaray supporters nicname no want.

Nicknamed the "Bull from Bosporus", Sinan Samil Sam

Hakan Sükür No nickname The Bull of the Bosphorus. Nickname Hakan Sükür = Torinolu Şaban

http://www.google.com.tr/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=torinolu+%C5%9Faban

http://sourtimes.org/show.asp?t=torinolu%20şaban

http://www.zamane-sozluk.com/tr/sozluk.asp?x=torinolu%20saban

Of course Sukur means something in turkish but his family changed surname after coming to Turkey.

Nickname (???)

some people like or not, Hakan is known by most people as the most idiotic turkish footballer ever. that's why he is being called as Saban the Torinian. People do not call him Saban the Torinian in order to insult him, but it is just because he is Saban. and another fact that should be mentioned in his article that he demanded 100.000 capasitated mosque to be built in Turin when he transferred to Torino. He probably noticed in Turin that many italian living in Turin and there was no mosque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.53.115 (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we need the list?

Seriously, do we need a list of all his international goals? I can't see in any way how this fits into an encyclopedia. I think that part should be removed or seriously shortened (we don't need 4 lines if he shot 4 goals in one game). 213.157.11.56 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We do need it because his performance at national games is big for Turkey. This person did a lot for Turkish football and I think there is a right for it to stay on Wiki.

wtf? hes goals change evrytime u change the language

i want to speak to the r..ard that mad this piece of s..t website!

• Did not even have the guts to sign...Pityful!!! - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Christian?

On the bottom of the page, there is a link to a page called 'Turkish Christians'. I am very sure Hakan Şükür is not a Christian. If anybody has a source for this, please post.rokkafellah (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Şükür Hakan ethnic Albanian

All right, enough with this non-sense. Find a source or let this die already. I don't know which is more surprising, seeing how easy it is to substantiate a baseless claim or people continue to discussing this without a source (credible or otherwise). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.236.184 (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This is now well established with several personal announcements from Hakan Sukur himself, stating he is ethnically Albanian, from several credible Turkish news outlets, including NTV, Radikal, and Fanatik. Amended the article accordingly, with the full references. Enozkan (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The name Hakan is certainly Turk and as per his family name Şükür/ Shyqiri, I guess that is more related to Islam in general than to Turkishness in particular.

Arabs and Berbers have the word "shukry" or "chukry" which means "cherished" and "shokran /shukran" for "thanks". Albanians were one of the prominent people under the Ottomite Empire and most Muslim Albanians bear Turkish names and even family names seem Turkish, although ethnic Albanian.

I remember that once, in the Italian RAI TV, after a game clash with Igli Tare, the Albanian stricker, the Italian journalists seeking for tabloid news were pointing that a sort of "Balkanic War" had erupted between these two players. Here is where Hakan commented his kosovar ancestry, dennying any sort of animosity.

I also remember that in this Wikipedia´s article there was a source in Turkish (or Albanian, I am not really sure ...) that pointed out Şükür´s Kossovar descent, but it was erased. I assume that Turkish fanatics do not like very much when Albos claim the best player in all Turkish Soccer History to be one of them.

Personally, I do not understand this attitude: Lefter Küçükandoniŷadi was of Greek descent but proudly defended the Turkish colours with honor, the same way Hakan did.Periptero (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

he is not an ethnic albaian. albanian immigrants and ethnic albanians are different things. lefter was an ethnic greek but theres not any word about your dream.--94.54.245.56 (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Albanian immigrants are not "ethnic" Albanians ? Albanian immigrants to Turkey are "ethnic" Turks then ? Maybe in Atatürk's POV. By the way, there is an article in a Kosova daily where an investigation was carried out, and finaly Hakan declared (apparently, nead to check) that he was part Cherkess from his paternal side, part Torbesh from his mother's. Anyway, he seems not to be from Turk or Turkic or "ethnic" Turk origin. Still one of the greatest Turkish strikers ever.Periptero (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

theres not any source about your claim Periptero...--Finn Diesel (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

hakan şükür is an ethnic Uzbek Turk whose familiy was immigrated from Balkans, as he states so.--Alpha Beta Gaga (talk) 12:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I claim nothing. I just point out what I have got through. In an interview from "Kosova Sot" newspaper in 2001, Hakan stated he's NOT Albanian, therefore end of the question.

As a matter of fact, he pointed out that his family migrated to Prishtine and Mitrovice. His grandfather was a Cherkez officer in the Turkish army sent to surpress the Albanian Insurgency lead by Isa Boletini and Hasan Prishtina back in 1910's.

This is his only tie with Kosovo, nothing to do with kosovar albanians. Since I have no link source yet, I write it down here and not in the text.Periptero (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is now well established after Hakan Sukur's announcement, where he called himself "an Albanian, not a Turk", which made the news and even the Turkish Primer Minister commented on it. Including the appropriate references (which were already in the Turkish Wikipedia), I am amending the article to reflect this (and hopefully ending this senseless discussion). Enozkan (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

POV

A lot of unsourced POV text in here that oughtn't to be. "...the country's greatest football star" and "...an unselfish nature and a penchant for scoring crucial and memorable goals has assured him of a special place in the hearts of Turkish football fans" are two prime examples. Dancarney (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mistake

Can Bartu(Fiorentina) is the first Turkish footballer played in Serie A, not Hakan Şükür.--94.54.240.54 (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosova

There was a link provided by a user (User:Kedadi) stating that Şükür was born to "a Kosovo Albanian" father. I kept the link but I changed to "kosovar" father, since there is no reference about his family being albanian and there are other ethnicities in Kosova than albanians (comprising Turks)

Here below is the article provided:

"Hakkan Şükür, ish-futbolisti i Interit dhe i Galatasarayt është me prejardhje nga Kosova. Babai i tij ka lindur në Prishtinë, ndërsa më vonë është shpërngulur në Turqi"

This is the translation to English:

Hakkan Şükür, the former Galatasaray and Inter Milan footballer is originally from Kosovo. His father was born in Pristina, and later moved to Turkey"Periptero (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No he is born in Turkey so he is Turk. Redman19 (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

edits

If you want to edit something please discuss it here first, dont revert the whole page. Redman19 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'll now try to defend my changes, as i have to a lesser extent in your talkpage: 1 - why a poorer picture instead of a better one, in colours? If it's copyright violation, please tell me, if it's not please the other stay - and i am not enhancing my work, since it was not me who put the other picture in the infobox, i think it's better, wait...IT'S BETTER!

2 - The intro was filled with POV/weasel - exhaustive repetition of how good he was, when one time is enough - forbidden by Wikipedia, i toned it down a little bit - i also admit i should not have removed everything, i apologize for that, but please let me contribute to the article as well, rephrasing some stuff - especially in INTRO - or do you feel i do not have the right? Also in the introduction, which was needlessly long - it's called INTRODUCTION - why was the bit about his Serie A and Premier League (especially the latter is important, as this is English wiki) removed? I reinstated it.

3 - Another thing which is "compulsive" here at at the site is that birthplaces should be introduced in storyline, not intro, i retrieved it and you reverted it, wrongfully.

4 - Wording: no need to say "Süper Lig" over and over again, over and over again, just "league" is enough after the first reference. I also see that some of my wikilinks to football seasons were removed. Perhaps i was not the only one reverting/removing stuff without discuss stuff first...

5 - In infobox, just "Adazapari" is enough, we'll add both town and province in storyline itself, box should be compressed as much whenever possible. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we should just let an admin check the page. Redman19 (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Will go through it point by point.

• I'm glad you could come to an agreement on the photo as the current one is much better.
• I'm reinstating the link changes under Statistics and Honours. I feel this should not be controversial, as the displayed names do not change, only the links to avoid redirects.
• Looking at featured articles on footballers, three that I can see - Bobby Robson, Steve Bruce and Thierry Henry have province information in the info box. As featured articles are reviewed and fine tuned extensively toward manual of style guidelines, I believe it is appropriate to leave the province in this infobox. The town, province and country do not make the infobox any bigger in this case as far as I can see and having the information there would not seem to be detrimental.
• "Hakan Şükür is considered as the best there was for Turkey and absolutely one of the finest strikers European Cup football has witnessed. He is also considered by many to be the greatest individual athlete that the country has ever produced." - this should be removed, it reads too much like an opinion which is not what we are aiming for. If there were a quote out there from a reliable source saying something along those lines, I think we should definitely include it in the career section and attribute it as a specific experts opinion.
• I'm of the opinion that the Serie A and EPL lines should be removed from the intro, looking at the players career these were very minor stints (5 games in 1995 in the Serie A and 9 games in 2008 in the EPL). I think it should be mentioned that he appeared in 392 league games, or 545 games across league and cup games for Galatasaray (assuming the infobox and stat tables are correct) as this is a much more notable achievement. In general, the rest of the intro proposed by Vasco is cleaner, so I would be in favor of retaining most of the wording apart from that mentioned above and perhaps a slight tweak to wording of the fastest world cup goal.
• Can we get confirmation on the number of league goals scored with Sakaryaspor? The infobox says 19 but the statistics table says 10. We should verify which is correct and keep that text, along with fixing either the infobox or the table.
• The note on the specific manager that called the player up is better suited under the International career section.
• Let's remove "national giants" from Vasco's proposed edit but keep the rest of that section. The term is subjective and isn't precise.
• Can we confirm, did he help Galatasaray win the cup or the league in 95/96? The two versions say different things at the moment, so we have to get it right.
• We should wikilink ESM Golden Boot to European Golden Shoe to give context.
• "Şükür would win the Gol Kralı award the following two seasons, scoring 32 and 19 goals during the 1997–98 and 1998–99 seasons respectively, with Galatasaray winning the title in those two seasons." is a bit clearer with specific mentions of the years involved. I'd ideally use a mix of both versions here.
• Was he part of the 2ooo Super Cup winning team? One version includes this, but the other doesn't. We should include it if he was, leave it out if he wasn't. Otherwise prefer the wording from Vasco here for the most part.
• Prefer the wording in Redman's Inter section, "faring slightly better" and "underperforming" being subjective, although "Coming off several successful years with many trophies" should probably be removed as well.
• Definitely remove the bestfootballer.com line, looks to be a public voting site and not a reliable source
• Prefer the section from Vasco starting with "Şükür returned to Galatasaray", although I would remove "only" from the wording.
• The final line of the Club career section should probably include information on both the 05/06 season and the 07/08 season if he was part of the league winning team. I would be in favor of removing the slang phrase "hang up his boots" and replacing it with something more formal regarding retirement. The 38 European goals line looks out of place coming right after the post-career notes, we should find a better place for it.
• The "International career" section is best titled as such, for consistency with the "Club career" section.

Wow, I think that just about covers it. Let me know your thoughts, please get back to me on the important bolded questions, and if the response is positive, I'll go ahead and make the changes suggested above. Camw (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The idea was to discuss the issues, not try to add sources yet, but can you tell me what makes that site a reliable source and please read what I said about making it a specific quote that is attributed to an expert, at the moment it still reads like something a fansite might say. The problem wasn't that there was no source, it was that the way it was worded does not comply with policy. Camw (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• My inputs on your approach, point by point:

• 1 - Picture, sorted out;
• 2 - Statistics, also;
• 3 - Yes, it does not make the box longer (a bit it does!), but WP guidelines also say that birthplace should not be in intro, but body of article, where i had the full details about birthplace. OK, i can compromise on that one, no prob whatsoever;
• 4 - Here starts the big POV - saying over and over again how good Sukur was, when just once sufficed, i rephrased it, Redman reverted to his version - kind of like what he says i am doing! - period;
• 5 - I agree with you that his spells in Italy and England were very unassuming, will rephrase just one tiny bit and remove the rest;
• 6 - Goals for Sakaryaspor? The WWW.NATIONALFOOTBALLTEAMS.COM most of the times is dead-on in these situations, it says he got 19 in three seasons;
• 7 - Yes, Piontek should be mentioned in INT.CAREER, that's what i thought when relocating the info, Redman did not allow!;
• 8 - OK, i'll remove the bits "national giants" and akin in my approaches - even tough Galatasaray is one of the top three in Turkey - was and will be (?);
• 9 - No they did not! Wrong info again by Redman - please check the 1995/96 season wikilink at WP;
• 10 - Of course, the Golden Boot should be properly directed to its due wikilink, sorted;
• 11 - His "prowesses" from 1997-99: i tried to rephrase it, taking from here and there, Redman does not allow (have you been counting who has been removing more Camw?);
• 12 - No he did not win the 2000 UEFA Super Cup, he had left for Inter, so this does not have any relevance in Sukur's article, only in Galatasaray's IMO;
• 13 - I'll remove the subjective bits in his (second) Italian spell, sorted;
• 14 - I tried to remove the POVish approach in the BestFootballer.com lines, Redman did not allow, again!!;
• 15 - ?
• 16 - OK, i'll rephrase the text in his final years, no problem whatsoever, sorted;
• 17 - Yes, it should be CLUB CAREER and INTERNATIONAL CAREER, ask Redman why did he revert it;

• Will work again extensively in the article, trying to compromise will my opinions in all the aspects, respecting all the people involved (Red, Cam and myself). Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hakan Şükür. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925120930/http://www.goldenfoot.com/legends.php?l=en to http://www.goldenfoot.com/legends.php?l=en

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hakan Şükür. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150327002528/http://www.zaman.com.tr/spor_hakan-sukure-fifadan-kral-odul_2285083.html to http://www.zaman.com.tr/spor_hakan-sukure-fifadan-kral-odul_2285083.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402095712/http://www.zaman.com.tr/ahmet-cakir/hakan-sukure-cagri-o-kitabi-yayinlayalim_2168298.html to http://www.zaman.com.tr/ahmet-cakir/hakan-sukure-cagri-o-kitabi-yayinlayalim_2168298.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930221733/http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=166712&tarih=12%2F10%2F2005 to http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=166712&tarih=12%2F10%2F2005
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100621082941/http://www.footballteamplayers.com/hakan-sukur-biography.html to http://www.footballteamplayers.com/hakan-sukur-biography.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 18:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeshim Bayar Page 1

... says this, Resnjari :

…"I am Albanian, as such I am not a Turk." This line, quoted from a talk [Hakan Şükür] gave at a university, produced strong reactions the media, and soon Şükür was forced to clarify what he meant. He accused the media of taking his sentence out of context, stating that it was part of an answer to a question posed by a Kurdish student... Şükür had asserted "Racial narratives should be discarded to maintain national unity. If we embrace our fundamental differences as our divisions instead of our richness, we would lose. For example, I am of Albanian descent; from your point of view, I am not a Turk either." 

Şükür is not asserting an Albanian identity here (though also not denying it); he certainly is not denying himself a Turkish identity either. On the opposite, it is quite clear that he is instead actually asserting a Turkish identity preceding any Albanian (if any-- he only says "descent") and normatively asserting this should be so for the Kurdish too. If anything, this statement is a denial of the value (if not the authenticity) of Kurdish identity and by extention non-Turkish Albanian identity in Turkey. It is absolutely not what it was being portrayed on the page as. I think we need to either have the whole situation explained or none of it-- the previous version really is very misrepresentative on this BLP. Personally I don't think this belongs here; it says a lot more about Turkey than about Hakan Şükür, whose view is in fact very mainstream in Turkey and not that notable.--Calthinus (talk) 04:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus, i still don't see why we shouldn't have that in article. We can add more if you wish. Bayar is an academic and the source meets Wikipedia criteria. Sukur's comments did spark a debate as well and he did say the words "I am Albanian" in addition to his later clarification of being of Albanian descent. All Sukur's comments indicate is that he does not see ethnic heritage as being something that should divide Turkish society in being a Turk as well to maintain national unity. Sukur in no way rejected the premise that he was not of Albanian heritage or that he considered himself an Albanian (however he defines it for himself). Admissions of ethnic heritage in Turkey by people have gone between one end to another once more public avenues like the media or politics pick it up. The most prominent example being Erdogan who in 2000s admitted in Georgia he was of Georgian descent and in this decade recanting the whole thing as being made up by 'anti-Turkish elements' after it received public attention. Removing the sentence and source on Sukur does not suffice here.Resnjari (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It is interesting material but imo it belongs more on a page about ethnicity in Turkey than on the personal page of this (living) man. As I said I'm fine with keeping it, but only if we actually go into detail about what actually happened, and especially don't only leave the quote in it's incorrect form where it makes it sound as if he doesn't have a Turkish identity (he absolutely does). In this quote he said "I am of Albanian descent" (in the English as rendered by Bayar this is "descent" -- not "heritage" -- they are different) as per Yeshim Bayar -- "I am Albanian", maybe he said that somewhere else but not in this quote. Previously the page said he said "I am an Albanian, therefore I am not a Turk" -- that gives a very different impression than what his obvious intention was. "Ethnic heritage shouldn't divide us" is basically the politically correct mainstream view in Turkey that everyone will say they hold (unless they are a Kurdish separatist or an MHP voter)-- again, that and that a controversy could break out about this in sensationalist media pertains much more to a page like Demographics of Turkey than to Hakan Sukur with his very white bread views. That he is of Albanian descent, that is notable and can stay (of course). --Calthinus (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

He does have Turkish identity (as all citizens of Turkey do), but in his comments of "I am Albanian, as such I am not a Turk" and references to "descent" was a second comment after his first, he has never discarded his association with Albanianess (if one can use that term). Further details are fine, but both his comments would need to be in the article, as per Bayar. In the end he said both, his comments sparked a larger discussion about identity in Turkey as a whole, and media backlash forced him to clarify. It was a important event that year in his life and we have Bayar which is an academic source, as opposed to tabloid media. About adding this to Demographics of Turkey is ok.Resnjari (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

1) As per Bayar, there was no second versus first comment. There was only ever one comment: "For example, I am of Albanian descent; from your point of view, I am not a Turk either". Crappy media butchered it, misunderstanding and scandal ensued, he called the media out, the media apologized and corrected itself. He only ever said one, the "second". This is all in Bayar page 1-2, which I own. The alleged "first statement" where he said he was an Albanian and not a Turk never happened, it was essentially a hoax.

2) This is a WP:BLP. "Insulting Turkishness" can land you in trouble as per a certain rather vague law still on the books in Turkey despite sustained international criticism. Theoretically. Now we have a situation here where the page said he said that, when the source cited explicitly contradicted that the statement had ever happened in reality. He is called a "Gulenist". Well Wiki will likely have little if any effect on his life given it is banned in Turkey, but, still, we should at least try to be ethical.

3) Off topic, but not everyone in Turkey has a Turkish identity, which is of course part of why this is such an issue. See also Kurdish nationalism, plus the "global citizens"/"humanists", Armenians, "Muslim only"s, a few Greeks, Syrians, etc...

4) I appreciate the notability of his relevance to the Albanian community. That can be mentioned. But not like this. --Calthinus (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Macedonian?

Şükür is of Albanian origin. Both his parents are immigrants from Yugoslavia, his father being born in Pristina, and his mother in Skopje. Both his parents from today Kosovo and North Macedonia. North Macedonia is independent state since 1991. 25% from its population are Albanians. He is not from Slav Macedonian origin. There are no sources supporting such view. Jingiby (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Terrorism

If Turkey charged him for terrorism through association with Gulen org, should we categorize his article that way? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• notable footballer, one of the most well known european attackers in the 90's, keep \ wolfenSilva / 15:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bryan Basham -- 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

Looks like the résumé of some not particularly notable employee of Sun Microsystems. Livajo 12:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: CV/resume. I'm not sure it really means that it's a Sun employee. Geogre 12:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Quadell (talk) 20:32, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not Monster.com. Note that it doesn't say he works for Sun, it says he's certified by Sun. — Gwalla | Talk 03:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I see no evidence of notability in this article. Average Earthman 08:38, 14 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.

VfD from Sep 2004

Article listed on WP:VFD Sep 13 to Sep 20 2004, consensus was to keep and list on cleanup. Discussion:

Heinrich Brandt fails to establish notability in the article. It hasn't been edited since its creation so it's not about to suddenly aquire the required context. Delete unless one of the auto-keepers finds some evidence of notability and adds it to the article. —Rory ☺ 13:05, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: You know, I'm with Rory. I think there probably is some notability, but I can't find it. If I were comfortable with German, perhaps the "Good Sources" external link might tell me. There are Wikipedians with German who might be able to clarify, so this is a provisional delete. Geogre 13:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Send to clean up. Geogre 00:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: inventor of the groupoid. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Clearly a notable person, but not yet a useful article. Send to cleanup. -- Jmabel 00:02, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup. Notable mathematician. — Gwalla | Talk 03:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Requires meticulous cleanup. Rhymeless 07:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

External link

I've removed this broken link:

• The foundational: "Über eine Verallgemeinerung des Gruppenbegriffes" where groupoid is first defined

-- Nabla 07:20:44, 2005-07-12 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heinrich Brandt. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160525162950/http://www.catalogus-professorum-halensis.de/brandtheinrich.html to https://www.catalogus-professorum-halensis.de/brandtheinrich.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 10:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

List of civilian killed by US force in Fallujah -- 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

Doesn't seem like a stand alone article is necessary. Rmhermen 15:48, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Unverifiable in the extreme. Also, there are supposed to be more than 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed by US forces in the latest war, plus any killed during the "No Fly Zone" days. Since the US military will not release estimates of numbers, we'll have zero ability to know the number, much less the names. Geogre 17:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable and it doesn't really serve a purpose. CR 18:02, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Quadell (talk) 20:31, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, ungrammatical title. — Gwalla | Talk 03:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - unnecessary. Deb 17:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I find "doesn't really serve a purpose" and "unnecessary" very shocking. I wonder whether the people who wrote that feel the same way about the Vietnam War memorial in the U.S.? The civilian deaths in Iraq and especially in Fallujah are woefully underreported in the mainstream media. Every day you can read about the n-th U.S. soldier who died, but most articles don't even bother to mention that the number of Iraqi civilians killed is at least an order of magnitude higher. Never mind, they're just Iraqis -- they don't really serve a purpose. The blanket assertion that entries on this page are "unverifiable" is wrong. They are potentially difficult to verify, but so is a lot of other stuff on Wikipedia, about political scandals etc. -- the standard procedure on Wikipedia is that if there are conflicting reports all opinions are voiced. If someone doubts a particular story, it can always be prefixed by "channel X reported that...". This is no reason to delete a page that could potentially give valuable information that is extremely hard to come by by other means. Fpahl 04:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • But there is no list of Americans killed in Vietnam, even though that list would be fairly-well verifiable. There's also no list of Israelis killed by Palestinians or list of Palestinians kliied by Israelis. These Fallujans aren't notable or encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an obituary list. (By the way, you're assuming the worst about those who voted to delete. I protest against the war every week. I wear a pin with the name of an Iraqi child killed in the bombings. But I know it doesn't belong on an encyclopedia.) Quadell, 11:45, Sep 15, 2004
    • I didn't assume anything merely on the basis of "Delete" votes, and I'm glad to read that your vote was based on an argument that I can appreciate. If the parents of the child whose name you wear had started this page and saw an argument that this sort of thing doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, they might agree, but if they just saw comments that this is "unnecessary" and "doesn't really serve a purpose" they would probably be offended. It's not a coincidence that you who apparently care about Iraqi children didn't write such a comment. Answering your argument, though: Take a look at Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks. One detailed listing after another, and a pointer to a special memorial site that even has its own separate hostname at Wikipedia -- all for a fraction of the people that have been killed by US gunmen and bombthrowers in Iraq sofar. These people were just as "unnotable" as the people killed in Iraq. This has all been thoroughly verified, since the tax money of the world's richest nation has been thrown at verifying it. If that nation cared as much about Iraqis as it cares about "its own", we'd have the same DNA tests for every single person killed in Fallujah. Verifiability cannot be separated from power and its abuses. We have two separate issues here. One is unsuitability for an encyclopedia. If this page is deleted for that reason (which I could accept), all those September 11 listings need to go. The other issue is NPOV. I note that you personally haven't claimed that this page is irremediably POV. I have yet to see an argument that distinguishes this page from other pages where there's difficult-to-verify stuff that needs to be prefixed with "channel X reported that", "it has been alleged that", etc. to make it NPOV. Capitalization is not an argument. Fpahl 08:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • As the discussion stands at 07:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC), I would find it very problematic if this page were deleted due to a majority of votes largely unsupported by arguments. There are important questions of the relationship between both verifiability and notability and power at issue here, and brushing these aside with a mention of the author's incomplete grasp of English grammar is highly inappropriate. The discussion has yielded a consensus (among those who addressed this question, both keepers and deleters) that this page is not more or less notable than Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It's not hard to imagine what will happen if this page is deleted and a corresponding deletion of the latter page is requested. There would be a massive outcry -- how dare we call into question the work of remembering those "heroes". Even if the keepers were to be in the minority (which I'm not sure they would), I doubt that anyone would want to risk an acrimonious edit war by deleting the article against their will. We would then be left in a situation where US victims of violence are listed in detail while victims of US violence are considered "unnotable". The last thing we need is another "fair and balanced" source that reports every single US death but doesn't particularly care for those swarthy types down in Iraq. One way to prevent this would be a common vote on both articles together. Another would be a continuation of the discussion on the connection between power and verifiability that I started; perhaps this would bring into focus the danger of writing only about what those in power want us to be able to verify. Fpahl 07:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - IT IS unverifiable. And more significantly totally POV. -- Crevaner 15:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable, quasi-POV, delete with extreme predjudice. Oh, and learn the difference between singular and plural, or stick to Sunniwiki. Terrapin 16:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Move to correct grammatical errors. Don't see any particular POV, and yes, if we have Casualties of September 11, why not this? Just because it is more poorly developed page? I'd prefer to see a few more people on it. I note there have been a few improvements since Vfd began...Bosmon 00:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. FWIW, I'd like to see Casualties of September 11 deleted too, and if it hasn't already been proposed for deletion, expect to see it here soon, courtesy of me. --Improv 17:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• D Perhaps it has a place alongside List of Wikipedians killed in VFD. Would it be missed? Didn't think so. Chris 00:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep of course, and additionally establish a Fallujah memorial wiki. (Or alternatively, delete and also delete the 9/11 memorial wiki.) Gzornenplatz 19:25, Oct 2, 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.

Portabello Eggs -- Add to this discussion

Portabello Eggs was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikibooks. As of 17:31, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), this article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

---

This is a recipe, not encyclopedic 15:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• (Note: the above was posted by CDN99) I vote to transwiki to Wikibooks. Livajo 16:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Ditto on the transwiki to Wikibooks. -- Bobdoe 17:05, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Tasty, but non-encyclopedic. TW to Wikibooks, and I volnteer to help with any, er, fact-checking required ;} -FZ 17:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete. I'll just take mine scrambled, please, with salt. Geogre 17:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Man, that sounds good, and while I usually try to rework recipes into proper articles this one is pretty self-explanatory. Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 05:45, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikicipes. Or whatever is closest. :) (And man, now I want to go to Village Inn and have their portabello-red pepper-eggs-and-home fries skillet.) - KeithTyler 19:12, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki - just not in the encyclopedia! --Cje 22:06, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki. Recipe. --Improv 23:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• This has already been discussed and decided. It is in the queue for transwiki to Wikibooks. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old#Needing Transwiki — Wikipedia:Transwiki log. Rossami

---

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.

Turkish Genocide -- Add to this discussion

The consensus was for this article to be speedily deleted, which it was. The discussion is still available here until this VfD listing expires.

John Kerry flip-flops -- Add to this discussion

This discussion has become very long. In order to improve the workability of the VfD page, I recommend that we no longer transclude this thread. Please click through this link to view or participate in the discussion. Thank you. Rossami 05:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John Kerry flip-flops

List of left-wing organizations in the USA -- Add to this discussion

This discussion has become very long. In order to improve the workability of the VfD page, I recommend that we no longer transclude this thread. Please click through this link to view or participate in the discussion. Thank you. Rossami 05:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of left-wing organizations in the USA

Praxis of 2636 -- Add to this discussion

The consensus was for this article to be speedily deleted, which it was. The discussion is still available here until this VfD listing expires.

Stage Chart Investing -- 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

Two google hits does not a popular investment scheme make. DJ Clayworth 21:06, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I'll buy into that: Delete --Tagishsimon
• Delete: copy and paste job from somewhere. I guess I won't get rich quick after all. Geogre 00:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete --Chessphoon 01:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable investment strategy. — Gwalla | Talk 04:04, 14 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 14

Kamal Assaf -- Add to this discussion

Vanity. --Diberri | Talk 01:10, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete --Chessphoon 01:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, not a notable figure. — Gwalla | Talk 04:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not seem notable, wtf. --Ianb 04:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Though the reference to the "evil basketball team" amuses me. Kairos 04:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough for Wikipedia, and apparently not evil enough for the basketball team. Average Earthman 08:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete candidate as a joke, but, well, I'll just vote delete wtf. Geogre
• Delete - speedy delete candidate - Tεxτurε 14:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Stone -- 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

Non-notable website promotion - google backlinks 66, alexa rank 823,801. --Chessphoon 01:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. --Ianb 04:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Kairos 04:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Geogre 12:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. WikiSpam. — Gwalla | Talk 20:15, 14 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.

Killian memos/Rather/20040913 -- Add to this discussion

Delete. Even if it is indeed public domain and we decide to keep it, it belongs on wikisource. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 01:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I doubt if it's public domain, as the copyright belongs to CBS if I'm not mistaken, and not the website from which the text was copied. POV stuff, Wikipedia doesn't need it & neither does Wikisource. Just delete it. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic, copyvio (broadcasting on TV does not put something in the public domain). — Gwalla | Talk 20:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Not worthy of Wikisource, not notable at all. More political campaigning via Wikipedia. Geogre 21:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikisource even if copyright status is declared. It is basically a transcript of Dan Rather's defence on charges that he based a 60 Minutes II story based on forged documents. Capitalistroadster 06:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikisource even if copyright status is declared. It is basically a transcript of Dan Rather's defence on charges that he based a 60 Minutes II story based on forged documents. Capitalistroadster 06:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

October 3rd 1989 -- Add to this discussion

The consensus was for this article to be speedily deleted, which it was. The discussion is still available here until this VfD listing expires.

Please Leave On -- 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

Not encyclopedic. Just a phrase. Joyous 02:43, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

• It might also be an indication that the educational institute is frequented by supporters of Yassir Arafat. Delete, not encyclopedic. Ianb 04:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Ianb, I don't understand what you're saying. Delete this baby anyhow.
    • If I saw PLO on a blackboard, the first thing that would come into my mind would be this PLO... --Ianb 17:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--Improv 17:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Kairos 04:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - TB 09:58, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
• And this isn't a speedy delete candidate? Why? Seriously. Delete it from before its birth. Geogre 12:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictdef. — Gwalla | Talk 20:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Jayjg 20:47, 14 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.

Cory Lavigne -- 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

I did some searches and couldn't find much of anything. Smells like vanity, since most of the article goes on and on about sand fleas that his brother had. Mike H 03:54, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Date of birth. Check. Hospital of birth. Check. Gratuitous family medical information. Check. Name of pet. Check. Yup, sounds like vanity, or possibly a prank. Delete. Ianb 04:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Kairos 04:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The medical information is so gratuitious that I suspect this is a prank. Average Earthman 08:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 09:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I suspect a prank, too, and then we have the usual weasel words "has received world wide attention." From whom over the wide world has this attention come? No word. Geogre 11:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It was Cory who was stricken with a rare parasitic disease later identified as a strain of leishmaniasis, not Devin. It is a typical wannabe case. LOSER! Your baseball season is over!

Above comment was by User:64.109.140.30

Note that the user also tried to nearly blank the article twice. I reverted and warned him that if he did it again that he could be blocked, as he was disrupting a VfD process. Mike H 13:05, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

• This is Cory Lavigne and this page was created as a prank. I would like it removed immediately before my career is adversely affected by this unfortunate attempt at humor. I will speak to the individual responsible and assure it will not happen again. Take it down please.
• I've seen lots of prank pages on Wikipedia, but this is a first: a prank page against somebody I went to high school with. My gawd. Delete obvious prank, with some surprise (given the content, not the subject) that this isn't actually a speedy. Bearcat 17:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It kinda sorta is, but it kinda sorta isn't. If it had been the author who had blanked it, we'd have nuked it by now. I reckon we'll give it another half day or so to see if Cory's brother has something to say. :-( Geogre 18:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) (VfD: a slow motion car wreck.)
• Delete. Vanity or prank; either way it's gotta go. — Gwalla | Talk 20:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete since the subject of the article has requested removal, and the vote so far is overwhelmingly for delete. I have requested speedy. -Vina 20:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Speedy deleted, per consensus Geogre 01:31, 16 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.

Roy Suryo -- 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

A Google gives ~2000 hits. More than one Wikipedian has placed {{notable}} on the article, but it keeps getting taken off. The "Hi, Roy!" message that I just reverted clinched it for me: I think this page is a vanity page, and is being used by Roy Suryo and a group of friends. --Ardonik.talk() 04:14, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

• I should note that an anonymous user attempted to remove the VfD notice in the hours since I nominated the page. I have restored it. --Ardonik.talk() 19:17, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I'm the original author of the article. I did very hard to be objective with the article, I even did a major rewriting from a suggestion in the talk page. What first motivates me to write this article is because there are some ongoing big cases involving the subject. However since the article is posted to a local mailing list, the subject himself and his opponents discover the article. I have the reason that the subject himself repeatedly removed various bits that against him. And the fact that his opponents are not experienced in wikipedia doesn't help either. I thereby support deleting this article. The reason are:

• I don't want Wikipedia becomes an extension of a local heated flame wars
• All the major positive contributions only come from me, I expect to get positive contributions from others, but I never get to see them.
• No matter I tried to be objective, there are parties who became unsatisfied with the article.

I wished this article didn't get very popular. I will consider rewriting this article when the situation has cooled down. So, vote DELETE from me!

--Priyadi 04:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Ambi 09:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Author wishes the delete, and the article shows no notability. Geogre 11:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who needs to delete when you have 1000 MB of storage?!

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.

Nohunters -- 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

Yet Another Internet Forum. The sites listed (nohunters.com and BattleReports.com) have Alexa rankings of 891,109 and 496,792 respectively, and do not seem to be notable in any way. Ianb 04:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Kairos 04:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Yath 06:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 09:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising. (There are professional Starcraft players?) Geogre 11:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamer clan vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 20:21, 14 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.

4our 5ided Trian6le -- Add to this discussion

Unnotable, to be sure. (And all that is on Google is a livejournal.) Adam Bishop 04:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Very unnotable. Kairos 04:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, unencylopedic and not notable. Get yerselves a blog or a geocities page, kids. Ianb 04:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --Yath 06:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. I would like to think of some way to salvage this page. So I write what I have to write here to the "kids," as you have been called above. I very much like the Trademark "4our 5ided Trian6le"--just BRILLIANT! Maybe you could write a page titled Four Sided Triangle that would be about the science fiction movie "Four Sided Triangle." Darn. But then you could not keep that snazzy title "4our 5ided Trian6le." But how about this. You could turn the page 4our 5ided Trian6le into a redirect that would point to the science fiction movie page Four Sided Triangle that would be at least as "notable" for Wikipedia as The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra. Notice, kids, that this is an exercise in "working the system" so that you "get on the boards." To get on the boards, you have to say what "they" want to hear--not what you want to say. If you turn this page into a science fiction movie page about the DVD of "Four Sided Triangle" in the format of The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, I will switch my vote to "KEEP" in a minute. Give me that chance! Get to work, kids, my friends, my good buddies, my inspirations, you barbarians. ---Rednblu 06:41, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Thue | talk 06:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 09:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: You guys game the system, and you'll still end up here, if you're writing about non-notable stuff and trying to make it fit into an encyclopedia. Geogre 11:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. The authors can create Wikipedia accounts and put this material on their Wikipedia user pages if they like. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nice idea, kids; listen to the man! I like that one. Thanks! You might even make User:4our 5ided Trian6le your signon id! Move quickly though, before one of us takes that one! ---Rednblu 16:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity, non-notable group of "filmmakers" with no films. — Gwalla | Talk 20:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Boulter--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

Delete. This page has been on wikipedia since August 2nd with no improvement and has little to no value as I can see it. It may even be a vanity or joke page considered its creator has just 2 edits. Arminius 05:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Probably true, but not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Delete. Ianb 06:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Move to List of English family names perhaps? --Yath 06:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Not enough value to merge. Delete - TB 08:39, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's litter folks. "Fingernut" is an uncommon surname, and so is "Booger." There is no merge, no redirect, and no tolerance. Geogre 11:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopedic - Tεxτurε 19:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not remotely encyclopedic. — Gwalla | Talk 20:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Jayjg 20:45, 14 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.

Dc Talk Solo -- 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

Dc Talk Solo: Non-notable fansite, Alexa ranking 4,567,473. Ianb 05:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. They could put a sentence in their link text in dc Talk, but an article isn't called for. --Yath 05:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete for spam. Geogre 11:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. — Gwalla | Talk 20:24, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable fansite. Fire Star 03:53, 15 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.

Fantrum -- 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

Neologism. SWAdair | Talk 08:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Yup, delete - google has 62 hits, none significant. Neologism. - TB 08:33, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: cute term, but neologism and fanboi lore. Geogre 11:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Agreed, delete. --Golbez 17:39, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, term not in common use among the community it's supposedly associated with. — Gwalla | Talk 20:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Jayjg 20:44, 14 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.

Shattered Sphere -- Add to this discussion

DELETE This article strikes me as just an advert for an online game a person is running themselves. It doesn't seem to be an official game run by a company. Also the link doesn't work so the game obviously is no longer running. (Ben W Bell 08:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Fatware -- Add to this discussion

Neologism, 2,000 hits on Google, but only 1,680 when restricted to English pages. Possibly redirect to something? James F. (talk) 10:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Merge This is more correctly referred to as Bloatware, but the Bloatware page redirects to Software bloat which is debatable whether or not the two should be one article. I would create a small article for Bloatware giving a small definition, redirect Fatware to it and have a link from Bloatware to Software Bloat. Ben W Bell 10:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't think that there is anything to merge with Bloatware, given the substub nature here. It could be made into a redirect, but that's assuming that the people who use the term "fatware" don't know the word "bloatware." I would suppose that they do, that they're using the word to indicate "not severe yet" whistle and bell inhibition. Geogre 11:44, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 11:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Software bloat -FZ 13:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I have heard the term "fatware" before, though it is considerably less common than "bloatware". Considering it commonly shows up in non-English pages on Google, I'd hazard a guess that it's a fairly common synonym among non-native English speakers who may be more familiar with the word "fat" than with the word "bloat". Not really neologism, but definitely dicdef. I'd redirect to Software bloat, and where that article says "...is called bloatware", I'd add an "or fatware" just to be nice. Bearcat 17:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to software bloat. Nothing to merge. — Gwalla | Talk 20:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to software bloat. Jayjg 20:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. Now I know why there wasn't an article :)... "Fatware" was part of the title of a PC Magazine or Byte article I read maybe ten years ago. I had never heard "bloatware". Vincent 23:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Looks like the tide of discussion has beached this whale on the redirect to software bloat, so I went ahead and did just that. --Michael Snow 16:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Web Boxing League -- Spar here

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

Another way kewel web game. Geogre 14:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Don't see any mention of games on VfD/Precedents, but I say this is the definition of non-notable. - Kbh3rd 14:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment: The precedents page is of fairly recent vintage and is meant to be more of a guide than a limitation, I believe. At any rate, the deletion guidelines are in force in any novel situation or old, as I hope those who crafted the Precedents page would agree. Geogre 17:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable web game. — Gwalla | Talk 20:35, 14 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.

Electronic direct democracy -- Add to this discussion

from VfD:

• Delete: This page contains information about a new political movement that would be better explained in the context of e-democracy. The text has been copied across to e-democracy. I created this page and I am the only one who has edited this page (bar User:Stevietheman who convinced me to put it up for deletion).
• I think a redirect to e-democracy would be prudent. The term electronic direct democracy has some currency and some Wikipedia searchers may want to look up that term. Besides, redirects are cheap. -- Stevietheman 17:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect without merge to e-democracy. I guess it's not surprising that Ross Perot would be in favor of computerized voting, when you remember his core business. Still, these are notable ideas in wide discussion. Geogre 18:00, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've made it a redirect, since the content had already been merged into the E-democracy article. 'nuff said. --Tagishsimon

• Keep redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 20:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

VfD

from VfD:

Fetter Five word dic-def. Little prospect of improvement, I think. --Tagishsimon

• Redirect to Bondage (sexual). Xezbeth 18:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I find that a silly idea. There are many more contexts in which the word fetter, or fettered, is used, than a sexual context. What is it with wikikiddies and sex? --Tagishsimon
  • Delete or Transwiki to wiktionary --Improv 18:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: No transwiki, as this is not a proper definition. No redirect, because "fetter" is a very common term for any prison, etc. No specific redirect is proper, and no Wiktionary. Geogre 20:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. There's nothing to transwiki. Someone can come along and add Wiktionary:Fetter properly later. --Ardonik.talk() 20:18, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. (Rather poor) dictdef. — Gwalla | Talk 20:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. "I am sick of the solace of sorrow/And fear what the prophets foretold;/I am tired of the tears of tomorrow/And wish that things were as of old;/I have felt of the force of the fetters/I have drunk of the draught that embitters/And all is not golden that glitters/And not all that glitters is gold." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) To those who have asked about the source of this alleged quotation, it seems to be very questionable. The earliest sightings are USENET postings to alt.quotations that appear as if they could be pranks; one posting attributes the quotation to "Winceburn."[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:23, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Rewritten, but still may need to be transwikied. -Sean Curtin 00:42, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Great rewrite, but dicdefs don't belong here. I have moved the article to Wiktionary:Transwiki:Fetter and listed it on the Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Transwiki log. My vote remains to delete. (By the way, to whoever expanded the article: linking almost every word in every sentence is frowned upon, because it leads to more substub dicdefs like this one.) --Ardonik.talk() 01:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • What links, if any, in the rewritten article were not directly appropriate to the topic? -Sean Curtin 04:12, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • I was specifically thinking of object, bind, person, animal, ankle, foot, and metaphorically. Even if we have articles on all of those links, it doesn't mean Fetter needed to link to all of them. A link should be directly relevant to the topic at hand, leading the user to click on it and learn more about a related subject. I ask myself in these instances: "What does an article on $WORD add to $SUBJECT? Will following that link teach the reader more about $SUBJECT?" Too many links look distracting and amateurish in my opinion, though I make exceptions for things like dates that ought to be linked anyway. Had this article been a real article instead of a dicdef, I would probably have unlinked most of those words during copyediting!
        Just my $0.02 USD.--Ardonik.talk() 04:40, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, by that logic, years should only be linked to if the article in question directly shaped the course of that year. I fail to see how "this is a metaphor" doesn't merit a link to metaphor, or how "this is used on the feet and ankles" doesn't merit a link to foot or ankle. Nevertheless, we seem to have quite divergent opinions on the matter, so I won't press the issue. -Sean Curtin 23:23, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

BDSM

How on earth is this a BDSM stub? Fetters are not exclusively, or even primarily, bondage gear. Their designed, intended, and actual purpose is restraint. I've removed that tag. --Blackcap | talk 00:46, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

puzzle_lock versus Lock_puzzle

May I point out that puzzle_lock is not about a hidden mechanism which eventually may open if one has solved an enigma and is in the know of the mechanism or finds out about some kind of key to use. It is about a mechanism that reliably locks, without the use of a key, only to be opened by removing a chain (secured elsewhere) or by brute/destructive force. -- Klaus with K (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Shackles

Article currently starts with "Fetters, shackles, footcuffs or leg irons are a kind of physical restraint used on the feet or ankles". Wondering about article mentioning that shackles are also placed around wrists. (Wiktionary says shackles "Restraints, ..., placed around a prisoner's wrists or ankles to restrict their movement.") --EarthFurst (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110521185035/http://go.galegroup.com/ to http://go.galegroup.com/

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Rename article to "Fetters" - Seeking consensus.

Legcuffs is just not a word that I (or my peer group) am at all familiar or comfortable with... IMHO, legcuffs sounds like a colloquialism rather than a proper word. One would not title a Wikipedia article, "Telly" or "TV" instead of "Television." For that reason, I move that the title be changed from Legcuffs to Fetters. Oppose or Agree below, please. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Mozilla (version) -- Add to this discussion

Content is not and never will be encyclopedic, is a source text, and is of narrow interest, based literally on source material available elsewhere (on mozilla.org). Just provide a pointer from the main page instead of maintaining this fragile article. --Improv 18:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

• See below for why I brought this back to VfD --Improv 15:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

• Delete. Mozilla is easily one of the most notable pieces of software ever, but this is a level of detail inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Few people are going to be interested in this information, and none of them are going to look for it on Wikipedia rather than on the Mozilla web site. —Triskaideka 18:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• This is just plain silly- noboy goes to an encyclopedia for this, and there's no way we can keep it up to date. Delete. -FZ 18:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: One more time: if they have the program, they have this. If they don't have the program, they don't need this. Not encyclopedic. Geogre 20:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Per Ardonik's suggestion, merge and redirect to Mozilla#Version. Geogre 00:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Evidently linked from Mozilla#Version and modeled after Mozilla Firefox#Release history. I agree that care must be taken to keep Mozilla and Mozilla Firefox fans from turning those articles into gigantic compendiums of all things Mozilla, and I don't think that table is encyclopedic, but I'll have to admit that the Firefox table (while equally unencyclopedic) adds a nice touch to the Firefox article. Perhaps we can cut it down to size, copy the style, and incorporate it into the Mozilla article? My vote is to merge and redirect to Mozilla#Version, though I would not be opposed to deletion. --Ardonik.talk() 20:17, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I like that idea. To a section of Mozilla it should go. Geogre 00:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Not encyclopedic. — Gwalla | Talk 20:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:28, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, indeed. Andre 00:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Move it back to a section on Mozilla. -Wins oddf
• Trim it down to major versions and merge into Mozilla. - KeithTyler 18:42, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - let the Mozilla project worry about their version history. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Trim and merge with Mozilla. Jayjg 15:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

• Followup: SimonP removed the VfD notice from the page, leaving the page intact contrary to votes cast (delete: 6, redirect: 6). I am restoring the VfD pending proper resolution. --Improv 15:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

• It is not the job of the person clearing out VfD/Old to merge articles, a task that requires much effort and often specialist knowledge. Thus I moved the page to pages to be merged, as I do all such pages. Improv what do you want? If you want the page merged then leave it where it was or do the deed yourself. If you want it deleted then it is bad form to relist a page on VfD the day after it has been removed. Either wat this page should not be back on VfD. - SimonP 17:33, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Looks like this is either up for discussion or not. Here's my two cents: I agree with most of the comments above, but most particularly with Ardonik and KeithTyler. CF Timeline of Linux development. It's also notable that the article is an orphan. Rossumcapek 17:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• This should not be up for renomination yet. SimonP closed the page correctly. 6 delete and 6 redirect fails to reach concensus and defaults to keep - in this case, with a recommendation to merge and redirect. Since anyone can do a merge and redirect, that is not a required action for the admin who is closing the debate. The only change I would recommend is to ask SimonP to document his decision a bit more clearly. Rossami 19:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• SimonP removed it without leaving any kind of public notice anywhere that that was what happened. I communicated with him, and he said he put it up on list of pages to be moved. I am satisfied with this, but wish he had documented his action more clearly. --Improv 19:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MelBone -- 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

Looks like a system or service operated by a now-defunct ISP which itself lacks an article. Notability would have been dubious even when the ISP was in business, certainly more so now. melbone: 219 Google results, most or all unrelated or mispellings. melbone ausbone -wikipedia: 2 Google results. VFD notice was added on 1 July by User:Poccil, but I don't see evidence of an actual VfD discussion, and I can't imagine the article would have survived VfD looking like it does. —Triskaideka 19:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Melbourne backbone, eh? No evidence of notability. Geogre 19:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable defunct mass of wires. — Gwalla | Talk 20:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• MelBone should redirect to AusBone, which I believe is (or was, as it is defunct) notable enough for a WP article; however WP lacks an article on it. Unfortunately I don't know much about it at all. Move and redirect to AusBone as a stub? BTW, for the user asing what an IX is, see Internet Exchange Point. -- Chuq 00:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, and don't create a stub elsewhere to redirect to. I don't think either are notable. Ambi 08:34, 16 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.

Aesop's belly and the other members -- 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

[Un]original research. --Chessphoon 20:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Essay and not properly reasoned. Paul's use of body images is not at all related to Aesop. First person essay. Geogre 00:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not encylopedic. Ianb 14:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for good reasons noted by others. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:58, 15 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.

Jason Hyland -- 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

Non-notable / vanity. --Chessphoon 20:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I congratulate him on his accomplishments, but they're not sufficiently notable to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. The only one of the websites linked that has an Alexa rank is CML Watch, and it's over four million. —Triskaideka 22:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: advertising, vanity, non-notable web guide. Geogre 00:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Subtracting hits from hylandfamily.org leaves only 147 hits. SWAdair | Talk 08:36, 15 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.

Occupation of Palestine -- Add to this discussion

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.

{{OoP mess}} If you add a formal vote, please update the Tally too, as this page has become too long to just go through it and search for votes. Discussion if the vote is still open belongs in the Tally's talk page.

{{OoP mess}} Tally 11:18, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

• Delete (18) - Jayjg, RK, Andrewa, Improv, Masterhomer, Viriditas, Zero, IZAK, Humus sapiens, Rex071404, Xtra, Nyh, Josiah,JFW | T@lk, YUL89YYZ, Cecropia | Talk, Dovi, Evolver of Borg
• Redirect and protect redirect (8) - Sean Curtin, Gadykozma, [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]], Adam, BACbKA, Etz Haim, Snowspinner, Jewbacca
• Redirect (4) - Ambi, Yath, Gazpacho, —No-One Jones
• Redirect or Delete (1) - Chessphoon
• Keep (15) - Node, Pjacobi, pir, Ce garcon, Joseph E. Saad, Jongarrettuk,HistoryBuffEr, Irate, _R_, Xed, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason , Gzornenplatz, Ropers(see comment #1), User:CeasefireNow
• Move all info about the Israeli occupation of Palestine to Israeli occupation of Palestine, and describe the Jordanian, Ottoman, & Roman occupations of Palestine in a new article at Occupation of Palestine (1) - Uncle Ed

Error: User:Ambi redirected and protected, although that choice did not get 2/3 vote

• 40% 18 delete
• 29% 13 keep
• 18% 8 redirect/protect
• 9% 4 redirect
• 2% 1 redirect or delete
• 2% 1 Ed's idea

Consensus demonstrated

I did not make the decision in this case, but I affirm that the admin that redirected made the right decision. VfD decisions are not made on the basis of strict numerical voting. Furthermore, you cannot determine consensus by simple percentages for a single choice when you have multiple possibilities. It is almost impossible to get a 2/3 vote when you have at three or more choices.

Admins are given leeway to determine consensus and it can be a thankless job. Yet consensus has been demonstrated. There were 31 votes to remove this as a stand-alone article; there were 13 votes to keep it; that is 70%+ support for content removal. I'm well aware that there is an intentional bias toward non-deletion on Wikipedia; however, for the article's supporters there is the point that accurate content can be merged into the target article.

For the admin to have taken the middle course of leaving the article name as a redirect is consistent with maintaining the spirit of consensus, since there is significant support for this, as there were 26 votes to either keep or direct the article. One thing I might have done differently would have been to redirect withour protection, since protection is frowned upon. However, if non-protection led to vandalism I would then have protected it. However, that last is just my 2c; I'm not second-guessing. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Time's up, VfD has failed

The guidelines state that if after 5 days of voting there is no consensus for Deletion, the page should remain. There was no consensus to delete after 5 days (September 19), and there isn't one now either. Lobbying around and keeping this vote open does not seem to be productive (and is not endorsed by rules). So, let's close this VfD and move onto providing a balanced article on the subject. HistoryBuffEr 19:30, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

"Consensus" generally means that 2/3 of the people involved think Deletion (or some similar remedy) is required. We have been at that 2/3 stage at several points in the discussion; perhaps we should just delete and re-direct, and work on balancing the original Israel-Palestinian conflict article. Jayjg 19:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wrong, "Delete" means delete, not "Redirect". A Deleted article no longer appears in the index, a Redirected one does. The rules do not state that "Redirect" is similar to "Delete"; in fact "Redirect" is not even mentioned as a remedy under VfD. If you insist we can submit this point to Arbitration. HistoryBuffEr 20:01, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

Well, that's part of what the discussion is about. 2/3 of the voters don't want to keep it, that's pretty clear; i.e. the contents go away, perhaps to be POVd and incorporated in some way into the original article that Occupation of Palestine was originally intended to be a POV fork of. And the net effect is pretty much the same; few people refer to the index. Jayjg 20:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wrong again; "Go away" is not a remedy under VfD rules either. The only remedy under VfD is delete, therefore only "delete" votes count. HistoryBuffEr 20:21, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure all those people who voted "re-direct" feel differently. Jayjg 20:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect and delete. Plus, assign some community service to HistoryBuffEr and Jirate for misconduct. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 20:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It you and the racism you extole as in the comment that contains the phrase "of Jews returning to their homeland". That should be doing community service. It is racists like you, who a responsible for the deaths in Palestine more than anyone else. In that vaery article you claim a right of return for Jews but deny it to Palestinians, a more obvious item of racism I have yet to see.--Jirate 20:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No doubt "racists" like Humus Sapiens have, in a fit of impotent rage, taken to "massacring" Palestinians from Quad Bikes, (much like Fox Hunters with foxes [14]). Perhaps they will soon be involved in terrorist campaigns, like the Hunt Followers. Jayjg 21:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Showing your ignorance of the UK, it practices and attitudes, makes you seem much more honest. You really don't being shown up for the unpleasant toerag you are, do you?--Jirate 21:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think listing my User: page on the Vote for Deletion (VfD) page [15] [16] is unpleasant, and pretty petty too. Jayjg 22:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So were you comments about me ignoring the vote. When I've never suggested any such thing. I happy to call it quits before we get any pettier.--Jirate 22:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think anyone who claims the VfD failed should read again #Second choice below. It has been here throughout most of the voting and nobody remarked on it. And yes, time's up. Gadykozma 22:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

One more time:

• This VfD was open on 20:33, 14 Sep 2004.
• This VfD expired 5 days later, on 20:33, 19 Sep 2004. The votes cast at that time were:

• Delete (8) - Jayjg, Andrewa, Improv, Masterhomer, Viriditas, Zero, IZAK, Humus sapiens, Rex071404
• Redirect and protect redirect (4) - Sean Curtin, Gadykozma, Neutrality (talk), Adam 06:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect (4) - Ambi, Yath, Gazpacho, —No-One Jones
• Redirect or Delete (1) - Chessphoon 02:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or merge (1) - Jmabel
• Keep (9) - Node, Pjacobi, pir, Ce garcon, Joseph E. Saad, Jongarrettuk,HistoryBuffEr,Irate,_R_

• The official tally is 30% (8 out of 27 votes) for delete.
• The rules say: "At the end of five days, if a "rough consensus" ... has been reached to delete the page, the page will be removed. Otherwise the page remains."
• The rules also say: When in doubt, don't delete.

Conclusion: The page remains. Someone please archive this Talk and remove this VfD. Thanks. HistoryBuffEr 23:18, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

Comments

1. I feel just deleting a fubar article is running away from the problem, but my vote is subject to significant article NPOVing. Ropers 16:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A new version

I moved Occupation of Palestine to Israeli occupation of Palestine and gave it a serious overhaul. It's such a different article now, that I'm not sure whether any of the votes below are really still applicable. --Uncle Ed 14:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we start a fresh VfD vote. - pir 14:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why start fresh? Please recall that many editors objected to the title of the article alone, arguing that it was inherently POV. I think everyone should read Ed's version article, and if they then want to change their vote, they can do so. Jayjg 16:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(1) the title has changed ; (2) the content has changed significantly ; (3) a lot of the objections were based on the initial editor's alleged intentions. Basically the whole nature of this vote has changed. I think there's no way to ascertain that those who voted already and don't change their vote are aware of this. - pir 16:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(1) The new title is even worse; (2) the new content is as objectionable as the old; (3) it doesn't address my objections. Jayjg 02:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You object because it contradicts the proganda you want to force down people throats. --Jirate 14:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please review Ad hominem again; this isn't about me, it's about the article. Jayjg 20:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

it's about your dishonest attacks on the article and supporters of the article. It's you that needs to read Ad hominem and understand it's meaning and that your snide remarks are just as Ad hominem. --Jirate 20:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's clear that the author of Fox Hunt [17] and Hunt Followers has no idea what NPOV means, much less Ad hominem. Jayjg 21:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think everybody needs to relax a little from this exhausting VfD. Ed, why don't you move the page temporarily to be one of your subpages, let the whole thing rest for a week, and then people would have the energy to evaluate your page on its own merit rather than as part of this "This page is 88 kilobytes long" discussion? Gadykozma 18:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I read the "new" version. This doesn't resolve even the smallest concerns brought against the original page. Same problems with title, same problems with contents, same same same. Redirect/Delete. Gadykozma 00:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As one of those who voted delete, I'd just like to record my complete disagreement with this. I think Ed has the right idea. By far the best solution to POV is to create an NPOV article on the same subject. Ed has seen, as I did not, that there is a valid topic that belongs under the title Occupation of Palestine. Not surprisingly, such an article will please neither extreme, as it puts things into their true historical context, and thus serves neither side of the propaganda war. Andrewa 01:37, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The NPOV article which belongs under the title Occupation of Palestine is the re-direct to Israel-Palestinian conflict. Ed's view creates the absurd scenario in which every single country which has ever controlled Palestine is an "occupier". Will we now have sub-articles on Canaanite Occupation of Palestine, Philistine Occupation of Palestine, Israelite Occupation of Palestine, Ancient Egyptian Occupation of Palestine, Assyrian Occupation of Palestine, Babylonian Occupation of Palestine, Greek Occupation of Palestine, Roman Occupation of Palestine, Byzantine Occupation of Palestine, Arab Occupation of Palestine, Turkish Occupation of Palestine, Mameluke Occupation of Palestine, British Occupation of Palestine, Syrian Occupation of Palestine, Israeli Occupation of Palestine, Modern Egyptian Occupation of Palestine, Jordanian Occupation of Palestine, and Palestinian Authority Occupation of Palestine? Who decides when Palestine is "occupied" and when it is not? Or is Palestine a region which can only be "occupied", and never actually just be part of a country? The whole notion of this "improvement" is idiotic. Jayjg 02:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Granted, that would be too many articles. Why not just make it simple and write a good NPOV Occupation of Palestine article? - pir 02:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because 1) An article with a POV title cannot, by definition, be NPOV, and 2) because the article already exists, at Israel-Palestinian conflict. The question that has been asked by several editors, and still remains unanswered, is exactly what is it in this article that cannot be incorporated into Israel-Palestinian conflict? I'd really like to know. Jayjg 02:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(1) That is simply not true (although it is often preferable to have "neutred" titles, there are plenty of article titles that contain implicit assumptions rooted in world-views not universally shared, and we still have NPOV articles on them) ; (2) that is also not true. If you really want to know, please look at my two edits below from 18:01, 19 Sep 2004 and 12:55, 21 Sep 2004 . I was actually a bit disappointed that you didn't respond to them, I would have really liked to know what you think about them. - pir 03:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the new version is an improvment. I think the main problem is the mind set of deleters. Who's main problem seems the Racism, backed up by short termism, ignorance and arrogance. --Jirate 12:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank goodness your comment didn't involve any Ad hominem or Poisoning the well arguments; I'm glad we've finally moved beyond that to more civil and intelligent discourse. ;-) Jayjg 14:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The inteligence of this discousrse would go up immensly if you stoped contributing. Your comment is fairly typical of the type snide little gob shites, manipulative and without any value. When are you going to learn to stop stamping your feet and shouting, like a spoilt brat who isn't getting their way?--Jirate 14:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please review Ad hominem again; this isn't about me, it's about the article. Jayjg 20:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

it's about your dishonest attacks on the article and supporters of the article. It's you that needs to read Ad hominem and understand it's meaning and that your snide remarks are just as Ad hominem. --Jirate 20:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's clear that the author of Fox Hunt [18] and Hunt Followers has no idea what NPOV means, much less Ad hominem. Jayjg 21:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edits: Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Anonymous editor 66.93.166.174 originally replaced the contents of Israeli-Palestinian conflict with his own highly POV view of this conflict. This replacement was reverted by a number of different admins; rather than discuss the edits in Talk:, 66.93.166.174 simply reverted to his own text. After the page was briefly protected (by me), the editor created a userid User:HistoryBuffEr and created a new article Occupation of Palestine with the content he originally wished to place in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Within 5 hours of its creation it had already been through a number of edit wars, culminating in page protection. Since the content itself is merely intended as a POV alternative to Israel-Palestinian conflict, and since it will have to eventually be incorporated back into that article, the new article should just be deleted now and the user should bring his concerns and proposed edits to the Talk: page of the original article Israeli-Palestinian conflict Jayjg 20:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect to original article, and protect redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:25, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

And what, may I ask, is wrong with the present article? Just because it was created by a bad cookie doesn't mean we shouldn't keep it. If you'd actually LOOK, you'd notice its been improved quite a bit since its creation, and there is still an effort to work towards making it more NPOV. Node 03:46, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I commend you for your efforts in trying to achieve NPOV, but putting "alleged" in every other sentence or before every contentious point is a particularly tedious way of doing so. Jayjg 14:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• By the way, most of the edit wars were "one-sided edit wars" since I'd be adding content, and another user would revert bt I would ignore the reversion and add tons more content to the non-reverted article. Node 03:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• The editor in question does not yet appear to understand how to collaborate on creating a NPOV article, since as far as I can tell his only response to debate is to revert to his version. Any valuable content that you have created can be incorporated into the original article. Jayjg 14:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who the hell cares whether or not he knows what NPOV is? Just because *he* started the article doesn't make him the only contributor. It's not fair to delete an article based simply on the reason it was created. Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Voting

• Delete. Inherently POV title, no useful material that has not already been at some stage added to Israel-Palestinian conflict. Andrewa 04:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Why the hell do you think it has that title? Because it's on that term. Did you actually read the page, or did you just pretend to? Node 06:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: That seems at least close to a personal attack to me. I realise that it's difficult to be NPOV, although I don't think your attempts are particularly commendable but some do, see below. No change of vote. Andrewa 14:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • And how exactly is that a personal attack? How is it even close to one? And why don't you think my attempts are particularly commendable? Can you not see how much better the currentversion is than the original was? And this page is still being worked on at another location with editors from both sides of the rift. Just because the currentversion still has some NPOV problems doesn't mean a whole lot, after all it *is* protected. Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The person who created the article obviously felt it was on the identical topic, since he attempted several times to replace the original article with the text he has now placed in the Occupation of Palestine article. That's why a re-direct makes sense. Jayjg 14:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • So, what you're saying is that you want to change this into a redirect simply because of the intent of the user who created this article? How is that fair? Aren't we supposed to judge articles by their content (ie, their current content) rather than on how much of a dick their creators are? I agree, HistoryBuffEr is a troll who even admitted he created the page because he was fed up with what he percieved as pro-Israel POV on other pages, but so what? I added content, changed content, and it's much better now. Just because an article was created in bad faith doesn't mean it can't be turned into something good. Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • To my recollection the article wasn't about the term until I did the proposed NPOV intro, and clearly most of the article content is not about the term. I was just headed there to remove the "term" stuff as awkward, when I saw that it was on VfD. Gazpacho 21:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Why would you remove it? Other users (myself, ambi) had kept it in after numerous NPOV edits because we saw it as a fabulous addition to an article that really needed some work. And obviously the rest of the article needs to be better linked with the first paragraph and perhaps shortened to arguments for and against the usage of the term "occupation". But so what? Articles that need work, need work, not deletion. And this article is already being worked on. Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Yath 06:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Node deserves to be commended for his efforts at trying to NPOV the impossible, but this has an inherently POV title and duplicates the previous article. Ambi 07:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: Don't see much overlap with Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which doesn't even mention the word Occupation. -- Pjacobi 09:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Any legitimate perspectives missing from the original article can be incorporated into it; that is, in fact, how Wikipedia articles grow. Wikipedia is littered with small articles giving different views of the same topic; let's not add to the mess. Jayjg 14:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is intended to grow into an article on the term itself and the arguments for and against it, not an article on that particular POV. And you have made it clear before that the only reason you are so into its deletion is because it was created in bad faith. Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep or merge -- I don't care which -- but also clean up, radically. This is an article's worth of "some say" with no citations in a very politically controversial matter. If -- Jmabel 00:44, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC) - stricken Jmabel 00:07, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Delete. As far as keeping the article, it is POV and consists of mainly "allegations" and what "many people believe." --Chessphoon 02:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Afraid of "Occupation of Palestine"?

Why are so many afraid of the title "Occupation of Palestine" when it is a universally acknowledged fact, acknowledged even by Ariel Sharon! Many people from all over the world surely enter this term into a search engine. Does it make sense for Wiki not have such an article (or to have it redirected to an obviously pro-Israel titled page)? I didn't think so. Not to mention how lame it is to suppress any article which is not vetted by pro-Israeli extremists. HistoryBuffEr 08:58, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

It is not "a universally acknowledged fact" that there is an "Occupation of Palestine", and Ariel Sharon certainly does not accept that "Palestine" is occupied in the sense you intend (and have explicity stated in your article). This is symptomatic of one of the problems with this article; what you insist are "facts" are, in fact, points of view. Regardless, if there are legitimate perspectives missing from the existing article, they can be incorporated into it. Poisoning the well ignored. Jayjg 14:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"like you have insisted in your article"? When is the last time you read that page? It now has the POV statements labeled for what they are, and many of them have actually been removed altogether (ie, the last paragraph because it sounded absolutely schizophrenic), and it is still being worked on. If you have a problem with any part of the currentversion, please feel free to mention it at User talk:Node ue/Occupation of Palestine. Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, no merge. Absent POV, ideal content is either equivalent or almost identical with Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Terminology like 'occupation' (which might be construed as minimizing the Israeli-statehood side's claims) or 'conflict' (which might be construed as minimizing the suffering of the Palestinians) is always going to be a sticking point for one side or another. 'conflict' seems less contentious, and there really should only be one article. NPOV is the best we can hope for. --Improv 19:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Did you read this article? It is not intended (except by HistoryBuffEr of course) to be an article on "the occupation", but rather an article on the term "occupation" in the case of Israeli presence in the Palestinian areas, how people who are for the usage of the term justify its usage and how people against its usage justify its non-usage. Currently, I think the article is pretty NPOV, and the first paragraph already meets the objective of an article on the term. If there are parts you find POV or if you'd like to suggest additional sentences/paragraphs to add, please drop a note at User talk:Node ue/Occupation of Palestine. Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deniers galore. (More votes)

• Occupation of Palestine may not be a universally acknowledged fact to obsessed pro-Israel partisans like you (eg: check Jayjg's contrib log, please; I gave up after 1500 edits in just 2 months -- almost all solely on topics related to Israel). However, outside of your extremist pigeon-hole there is an entire world -- billions of people with an NPOV on the subject, and most call it "Occupation of Palestine". As evidenced by the votes of 99% countries of the world in the U.N.
• Also, what would you say if the shoe was on the other foot? Would you agree to have, for example, the Holocaust article renamed to German-Jewish conflict because some people disagree and think the latter title is more NPOV? Somehow I'm convinced you wouldn't. So, reconsider your approach as it perfectly matches the logic of Holocaust deniers. Which is not very helpful to your cause. HistoryBuffEr 20:19, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

While it is true that Jayjg's contribs are far from 100% NPOV, just because billions of people have a certain POV does not mean it is "an NPOV". Obviously those countries in the UN that vote for resolutions against Israel are no more neutral than is Jayjg.

Also, you are mischaracterising the Holocaust as simply a conflict between non-Jewish Germans and Jewish Germans/Europeans. This could not be farther from the truth. Germany also slaughtered millions of Roma, gays, disabled people, communists, and plenty of other groups (yes, including Esperantists. the last thing we need here is somebody yelling about how we forgot to include them in an incomplete list of groups targeted by the Holocaust). I'm not sure I like the usage "the Holocaust" and I'd rather something like "the Nazi Holocaust" or something like that, but a change to something like German-Jewish conflict would be not just as you propose whitewashing the emotional trauma but most importantly it would be a complete mischaracterisation. If you wanted something analogous, how about Tensions in Nazi Europe, or Nazi conflicts? Even those aren't completely analogous. For one, those events were very different in size, scale, and circumstance. For two, those events are over and now *everybody* sees nazis as looneys (well, not *everybody*...), whereas these events are still ongoing and there are plenty of people on both sides.

I do have to say though, it seems like Jayjg is targeting this article because he "strongly dislikes" HistoryBuffEr rather than because he believes the *current* content of the page is absolute crap, and he continues to justify its deletion based on the fact that this article was created in bad faith (however I somehow suspect that if it were preserved on Viriditas' version, Jayjg would be for keeping this article rather than deleting it). Node 22:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the new article, and it was a mess; all sorts of unattributed claims, full of weasel words. It started from a hopelessly POV source, and the various efforts turned it from garbage into something that was much better, still fairly useless and unreadable. Jayjg 03:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Excuse me? How can a neutral country with no stake in the outcome be as biased as Jayjg the propaganda warrior?
• How many times I need to repeat that "some" who disagree does not equal "many"? In your edits you repeatedly use "many" in place of "some" (as well as "some" in place of "few extremists")?
• The occupation is 50+ year old. The term is now disputed, just like the Nazi genocides, only by a few loonies.

• Which again points out your bias; the "occupation" that most of the world agrees is happening is 37 years old; however, most of the world does not agree that the State of Israel itself is "occupying" Palestine. Jayjg 03:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Your analogy points are valid, but I'm sure that everyone got my point.

• I got your point, but it was an invalid one. Jayjg 03:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with you that this article would not be here now if it mimicked other pro-Israel articles in contents. HistoryBuffEr 23:01, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

• Poisoning the well and Straw man arguments ignored; this is not about me or the Holocaust, it's about the article Occupation of Palestine. Jayjg 21:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Skipped "Logic 101"?

• Your apparent bias is a valid point to take into account when weighing your vote.

• Actually, it's Poisoning the well; please review the article. Jayjg 03:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• The Holocaust article analogy is a valid analogy for this issue. HistoryBuffEr 23:01, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

• Only in the view of someone who had no knowledge of the Holocaust and a wildly biased view of the Israeli-Arab conflice. Jayjg 03:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If HistoryBuffer sees errors of fact in that article, he should edit it and give sources on the talk page. The term can be included in that article's intro. Gazpacho 21:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While Node may believe this article is supposed to be about the term (something I did not intend), HistoryBuffer seems to envision it as a POV fork. Even if they both intended it to be about the term, the usual practice for alternate terms is to redirect and put them in the intro of a single article. Gazpacho 19:07, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I said before, just because an article was created in bad faith doesn't mean it's deserving of deletion. Also, so what if you didn't intend it to be about the term, its clear that's what it's becoming (see User:Node ue/Occupation of Palestine). And this is not simply an "alternative term". An occupation is not equivalent to a conflict, in addition whether there even *is* an occupation is disputed, thus this page as a separate page is sorely needed. Node 06:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict and protect (even better than delete!). There is enough duplicity of material in this section already. With this kind of title the article can never be more than a POV version of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No need to "merge" the junk I've seen. Gadykozma 22:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • What is everybody here talking about!? User:Node ue/Occupation of Palestine Node 06:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Israeli-Palestinian conflict or possibly Palestinian territories. —No-One Jones ^(m) 23:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Folks, discusssion of the topic belongs on the Talk page of the article and not here. I am voting delete because there are enough articles which cover (or should cover but don't cover - go and fix them) this topic already, and because the title is unsuitable. --Zero 01:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Why is the title unsuitable if the article covers that term in an NPOV manner? The article is about the term! Node 06:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The name contains the assumption that Palestine is occupied... DUH. Now, even if there is more or less general agreement that some parts of Palestine are occupied, this name implies that all of it is. That's a really poor starting point for a NPOV page, to have a name that stems from the POV of the extremist part of one side. And, surprise surprise, the page now is a heap of propoganda that doesn't even bother to pretend its NPOV. This page has neither past nor present nor future as a NPOV page. Gadykozma 10:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Zero, while I have no choice but to agree that formally discussions of redirect should be in the talk page, I think that (twisting Wikipedia policy a little) if a concensus for redirect is reached here (which definitely seems to be the case, right now there are 3 keep, 4 delete and 6 redirect), it would have the same moral statue as a decision to delete. This would allow an administrator to protect the redirect against changes in the equivalent of a "speedy delete" process. Am I going too far? Gadykozma 02:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect = Bad Idea

Also note that Google hits for "Occupation of Palestine" greatly exceed hits for "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (~ 813,000 vs ~287,000 without quotes) and most people get here via Google. Many people would surely be confused by Wiki's editorializing of the event title. HistoryBuffEr 23:01, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

You realize, HistoryBuffEr, that you're not helping your case? And, more irritably unfortunately for me, you're not helping *mine* either? Node 06:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, your article is already just another apologia page for Israel's illegal actions, and one zealot (Ambi) has already endorsed it. If you think that just having a page with that title is great, that's pathetic. See more bellow. HistoryBuffEr 21:11, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

NPOV SchmPOV

It is a matter of law (not mere opinion) that Israel occupies Palestine.

• According to the International Court of Justice, Israel Occupies Palestine.
• According to the Israeli Supreme Court, Israel Occupies Palestine ("West Bank and Gaza").
• According to the International Community, Israel Occupies Palestine.
• According to the Hague Conventions, Israel Occupies Palestine.

The matter is well settled and there is nothing neutral about saying otherwise. The few loonies who disagree are free to roam their flat Earth all they want, but Wiki should not present their ravings as a reasonable disagreement. Case closed. HistoryBuffEr 21:11, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

You do realize that Palestine is not the West Bank and Gaza but includes the state of Israel don't you? That the name comes from the Roman province that occupied this ares? It seems you don't... how about checking at least what are you talking about before writing it all down for posterity? Gadykozma 23:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and while we are discussing trivial issues like that, the name of this site is Wikipedia. Wiki is the technology and is used in many other sites too. Gadykozma 23:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Matter of Law? As I understand it, International Law is a very controversial topic in itself. I'm not certain if you can take it for granted that that has any sway here. In any case, all the content belongs in one place, regardless of what the content is. It all should go into the conflict page, categorized and organized as appropriate and NPOV. Mind you, I'm no big supporter of any large side, so I don't invite any position to imagine that I'm frothing at the mouth for their opposition(s). What I care about is keeping the content NPOV, in one place, and encyclopedic. Titles and articles like this should not stand on their own when the other article exists. --Improv 02:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tally: Rephrasing the question

I believe I have accurately represented all opinions to date in the tally above. I think the article as it stands is a mess, but that is not sufficient reason for deletion (or even redirection). May I ask those who are voting for deletion: which of the following are you saying (and it may be more than one, and just putting your name by the alternatives would be fine but comments are, of course welcome, and you can add more alternatives, and all that): -- Jmabel 01:16, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

• The word "occupation" is inappropriate to Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories.
• The meaning of the phrase Occupation of Palestine is itself an important issue in the propaganda war surrounding the current Middle East conflict. Various POVs attribute various meanings to the phrase, and an NPOV writer would avoid it except when describing the views of significant players who use the phrase. But if this article is to focus on these views, then its title should reflect this. Occupation of Palestine is not good title for either topic.
  • Andrewa 07:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Israel currently "occupies" the Palestinian territories, but calling the territories "Palestine" is objectionable.
  • Not "objectionable", just plain wrong. As in 2 + 2 = 5. Gadykozma 01:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Independent of its title, this is an inappropriate topic for a Wikipedia article (and I'd sure appreciate if anyone can indicate on what grounds - JM)
• In theory, this would be a perfectly good topic for a Wikipedia article, but your objections to the process by which it came to be are so strong that any such article should start from scratch.
  • Agree, but my other reservations are more important. Gadykozma 01:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• In theory, this would be a perfectly good topic for a Wikipedia article, but given that we have an article on Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this material should be developed as part of that.
  • Gadykozma 01:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and while we are at it:

• None of the above, hence keep. -- Jmabel stricken Jmabel 00:07, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Jmabel, just curious but have you seen the proposed revisions at User:Node ue/Occupation of Palestine? If you have anything to add to the revisions, ***please*** make a note on the talkpage! I don't want to leave anybody out. Node 01:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, after doing your tally, I think it is wrong. I voted on three points, but they are one and the same really. The reason the title is biased, the reason the history of the text is so, and the reason it was separated from Israeli-Palestinian conflict are one and the same. This is just POV pushing. Separating it into components doesn't elucidate the issues involved, only hides them. Gadykozma 01:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article tries to pass off misinformation as fact in an effort to dehumanize the Israeli people, and thus I recommend the deletion and/or protected redirection of this article to the parent --Masterhomer 02:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

None of the above -- Keep, because:

• Occupation of Palestine is not just a POV but an undeniable fact (see above). Deleting or redirecting the article would effectively censor that fact from the Wikipedia index.
• The Israeli-Palestinian conflict article, believe it or not, does not even mention "occupation". Editing that article would take enormous amount of time as it is rife with propaganda -- and many edit wars as plenty of zealots sit there guarding every comma. Besides:

This one and the above one (with some caveats) for me. I agree with those pointing out that "Palestine" is used to refer to different entities and therefore I agree, that the term must be settled at the start of the article. The term "occupation" is much less problematic, and I'm really baffled, that the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict article is working around it. Even Belligerent occupation does mention it, giving the right (but strangely formulated) qualification that some parties deny the term. Calling it "occupation" is just plain the world's majority POV, it is not a case of obviously bending the definition of Belligerent occupation and so it should have its coverage in Wikipedia. Pjacobi 08:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• The title Israeli-Palestinian conflict itself is clearly biased and factually and legally wrong, much like titling Bank robbery as Conflict between a bank and a customer.
• Those who disagree with details in Occupation of Palestine are free to contribute to the article as everyone else. HistoryBuffEr 03:30, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

I like the part where you say "Editing that article would take enormous amount of time ... and many edit wars as plenty of zealots sit there guarding every comma." So, the purpose of this page was and still is to avoid other peoples POV, right? Gadykozma 03:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I'd like to work on this, but if a major objection is to the title of the article, then any work I can do in trying to cite references, etc., and fix this is moot. I want to know whether I should be working in Occupation of Palestine or in Israeli-Palestinian conflict. -- Jmabel 06:24, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I think the latter. This *should* have been a redirect beforehand, but just because a POV warrior came along doesn't suddenly make it a legitimate seperate article. The information about the occupation is at the latter, NPOV title, not this inherently-biased one. Ambi 07:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the latter, too. As I said above, it's best to avoid the phrase Occupation of Palestine, not just in the title but also in the text except where it forms an important part of the opinion of a significant player whose views you are quoting. Then of course you use their terms, and it's obvious from the context that you are also using their definitions of the terms, and reporting their POV rather than supporting it. Andrewa 11:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The latter, definitely. Check the tally at the top: 12 people have already voted one way or the other that this page is unsuitable. Gadykozma 12:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

@Andrewa: If there is no Occupation of Palestine, all inhabitants of the West Bank would be citizens of Israel, enjoying full citizen rights. Now applying a simple Syllogism... -- Pjacobi 12:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Andrewa, I also dislike the wording of your reply. The fact that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied is not really controvertial. The point here is the confusion between Palestine and a putative Palestinian State. Gadykozma 13:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I agree that Palestine is currently (and obviously) occupied but I don't think it's relevant to the points I was making. Does that help? Andrewa 01:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't know where the best place is to vote on this very messy page, but I vote Keep. The term "Occupation of Palestine" is obviously commonly used (a google search gives 43'000 hits for "Occupation of Palestine", compared to for example 190'000 hits for "Israeli-Palestinian conflict", a much broader subject). However this article should deal mainly with the controversy surrounding this concept (which is very important and not dealt with in other articles) and only give a very brief summary of the history of the occupation and instead link to the relevant articles dealing more in depth with the history. - pir 15:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Citation on "Occupied Territories"

Here is a citation of George W. Bush using the phrase "occupied territories" in this sense: [19]

Interesting: even Bush, who is staunchly pro-Israel, here mentions occupation and "occupied" five times, while mentioning conflict ("MidEast" and "this") two times.

So, who is really POV here:

• Those who want to add the term "occupation" (and have not asked for deletion of "conflict"), or
• Those who want to delete/redirect "occupation" (but have not asked for deletion of "conflict"). HistoryBuffEr 17:42, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

A question to Node

Node, honestly tell us, how do you envision this page? How would it be different from the current "major" page? Why do you think this topic is not adequately covered there? Do you envision a short page for something specific or long, general page about the "conflict"? Gadykozma 12:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or did I not link you to the proposed revision, what, 1000000000000000 times? User:Node ue/Occupation of Palestine. Node 04:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) PS why is "conflict" in quotes? Do you believe that there is absolute peace in the middle east?

The reason I asked despite having read the page is that the current form doesn't tell me what you have in mind for it in the future. I see 2 possibilities:

• The page will stay as it is. In this case, please explain what you have against merging the contents into Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Right now it doesn't say anything except "most people agree this is occupation, some don't". This could easily go into the "views" section.
• The page is intended to evolve into a longer page. In this case, please explain how you intend it to different from Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how will you stop other contributors from making it nothing but a POV version of it?

Node, this is not just another round of bashing (not that I don't do that, but not this time). I really want to know if I didn't miss some fine point.

Oh, and about putting conflict in quotes, I guess I was still amused from HistoryBuffEr's bank robbery example. Don't try to read anything fancy into it. Gadykozma 04:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The fine point here is this: It isn't *about* the conflict. It's specifically about the phrase "occupation of palestine". Node 02:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How does this answer my questions? Gadykozma 02:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not being Node, but offering an answer, what would make sense as a separate Occupation of Palestine article (even if renamed): I'd consider it informative to many readers, to detail out the different legal theories regarding the status of the West Bank etc. The major POV would be that of Belligerent occupation, but that is questioned among others because there may be no subject of internal law, previously owning these territories, etc. Please forgive the clumsiness of my formulations, I'm not an expert on this. Anyway, this aspect isn't explicitely covered in Israeli-Palestinian conflict or West Bank. -- Pjacobi 14:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't an article like that better be called "Legal status of the Palestinian territories"? Gadykozma 14:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This title, and the mentioning of Belligerent occupation as the major POV, would be my favorite choice, after seeing all the discussions here. -- Pjacobi 14:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Evidently I am not saying this loud enough. I do not object to "occupation". I object to "Palestine". If the title would have been "Occupation of the Palestinian territories", or "Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza", many of my objections would go away. Gadykozma 14:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I did hear you already and IMHO you are making yourself perfectly clear. I was only highlightening the and for others to read. -- Pjacobi 15:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep:

Why not just revise the article to make it more NPOV? Even if right now it is POV, I think "Occupation of Palestine" needs an article of its own in some form or another. --Ce garcon 09:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

==Delete:== Both the title of the article and the content is slanted POV. The article was created to disrupt, not inform, and the author has even admitted (and acted) as such. Attempts to NPOV have failed. Information is duplicated in Israel-Palestinian conflict ("occupation" is mentioned twice on that page, in the external links section) as well as Arab-Israeli conflict (the word occupation is included twice, in the "Arab Views" section). Finally, an existing article Occupied_territories already mentions this topic in the "examples" section. --Viriditas 10:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep:

As a Palestinian I know what is right and what is wrong. I also know that as much as the pro-Zionist Wiki posters would like to obscure and confuse the issues, the facts remain. These are:

• The Zionist state was created by uprooting the inhabitants of the land at the time. The use of terror by the Zionists was only one method that was used, but in the end the Zionist state was in illegal occupation of more land that was allocated to it by the flawed, biased, and failed partition plan of 1948. From that day (May 8, 1948) until now the Zionist state has never been in compliance with International law nor the Geneva Conventions, of which it is a signatory. I won't even try to list the relevant sites, but just look up any UN documents, even US ones. Try as they might to obscure the fact, the UN is the final arbiter of international law, so there is no way to circumvent this.

• While I will admit the article requires work, and I agree with Jayjg, alleged is not a smooth phrase the way it is laid out now, this page should be corrected and kept, both views can be laid out.

• I know, and have received many notes over the 3+ years I have posted, about the poor way the Wikipedia has presented information relating to the Palestinian/Zionist issue. It is hard for me to be objective and unbiased, but I do try, and even allow for the Zionist POV. That said, why can others not, at least, try and do the same? Time and again posts are removed or edited to silliness, with pro-Zionist nonsense.

• My points and questions are these: Do you the members of this community want to keep the Wikipedia an object of ridicule in this area, and have it seen as an instrument of Zionist propoganda whenever a post is made that explains the Palestinians point of view? Will this issue ever be resolved? If this project is to gain some credibility vis a vis the Palestinian/Zionist issue, some general guidelines need to be implemented, is that not a fair compromise?

• As much as the present Zionist and US government would like people to believe, they cannot change what people see with their own eyes. People around the world are not fools, and posters who cannot allow the mainstream to post in an intellectually free environment have no place here.

• Finally, I have shown many of these articles, my own edit wars, and numerous other diatribes to scholars, library professionals, educators in general, Arab peoples, and others. All agree that this manner of depicting the Palestinians shows that the Wikipedia, in this respect at least, is not credible. I challenege pro-Zionist posters to read and look up Middle-Eastern history texts, or Encyclopedias of the conflict, or any of the many texts that deal with these issues. One will find that in fact these territories are illegally occupied, and were gained through the illegal use of force and war. We should be brave enbough to at least say that. Keep the page, fix it, and please do not merge it. I notice that a common tactic in this continued frenzy to deny facts is to try and merge articles to hide the truth of the content.

In peace and hope for a better solution.

Joseph 16:19, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

• The article isn't a good one - but it's fair (ie NPOV) to refer to the Palestinian territories of West Bank and Gaza as occupied. This is internationally accepted. To argue that an articles has to also reflect the views of a very very small minority of people that these territories are not occupied is to try to force a POV into it. Let's call a spade a spade. Jongarrettuk 17:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here. The author of the article is not insisting that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied; rather, the author is insisting that all of the historical mandate of Palestine is "occupied", including Israel behind the 1949 armistice lines. That is why the title and the article will always be inherently POV. Jayjg 03:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For exactly this reason it's very important to keep the article: it should explain what different people understand by "Occupation of Palestine", so that everybody knows what they are talking about. Describing PsOV is the very essence of NPOV. A google search for "Occupation of Palestine" gives 43'000 hits. If an Internet user reads any of those 43'000, is unsure about what exactly is meant and comes to Wikipedia for enlightnment, would you really want that person to be kept in the dark about it?? A future "Occupation of Palestine" article should not deal with the history of the alleged occupation, for which readers should be referred to the relevant existing articles, but it should deal with the term, it's usage, it's implications and what kind of people use it. It seems to me that the Zionists in residence try to erase the concepts of their opponents from Wikipedia. - pir 10:17, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Check for example Supreme Soviet or Lebensraum for two NPOV articles that deal with core concepts from the terminlogy of two ideologies universally despised by Wikipedians. - pir 10:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant examples:

• Titles are NPOV, not as here.
• Recognized terms, while "Occupation of Palestine" is just a phrase.
• No obvious other page to add the contents to (correct me if I'm wrong here).

Gadykozma 11:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Please explain why "Occupation of Palestine" is less NPOV than "Supreme Soviet" or "Lebensraum". The whole POV controversy comes from the fact that it is based on and expresses a particular anti-Zionist view ; but "Soviet" is based on and expresses a Communist view, and "Lebensraum" is based on and expresses a Nazi view. Also "Occupation of Palestine" is a recognised term, to the same extent as the other two, and in all cases there are obvious other pages where the content can be added ( Nazi#Ideological_theory and Operation Barbarossa ; Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Stalinism and State capitalism). If you look at the Lebesnraum article, it deals mainly with the concept as used by the Nazis, rather than putting the content in the way the Nazis would have written the article - that is precisely what makes it NPOV, and the same can be done for "Occupation of Palestine". - pir 11:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, let me reword my second point. "Occupation of Palestine" is not more popular than "Occupation of the Palestinian territories" (google: 246,000) or "Occupation of the West Bank" (google: 871,000). Lebensraum or Supreme Soviet have no alternatives.

Also, your "addition" examples are not quite parallel: Lebensraum is not a page which is in danger of becoming an equivalent or parallel of Operation Babarose whereas Occupation of Palestine is posited exactly for this purpose. Gadykozma 12:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First, you did not reply to my question (Please explain why "Occupation of Palestine" is less NPOV than "Supreme Soviet" or "Lebensraum". )

Second, if you do a google search for these terms you need to put them in "", otherwise you get hits for all articles that contain any of these words seperately. If you do that you get:

• "Occupation of the Palestinian territories" - 6,150 hits [20]
• "Occupation of the West Bank" - 30,200 hits [21]
• "Occupation of Palestine" - 44,000 hits [22]

And where are the Occupation of the Palestinian territories Occupation of the West Bank articles? I seem to be unable to find them with my browser.

Finally, your personal worries about what the "Occupation of Palestine" article may or may not become in the future does not pertain to the question of whether it is a legitimate entry to Wikipedia. - pir 13:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• First of all, let me apologize for the "" business, I realized this just as I pressed the "Save Page" button. BTW: "Occupation of the Palestinian territories" should be added to "Occupation of Palestinian territories" which gets another 5000 hits. Either way it still shows that "Occupation of Palestine" is not a term but rather a phrase, one of many.
• Where are all these other pages? This can be discussed on their VfD pages ;-)
• My so-called personal worries about the future of this page are evidently shared by most people here and are highly pertinent to the decision.
• Finally to your first question that I did indeed forget to answer. Possibly, the term "Occupation of Palestine" in 2004 is just as POV as was "Lebensraum" in 1939. But we are in 2004, and Lebensraum is a historical term whose context and political significance are well understood and accepted. The very fact that there is no VfD page for Lebensraum demonstrates this well enough. Gadykozma 13:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, no, no, no. It is the task of an encyclopedia to deal with concepts from all political movements and to describe them in a NPOV manner, and to provide information that helps to debunk them if they have no value. If they are currently controversial concepts, it is even more important to write a NPOV article about them. Worries about what the page may or may not become are completely speculative. The only question we should debate on this page is whether "Occupation of Palestine" is a legitimate entry, guided by the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. I can assure you that I will make sure that that any pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist views of this term will be clearly attributed and not stated as facts, and they they would be contrasted to opposing views. That is what NPOV is all about. - pir 13:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete:

Delete. IZAK 05:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article says nothing that is not already thoroughly canvassed in other articles, and doesn't even say it very well ("Israel came out on top" is not very encyclopaedic). Redirect and protect redirection. Adam 06:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Yet another attempt to delegitimize the Jewish state in a small part of ancient Jewish homeland. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge content

I don't see this as a separate option; of course, even if an article is deleted, any valuable content should be merged with other relevant articles. Jayjg 06:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Second choice

I would like to point out that if there is no agreement on deletion, then my second choice would be re-direct and merge. I suspect most people voting for deletion would feel the same way, thought it would be interesting to hear their viewpoints. Jayjg 06:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And vice versa: if there is no agreement on redirecting, my second choice would be deleting. I think the results of the tall should be interpreted as follows:

• Add up all those who think contents is unsuitable (delete/redirect). If less than keep, then keep wins.
• If "unsuitable" wins, choose whether to delete or redirect according to a majority within this group.

Is this interpretation of the tally acceptable to people? Gadykozma 11:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My first choice: Delete, the 2nd: redirect. Are we going to create Occupation of X articles for all the lands mentioned in Belligerent occupation? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Appeal to the "delete this article" movement

Very honestly, and I'm addressing all the people who voted for deletion, : If we can write NPOV Wikipedia articles about core concepts from the Nazi dictionary here (and there's lots of them: Führerprinzip, Aryan race, Übermensch, Racial hygiene, Master race, Herrenrasse, Euthanasia), surely we can do the same for "Occupation of Palestine" ! - pir 13:17, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We already have. It's called Israel-Palestinian conflict. Jayjg 14:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh I see. That would be the reason why the word "occupation" figures a total of 0 times in that article. Do you really not get my point? I am not talking about the history of the conflict. I am talking about somthing entirely different. I am talking about concepts of a particular political movement. - pir 15:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The concept of occupation should be discussed in the Israel-Palestinian conflict article; that is the way to build articles, not to create inherently POV articles as alternatives to reasonably NPOV ones because you're not interested in working towards even better NPOV on the original article. And, contrary to the popular saying, it's impossible to create a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Jayjg 15:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why "Occupation of Palestine" would be an "inherently POV article" when I gave half a dozen of examples above that prove the opposite, instead of accusing me of acting in bad faith (I think that might qualify as a personal attack)? I certainly have my own POV, but I do my best to make NPOV edits to these articles. If I make edits on such topics, I am careful to make them NPOV by attributing them and sourcing them. I don't know if I always succeed in this, but I take your accusation that "I'm not interested in working towards even better NPOV" to be an insult, and I'd be happy if you could point me towards any evidence to support your accusation. If you actually look at everything I said on this page, I consistently emphasised that "Occupation of Palestine" should not be an alternative to Israel-Palestinian conflict. And whould you also care to explain why Israel-Palestinian conflict is "reasonably NPOV" when its NPOV is disputed? - pir 16:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer; I was referring to the original author of the article, who created the article for the reason listed above, not to you. You (and others) have made valiant attempts to turn it into something worthwhile and NPOV, which I appreciate, but my point above remains, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. Occupation of Palestine will never be NPOV based on the title alone; there is no way to get people to agree on what "Palestine" is, nor on what "Occupation" is. Palestine has had least three hotly contested definitions; the 1917 British Palestine which included Trans-Jordan (now Jordan), the 1923 San Remo/League of Nations mandate, which roughly included everything currently controlled by Israel, and the post 1967 version, which basically comprised the West Bank and Gaza. Supporters of both sides of the debate each have their preferred view, which leads to endless conflict. Add to that the issue of "Occupation" which some insist there currently is, and others insist there is not. Then mix in the deliberate confusion created by the original author, who pretended that the widely held view that Israel is occupying the West Bank and Gaza was actually a widely held view (and "fact") that Israel was occupying the entire San Remo mandate of Palestine. In the end you have a hopeless mess that can never be sorted out, especially when everything of value on the topic belongs in Israel-Palestinian conflict anyway. As for why that article's POV is disputed, that is because of the intense emotions that the Israeli-Arab conflict generates; there is no middle ground which satisfies all parties as NPOV. Jayjg 16:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, no harm done. The point is : We do not have to agree on anything in order to write an article about it. When there are disagreements on a particular subject we just neutrally desribe the conflicting views. That is what the NPOV policy is all about:

"Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view. -- Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder "

So, thank you very much for your explanation of the difficulties in defining "Palestine" - I think it could be copy-pasted into that particular article right away, because it would make the article more NPOV.

Also, I was trying to think of what Zionist concept would be the equivalent of "Occupation of Palestine", and I think it would probably be Eretz Israel, or translated into English Land of Israel. Strangely enough that article exists, and it's not a redirect to Israel-Palestinian conflict. And strangely enough, it only describes the Zionist POV. And strangely enough, it is not a problem for that article that the term is difficult to define precisely. I suggest that if we delete "Occupation of Palestine", we need to delete that particular article too, or make it into a redirect to Israel-Palestinian conflict. - pir 16:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We don't have to agree on everything, but if an article just contains information which is already found in other articles (or which should be in other articles), then it just creates needless clutter and confusion. The fundamental problem with the article is this: If you leave it as the original author intends, it is merely POV propaganda. And if you somehow manage to make it NPOV, then it will inevitable overlap and duplicate (or contradict) other articles. That is the horns of the dilemma upon which this article places us.

Regarding the Eretz Israel article, I hadn't seen it before. I think there is a fundamental difference between that article and this one. That article explains the meaning of an ancient term still used today; the term is not a "Zionist concept" in that it long pre-dates political Zionism. As well, it does not describe a conflict, nor does it express any particularly POV position; rather, it describes a geographical area. A parallel article might be one on the term "Palestine", explaining (among other things) its historical origins and usage. And lo and behold, there is a Palestine article which, while itself fairly POV, is better than what is here, and contains just about everything of value which has been entered into this article. Jayjg 17:20, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I should restate and elaborate my argument: it is impossible to understand a political movement unless you deal with the central concepts of its ideology. It is impossible to understand Nazism unless you understand what is meant by Führerprinzip, Aryan race, Übermensch, Racial hygiene etc. It is impossible to understand Soviet style Communism unless you known what's class war, the dictatorship of the proletariat, counter-revolutionary, enemy of the people, the vanguard of the working class, etc. It's impossible to understand liberalism unless you know what they mean by free market economy, freedom, individualism, human rights, representative democracy etc. It's impossible to understand Zionism unless you know what is meant by Jewish National Homeland, Eretz Israel, Aliyah, etc. etc. etc. These are all terms from the respective political movements dictionaries and we have somehow managed to create NPOV articles on all of them.

In exactly the same way, it is impossible to understand what Palestinian nationalism is about, unless we have equivalent articles on Occupation of Palestine, Nakba, right to return etc. These are concepts that are central to Palestinian nationalism. To just hide them away in a small paragraph somewhere in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article will not do - if we take the NPOV serious, then they deserve their own article that explains in a NPOV manner what is meant, without reporting in detail the whole history dealt with elsewhere. If there is some overlap with other articles, that won't be a problem - there is enough space on Wikipedia left. And you are of course right that Eretz Israel is not an exact equivalent of Occupation of Palestine, but both are central concepts in their respective nationalisms, and they both express a claim for land (more or less the same land, by misfortune). - pir 18:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's keep this indentation thing in check!

pir, if you check the Nakba article you will see that I just yesterday left there a detailed opinion why the article should exist. The same holds for right of return. These same arguments do not hold for "occupation of Palestine" for the reasons I detailed above. Gadykozma 18:41, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm very glad you recognise their right to exist. But why don't you grant the same right to "Occupation of Palestine"? I hope I don't misrepresent you, but your argument seems to reduce to worries that it would be difficult to deal with a currently controversial term (which we do all the time at Wikipedia) and that there are a couple of terms very similar (but less frequently used) to "Occupation of Palestine" (we can make those into redirects). - pir 18:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I vote keep, refering to Israeli as a state, as happens all over Wikipedia, is just as biased. Why Israeli 'settlements' on the westbank aren't Isreali 'fortified encampments' is the same kind of indicative linguistic choice people make. --Jirate 18:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is getting excessive for VfD, but oh well. "Is just as biased" as what? Even the PLO recgnizes Israeli statehood. Is there any UN member that we don't routinely refer to as a "state".?

Several don't recognise it as such. Iran for one.--Jirate 21:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is a part of accepted human knowledge that Israel _is_ a state, and there is no bias in claiming it as such. Further, Wikipedia is not for propaganda like the kind you are advocating. --Viriditas 19:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you'll find Israels statehood is disputed by many both indivduals and states. Obviosly you seem to think that Wikipedia is for propaganda like the you are advocating. Being accepted by Viriditas is not a crtieria for something being "accepted human knowledge". This subject is clearly a matter of hot debate both here and in the area concerned, using the language prefered by one side is bias.--Jirate 21:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The heliocentric view of the solar system is also disputed by many individuals, but that doesn't that doesn't change the facts. Israel has been an independant country for almost 60 years, a member of the U.N., member of various trading blocs, significant economy, ambassadors in various countries (and vice versa) etc. Wikipedia's claim that Israel exists is no more POV than its claims that the United States exists. Jayjg 21:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Considerably more people dispute the statehood of Israeli, than seriously dispute copernicus. More states dispute the statehood of Israel than any other state. Several UN resoluations, refer to Israels occupation of several parts of Palestine and call for them to end. What Western Governments stick their stamp on doesn't automatically make it accepted by humanity. Does the Humanity as a whole think of Israel as a State or as a illegal occupation?I'd like to see some numbers.--Jirate 22:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't even figure out what you're arguing; are you saying that Israel does not exist as a state? Has not existed for the past almost 60 years? Is not a member of the U.N., recognized by and having diplomatic and economic relations with most countries in the world, as well as the Palestinian Authority/P.L.O.? Jayjg 22:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When one is talking about states as opposed to people, recognition does not mean knowing or acknowledging that something exists. It means diplomatic recognition. There is a territory there and an organisation that claims to be a State. In some people and country's eye's it is nothing more than an illegitimate breakaway regime, they no more recognise it than the Union recognised the confederates. There is no one article title or one article which can be neutral on this subject or many others. There is no 1 truth to be written down on this subject and if you try you'll just end up writing propoganda. Encylopdia are by there nature reductionist, and this isn't a very suitable subject. --Jirate 00:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe there are approximately 150 or so states in the world which recognize Israel and have diplomatic relations with it; exactly which ones do not recognize this? Israel is not only a fact, but is recognized as such by almost all countries in the world, notwithstanding what rabid rogue theocracies like Iran currently express as foreign policy. Facts are not POV, notwithstanding your POV desire to express them as such. Jayjg 02:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"rabid rogue" some peoples a view of Israel. Whilst you may view the State of Israeli as a done an dusted,others regarded it as an illegal blip in history. As far as I know Egypt is the only one of Israels neighbours to recognize it. Only 3 countries recognize the captital as Jeruselem. No one recognizes the annex of the Golan. It's totally reliant on an external power for it's existance. The major problem is that you don't understand the power and effect of language. You should probabley take a look at State as well.--Jirate 02:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a Zionist, but when I hear Israel described as "an illegal blip in history" I sense murderous antisemitism. The issue of borders is one thing, the issue of whether Israel is somehow uniquely less legitimate than the world's other states is another. I'm not very big on the State in general, and I'm against deleting the article, but this makes me worry about whether there are people who want this article solely as a propaganda platform. -- Jmabel 03:52, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

That has always been its purpose; it was the very reason it was created. Jayjg 04:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then you sense wrong, what you sense, what you sense is a hatred of Nationalism, Self Rightousness etc. all of which the current Israel shows in spades the very things the original Zionist were trying to escape.--Jirate 10:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with most of what pir said. _R_ 19:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Missing the point!

I think many people here are totally missing the point. We have a very clear case of someone trying to create their own private Wikipedia within the actual Wikipedia. Someone here is angry at some of our articles, but instead of working with others to improve them, thet are creating their own parallel Wikipedia article to push their own POV. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy. We do not have two articles on abortion, one from a pro-choice POV and one from a pro-life POV; we do not have two articles on racism, one from a pro-racism POV and one from an anti-racism POV. The same is true for all topics, including the Arab-Israeli topic. Shamefully, several people are willingly trying to violate NPOV in this one case, because they feel that the current articles on the subject are not correct. We cannot allow this and still stay true to Wikipedia policy. RK

Jayjg's analysis of this situation is both correct and friendly: Jayjg is very open to other people adding information (in an NPOV fashion) to the current Arab-Israeli conflict articles; Jayjg is not rejecting any new topics or subjects. I cannot understand the opposition to his simple proposal. As he writes:

"Since the content itself is merely intended as a POV alternative to Israel-Palestinian conflict, and since it will have to eventually be incorporated back into that article, the new article should just be deleted now and the user should bring his concerns and proposed edits to the Talk: page of the original article Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Jayjg is correct. This is the way that we all handle all article, especially controversial issues. Keeping a separatrem, parallel article in this case violates Wikipedia policy and creates a divisive precedent. What we end up with is not Wikipedia NPOV, but rather the MPOV policy of the Wikipedia fork, Internet-Encyclopedia (a totally separate project that forked off of Wikipedia a while ago.) RK 20:59, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you that trying to create a POV alternative of a controversial article should not be tolerated. However, I think this article has potential if it strives to answer the question "What do people mean when they utter the word "occupation" in reference to territories that were part of (pre 1948) Palestine?". _R_ 21:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's perfectly appropriate to refer to the occupation of Palestine as such; as far as I see it, the only question is how to neutralize the POV content in the article. -- Ce garcon

• Delete JFW | T@lk 12:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously.--Xed 15:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. The title is inherently POV, since it specifies a political judgment. It is not sufficient to simply say "well, that's what some people call it." The title then makes the content POV, because Palestine has been "occupied" for centuries--it hasn't been a sovereign nation, so you would need to talk about the Turkish Occupation, and the Jordanian Occupation, and so on. If we were to let this stand, we would need to submerge ourselves in irridentism, and have an article on western Poland titled Occupation of Germany, or of New York State, Occupation of the Iroquois Nation, or even of Syria, Iran and Iraq Occupation of the Ottoman Empire. Of course there are probably some people who would enthusiastically agree with these, but this is not Wikipedia's job. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good points. See Occupied territories. It is important to note that most nations in the world are in some way an occupier of a previous inhabitant's land. Generally, any disputed territory can be seen as occupied by the party that has control over it at the moment. --Viriditas 21:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect and protect redirect. Snowspinner 17:24, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Tribalism, or: Defending the indefensible

For many here the pull of tribal ties apparently outweighs both common sense and human decency. The wagons were promptly circled by the tribal watchdogs (and their lapdogs) and the AgitProp-In-Chief User:Jayjg went rounding up the troops; all but one drones have answered the call and rushed to the barricades (the one unresponsive drone is presumably out of service or in the re-education camp). The hope of tribal Deleters appears to be that fairness and justice can be deleted, or at least beaten into submission for the time being. But, ignorance of logic and history (including their own!) can yield at best a Pyrrhic victory. In the long term: Resistance is futile, the truth will prevail. HistoryBuffEr 18:53, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

What a bizarre view of the sequence of events, and of fairness and justice. However, given your view of the conflict in general, and your view of how to write "NPOV" Wikipedia articles, entirely unsurprising. Jayjg 20:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Looking at rogue admin Jayjgs history makes things clear.--Xed 20:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow, the infamous troll Xed is back from his one week blocking. Perhaps your Request for Comment can now proceed to its logical conclusion. Oh, and please don't e-mail me any more, I don't care to correspond with you. Jayjg 20:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We can't have any faith in you anymore, Jayjg. You're a "rogue admin." I've heard about what you rogue admins do. They've been known to uproot trees and trample entire villages. :D -- Cecropia | Talk 20:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This 'infamous troll' has contributed 3 new articles today. Jayjg doesn't seem to have contributed any new articles, and has instead spent all his time pushing his monomaniacal agenda, as his history shows. --Xed 20:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mildly re-wording pages from existing websites to produce "new articles" may protect Wikipedia from copyright infringement action, or it may not. Time will tell. Anyway, I'm done feeding stalker trolls. Jayjg 22:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whats that? You haven't contributed anything apart from promoting your own agenda? Tragic.--Xed 22:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, jayjg drones are at least Wikipedians. Your drones seem to be all newbies :-P Gadykozma 23:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Correction: The one missing drone has been fixed (Jewbacca has voted as expected). Also note this hilarious exchange (excerpts from 1 and 2, combined):

"You might be interested in the discussion regarding the deletion of this article: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Occupation_of_Palestine Jayjg 05:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I see you've already seen it and voted on it. Jayjg 06:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I voted just after seeing your note. Neutrality (talk) 06:01, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

... Ooops. :-) Jayjg 06:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did you drop me a note because of the Israeli flag on my userpage? ;) Neutrality (talk) 06:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

No, I was more looking for names that I recalled had been involved in previous discussions/edits on the topic of Israel etc. I figured they would have an informed opinion. Jayjg 06:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)..."

HistoryBuffEr 22:30, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

What does it mean that I voted as expected? And what does it mean to refer to me as the one missing drone? Thanks for the clarification.

Wikipedia is a community effort and a member of the community asked me to take a look at this discussion. After considering it for a couple of days I returned to place a vote as all members of the Wikipedia community are welcome to do. Because I didn't vote the way you did does not make a drone or a puppet. In fact I don't think I voted the same way as the user who invited me to look at this discussion.

I voted to put a redirect because while I disagree that "Palestine is occupied", I do believe that users may come to Wikipedia looking for information on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by typing in "Occupation of Palestine" if they are coming with that POV and they should be provided with the information the community has written regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hence I tried to vote not my agenda, but what I believe to be the most NPOV and all-welcoming approach. Jewbacca 22:58, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

My drone humor aside, you confirm my general point. And your Palestine occupation denial is just the icing on the cake. HistoryBuffEr 23:29, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm failing to see the connection with the actual topic at hand, which is what should be done with the Occupation of Palestine article. If a thorough review of the Ad hominem and Poisoning the well articles don't help, perhaps you and Xed should set up a separate page for the purpose of stalking and criticizing me, and leave this one to the relevant discussion. Just a friendly suggestion. Jayjg 22:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tell us more about "ad hominem", please. Starting with your first post you've repeatedly impugned my integrity and motivation, with no evidence (actually, contrary to the evidence). I've refused to dignify your personal attacks, and will continue to do so. HistoryBuffEr 23:29, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Ostentatiously changing my vote

I had previously said "keep or merge", but I am changing my vote to neutral.

1. I am distressed by the downright mean and petty tone of some of the arguments on the keep side, and I am simply uncomfortable to be in such company.
2. Besides the issue of tone, I can see that there are several people who wish to use this article not as a place to discuss the occupation of the Territories -- which I think we should have an article on -- but to question the entire legitimacy of the Israeli state, and to argue that all Jews in the region are "occupiers". This makes me very uncomfortable with keeping an article at this title.

I still believe that we need to have far more coverage in Wikipedia of what I will continue without reservation to call the Occupied Territories, so I cannot bring myself to vote against this, either, but apparently this article is, indeed, intended to set Israel apart as less legitimate than other states in the region, and I can't support that. -- Jmabel 00:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I give up on making Wikipedia aticles appear fair with NPOV

As I have said before, I do not hate people, any people of any race, religion, colour, whatever... I do not even hate the Zionist state for all the damage it has done to my people; the Palestinians. I do hate, though, the way the pro-Zionist supporters overule every post on the other side, not even admitting that there is anything wrong. It is a shame and a crime akin to Holocaust deniers, in all due respect. I am Palestinian by birth and feel now that this project will never be credible in this respect - The Arab/Israeli conflict and especially anything to do with the Palestinians inalienable human rights and their tragic recent history (are all diputed, and our view is now where to be seen on most of these pages). I will continue to monitor and interject (vainly trying to set the record straight) when I can, but feel there is no chance at the present time. Lie and try to cover up the truth as much as you want, it will come out one day in the end, you cannot lie and obscure the truth about it forever. There is a reason so many young Jewish youths cannot stand the Zionist state and what it has become now. The flee from it and the militaristic settlers in droves... With sadness, I give up... Joseph 00:57, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Joseph: I realize this is not the right place for reconciliation. Speaking for myself only, if I change the word "Palestinian" to "Jew", I can sign practically entire your paragraph. Zionism, the idea of of Jews returning to their homeland (even though they have never completely left), is despised as racism, despite our willingness to share it with others. At the same time most of the world cheers up the "right of return" of Palestinian Arabs to the same land, automatically annihilating the Jewish state and making the land Judenrein. I am sorry that your people were used (and abused) in dirty political games, or chose bad leaders such as Amin al-Husseini or Arafat, or rejected the dozen or so offers to share the land and create two states, or to build and negotiate, instead of blowing people and things up. There are 22 huge and resource-rich Arab states carved out of the Ottoman Empire and only one tiny Jewish. Perhaps it's time to try peace without attempts to destroy "the Zionist state"? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question: How many times have the Palestinians been offered a State, and how many times have they turned it down? --Viriditas 02:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My answer: unless you consider a Bantustan a state, then exactly once, in 1947. -- Jmabel 06:36, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

WP has some good and some not so good articles on this. There is also a bunch of maps around the web, e.g. UN or Palestinefacts. Here are a few partition plans:

• 1919 Arab-Jewish agreement promoted Arab-Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish National Homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East. Didn't go anywhere, thanks to Mufti.
• 1937 Peel Commission plan and partition plans by Woodhead Commission.
• 1939 St. James Conference ended without making any progress: the Arab delegation refused to recognize or meet with its Jewish counterpart. See also White Paper of 1939.
• 1947 UN Partition Plan.
• Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel. If, in the course of negotiations, you are presented with an offer, the correct strategy would be to a) give a counter offer, or b) start the intifada and call for millions of martyrs? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is irrelevant but I really cannot resist. Humus, Go to http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/index.html (if you can't read Hebrew, you will at least see the maps) and tell me if you would have accepted such a fractal country. Gadykozma 11:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This might be the English version, I didn't check. http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/offers.doc Gadykozma 12:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"their homeland"? race based POV. "instead of blowing people and things up", try St Davids Hotel and 2 British NCO's hung in a lemon grove, plus other activities of the Irgun and Stern gang. Are you perhaps an agent provcateur trying to stir up anti- jewish feeling or are you just a racists idiot?--Jirate 02:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chill out. The Jews condemned terrorism and destroyed Jewish terrorist gangs by the end of 1940s. When is the other side going to do the same? Shall we talk about the popularity of shahids in the Arab society today? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NO they didn't. They just transfered them to the IDF, and one M Begin was a member of the IRGun and sometime latter Israeli PM.--Jirate 11:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Ad hominem remark wasn't addressed at me, but I'll take the liberty to respond with a question: Jirate, which one are you? An agent provocateur or just a racist idiot? I'll withdraw my question the moment you withdraw yours. -- Jmabel 06:36, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I am neither, I just happen to recognize racists of all races going around doing their evil. It's just a pity that some of the most racists people belong to groups that are the victims of racism.--Jirate 11:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, one last time, look there is not another article called Occupation of Palestine is there? No ok, so there could be one, it should be balanced and fair, NPOV, clean this one up, create a new one I do not care which, but let one stand. When I first joined back when, the Wiki wanted all the articles it could get, what is wrong with that? Jayjg says this particular article was created out of a sense of malice, perhaps so, who knows? I don't, but that should not be if that is so. I for one do not want issues relating to the very serious subject of the Palestinian/Zionist conflict being used as some sort of tool to slander another person or group of people or anything. It means too much to me, I still have family that live there, everywhere there and beyond... I would kindly ask (as others have in the past) you people to consider the effects this conflict has on REAL people. Real peoples families are being killed, on both sides, the trauma is very real and sickenning. The least we could do here, in this role, is try to present in an infomative way the facts as best we can find them in an unbiased and objective manner. It is hard, but we should try to be fair and reasonable. Thanks for the space, Joseph 04:33, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

---

One last point then I will keep silent, I am a Library Technician by training, I work in the library profession. The very esssence of providing information in this field is to do so in an objective unbiased manner. When one fulfills a reference request in this profession, provide information, one presents all the information available. Not selected portions. Censorship, banning the right to free expression is a big taboo, libraries have a long history of fighting censorship. Freedom to read is an essential right of all human beings. That said, I am opposed to deletions as a rule excpept for the serious rights violations of others. Deletions should occur only when there is no real constructive method of dealing with a problematic or malicious article. I can see if the topic was a double, but in this case it is not. Thanks again Joseph 05:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Joseph, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page on all but our conclusion about what should be done with this article. I think the Occupation is a perfectly valid topic. I think it needs to be taken up seriously somewhere in the Wikipedia. At first I thought it should be in an article of its own under this title, but now I suspect that it had best at least be "incubated" at Israeli-Palestinian conflict and possibly factored out later if there is consensus to do so. The main reason I have changed my mind is that while I use "Occupation of Palestine" as a shorthand for "Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories", it has become very clear that there are people who intend to use the very title as a tool to argue that all Jewish presence (or at least all Zionist presence) in former mandate Palestine constitutes "occupation". I find that view exactly as abhorrent as I find the attitude that continues to deny Palestinians the status of a people.

In any event, there seems to be a near-consensus that this is an under-covered topic. I don't think it is as crucial that it immediately be placed in a separate article as that we start to write about it. And thank you for preserving a constructive attitude on what must obviously and appropriately be an emotional topic for you. Would that a few others would do the same. -- Jmabel 06:36, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Let there be no doubt about it: many Palestinians and opponents of Zionism do think that all of "Palestine" (i.e. not just the West Bank and Gaza but also Israeli territory) is "occupied". They think that the creation of the "Zionist state" led to the expulsion of Palestinians from "their" land, that this new state, which denies the "right to return" to the Palestinian former inhabitants while granting such a "right to return" to all ethnic Jews even those who have had no connection with this land for 2 millenia, is therefore an "apartheid state", the State of all Jews and Jews only. They regard this "apartheid state" as "occupying" "their" land and they think that this "occupation" must end. That is what they do think, no doubt about it. Zionists find this view "abhorrent" (and wouldn't tolerate it being described at Wikipedia), no doubt about that either.

Some of these strong anti-Zionists also do think that all Israelis/Jews should be "driven into the sea" ; but many of them argue for something entirely different: they argue for a bi-national state, in which Palestinians and Jews have equal national and individual rights. They do not argue for the destruction of Israel together with all Israelis, they argue for the transformation of the Zionist "apartheid state" into a state that accomodates the aspiartions of both Jewish and Palestinian nationalism on an equal footing. Radical Zionists reject and most of the time ignore this possibility ; when they do respond, they typically argue that this is "anti-Semitic" because it would make Jews the only nation in the world to whom their "own" state is denied (nevermind the obvious contradiction that they would be equally racist, because they simultaneously deny that right to Palestinians, also nevermind that dozens of other ethnic and cultural groups come to mind at once that don't have their "own" state, Kurds, Afrikaners, Native Americans, Scots, Asanti, Bavarians, Basques, Maori, Sikhs, etc. etc.)

I am not arguing in favour or against any of these political positions here (personally I detest all forms of nationalism because nationalism is an abomination of the humanity in all of us and of all our cultures, and nationalism always seems to be the root of enormous bloodshed and conflict) ; what I am arguing for is that there are many different political positions in this conflict, and that all of them have a legitimate right to exist in Wikipedia, to be described equally in a NPOV manner from their own POV (as opposed to in a POV manner from their opponents POV), no matter how abhorrent they may appear to anybody - because: if we do not present these views it is simply impossible to understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Worries about how a particular article may or may not affect the case made by one or the other side in this bloody conflict (which is 80% of what's written on this page) are totally illegitimate and beside the point - enabling readers to understand this conflict must be our sole aim at Wikipedia. Sadly this is not happening at all. Sadly, the most intolerant, intransigeant, rejectionist and extreme Wikipedians from both sides of the debate effectively collaborate in marginalising, frustrating and eventually eliminating the moderate and open-minded ones - just like in the real world. Sadly, the partisans have little integrity. Palestinian and anti-Zionist views are consistently removed, distorted beyond recognition and hidden away by their opponents. This does Wikipedia a great disservice. The articles about the Israeli-Palestinian issue are absolutely appalling and they diminish and ridicule the whole project we are working on. - pir 12:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Making Wikipedia articles appear fair with NPOV

The occupation of Palestine has occurred several times throughout history. Various justifications and criticisms of these occupations have been made.

Articles about this region of the earth's surface should merely recount the facts, as best we can find them (with any significant variations when the facts are in dispute).

We should not try to "get to the bottom of it" and label one nation's "occupation" as justified or not.

Rome occupied Palestine rather famously during New Testament times, a fact which is significant for Christians because Jewish leaders appealed to Pilate to crucify Jesus.

Didn't the Ottoman Empire control or "occupy" Palestine for centuries leading up to modern times?

Jordan occupied the West Bank, a portion of Palestine; this should at least be mentioned in the article.

The current legal status of Palestine's various residents is obviously hotly disputed. Actually, "violently disputed" would be more precise. Various militia and quasi-govermental organizations control neighborhoods and larger areas in Gaza and the West Bank. Then, there's Israel which controls a patchwork of areas: some militarily and administrativel, others only militarily.

Not to mention that there is unrest in the area, variously described as a "war", an "uprising", a "terrorist campaign", or even "anarchy" (depending on the source).

Oh, and don't forget that many countries don't even recognize Israel as a nation, so the non-Gaza, non-West Bank, non-Jordanian parts of Palestine are seen by some as "occupied territory".

There are so many versions of what happened and whether or not it was justified and what various advocates propose to do about it, that some writers simply want to withdraw or call for a vote (I mean here at Wikipedia).

But my suggestion is for each contributor to take a step back, re-examine the facts and positions, and write from the lofty position of someone trying to explain a family squabble to an outsider:

• I wanted the remote, so I grabbed it from Johnny; he grabbed it back because he "had it first" but it was time for "my show" to come on, etc.

Please understand: I am not trivializing the Arab-Israeli conflict; I am not "comparing" the fate of millions of Arabs and other residents of Palestine to an evening of watching TV. I am using this metaphor to suggest a plan for writing about the topic.

Don't assume that our readers know everything that you regard as common knowledge. Don't assume they subscribe to the same legal or moral or ethical system that you take for granted.

Rise to the challenge, and make a new start. Please! --Uncle Ed 13:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, do I misunderstand you or are you arguing in favour of a NPOVed Occupation of Palestine article ? - pir 13:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I moved Occupation of Palestine to Israeli occupation of Palestine and gave it a serious overhaul. I'm also thinking of starting a non-redirecting version of occupation of Palestine which recounts every major instance of migrants taking up residence in the region (from pre-historic or Biblical times, up to the present) as well as all military invasions, partitions and periods of military control. Honestly, some people don't want a neutral article: they want an "objective" article which clearly proves that the "fillintheblankians" are the true and rightful owners of this land.

There are times when I wish all those people would quit editing these articles -- but sometimes I'm one of those people, and then I take a long break until I can do NPOV work again. Some friends of mine just came back from the holy land, and I felt inspired to try again today. --Uncle Ed 15:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excellent work. If the vote was still open I'd change mine to support keeping this version. Andrewa 21:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

An example of the occupation today

Hello again, I am not sure on where the votes are now, or the status of the article, but I thought it may help to have an example of the Occupation as it was meant in the original article today. This is not meant to criticize anyone person or anything, but just an example see: Early troubles for Palestinian voter registration a quote:

An Israeli military closure order is posted to the door of an empty office in a community centre that sits astride the dusty streets of the Shufat Palestinian refugee camp in Israeli occupied East Jerusalem.

...'Israeli territory'

...About 1,000 voter registration centres have been set up in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip...

...Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has begun campaigning But still the offices are functioning. So why did Israel shut down only those centres in Palestinian East Jerusalem?

Because Jerusalem is sovereign Israeli territory, says Spokesman Raanan Gissin.

"Jerusalem has a totally different status, the municipal boundaries have been determined by the 1981 law, approved by the Knesset.

"It's not occupied territory and as any other country would not permit political activity of a foreign country, particularly voting, so Israel has the same right to prevent that kind of political activity within Jerusalem itself."

International law is clear about East Jerusalem. It's occupied Palestinian territory, with the same status as the West Bank and Gaza.

"We don't accept that", says Mr Gissin,

I appreciate Ed Poor's approach, and commend the effort. Unfortunately for me, the article does not address, what I see, as the main point of the original article. That point is the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian territory conquered in the original 1948 war, the subsequent 1967 (Six Day War) conflict, and the occupation of territory under the administration of the Palestinian Authority (God how I hate that name) today, perhaps even reference to the Zionist state making a unilateral withdrawal to borders of its own choosing rather than what International Law prescribes. I think that is what the issue really is...

With all due respect, if someone wants an explanation of Ancient Palestine or the Roman Occupation of Palestine/Israel/Holy Land, etc. then there is ample coverage of that in the original Palestine article.

I think this article needs to be written in the time-frame of today, with see alsos and such to other areas of relevance.

I looked over many things about Wikipedia policy, and there is no edict asking to restrict or limit articles. In fact quite the opposite, the idea is to make the Wikipedia grow, albeit with a NPOV view and in the strictures of scholarly debate, I suggest we go that route, with collaboration from everyone.

This post was meant to help explain, assist others and further clarify where this article should lead to. Thanks, and I hope that helps... Joseph 15:07, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Can we talk?

Jayjg is right: Occupation of Palestine will never be NPOV based on the title alone; there is no way to get people to agree on what "Palestine" is, nor on what "Occupation" is.

That is why so many people want there to be a neutral article on the "occupation of Palestine" -- and possibly a distinct, related article on the "Israeli occupation of Palestine" which can address these issues.

And the notion that 2/3 have agreed to the deletion or redirect simply isn't true:

1. The articles were radically changed, but no new vote was taken
2. Several people have voiced opinions but didn't 'vote'

Please respond to reason, and don't make me get help from the other sysops. --Uncle Ed 15:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, "and don't make me get help from the other sysops" is not exactly a friendly tone, is it. For the rest of you. Take a break from the page and think about what this page really is about. I would prefer you wrote it in the page talk, or on the mailing list. Christopher Mahan 16:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Christopher, you are right. I was not being friendly. What's worse, I knew this when I made that remark *looks down at shoes briefly*

I'm going to confine my writing to page talk & the mailing list, as directed, for the next day or so... --Uncle Ed 17:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How bout an article on occupied territories of the Middle East? Then we can write about Syria occupying Lebanon... --Uncle Ed 21:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, next you are going to suggest Occupied territories whose name begins with P. I still haven't understood why the contents cannot be added to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Maybe we should start with that? BTW, another good place for that would be Palestinian views of the peace process.

Ed, there is clearly consensus for a redirect. I count 31 votes to delete and/or redirect, and I count 13 votes to keep as is. Just because a VFD vote doesn't go your way does not give you the right to go do your own thing anyway, so I've reverted to the redirect version. Ambi 02:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Occupation of the West Bank and the East Jerusalem by Jordan - Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt - Occupation of Lebanon by Syria - Occupation of Western Sahara by Morocco - Occupation of Tibet by China - Occupation of Northern Cyprus by Turkey - Occupation of Guantanamo Bay by the United States - Occupation of Falkland Islands by the United Kingdom - Occupation of Gibraltar by the United Kingdom - Occupation of Plazas de Soberania by Spain - Occupation of Basque Country by Spain and France - Occupation of Chechnya by Russia - Occupation of Eastern Prissia by Russia - Occupation of Kuril Islands by Russia - Why not create and keep these first? Why such preoccupation with the Jewish state? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:58, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Off you go and create them then, no one is stopping you,Why do you put such effort into making sure no one does discuss Israel? Worried they may find the truth?--Jirate 10:49, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And don't forget: Occupation of Hawaii by the United States - Occupation of Aztlan by the United States - Occupation of First Nations by Canada - Occupation of Aotearoa by New Zealand - Occupation of the Kalahari by Botswana - Occupation of the Isle of Man by the United Kingdom... --Viriditas 09:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The UK occupies the IoM? Strange that the IoM has had it's own independent parliment for 1000 years, is self governing, Isle_of_Man. I'm sure the Palesinians would be happy to be as Occupied.--Jirate 10:49, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why not create these first? Why not such proccupation? I understand your implicit implications, but the answer is very simple: because this is one of the most controversial and most explosive conflicts of our time. This region is where the three major monotheistic religions originated and the associated cultures/countries are involved in this conflict. The world's sole remaining superpower is deeply involved in it. The world's most feared terrorist organisation gets so worked about up this (among a couple of other things) that they crashed planes into the WTC on 9/11. Many Muslims think it's the worst example of how they are oppressed by the West. Millions of Christian fundamentalist (esp. in the US) think that this is where the final showdown of Armageddon will soon occur and Jesus return. This is one of the most important conflicts of our time, and an encyclopaedia which doesn't deal with it in a NPOV, non-partisan way, representing the views of the opposing parties fairly and equally, is, quite frankly, not worth the harddisk space it's written on. That's why, not the reason you are implying. - pir 11:08, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pir, you wrote: The world's most feared terrorist organisation gets so worked about up this (among a couple of other things) that they crashed planes into the WTC on 9/11. That's a common misconception. bin Laden and the hijackers did not care about the Palestinians and never did. If anything, our support for the Saudis was to blame; Israel had nothing to do with it. --Viriditas 11:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not bin Laden cares about anybody is something none of us can now, but it is certainly true that the treatment and dispossesion of the PAlestinians at the hand of Israel figures in all their propaganda, for the simple reason that a very large proportion of Muslims are outraged about it. There's only one way to counter-act propaganda: confronting it with factual information and addressing people's views/grievances. That's why it's so important we don't delete this article. - pir 11:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Al Q claims to be pro Palestinians, they are definetly using anger generated on behalf of the Palestinians.--Jirate 11:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Isle of Man see the sovereignty movement of Mec_Vannin. --Viriditas 11:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which has the opportunity to stand for the house of Keys but declines, after it's one and only MP, ever defected to another non independence party. You should perhaps also think about the Cornish Liberation Front, I myself am a member of the Scouse National Party, I'll be creating my own section. Woolyback Occuption of Heaven on Earth. --Jirate 11:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge

Has anyone merged the info I supplied in occupation of Palestine and Israeli occupation of Palestine to any other article. If so, please tell me where to look for this info.

If not, I request that

1. The REDIRECT be reverted, and
2. We have a new vote with only two items: (a) keep info, or (b) REDIRECT

A few people said that there was already "a vote" which produced "a consensus". I maintain that my additions and changes to the articles were significant enough to warrant a new vote.

I am an admin, and therefore am honor-bound not to use sysop powers to 'get my way' in this dispute. So I'm just asking everyone: please vote again. --Uncle Ed 12:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ed, as I explained in Wikipedia Talk:Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine/Tally I don't think you have a case for a revote, but just to be on the safe side, I keep my redirect/delete vote. Gadykozma 13:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My prediction starts to come true, the mess is growing

Well, now, it appears we've started down the road of POV forks for everyone, and everyone who ever controlled Palestine becoming an occupier: see Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt and Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan . This is getting mighty tiresome; have people come to their senses yet and realized that all this "Occupation" material actually belongs in the relevant articles (e.g. Israel-Palestinian conflict, Palestine, etc.) or are they just going to let Wikipedia devolve into a mess of tiny overlapping articles, each expressing a different POV? Jayjg 15:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• By the way, Wikipedia already has extensive articles on Belligerent occupation and a List of military occupations (thus far) about the Occupation of Iraq, by the United States, United Kingdom and others (2003); Occupation of Japan, by the United States (1945-1951); Occupation of Denmark by Germany (1940-1945); Occupation of Czechoslovakia; Occupation of Baltic Republics by the Soviet Union 1940-1990, so what is all the fuss about. This is an encyclopedia after all. IZAK 08:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a complicated subject, and many hundreds of books have been written. I don't mind many articles. Christopher Mahan 16:13, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind many articles either. I do mind many articles with POV titles illogically organized and overlapping in content. Jayjg 20:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think there is a very broad consensus that the main article on the subject should be Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In that sense Jayjg's argument here is a strawman. - pir 16:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This might deserve many articles, but with a sensible division! Would you accept Occupation of territories beginning with a P by countries beginning with an E? We are not discussing somebody with a project to write a history book for Wikipedia and dividing it into many pages. We are discussing people abusing the fact that deletion of pages is difficult in order to push their POV! Gadykozma 17:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If only my argument were a strawman, pir. In fact, even though the consensus exists, the minority who objected will not accept the majority opinion, so the problem remains. Jayjg 20:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pir, I am not part of the consensus you claim. Sorry to disagree with you, after all the applause you gave me for my versions of occupation of Palestine, et al. On this one, I agree with Christopher. Moreover, a similar explosion of articles resulted from the dispute over Augusto Pinochet -- if you recall, writing there had stalled over POVs on the American CIA's role in the Chilean coup of 1973. After the logjam was broken, all sorts of previously unknown or laid-back writers stepped in, and now we have a Chile series to be proud of. I'm hoping our Arab-Israeli conflict series well also become praiseworthy. --Uncle Ed 17:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know the process by which other encylopedia go through similar arguments. How many revisions of structure etc. I imagine it's not dissimlar to the what happened in the case of Chile. The significant difference being that it is visible here, and that is good as it should allow people to establish their own level of confidence in the info provided.--Jirate 18:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another compromise attempt

What do people here think about the title Occupation (Israeli-Palestinian discourse)? Gadykozma 01:12, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why is "discourse" better than Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Here's a recipe for more mess: creating an article Israeli occupation of Palestine will have a consequence of whole bunch of other "occupation" articles including Arab occupation of Eretz Israel. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This discussion continues at Talk:Occupation of Palestine. Gadykozma 16:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vote for deletion 2004

Article was listed on WP:VFD 14 Sep to 20 Sep 2004, consensus was to kep and list on cleanup. Discussion:

Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Unless this article gets a nice expansion, I think it should be deleted. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 23:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep and send to cleanup. Guanaco 23:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup - Wikipedia is not a cookbook, but we do write about food, and this is not a recipe. -- Netoholic @ 00:11, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
• Delete: Substub dictdef. Sure, if someone gets into how this is the national dish of somewhere, it should stay, but how we get that from this is beyond me. Geogre 00:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup.--Samuel J. Howard 01:12, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Not earth-shaking, but somewhere within the bounds of "encyclopedic" Dukeofomnium 02:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Agreed w/ Dukeofomnium. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe transwiki somewhere else (dictionary?), but not encyclopedic. --Improv 20:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I found a recipe, added both it and Cuisine of Slovenia to Wikibooks (Can you believe they don't have a Strudel recipe yet?) so this article could link to a recipe. The Steve 05:08, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

expansion

I have expanded the article somewhat. It's still limited to a basic definition though, not much more is possible on an article about food. A recipe is best for wikibooks, and a link has been provided to that page. --- User:Dariusthegreat88

gibanica

I have removed the following part:

The original gibanica (ГИБАНИЦА in Serbian) recipe is of Serbian origin. A Croatian variant is made in the region of Medimurje, hence known as Medimurska gibanica.

External links

• Cheese Strudel Pie - Gibanica - The best Serbian recipes
• Kuvarica

I'm not sure that just because it's called a gibanica we can safely assume that it originated from Serbia. It seems to me to be more of a consequence of the similarity of the lnaguages rather than anything else. And also, that info should be added to the article on gibanica, when created, not prekmurska gibanica. edolen1 23:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Prekmurian culture and more over literal (written) language does not share almost anything of "Serbian origin". Pure Serbian nationalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.198.47.183 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Title change request

The title was incorrectly changed from Prekmurska gibanica to Prekmurje gibanica, probably by someone that does not understand the difference between an adjective (Prekmurska - ie. coming from Prekmurje) and a noun (Prekmurje - region name) in Slovenian. The sources also *all* name it correctly in Slovenian. The title should be thus changed back to Prekmurska gibanica. Whether or not an English version is appended I have no opinion (it would be "Prekmurje layered cake") . I actually opened my first wikipedia account to do it, but can not since there seems to be a threshold on what I can do at this time (somewhere I read my account needs to be open 4 days and I must make 10 edits). So I ask someone else to correct that horrid mistake. Mmiklic 12:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for the explanation. I have done as you requested. Cheers!  The Steve  11:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

merge with Međimurska gibanica

Please see Talk:Međimurska gibanica. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

September 15

There is no spoon -- 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

Not worthy of its own page. The Matrix article already has a link to a page on Wikiquote with many Matrix quotes including this one. --Chessphoon 02:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete; agree on all points. Kbh3rd 02:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Yath 06:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Clearly, here "there is no article". Dictdef. Redirect to The Matrix. --Slowking Man 06:45, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Why not just redirect this to The Matrix article? Redirects are cheap, and discourage re-creation of the article. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't see people searching this. It's not much of a quote, either; about the most obvious Zen borrowing in the film. Geogre 13:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• This phrase has entered popular culture, or at least is common in some circles. There is an article on All your base are belong to us, so why not this? Obviously, it needs expansion, but I think it can stand. Keep. Darksun 17:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't know if phrases ever belong in Wikipedia unless they have some kind of legal meaning or similar, but if they do, they need to meet a higher standard. --Improv 20:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. That will discourage someone else from coming along later and remaking it unless they have enough material to add. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Whoah. Delete. Lacrimosus 02:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps Wikiquote, but I expect it's there already. Andrewa 07:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• You mean, I can vote to Delete articles? --Lysol 14:36, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Don't try to delete the article. That's impossible. Just try to realize that there is no article.

• Redirect to The Matrix to prevent recreation and impress newbies with Wikipedia's powers. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:30, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect... as long as the original one is deleted first. - Cymydog Naakka 10:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • May I ask what damage the (sub)substub will do in the page history? Are you concerned with the wasted server space? Redirect. — David Remahl 10:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:16, Sep 20, 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.

GroupX -- 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 REDIRECT

Redirect to Group X. 67.168.34.86 04:42, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: You can do that yourself, doesn't need VfD. I've gone ahead and put a redirect in anyway. Ianb 06:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• comment: can this be removed from the VfD page, as it wasn't actually requesting deletion? — Gwalla | Talk 16:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • With an IP nominating, there is very little way for us to ask or expect the nominator to remove the nomination, so I'd agree with removing this early. Anyone can do it, especially since the redirect has taken place. (I must say, however, that Group X didn't exactly set my eyes ablaze with joy.) Geogre 17:14, 16 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.

Pesmard Vandigor -- Add to this discussion

Pesmard Vandigor: original work of fiction. Claimed to be part of the Toejam Jawallaby Usenet hoax, but Googling for "Pesmard Vandigor" gets 1 web hit (WP vfd page) and 0 Usenet hits. Toejam Jawallaby seems to have a life of his own, but Pesmard Vandigor was invented solely for the benefit of Wikipedia. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Ficticious. --Yath 06:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: More of the hoax. Geogre 13:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 18:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Natoli Brothers -- Add to this discussion

Natoli Brothers: original work of fiction. Claimed to be part of the Toejam Jawallaby Usenet hoax, but Googling for Natoli Jawallaby yields 0 web hits and 0 Usenet hits. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. --Yath 05:59, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: More of the saga of Toejam. Geogre 13:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 18:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Qwertian slip -- 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

Google shows no use of the word "Qwertian" in this manner -- Chuq 06:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Neologism. Delete - TB 09:34, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. SWAdair | Talk 10:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Not popular neologism. Without verification of its wider use, delete. Average Earthman 10:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: More articles on neural patterning, original research. Geogre 13:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. — Gwalla | Talk 16:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Interesting neologism (it made me smile), but a non-notable neologist nonetheless. Delete. • Benc • 07:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redir to Proofreading - form of typo. Davodd 12:54, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 18:06, 20 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.

No-boo -- 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

• • Tally:
  • Delete (20) — Gamaliel, SWAdair, Geogre, Triskaideka, Terrapin, DJ Clayworth, Jayjg, Hadal, Bkonrad, Bcorr, Neutrality, Bobdoe, RickK, Spatch, Dpbsmith, Lacrimosus, Wolfman, andrewa, Gwalla, Chriscf.
  • Keep (2) — Fish-man, Rex071404 (conditional)
  • Neutral (0)

---

Delete. POV, copyvio, etc. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-encyclopedic coverage of a non-story. SWAdair | Talk 10:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: More political campaigning in the pages of Wikipedia. Geogre 13:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Do not delete: Actual story, reference is given to AP, all verifiable, part of zeitgeist, no POV as is telegraphic. Perhaps remove word 'albeit'
  • The above vote was cast by an anonymous user. Such votes are not likely to be counted; see Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus.
• Do not delete: What is wrong with catching the AP and Boston Globe publishing a false story? Eye witnesses and video tape prove there was no booing. Can't the liberals take the truth? Are they all mind numbed followers of Michael Moore?
  • The above vote was cast by an anonymous user. Such votes are not likely to be counted; see Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus.
• Delete. This is either a neologism or a news story, and Wikipedia is not the right place for either of them. Whether or not the story is true, accurate, and/or well-referenced is irrelevant to the fact that it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —Triskaideka 15:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Were they booing or just saying "boo-urns!!"? BOOING! ;-) Terrapin 15:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• If we added an article for every mistake made by a news agency we'd have to start a whole new Wiki. Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: What Wikipedia is not: "A news report. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories. But of course creating encyclopedia articles on topics currently in the news is an excellent idea. See current events for some examples. (However, the Wiki process lends itself to collaborative, up-to-the-minute construction of current events of historical significance, as long as these are written as encyclopedia articles.)" -Seems like this is an item 'in the news'. It is a neologism in that it is a 'new word' - but that actually isn't listed in the 'what wikipedia is not' page, and it is certainly being referred to as the 'No-boo' affair on the web. And it does not simply document an error. It documents a clear falsification by AP, a 'trusted' news source. Fish-man (I am also one of the above anonymous-dudes, and the creator of the entry.)
  • Would you care to note which one of the "anonymous-dudes" you were? -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 17:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The first one.
  • VfD pages aren't the place for protracted arguing, so I've posted my lengthy response at User talk:Fish-man. Here I'll merely note that this vote by a brand-new username carries the same weight as an anonymous vote according to the page I linked above. —Triskaideka 18:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Jayjg 17:24, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I hope against hope that this sort of partisan piffle will subside after the election. -- Hadal 18:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Nonencyclopedic. older≠wiser 18:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Nonencyclopedic. BCorr|Брайен 18:54, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, based upon both the uselessness and incoherence of this article as well as the general tin hattery on the user's talk page. Also of note is the ridiculous title. "No-boo"? It sounds like one of those Japanese killer robots. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 21:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I am pleased to be cited by tinhattery by someone as <insert poper adjective here> as Bobdoe esp in a subject where there is clear evidence of a cabal.  :) blessings to you Bob, and may you get everything you wish for in life in spades!  :) --Fish-man 03:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: I thought No-boo was the planet Jar Jar Binks came from. — Gwalla | Talk 16:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense, hasn't even made it to the national consciousness, not an encyclopedic article, POV. RickK 21:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Fold into Media Bias TDC 21:38, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Disagree. No indication of any such thing. RickK 22:13, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • I do not follow? TDC 22:19, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • No indication in the article that there was any media bias. RickK 22:46, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Notable? Please. 10 years from now, and I'm being completely generous with that figure, nobody's going to care one whit about the reporting, mistaken or not, of booing at a single campaign rally.. Delete. Spatch 21:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, even if event is as described in the article it has no historical or even journalistic importance. By the way, I listened to the audio and my take on it is that I could not tell whether or not there was booing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. All news agencies make mistakes; nothing about this mistake suggests that it deserves a lengthy article, or indeed any article at all. —No-One Jones ^(m) 22:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep with better name or fold into media bias [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. Lacrimosus 02:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. a reporter mistook ooh's for boo's and corrected it when the mistake was pointed out; why is that noteworthy? if you feel this was a noteworthy example of bias or carelessness or whatever, then use it in a broader article as an example of that issue. Wolfman 02:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Electioneering. A summary could usefully be added to the media bias article as an example, but it's not worthy of a redirect. Andrewa 06:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable slip-up. — Gwalla | Talk 16:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• D Shit happens. Wikipedia is not Denis Norden. Delete. Chris 00:16, 18 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.

Halaf period -- Add to this discussion

The article page is an exact copy of this. And it is about a little bit different topic. Jaan513 07:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Slowking Man 07:42, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Nigger6 -- Add to this discussion

• Why should this be deleted? It's perfectly legit. Nobody here has heard of Nigger6? 68.105.147.66 07:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • No I haven't, check out my comments on talk:Nigger6. And please register, it makes conversations easier when you have a name rather than just an IP.--MaxMad 07:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Someone beat me to this page again. Anyway, sounds so much like a hoax. A Google Test fails (and no, SafeSearch isn't on). Two anons are edit warring over who can put more FreeIpods links into the article. Get rid of it. --Slowking Man 07:37, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 07:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Haha, that's not really a freeipods link. Check it out.(no-one wants to see that page. Link removed. —Rory ☺ 13:31, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC))

• One of the vandals put that link in there, not the original author.
• If we can't verify, delete. May qualift as patent nonsense speedy. Dunc_Harris|☺ 08:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, as long as we can get any verification. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Not quite patent nonsense. But definitely delete. — David Remahl 08:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Right on the edge of nonsense, definite hoaxing. Geogre 13:16, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Ridiculous, silly, and outright offensive nonsense! -- Crevaner 16:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg 17:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I happen to myself have a little knowledge of the Nigger6 program that I cannot speak about. Please do not delete the article. (Unsigned, by Special:Contributions/130.166.170.209)
• There are many articles on Wikipedia devoted to conspiracy theories, and dismissing this as not wiki worthy simply because the organization isn't well known or can be construed to have an offensive name (remember, this is a Norwegian organization, so Nigger may very well be a coincidence) is no grounds for deletion. Please consider this when voting. 68.105.147.66 03:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This is not a coincidence. "Nigger" means exactly the same in Norwegian. Actually it may be more offensive, since the number 6 is pronounced "sex". Delete as nonsense.--MaxMad 09:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but it needs to be completed. There was a lot of Israeli involvement in the espionage that has gone undiscussed in the article SoulJuice 04:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: this vote is User:SoulJuice's second contribution (adding this to his userpage was his first.) --Ardonik.talk() 19:28, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• I've never heard of this but it certianly seems extremely well-researched...it's definately worth keeping in, if at least for "strange" information value - it's one of those things that is probably impossible to truly confirm or deny. (Unsigned, by Special:Contributions/70.240.80.252)
• While I cannot discuss it in depth, I would like to mention that this conspiracy is very real, and that those who are attempting to dispute its encyclopediac value ought to read the comprehensive sections in the corrospondance between Leib and "Nameless patriot" which I believe was published as a yellow staple-bound dossier. I'll have to look through my archives to see what company published these. (Unsigned, by Special:Contributions/68.209.144.61)

• Delete. Zero Google hits in English, only three altogether, all in German, and I'm not sure those are about this. Hoax. RickK 06:12, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe there are no Google results because Israelis working for Google censored them.
    • Okay, this is honestly degenerating into insanity. Go push your anti-Israel POV somewhere else. --Slowking Man 06:25, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Tin-foil hat stuff. Andrewa 06:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 14:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ridiculous hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 16:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. —Rory ☺ 15:39, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard of it before.--Lysol 21:18, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: this user is associated with GNAA and has vandalized Wikipedia articles in the past. --Ardonik.talk() 19:37, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely more to this story than meets the eye -- GNAA Popeye 21:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: this user is associated with GNAA and has vandalized the wikipedia in the past, blanking his or her user talk page when confronted over this. --Ardonik.talk() 19:37, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • That wasn't me, somebody hacked my account GNAA Popeye 19:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I think I heard about this before. Definately something worth keeping and exploring further. It can't hurt to keep it. --Dirtytroll 21:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • (The above user has only two edits - possible sock puppet) - Tεxτurε 21:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Antandrus 02:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Scam. - Nunh-huh 02:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this patent nonsense with prejudice, possibly banning the sockpuppets that have come out in support of this article. A Google returns only Wikipedia and http://weblog.disgu.st/ (NOT WORK SAFE), proudly stating that it's an "official sponsor of Nigger6" and linking back here. We're being had by trolls that get their jollies by wasting our time instead of making positive contributions to our work. --Ardonik.talk() 19:21, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - patent nonsense only defended by vandalism and insults andy 19:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• DeleteGeni 20:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, for no reason other than that something sock puppets and trolls want to keep this badly can't be real. func(talk) 01:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Just because I want to see what all these sockpuppets will do to me ;). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Here's what they did to User:Ardonik. I'm disappointed; they're really not very good. --Ardonik.talk() 04:10, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • I would know, I got to revert it ;) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 12:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete fiction, ban vandals. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

DELETED

• See? I told you guys it was nonsense. --Ardonik.talk() 18:10, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Vadim Chernyak -- 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

Biography of 15-year old. Obviously not encyclopedia-class notable. Thue | talk 09:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• His poetry is awful (but quite funny). Vanity, delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:28, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, preferably speedily. Possibly a prank, what with the locker combinatin and all that. Ianb 09:45, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Ianb, this smells of prankdom. Average Earthman 10:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Qualifies under reason 4 at WP:CSD#Articles. • Benc • 12:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 12:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted: This contains personal data on the figure, including phone numbers. Having it here is quite possibly illegal, as it is most likely that a school enemy wrote this, and the child is a minor. Geogre 13:12, 15 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.

Financial dynamics -- Add to this discussion

The article Financial dynamics seems to be pushing unexplained "proprietary econometric forecasting techniques". I don't find the term Financial Dynamics to be in common use. References in the article are only to two recent books by the same author, who seems to be the same person who placed the article here. Looks like an attempt at advertising the books. Jallan 14:02, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• seems alright to me, needs cleanup though. Did you speak with User:Westland? Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Hmmmmmmmm. The publisher is as solid as can be, so I don't think this is silliness by any measure. Indeed, I suspect we're dealing with an expert, here. My concern is that the prose is as thick as a whale omlette right now and is not at all clear enough for an encyclopedia. Given the fact that this is expert writing, I'm not sure we can have anyone but an MBA clarify. Clean up, yes, but it would be even better if we could find Business as a Wikipedian by interests and page that person. Geogre 14:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not saying this is silliness or crank or bad. But "financial dynamics" as used in this article is just another individual jargon name for a system, one of thousands of such systems (many of them good) pushed by individuals in financial management books and career management books and so forth. At best grabbing a catch phrase to cover his "original research". And Google gets only 841 hits for "Financial Dynamics" Westland, almost all of them being mentions on book dealer websites or pages with an identical puff peace repeated as a review. No-one seems to be seriously reviewing the book. No-one is citing it or referring casually to Westland's revolutionary financial dynamics system. And probably no-one but Westland is using financial dynamics as he uses it and this article uses it. This is not an article on financial dynamics, but a marketdroid puff piece on "Westland's Financial Dynamics". If Westland and his ideas are notable, then they will get into Wikipedia eventually without him (or someone posing as him) placing them here. No cleanup of someone's advert! Jallan 15:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed 100% w/ Jallan's comments here. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I can be a little slow. I understood Jallan's original point only after voting. I suppose I have to say delete, but I wish that Westland could help us out on our paltry business coverage. At the same time, I think "dynamics of finance" is a big topic that we need material on, so "financial dynamics" seemed to be a logical lodge point for it. Geogre 17:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: advert. "Financial dynamics" gets a few web hits as a generic term for "dynamics of finance", and many more as the name of a company and as the title of User:Westland's book. Financial dynamics as described in the article is entirely Westland's particular approach. User:Westland also planted three promo links for financial dynamics in discounted cash flow. I guess he wanted to make sure readers got the hint. There's no point to try to contact User:Westland -- he posted his advert on June 1 and hasn't been back since. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• It's been independently published by a reputable publisher so it's not original research. The content all holds together - you certainly could consider all those factors when calculating a valuation. I'm going to vote delete because this content is the unhelpful jargon that you'd read on the dust jacket of the text. There is not enough real material to successfully understand or evaluate his approach. Lastly, delete because I can find no significant evidence that this methodology is in use outside his own classroom. It's certainly not mentioned in either of my valuations texts, has not been discussed in Harvard Business Review and has not come up in any other journal I follow. Rossami 06:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. --Viriditas 22:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heroic Adventure! -- 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

Game is at beta and is a derivative. Advertising/boosting for a freeware game. Geogre 14:27, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat. Ianb 14:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg 17:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable Rogue knockoff in beta. — Gwalla | Talk 16:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 18:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - most likely created to satisfy inexistant internal link at Roguelike, in section List of Popular Roguelikes. If deleted, internal link should also be unlinked. — dhedlund 20:23, 20 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.

The International Journal on Mathematical Convexity and its applications -- Add to this discussion

A mathematical journal that has been just created. No papers published yet and no google hits other than journal's website, either. I'm afraid this is not notable. Andris 15:07, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Don't be afraid, be bold ;-). Delete, possibly worthy but not yet noteworthy. The link provided doesn't seem to go anywhere either.Ianb 15:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It did when I just tried it -- it redirected to the journal page and opened a popup advert. An alternative to deletion would be to provide a link to the purported journal at the bottom of the article on convexity. This would also significantly increase its information content, since in its current form one will only find it if one already knows its name, in which case the article is very uninformative. On the other hand, people reading the article on convexity might be interested in it. ⇒ Move Fpahl 18:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It is decidedly dodgy. The editorial board consists of people who are not senior in the field. According to the main mathematical abstracts database (MathSciNet), Pinheiro has exactly one publication (in 2001) and Bastos has none at all. I think the article is intended as an ad. If it ever becomes a notable journal (impossible in my well-qualified opinion), we can create the article anew. --Zero 15:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: advert, bogus. An academic math journal hosted at geocities.com? Hmm. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert for non-notable, probably bogus "journal" that hasn't published yet. — Gwalla | Talk 16:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 18:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anita no te rajes -- Add to this discussion

If all TV programmes deserve an article, then I suppose this one does. But it does seem exceptionally unworthy if this is all there is to say about it. Deb 17:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Plus telenovelas are so short-lived anyway. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 17:15, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: If it were expanded, it might have value. It's hard to see any notability from this stub, though. No vote at this point. -FZ 17:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep stub. Lack of familiarity in certain cultures is not evidence of non-notability in others. See [24]. - KeithTyler 18:32, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC) (edited 17:48, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC))
• Delete substub: Single run on foreign language television decreases notability twice. Geogre 18:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability, not an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, send to cleanup. Any show on Telemundo is encyclopedia-worthy. -- Jmabel 00:48, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. When keep votes can only cite general lack of familiarity and claim that any show on a network is encylopedia-worthy, that's almost damming evidence it isn't notable. If there is something notable about this show, a new article that indicates its notablility could just easily be created from scratch. Jallan 15:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Untitled

from VfD:

As for Anita no te rajes above. Deb 17:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Soap operas are minor (sorry, Mike H), and then this is Spanish language. The notability for an anglophone encyclopedia is lowered by that. Geogre 18:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I disagree that the fact that the EN-Wikipedia is in English should imply that topics should be in any way judged based on *their* language specificity. That said, this article is poorly written. I rewrote it as a better stub (poked around for basic info). Hopefully someone will fill in a lot more info, or can tell us if it's notable. Keep --Improv 20:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And my point is that we serve the English speaking community. EN is not the master or the true Wikipedia. There should be a great deal of content on .SE or .CZ or .JA that isn't appropriate to .EN. That's not because it's not good information: it's because the items under description are not notable in the Anglophone world. It's not a value judgment. Do you think that the .DE folks are going to wonder about whether my new Peachoid is useful to them? I hope they don't. Geogre 01:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I always saw Wikipedia's different languages as being just a result of the fact that we don't all speak all languages fluently. Similarly, I think of EN as the "Wikipedia IN English", not "Wikipedia for the English". I don't see why one's language necessarily indicates what one will be interested in -- are Australians going to be interested in your Peachoid? Are Parisians likely to find towns in Quebec interesting? I do find this to be an interesting topic though, and am interested in further dialogue on it, in or outside this VFD. --Improv 17:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, send to cleanup. Any show on Telemundo is encyclopedia-worthy. -- Jmabel 00:49, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. -Sean Curtin 03:01, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not true that any show on any network or syndicate is necessarily encyclopedia-worthy of an article. If this show is either very popular or attains a cult popularity and a good article appears, then that good article would belong here. Jallan 19:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, send to clean-up. RMG 22:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion'

Burchett -- Add to this discussion

from VfD:

• Delete - This anon users name must be Burchett since every article he creates (many) are related to the last name "Burchett". He is creating this disambig page for every Burchett he can think of (maybe to include his own name and get it lost in the articles) and creating odd links back to the disambig page from within Burchett articles by linking from the last name even though it is being used to talk about the very article it is already in. - Tεxτurε 18:04, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep reasonable disambig page. If the user is vandalising other articles to link to it, fix that, and if he persists list on vandalism in progress remove all links to special:whatlinkshere/Burchett and make it an orphan only accessed by typing it in the go box. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I really think this is a family name tribute rather than a disambiguation. How many of the Burchetts listed are going to be searched for by their last name only? How many are known as Burchett? After all, the reason for a dab page is not to be a taxonomy, but to take multiple items with the same encyclopedia space and differentiate them -- thus Gone with the Wind (film) and Gone with the Wind. Geogre 19:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment- either of the two politicians might be searched under only their last name, since they will often appear that way in titles of legislation or documents. -FZ 19:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. We don't want or need pages for every last name (or every first name). A simple search on Burchett (or any last name) within Wikipedia already works well enough and is more trustworthy than attempting to maintain pages for every single last name. Jallan 15:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep as a valid disambig page. Although I'm normally eager to get rid of these vanity surname pages, this page is different in that it links to several articles with the last name. RickK 18:27, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. And how many surnames are there for which such pages can be created? And first names? Why Burchett, and not Kenyes, Holmes, Singh, MacDonald, Fong, Jones, Koch, Michaels, Chevalier, Van Dusen, Huxley, Jackson, Lewis, Johnson, Smith, da Silva, Chrétien, Bush, ... perhaps more surnames than Wikipedia currently has articles? Jallan 19:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, Keynes, Holmes, Singh, MacDonald, Jones, Koch, Huxley, Jackson, Lewis, Johnson, Smith, Chrétien, Bush do all exist either as entries for a place, group, or object of that name; disambiguation pages; or as redirects for people who are routinely referred to by only one name in many sources (many news articles will simply refer to "Chrétien" or "Bush" and assume you know who is meant, but someone reading from outside the home area of that publication, or in a later time, will not neccessarily know & will want to look it up). The disambiguation pages are made when there are more than one person who may routinely be referred to this way- Huxley is an excellent example, as both Aldous and T.H. Huxley, or their books, are frequently referred to by only their last name in their particular context. For cases like this, a disambig seems reasonable, and it looks like Burchett could reasonably be such a case, since there are two prominent political figures by that name who would have been referred to as such in news articles or legal act titles of their times. It seems worth keeping for this.-FZ 14:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Tactolark -- Add to this discussion

The consensus was for this article to be speedily deleted, which it was. The discussion is still available here until this VfD listing expires.

Solstice BBS -- Add to this discussion

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

Solstice BBS - see below

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

• Can't this be speedied? Articles that suddenly show back up after being deleted like this usually are. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 21:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I thought I had rewritten it to make it less advertisement-like. I guess we are basing this on encyclopedic-ness? It's certainly more encyclopedic than some other things that have been accepted into Wikipedia. What are the Alexa ratings of the other BBS's in Category:Bulletin board systems? If just one of them is as low as Solstice's I think we should examine all of them on an all-or-nothing basis. --Merovingian[[Image:Atombomb.gif|]]Talk 00:54, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: SolsticeBBS shouldn't be in Category:Bulletin board systems anyway. It's not a true Bulletin board system, just another Internet forum, of which there are very, very many, and only the really notable (the kin of Slashdot) deserve an entry, IMHO. Otherwise Wikipedia is going to end up as a self-service DMOZ. Ianb 17:28, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, seems marginally notable. Rhymeless 02:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. 3000 users doesn't make it notable. I'd need evidence of some other form of notability. Average Earthman 08:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable BBS. — Gwalla | Talk 16:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - no mention of any fame in the article even - Tεxτurε 18:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete with haste. --Golbez 08:15, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Rewriting adverts to make them less obviously adverts comes close to being sneaky vandalism. It is still an advert and still, as far as I can tell, no more notable than thousands of other internet forusm. Jallan 15:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

Vuffespijder -- 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

Um, what? A Dutch slang word, with no translation, which can't BE translated. Doesn't even belong on Wiktionary. RickK 21:14, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

• oddly enough neither google nor nl.wikipedia.org seem to have heard of this "controversial" word. Delete.--Ianb 21:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I'm Dutch myself, and I've never heard of this "epitome of Dutchness". Delete Eugene van der Pijll 21:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Being "shrouded in mystery" is not the same as being notable. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 21:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Joke, pretty nearly a speedy delete. Geogre 01:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: not a Dutch word, nonsense. Speedy candidate. {Ⓐℕάℛℹℴɴ} 11:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense, prank. — Gwalla | Talk 16:53, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - the epitome of nonsense - Tεxτurε 18:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:17, Sep 20, 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.

Astrochicken -- 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

• Delete. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic, nonsensical. (And mostly intended that way by Mr. Dyson.) --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 21:41, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
• Delete. I thought this page was going to talk about a mini-game from Space Quest, called "Astro Chicken". I was dead wrong. --G3pro 23:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I was ready for another recipe. At any rate, if the idea had spread, it would be worth reporting upon. As it hasn't, it's not. Geogre 01:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence that this idea has gotten any circulation. 77 Google hits for astrochicken Dyson; Wikipedia & clones rise to the top of that short list, not a good sign. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. BCorr|Брайен 15:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I have seen it referenced in several books (actual books on paper, so no Google hits)- I'd say merge & redirect to Freeman Dyson. -FZ 15:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 18:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Dyson sphere, OK. Dyson's astrochicken... please. func(talk) 02:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

• What G3pro said. Delete

Valeoism -- Add to this discussion

They sound like nice folks, but they say right up front that they don't have standing and are seeking to gather it via the Internet. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia at this point. Geogre 00:37, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - Kbh3rd 01:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Their Internet membership drives seem to be lacking -- 1 Google hit for Valeoism. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Currently obscure, no guarantee that will change. Wikipedia should not be used for promotion. Average Earthman 08:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete', political advertising. Ianb 13:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Promotion for non-notable group. — Gwalla | Talk 16:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - it's not blatantly promotional, but it's still wholly obscure. Lacrimosus 22:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity/advert - Tεxτurε 18:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Only one Google hit - too obscure. --Ce garcon 02:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Value of article

Article was listed on WP:VFD Sep 15 to Sep 21 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Nonencyclopedic. No context. Horrible title. RickK 22:00, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

• I stuck a categorization on it- I'm pretty sure this is a list of comic books, or comic book sections, or somesuch. I agree, though- the title is unhelpful, the page is formatted badly, and the inormation is of dubious value without any context. Unless something changes it, I'd vote delete. -FZ 22:23, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• It looks like quite some effort went into compiling this list, and it's no worse than most other specialized "List of..." pages. The page just needs to be moved to a useful title. Keep. RSpeer 23:40, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep - a list of subjects of a fiction anthology series is a helpful complement to an article on the series itself. (Drinking game: reading this list, take a shot whenever you see the words "killed", "died", "lived" or "fought".) -Sean Curtin 00:45, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep - improvements after vfD notice give it context and make it as encyclopedic as any other list here. Key45 01:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: fancruft. Another one for the fan sites. I was hoping to see What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly? & I was sorely disappointed. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks fine to me. It's an article on a long-running series. We're not talking an article on each issue, or a character who appeared in one panel of one issue here. — Gwalla | Talk 16:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Comment. Is it to be generally understood that an editor can produce a list of individual issues of any general circulated or scholarly publication with a few annotations and expect it to be accepted here: for example articles on Time Magazine by decade with short indication of lead stories, People Magazine, Biblical Archaeologist, Punch, Popular Mechanics, All-Story, Reader's Digest, Fantasy and Science Fiction and so forth? That such lists should exist is a very good thing. That they should be part of Wikipedia is more dubious. This perhaps should be hammered out in a standards discussion. If the answer is a strong yes, than List of What If? issues should probably stay. If it is a strong no, then it should probably be deleted. Such lists have generally not appeared in encyclopedias, but of course size constraints were reason enough to exclude such things. I wonder if such lists ought not be a separate Wiki project. Jallan 18:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. First of all, I'll admit my bias on this, since I started adding some information to the article. I didn't know there was this article, until the delete notice appeared. As one can see, it has improved greatly in the past day or so. Most of the issues now refer to the original comic that inspired them (something that might help those you read the comic but are unfamiliar with the background). However, if it is to be deleted, I can name several other articles on the Wikipedia that can be deleted also. Deletion because of it's "fan" material would elimate at least 90% of the articles that I see people add information to on Wiki everyday. Let's not forget the number of lists that appear on Wiki also. So if this article gets deleted, may I suggest deleting the following articles also. List of Friends episodes because it's just a "fan" related article and I didn't like the show while it aired and still don't now. List of episodes of The X-Files because it just repeats what can be found in The X-Files (season 1) through The X-Files (season 9); besides, it's just "fan" based information that never appears in encyclopedias. Mind Games because not only is it a bad album, it's not even well liked by most Lennon "fans". Makaveli: The Don Killuminati: 7 Day Theory is another useless album article that could easily be incorporated into Tupac's article. Lists of people is just another list article of other lists (and you know how much space the combination must be using). Famous women in history because it is essentially an infinite list, whereas List of What If? issues has a finite number of entries, even if it a new series begins. There were other albums, TV shows, lists that I could have picked. Heck, I could have listed the articles on characters from single season TV shows or almost everything pertaining to video games. Since there's alot of fluff on Wiki, let this article that's not somewhat annotated stay. --signed an Anon
• Keep. I suggest moving it to a more precise title, for example, List of What If? comic book issues. Andris 00:02, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's more like List of Marvel Comics What If? issues. RickK 04:54, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep after possible renaming. This page is essentially a subpage of What If, which is perfectly encyclopedic. (If a little on the fancrufty side). • Benc • 07:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Rename - Tεxτurε 18:57, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a great idea for a wiki-article. -- Old Right 22:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep! - Its a genuine article. -- Crevaner 23:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Could somebody explain why Old Right and Crevaner seem to be tag-teaming votes on VfD? It seems like every time Old Right votes (and every single one of his votes is Keep), Crevaner comes along just a few minutes later and also votes Keep. It's interesting that such a thing is happening on pages like this, which have been sitting there for a couple of days. RickK 19:33, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • And they've both got virtually identical user pages too... what a coincidence. -Sean Curtin 23:39, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh, how can you say that... those are completely different American flag images, and completely different lists of right-leaning websites. And completely different... well, somewhat different... well, actually, very similar lists of articles which they have edited. And there are usually big fractions of an hour elapsing between Old Right and Crevaner's comments. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • We're getting off-topic here. Sockpuppeting issues like this should be discussed somewhere else, e.g. VFD talk, user talk pages, WP:VP, or WP:RFC. Besides, let's assume good faith. Perhaps they're friends that share a computer? This would explain the timing and the shared politics (though I fail to see how their politics have anything to do with this article being considered for deletion). • Benc • 20:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Rename to something less confusing. I don't think it's any sillier than any of the other lists or almost-useless pages (O, Yeah! The Ultimate Aerosmith Hits, anyone?) which I know is not a good reason to keep but as far as useless lists go at least this one is somewhat interesting if you like comic books (I always thought What If? was a great idea for a series but the actual comic books bored me to death -- it was always better to imagine, "Gee, What if that had happened?" than it was to actually see it happen). --Fastfission 00:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• CommentShould we even bother listing the issue and volume number? I think it would help a lot, along with a farely brief descirption of what happened. Kidney Stone 12:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Backup stories?

Some issues of volume one had untold tales of the Marvel Universe (or a similar title). These showed events in the distant past, like the first Celestial Host and the origin of the Titanian Eternals. What issues did these appear in?--StAkAr Karnak 04:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a mistake on what if #24

Gwen Stacy's eyes are open but she was unconscious

#48 What If Daredevil Had Saved Nuke?

I wonder if it should be pointed out that this story, in a way, takes place in the mainstream Marvel universe? In the comic, 'our' Ben Urich is up late at night, pondering the whole Daredevil/Nuke sitution. At an apparent telepathic nudge from the Watcher, he goes on a whole 'fantasy' based on the title question. In the end we see him dismiss it all as just a story. But it, for lack of a better phrase, happened.

Lots42 15:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What if #9 (1978)

Added designation Earth-9904.--RedKnight 18:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:WhatIf1.jpg

The image Image:WhatIf1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge with "What If (comics)" ?

It seems like What If (comics)'s Publication History section already includes the complete list of What If issues, but with better formatting. The two articles seem redundant, so perhaps we should consider merging the two together. Another option is that the information from the What If (comics) Publication History section could be moved here, which would keep both articles relevant. Vinwriteswords (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Homeorhesis -- Add to this discussion

Homeorhesis was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. As of 17:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), this article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

---

I'm putting this up for discussion, without prejudice. vfd boilerplate was added to this article on May 8, 2004 by user:66.245.31.69 with the summary "Delete. This is a dic-def". It does not appear the article was ever added to the vfd discussion page, so therefore no debate has yet been held, and it still has the vfd boiler. -Satori 22:08, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Move to wiktionary. Kbh3rd 23:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's false, so far as I can tell. First, I can't find any other dictionary to give the word. Second, the formation suggests "of the same blood," not equilibrium of evolution. Geogre 01:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Just for the record, I searched with Bartleby's collection of encyclopedias and with the Merriam Webster 11th edition (which is a new edition from 2003, and full editions are actually rare in the dictionary world), as I like to be conservative when it comes to adding words. Geogre 14:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It's not in the online OED either, and the non-mirror google hits below actually hurt its credibility. Delete. CHL 14:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Updated. Definition previously was wrong. It's a newer concept than Homeostasis but the term has some currency and I think it can support a short article. If not, the updated content should be good for wiktionary.
• Move to wiktionary if they want it. Otherwise delete. Obscure term, but by eliminating Wikipedia mirrors I was able to find [25] [26] (tinfoil hattery?) [27] and [28] (this last one is most informative). This article seems to be a simplified version of what is no more than a dicdef to begin with in the source texts. SWAdair | Talk 05:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - The article will grow with time. -- Crevaner 23:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, no legitimate reason for deletion! -- Old Right 15:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Please see What Wikipedia is not #2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary and also What Wikipedia entries are not #2 Dictionary definitions. SWAdair | Talk 23:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keepin new version. I don't know the subject area, but this now reads like a useful article which I would be interested in following the links for. --Cje 17:04, 19 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.

Vote for Deletion discussion

From VfD:

Incoherent nonsense, but too long for a SD. TPK 23:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Entertaining prattle. Kbh3rd 23:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The Ferrel cell is already described in the Atmospheric circulation article without the hysteria shown here. Moreover, even though the Ferrel cell may prove to be as useful a description of reality as phlogiston in the end, it is very much a component of current theory. Denni☯ 00:56, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)
• Redirect to atmospheric circulation. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge w/ atmospheric circulation & redirect. On rereading, it looks like the part from In the Temperate latitudes, ground winds are ... through ... it flows outward over the ground as the Polar Easterlies might have some useful content. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect (and unlink "Ferrel cell" in the atmospheric circulation article). Rossami 07:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't know enough to judge intelligently, I'm utterly innocent of meteorology and atmospheric science. The article does not sound all that hysterical to me. It reads as a credible critique, although it certainly is pushing a point of view. Googling isn't much help. Forgive me for asking: are you guys in a better position to judge than I am? If it's not total bunk, it seems to me that maybe Atmospheric circulation needs something in it, anything from a one-sentence throwaway ("some challenge the existence of the Ferrell cell") to a complete merge (a section heading "Criticism of the Ferrell cell concept" or something). If I'm being overly credulous here, please forgive me. (I am old enough to remember when the continents didn't drift. I don't mean "scientists didn't know that the continents drifted," I mean "scientists did know that the continents didn't drift," continental drift being an intriguing but discredited theory in the 1950s). Maybe the current text of this article should be placed in Talk:Atmospheric circulation ? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Copying the current rev to a subpage of talk:atmospheric circulation makes sense. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• keep but revise. The article is essentially correct: the Ferrel cell doesn't really exist. Or, if that is being a bit too definite, its certainly a valid POV (William M. Connolley 17:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
  • Got any easily-accessible (i.e. web) references that would enable a layperson (i.e. me) to make a judgement about the balance of current professional opinion? Googling on "Ferrel cell" mostly turns up references that assume that there's no question about its existence. Melissa Strausberg, whomever she may be, is on record as saying that "In many ways, the Ferrel cell is a fictitious circulation" but there are an awful lot of articles saying something to the effect that El Niño is caused by titanic battles between the great gods Hadley and Ferrel (That's a joke folks. Insert smiley here). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:29, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • (William M. Connolley 19:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Well, by its very nature, pages about the existence of X are rather more common than the non-existence of X. The atmos circ page does hint about lesser status of the Ferrel cell but doesn't make it explicit. But I can't find owt on the web.
    • (William M. Connolley 20:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)) But try: Image:Atmos-circ-jja.png (original research of course... :-)

• As the author of "the Ferrel Cell does not exist" when I chanced to find the Department of Meteorology Lyndon State College website (as in the folowing links), I emailed the following on Sun 9/19/2004:

Sir,

I am wondering how you can reconcile your diagram on

http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter11/three_cell.html

with that on

http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter11/jet_streams.html

(the little red backflow at the top of the polar front cloud is surely stylistics rather than a part of a sustained major-return-flow to the Horse latitudes)

in view of

http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter11/polar_jet_form.html

I would appreciate an answer in view of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrel_cell

Regards, Hugh Rance

The response I got September 20, 2004, was:

Yes, you are correct, the circulation depicted in the vertical cross section is not quite correct.

Dr. Nolan T. Atkins Associate Professor of Meteorology Phone: 802-626-6238 Department of Meteorology FAX: 802-626-9770 Lyndon State College email: nolan.atkins@lyndonstate.edu 1001 College Road Lyndonville, VT 05851

end moved discussion

Merge

Unless there is more material, examine merging into atmospheric circulation. (SEWilco 1 July 2005 03:13 (UTC))

T3S R2W, Michigan -- 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

We don't need a page for every single township defined by the Public Land Survey System. These are geographic grids that are laid out algorithmically and therefore are entirely unremarkable and non-unique. (Should this have gone to SD?) - Kbh3rd 23:29, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, not much can be said about these in Michigan. Rmhermen 23:34, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, survey townships were given a names for a reason. This is of no use in a general encyclopedia. older≠wiser 00:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: I thought at first that this was a Leet town. Unsearchable geographical entity. Geogre 01:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep as redirect - who knows what someone may google for... The content is already merged to the related article. -- Netoholic @ 02:53, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

I see you've redirected it. Apparently this one coincides with a civil township, which is a different beast altogether from a survey township, and which probably rates an entry. The Township article says that there is a one-to-one correspondence of civil and survey townships in some states, but they're still separate entities. IMHO (though I won't argue beyond this paragraph) there is not a need even for the redirect here; that the political unit exists doesn't mean that we need an article or redirect for every 36 square miles of the whole state of Michigan, up to 2,691 entries of T1S/R1W, T1S/R2W, T1S/R3W, &c! Then start on the other 49 states...166,241 for the whole country if it were evenly divided into 36 mi² survey townships. Let the civil township articles, where they exist, mention which survey townships they correspond to, if any, but leave it at that. - Kbh3rd 04:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This looks like a one-off made by an IP editor. I doubt its a major concern either way. I prefer to keep redirects to discourage re-creation. -- Netoholic @ 04:23, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't want to think about how many more of these there are. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Let's not make a precedent. RickK 05:58, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Ambi 08:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, do not redirect. BTW, the redirect isn't working (did the page move again?). SWAdair | Talk 11:50, 16 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.

Revolutionary strategy and the role of the avant-garde -- Add to this discussion

POV, not encyclopedic. English translation of a French "secret letter" about revolution-fomenting in Quebec. Joyous 01:27, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: POV source text. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• If this letter has any notability, transwiki to WikiSource. Delete. Original source text. — Gwalla | Talk 17:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• This is a translation of a French text at [29]. Very literal. Unfortunately I don't exactly understand how translation affects copyvio issues, but perhaps someone can explain. Surely you can't rip off a web source just because it's in a different language? Bishonen 01:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If I'm not mistaken, a translation is a derived work of the original, and the copyright of a derived work remains with the original copyright holder. But perhaps someone better informed than me will weigh in. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep if converted from source text to article about source text. Quite notable. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - At any time anyone is welcome to create a new article about the source text. Even you. Even now. - Tεxτurε 18:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• OK, please see my copyvio comment above. I've found a statement from Morven on Talk:Copyright problems, supporting what Wile E. said (not that I ever supposed he was mistaken), so presumably the next thing is I slap a copyvio tag on the page, delete the text, and list it on Copyright problems? And if the poster is the copyright owner, or authorized by the copyright owner to translate the text and put it on Wikipedia, s/he will need to get in touch and prove it? Right? Please confirm here, and I'll do it. Bishonen 23:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • That's how it works. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Done. The article is now on Copyright problems, and I think it should be removed from VfD. That's a sysop decision, I suppose. Bishonen 13:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lila Amrit -- 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

Dedication page. With all due respect, this is not an appropriate page. Denni☯ 01:39, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

• Delete: You're right: it's actually the dedication to a book. I hope the rest of the book doesn't follow. Geogre 03:40, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. JamesMLane 08:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an encyclopedia article, probably copyvio. — Gwalla | Talk 17:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 18:59, 17 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.

Cơ điện Việt-Hung -- Add to this discussion

<discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English>

Vietnamese I think.--Jondel 10:46, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Definitely Vietnamese, probably junk. -- Jmabel 16:25, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

<end moved discussion>

It's had 2 weeks on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English and no one has translated it. Since it doesn't look promising, I say delete -- Jmabel 06:30, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

• Yup, delete - TB 08:37, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Thue | talk 09:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I added a speedy flag on this because it didn't actually seem to be on VfD, but Thue says "rm delete while on VfD". So I figured, lets actually put this on VfD! Contents of entry are:

Cơ điện Việt-Hung là nhà máy sản xuất động cơ điện do Hungary và Việt nam hợp tác xây dựng.

Delete CHL 01:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Screen font breaking and untranslated. Geogre 03:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Untranslated substub. — Gwalla | Talk 17:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 19:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

September 16

Vadim Chernyak -- Add to this discussion

The consensus was for this article to be speedily deleted, which it was. The discussion is still available here until this VfD listing expires.

from VfD:

Advertisement stub for a software product. --Chessphoon 02:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Notable program. Marginal keep; truly needs cleanup to legitimately be kept. Rhymeless 02:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Because if there were a proper page here, the description would be nearly as notable as Microsoft Windows and there would be no more advertising than on the Microsoft Windows page. The problem that the software product addresses would itself provide an interesting, noteworthy, and useful encyclopedia page. But I object to anyone creating a stub on any subject with so little information on it. If a reader found this page, they would expect to find something more than what is here. ---Rednblu 02:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless improved by the end of VfD. I say that because, whether it's Ad-Aware or Spam Assassin or Warez4U, this article fails the deletion guidelines by being a straight ahead ad. One line and then straight to the "download here." I used to have more confidence in Clean Up than I do these days, so I don't think we can put it out of sight and mind there. Geogre 03:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless improved by the end of VfD. I have to agree with Geogre. This is nothing more than an advertisement and items tend to languish untouched on cleanup. No need to keep an advert placeholder for what could be a legitimate article. If anyone wants to write an actual article, they can do it without this advert placeholder. SWAdair | Talk 04:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands. The product is good and quite worthy of mention in Wikipedia, whether alone or as part of an article on anti-spyware products. But nothing here should be an advertisment. Jallan 18:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but add a cleanup tag. PeteBegin 11:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Skeptical

I am extremely skeptical of the claims that the software is "recepient of many awards, such as a Best Buy award from PC World, an Editor's Choice from PC Magazine, and the TopTenREVIEWS Gold Award." I would like to see a source - I have heard similar claims from Spysheriff. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

this is an ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.149.89 (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A Google search validates Spy Sweeper's Best Buy Award. I'm working on verifying other parts of the article. --BWD 21:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I also validated the TopTenREVIEWS award. The only one I couldn't validate was the PC Magazine award. Also, can you please review the NPOV tag? Does that still apply? --BWD 22:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I get PC Magazine monthly, and yes Webroot Spysweeper is its current editor's choice for spyware detection and removal.

I got the demo of this and it actually put crap on my computer and said it found it. Then it demanded I buy the program to remove it. I'd never give 'em money after a scam like that. --DanielCD 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You should probably add a criticisms section. --BWD 22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would, but it would just be my word. However, if I find a credible source that I can cite regarding this issue, I'll be back. --DanielCD 22:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm DanielCD. Either you are lying or refering to another program. Many programs have similar names, I think you got em confused. The Demo version removes everything it finds, only limit is expiration of update service. And what does crap mean, be more specific please. A human 01:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

DanielCD, what the hell are you talking about?

I can confirm some of DanielCD's frustrations with Spy Sweeper. While I'm not sure of its insertion of false positives, I can confirm that it runs processes that CANNOT be terminated in Task Manager unless manually done so in the actual program. [[User:Taospark|Taospark] 04:03, 09 August 2006 (EST)

2006 version

Besides the advertisement-like quality of this entry, which I, like other Wikipedians, strongly object to, there is also the question of relevancy to the year 2006. When would Webroot be planning on releasing a new version beyond 4.5.x? For a while they were keeping the program up to date, but they've languished in recent months, and it's already February 2006 as of this posting. Eventually, if it doesn't shape itself up, Webroot is going to very quickly fall behind in the anti-spyware business. 71.255.208.178 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Though this program comes recommended by many netizens, I found it has an interesting quirk when running. The 2 Spy Sweeper processes cannot be terminated in Task Manager unless you manually shut down the scan in the program. Not even Windows Defender, Microsoft's own program, does this. This is both a minor nuisance and potential backdoor vulnerability. If anyone plans to expand this article, they should link to the "unbiased" reviews which gave the software its award. (Anonymous User) 6:31, 11 July 2006 (EST)

When I bought Spysweeper 2 years ago, it installed a bunch of crap during the install. My computer was beyond repair, and I had to buy a new one. This program should be researched and problems noted in article. I agree that the article reads like a advertisment (Chris Smith)

I have been seeing a number of computers come in to be repaired in the IT department with this version of this software installed on it, and many of them are indeed suffering from dramatic performance slowdowns. In addition, not a single one of the computer owners can remember actually downloading and installing it. I'd really like to back up the section saying that this version causes dramatic slowdowns and has suspicious behavior associated with the software, but short of citing myself (which the wiki-gestapo doesnt like), all I can do is back this up in the discussion. (Comrade Adam)

Not free, unlike many leading spyware programs??

IMHO, very few antispyware programs are free. There's Ad-Aware Personal and Spybot S&D (which sucks). That's it. For instance Spyware Doctor isn't free either. The correct statement would be: "Just like many leading spyware programs, Spy Sweeper is not free." Jancikotuc 06:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Olympians at the 2000 Summer Olympics -- Add to this discussion

The category Olympians at the 2000 Summer Olympics does not follow the naming scheme of the other years, furthermore there is already an Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics category. It should be deleted because it is redundant.

• DELETE - This category is replicated with Category:Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics 132.205.15.4 03:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This belongs on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. RickK 05:56, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Tom Smith (QIM) -- Add to this discussion

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

Tom Smith (QIM)

Tom Smith (QIM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity page - delete. -- Chuq 05:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gone. The author removed the VfD message, and the article was subsequently (and validly IMO) speedy deleted. History:

• 06:31, 16 Sep 2004 Jimfbleak deleted "Tom Smith (QIM)" (content was: '{{deete}}[[QIM]]')
• 16:30, 16 Sep 2004 . . Slowking Man (delete)
• 16:29, 16 Sep 2004 . . 4.27.215.78 ()
• 15:26, 16 Sep 2004 . . Chuq (subst:vfd)
• 15:18, 16 Sep 2004 . . 4.27.215.78 ()

Original content: Tom Smith QIM is the way I identified myself on the internet since 1996 in my extensive men's and autism advocacies. A full description is at QIM. The second version was just a link to QIM, and a valid speedy. Andrewa 16:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

Pensionstate -- Add to this discussion

Non notable local band. RickK 05:55, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Band and/or fan vanity. Delete. --Slowking Man 06:11, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity, non-notable. SWAdair | Talk 11:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A band on the local scene. I.e. not notable for our readers. Geogre 13:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable band. — Gwalla | Talk 17:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vagueware -- 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

Vagueware

Vanity neologism, this term in a Google the term shows up mostly on mirrors, and ads on kuro5hin for the website Vagueware. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 08:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism. Eliminating Wikipedia mirrors leaves less than 400 hits, most of which are as described by Cohesion. SWAdair | Talk 11:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, promotion for the website, not in significant use. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:13, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: More from the kuro5shin, neologism. Geogre 13:21, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. – Quadell ^{(talk) (quiz)}[[]] 15:57, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable neologism. — Gwalla | Talk 17:06, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - unstable neologism. I was a member of the wiki site, but it's now dead. ··gracefool |☺ 22:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 19:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Might be worth a footnote on vaporware- two refs found on Usenet via Google predating vaporware.com wiki. I'll throw down a very weak merge. --Rossumcapek 04:21, 20 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.

International Surrealists Against the RNC -- Add to this discussion

Non-encyclopedic, original research, inherently biased. Even if a real article could be made about this organization it would have to be a total rewrite, this essay would not make a good starting point. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 09:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is "inherently biased"; why couldn't the article include views of proponents and opponents? --Daniel C. Boyer 17:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I sort of agree with you now, I don't think it's inherently biased anymore, but I don't think any of the existing material would be a good start for an article about this topic, although I do think an article about this topic could be created that would be neutral. Unsure about notability though. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 18:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am 100% agreed. I think the main problem was the content, though there is perhaps an argument to be made for non-notability of "Surrealists International." --Daniel C. Boyer 23:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I vote for its deletion too. Katherine Shaw 09:10, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons given above. Oh, and for being source text, as well. SWAdair | Talk 11:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Original research, propagation of an online political activity (amounting to political advertising), and source. Geogre 13:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for good reasons given by others. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: source text, agenda promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Remove source text, move other material to Surrealists International. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I posted this article hoping it could be accepted to provide historical context for the 2004 RNC, as a record of surrealist opposition to it. I must admit I had a feeling it might not withstand VfD, and it looks like the consensus here is pretty solidly delete... Oh well. Are there objections to having a Surrealists International article that doesn't repro the text of the statement but still links to it?~leif @ 23:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I think this is the best way to proceed. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:25, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Are there objections to having a Surrealists International article ...? Yes. There's no evidence that the group that posted the statement is notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Electioneering, no useful content. Andrewa 15:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: there is a giraffe in my toaster. And the other reasons above. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 15:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable political screed. It'd be WikiSource anyway if it was notable, but it's not; it's just an obscure (and incoherent) rant. — Gwalla | Talk 17:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It's interesting how people describe as "incoherent" something that is perfectly coherent, just with which they strongly disagree. This says more about the reader. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: If you think I "strongly disagree" with what they're saying (at least, what I'm pretty sure they're saying), you obviously don't know me very well. I'm no fan of Bush and strongly oppose the Iraq invasion. But this pamphlet frequently descends into near-gibberish: "Yet, in the 1947 tract Freedom is a Vietnamese Word (later republished in the pages of the anarchist newspaper Le Libertaire), surrealists in Paris singled out a specific French governmental cabinet’s newly-minted colonial war in southeast Asia: 'Surrealism can only be against a regime whose members stand together behind a blood-stained disgrace as though it represents a joyful awakening.'" Wha...? — Gwalla | Talk 16:44, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • It's plain as day. The "colonial war" that the cabinet "newly minted" was that in Vietnam, as the proximity of "Freedom is a Vietnamese Word" and Southeast Asia and the history at that time should make abundantly clear. Understanding the surrealist criticism that the cabinet presented that war, a "blood-stained disgrace," as if it were a "joyful awakening" is a no-brainer. The comparison drawn with the Iraq war, a "blood-stained disgrace," as if it were a triumph and a liberation, is a no-brainer to understand. To describe this very clear passage as "near-gibberish" is mystifying to me. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. What in the world is a Torturocracy? -Vina 20:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • A regime that frequently or pervasively employs torture as a means for achieving its ends. This is pretty self-evident. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

    err, no. an XYZcracy is a government by people belonging to the class XYZ. Unless you are positing that Torturocracy is a government by torturers, I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

    • Obviously a torturocracy is a government by torturers, and I apologise for my lack of precision, but I think between that and my defintion is a distinction without a difference. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

    But in any case, it's got nothing to do with the VfD, so I'll just let it go here. My vote stands, I agree with Gwalla. -Vina 03:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence that there even is such an organization, much less that it is notable.--Samuel J. Howard 00:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • and badger lettuce hair.--Samuel J. Howard 00:53, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a message board for partisan manifestos with no historical importance. Especially ones as puerile as this. Palladian 05:57, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is obviously biased against parochial surrealists. Fire Star 06:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing more than bias vandalism. -- Crevaner 23:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This article isn't vandalism, and where is the bias? There is bias shown in the statement, but is there bias in the article itself? At any rate this is an argument for editing rather than deletion. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, the group isn't remotely notable. -- Old Right 16:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is no God (list of works with phrase)

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

I abstain from voting but list this article here because I'm not sure whether it should really be here. I don't have anything against this article myself, I was just wondering if we really need it. - Cymydog Naakka 11:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Not encyclopedic. Geogre 13:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• A list of occurrences of a particular phrase does not seem useful- a list of works with this as a major theme would be encyclopedic, but listing every time someone in literature has ever said this? Delete. -FZ 14:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Unsure. Perhaps Wikiquote would be a better place for this? No vote at this stage. Andrewa 15:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not just that this is a very common phrase in fiction, and maintaining this list would be a monumental task. It's also that the appearance of this phrase in a work of fiction provides no real or applicable information about that work of fiction, and therefore the usefulness of such a list as a reference source is extremely doubtful. You might as well write List of works in which the word "flower" appears seven times or List of works featuring characters named Bob. Wikiquote is welcome to it if they want it, but I didn't think this was the sort of quote they collected. —Triskaideka 16:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, it would certainly be a new direction for Wikiquote. Andrewa 17:54, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed: It would be good on Wikiquote. Geogre 18:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Not well done. NFUTMNB. GWO 16:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It would be encyclopedic to discuss views of God in literature, but this is just an incomplete concordance. AlexG 19:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki. -Sean Curtin 20:02, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - This page is completely pointless! -- Crevaner 21:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Poor design; just the phrase will not capture what might be useful. Hence, the useful references are missing -- like the Time Magazine cover--all black--that proclaimed in red "God Is Dead!" The non-usefulness of the design is illustrated by the worthlessness of what is listed on the page. ---Rednblu 00:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The number of useless lists we have on Wikipedia is ample evidence for the truth of the phrase, but still no justification for another addition to the same. Not encyclopedic. Lists almost never are. --Improv 17:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - requires additional context to make a good article but I would find such a list interesting and can imagine such a thing in an encyclopedia. - Tεxτurε 19:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, it serves no purpose. -- Old Right 22:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting indeed. bbx 23:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. --G Rutter 20:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm a sucker for lists. -Litefantastic 12:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems like it would be of interest and useful in research. BTW, shouldn't the nominator be sure before listing on VfD?[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]]
• Move to wiki-quote or wiki-books where it would be more appropriate--Plato 09:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Lists are fine--even trivial lists--but this is a little too arbitrary. -- WOT 18:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. We are not going to have an article for every common phrase or saying used in fiction. --Lowellian 19:36, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If we have TINC, we can have TING. Gzornenplatz 19:49, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's an important difference between There is no Cabal and There is no God (list of works with phrase). One has actual background and explanation, and the other is a list of works with nothing significant in common and no background or explanation. If somebody wants to write an article called There is no god on the meaning or usage of the phrase in religion, philosophy, popular culture, etc., I won't vote to delete it.
• Delete. This list is useless, and has no place on an encyclopedia. Nadavspi 20:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless. I'm hoping though for Are you sure? (list of works with phrase), I think it could be really useful and interesting. --Fastfission 23:43, 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.

Hwfaq -- Add to this discussion

In l33t-speak, concerns a particular web page derived from gamer forums. Geogre 13:55, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Nothing salvagable here. Re cleanup: Arlo Guthrie tells a story about some old things he had cluttering the basement. One day he couldn't find them, so he asked his wife, and she said, "oh, I cleaned them up last month." Arlo protested, "They're not clean, they're gone." His wife replied, "Well, you can't get much cleaner than gone." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete – Quadell ^{(talk) (quiz)}[[]] 15:58, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable: history of a FAQ page on some sitewhere. — Gwalla | Talk 17:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, POV, cleanup would most likely reduce mention of such a webpage to a stub anyway. Spatch 17:16, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. At first, I thought someone had just mistyped a Welsh village... -FZ 18:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, the sooner the better. But there's no 'q' in Welsh. Deb 19:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unreadable. Only its companion Madshrimps can be kept. — Joe Kress 21:39, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, advertising, possibly vanity. Adds nothing to Wikipedia. Aecis 22:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The sanity of the article (and its author) is disputed.

Masculist_Trinity -- 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

Masculist Trinity

One in a series of vanity pages (most Google hits are Wikipedia clones) by User:QIM who also has QIM redirecting to User:QIM. -- Solitude 15:10, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Private use of Wikipedia. Geogre 17:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Solitude, I hope you'll investigate, because it looks like this may be a misuse of user pages as well (for a parallel web). Geogre 17:07, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's see: Neologism, Non-encyclopedic, Patent nonsense, Original research, Promotional advertisement, Vanity page, Wrong namespace. My! My! ---Rednblu 00:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: self-promo, agenda promo, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 08:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, very informative! -- Old Right 15:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - For same reason Old Right gave. -- Crevaner 16:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, promotional/vanity. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP, I put the article up a few years ago as "info" and a few of us did some work on it then. I've been busy and didn't get back to it until a few days ago to do some more work on it. The organization was copyrighted in 1986 and has been in the Encyclopedia of Associations since 1991. It now hosts one of the largest discussion groups of men's issues on the net and has a respected international reputation for developing strategies, agendas and coalitions in the men's movement. The respected and newly successsful international movement "Father's 4 Justice" have utilized some of the products of our brain storming and we are associated with them. User:QIM

  Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/American_Union_of_Men"

  • Comment: I did not add the vote immediately above this comment. It was here before I started my edit. There is an apparent glitch in the edit history, though, which causes it to look like it was my edit. I can not attribute this comment. Rossami
• Keep: The Masculist Trinity, like many other books and documents, has helped the men's movement define itself and develop it's momentum. While it may be a work in progress, this is no reason to delete it. One wouldn't delete the Constitution just because it had been modified by many Amendments. [Note: I would add the terms "men's advocacy" and "men's rights activist" as synonyms for masculism]. (anon comment added by User:Mens issues whose only edit so far is to this discussion. see contribs)
• Delete. nonnotable vanity.ElBenevolente 09:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -- WOT 18:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable... the external link is a geocities page. Nadavspi 20:27, 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.

List of activists -- 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

List of activists

The scope of this title is far too large for a single article. And it's only got one entry in it. --Ianb 17:00, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

and how do you define an activist anyway? --Ianb 20:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The way our activism article defines it. "Involvement in action to bring about change, be it social, political, environmental, or other change. This action is in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial argument." Straightforward and objective, if you ask me. • Benc • 18:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Double dog dare delete: Everyone in politics is an activist, so the list would be, oh, a few million big? Geogre 17:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.Geni 17:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Too general for an easily maintainable list. Spatch 20:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Out of scope. This is a bad rocket design. Ground at once! It will take the whole continent of North America with it. ---Rednblu 23:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Much too broad. OK as a category for those activists on whom we have articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Del Indeed suitable for Category:Activists, but not for list, and when the only bio listed on it is fleshed out, it will move down into subcategories of that cat. --Jerzy(t) 01:14, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
• In the interest of equal time I demand List of Couch Potatoes or List of Lazy Asses be written forthwith (by someone else, naturally). If not, delete. Fire Star 06:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm still holding out for List of people who have never been in my kitchen. Spatch 14:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. This would be useful as a general "list of lists" page, linking to lists of activists in relevant areas. Send to Cleanup. Please, no more of the kill-the-index-phenomenon. Ambi 08:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Move/redirect, and cleanup. I second Ambi's vote. This list would be more appropriate at Lists of activists by issue, which would link to other lists (e.g. List of gun rights activists) containing both pro, con, and third-party-opinion activists. (← you can't do this as efficiently with categories, which is why we need a "List of" articles for the time being.) • Benc • 18:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I do not mind lists, but this one consists of one name only and is hardly of any use. If anyone is interested in Lists of activists by issue, please dcreate them. Andris 18:29, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Does not live up to its potential. I could see angles where it could be an encyclopedic article but this doesn't. - Tεxτurε 19:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another open-ended, non-encyclopedic list. When will the madness end? --Improv 16:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Move/redirect, and cleanup I second Ambi's and Benc's vote. Fpahl 18:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete An article with this topic's particluar combination of large breadth of scope and "political presence" is just begging to be a POV/edit war. I predict that if it ever becomes a real article, it will be a moderator's nightmare. ClockworkTroll 06:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - too broad of a topic. Nadavspi 20:29, 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.

Juanes -- Add to this discussion

Talk:Juanes
This page is a soft redirect.

Bone Gnawers (Werewolf: the Apocalypse) -- Add to this discussion

from VfD: As with the Warhammer 4000 stuff, the master article redlinks every single tribe, creature, and device, so the anon who created this article can't be blamed. Trivial game material. If you have the manual, you have this. If you don't have the manual, go to GameFAQs. Geogre 17:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Merge the tribe articles into Werewolf: The Apocalypse tribes. Incidentally, GameFAQs wouldn't have this sort of material. -Sean Curtin 20:00, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete w/out merging: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 08:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Of no relevence seperate from the game. Average Earthman 11:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. All the tribes are reldinked. The Shadow Lords, Black Furies and Fianna aren't under deletion. If you have the manual you can read all the stuff in article, so we can delete all the articles about all RpGs. It would be as delete an article on the Battle of Monte Cassaino as a trivial stuff in the World War. You can take a book and read about it. Gilmor 17:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Only edits by User:Gilmor are to this vfd discussion [30]. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, and how many people's lives have been affected by World War II vs. Werewolf: the Apocalypse? And was World War II a game? You'll note that any other articles spun off from the game will also end up on VfD, if this one fails, and in my nomination I recommended that the minor stuff get unlinked. Geogre 18:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment: we have lots of multi-article games, as we should. (Chess, Go, Bridge, ect), even new games (Magic: The Gathering, D&D). I surely hope you don't want to delete those articles. However, I essentually agree with you that there should be a standard of notability This game surely isn't notable enough to merit articles for all of those red links. Possibly not notable enough to deserve this article, but I hope you don't use this as a precedent against games. CHL 23:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment: FWIW, I'm not against game coverage per se, but I'm against breakouts of items from games. To me, a new and separate article is justified only when a thing is sufficiently different from its master subject as to need separate discussion, sufficiently notable as to be sought outside of its master context, or sufficiently involved as to need the space. That's why it looks like I'm "against" Big metal box and other game items: they should be discussed in their natural context. I usually vote merge and redirect, if it is substantial, but something like the 2 paragraphs of player races found in the manuals just isn't encyclopedic content. Geogre 00:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, it seems worthy of a page to me. -- Old Right 22:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, there's plenty of material in the Whitewolf world to write a decent article about each tribe. -- Creidieki 07:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP - Information from other fantasy games are in wikipedia. Therefore this should stay. -- Crevaner 16:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge, no redirect back into parent. Remove parent's redlinks --Improv 16:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Failing that, merge into the main article. This stub can not be understood outside the context of the main article and has no possibility of expansion. Main article is not so large or complex that this content can not be added. Rossami 03:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The amount of published info from White Wolf is large enough that articles can actually be written about all the tribes. --Lowellian 19:40, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • However, the article should be moved to simply Bone Gnawers and then rewritten to make clear that this is a fictional tribe in a game world. --Lowellian 19:41, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

DIMES -- Add to this discussion

Distributing computing software that has just been released. Advertising. Geogre 17:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Possibly worthy, not yet notable. Delete, post to Slashdot.--Ianb 18:37, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 08:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not yet notable, purpose of entry may well be promotional. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LUSAS -- Add to the discusson

Continuing with Alphabet Soup Thursday, this is an ad. Geogre 17:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• looks like it might be a biggish player in the world of civil engineering finite element analysis software, on the other hand it's not the only one. Delete this, and include a link to the manufacture on Finite element analysis. --Ianb 18:53, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, do not redirect. It's much easier to get an on-topic external link than to post what is essentially an ad (which is probably copyvio too, cuz it reads like a marketing brochure.) -Vina 03:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: copyvio (text copied from lusas.com), advert. Put an extlink in finite element analysis. I'm sympathetic -- the finite element method is way cool -- but this article has to go. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 08:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SORCE -- Add to the discussion

Finally, a political ad for an emergent group. Geogre 17:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, ad ad ad = kill kill kill - Vina 03:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. A Painfully contrived acronym for a grouping with no evidence of notability. Average Earthman 11:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 19:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

KGB Suspect -- Add to this discussion

A year-old band with no recordings advertizing on Wikipedia. Kbh3rd 18:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: I have no idea why a band would think that we're any good for their career. It makes no sense. Up-and-coming band, not yet notable. Geogre 18:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with above. Andris 18:53, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Band with no non-demo recordings = not notable. — Gwalla | Talk 22:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No widely available releases, so no article. Average Earthman 11:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Equinym -- Add to this discussion

Not a real term - only 7 Google hits. Evercat 18:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete neologism, dicdef even if it was a real word. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 18:46, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Bad idea to apply space to words, you know. Neologistic dictdef, go. Geogre 18:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, word doesn't exist. --Fenice 20:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, interesting coinage but don't do it in Wikipedia. --Ianb 21:02, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete cromulently. Spatch 21:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. — Gwalla | Talk 22:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No such word in general usage as yet, dicdef even if it was. Average Earthman 11:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete with equanimity. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

KGB Suspect -- Add to this discussion

A year-old band with no recordings advertizing on Wikipedia. Kbh3rd 18:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: I have no idea why a band would think that we're any good for their career. It makes no sense. Up-and-coming band, not yet notable. Geogre 18:51, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with above. Andris 18:53, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Band with no non-demo recordings = not notable. — Gwalla | Talk 22:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No widely available releases, so no article. Average Earthman 11:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair Market -- Add to this discussion

Original research. Not published anywhere. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research. --Hemanshu 19:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Subject is a variation of two established Wikipedia entries: market socialism and georgism. Could possibly be a subtopic of one of those, but it is different enough that it would need excessive space to explain. Better to keep it as an independent article with links to and from the other terms. In addition, obviously there is some material dealing with the subject, though unpublished. Term is known to a few thousand people, with a few dozen self-ascribed proponents. Agreed, not as important an article as say, market socialism, but nonetheless worth a mention. Request specific clarification on standards that define "original research" vs "established work", exact numbers and circumstances. Not merely adjectives like "notable", "lots", "many", "quite a few". If there is a standard, lets define it and apply it to everything. Anyone want to start a "Wikipedia original research threshhold" article or something like that? --Exitil 19:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't expect more response than this to your request for legalistic justification for our subjective decisions. I'm not sure there's a specific policy against it, but it's not how we do things. And there's no dividend, at least IMO, to interrupting work to explain why; if you're interested enough to care why, the best way to find out is to read VfD diligently, or better yet, do some work here that does fit in with what we do here. --Jerzy(t) 00:59, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. -- orthogonal 20:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Also I think it should be noted that there is really no need to physically publish something to distribute it. Though I've done so on a limited scale to introduce people to it who wouldnt go online looking for it, theres not really a market for alternative economic theories anywhere except dozen-member communist groups with biweekly "zines". If that counts, then hey, the article should stay because it's been in one. But seriously, who is going to put an anti-capitalist, yet not mainstream-socialist idea in any sort of major economic journal? And who is going to buy hundreds of pages of these ideas when they can just click a link? If the standard for economics is wide publication, then you'll never have any entries except capitalism and socialism, while there are many important and very different variations of them. Again, requesting clarification on standards. Exitil 20:14, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [rlundy82] Genius research, make your own wiki or something. This is too valuable to be published under the GNU FDL for the sake of the author's name. Alex, rethink your position on your own property and the FDL.
• Delete, Someone should also tell Wikisource to delete the entire tree by "Author: Alexander Temal", unless, of course, they accept original research. -Vina 20:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't this and his other work be suitable for WikiBooks, even if not for WikiSource? Transwiki to WB? --Jerzy(t) 00:59, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, but I must say that it's not offensively written. Nevertheless, it is unestablished in economics and therefore not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Geogre 21:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually kind oif interesting, but still original research and therefore against policy. — Gwalla | Talk 22:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Del. Orig res. --Jerzy(t) 00:59, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
• Delete original research unless evidence is presented that this is much more widely discussed. Exitil is correct that this can be considered a logical extension of existing thought and theory. This specific theory, however, is discussed only by one author that I can find. Rossami 02:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Speed delete: repost of previously deleted article. The article (under the title Fair market) passed through vfd in January 2004 and was duly deleted. Talk:Fair market has the vfd discussion log. Fair market page history doesn't show the previous incarnation of the page due to the database crash in June (?) 2004. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Excerpt from http://www.enigmous.com/index.php?viewid=178. "Child labor, terrible health, and a dirty and polluted environment ... occur when capitalism is left unregulated. Yet, many conservatives feel the market will solve everything, and that capitalism should be left alone. ... Free market capitalism is no better than closed market communism. The answer is fair market capitalism....where the markets are closely watched and pushed and prodded in order to provide benefits for the majority and prevent the exploitation of the working class. Exitil 14:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Excerpt from http://www.fpoe.at/fpoe/bundesgst/programm/chapter10.htm. "(1) The model of a fair market economy requires equality of the productive factors - labor and capital. In accordance with the principle of fairness allowing for appropriate remuneration for labor, men and women should receive the same pay for the same work. (2) A fair market economy is the response to unbridled capitalism which exploits man and nature and to failed socialism which degrades its "workers" to administrative objects." Exitil 14:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Second link likely does not refer to article's system, though the first one may. However, both show the term is at least being used and is used in an anti-capitalistic context referring to systems that serve functions similar to the current fair market article.
• After-the-fact vote: speedy delete, of course. Stomp out those recreations. • Benc • 18:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rachel Buck -- Add to this discussion

Added to VfD by Acegikmo1. I think this is probably a speedy candidate. Darksun 22:12, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I don't think it quite fits the speedy criteria, but it's an obvious delete. —Triskaideka 22:18, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Definitely deletable regardless of speed. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 22:23, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• First, thank you Darksun. My fire alarm went off an thus I wasn't able to start this page. *sigh*. In any case, I wanted to use a speedy deletion tag, but the article didn't fit any of the criterion (in a strict interpretation). I vote delete, of course. I left a message with the author suggesting a more appropriate place for the contents. Acegikmo1 22:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 22:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Unspeakably deletable and a candidate for the proposed (soon to be proposed) Managed Deletion. Many admins delete this kind of thing as a speedy, even though, technically, they shouldn't. Geogre 23:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, either vanity or non-notable. I am curious to know whether the article was written by Rachel Buck herself or by an admirer. I have to admit to rather liking this page. If it is by Ms. Buck she could do worse than register and put this on her user page. After reading the last sentence three times, carefully, I have concluded that it is grammatically correct and logically impeccable. It reminds me of the old puzzle that asks you to add punctuation to the following sequence of words so as to turn it into a meaningful sentence: "If but and and were but and and but but would be and and and would be but." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In Transformational Grammar, we were asked to parse "That that that that is is not that that that that is." (shudder of flashback follows) I think it's by an admirer. Geogre 01:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... That "that" that that "that" is, is not that "that" that that "that" is? Or isn't that it? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure. Now, name the syntactic value of each word. That's where the hair started falling out in clumps. (I decided Anglo-Saxon was much more fun, and it was.) Geogre 18:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I can only think that her dietary and political habits are deadly in combination only if the room she may happen to be caucasing in doesn't have proper ventilation... Fire Star 06:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Nothing is even alleged in the article that is a colorable basis for inclusion, and unless and until that happens, I vote to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I just had to do a double take because Rachel Buck was the name of a distant ancestor of mine, but she wasn't born in 1987. Delete anyhoo. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Are we related? This is true of me too. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete- vanity - Tεxτurε 19:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, as vanity. This author has made a number of...questionable edits. Joyous 17:54, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, for sure. --Viki 15:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of weblogs

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Besides, List of notable weblogs just went through VfD, where the overwhelming decision was to Delete. However, the action taken was to redirect to this equally lame article. This action went against the Wikicracy.

• What? This has been through VfD. Why put it back so soon? I like the structure now (though the formatting may leave something to be desired.) I'm not going to remove this from VfD, but I feel as though the community has already decided on keeping this and our efforts would be better spent copyediting the article. Keep. --Ardonik.talk() 22:26, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. We have List of search engines, list of web comics, list of news web sites, and list of wikis. Why are blogs somehow less worthy? - SimonP 22:28, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Because there are possibly millions of weblogs and it's difficult to draw the line at which ones are notable enough to be in the wikipedia. A page like this would need daily babysitting from people wanting to advertise their sites. ~leif @ 22:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: at the risk of repeating my words from prior discussions, there is a simple solution for this: disallow both red links and external links from the article. The article would still need babysitting to keep the linkspammers out, but at least it would be clear what to take out and what to keep in. --Ardonik.talk() 23:12, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • List of people is not open to all six billion of us, and similarly list of weblogs should not contain all blogs. All Wikipedia lists are limited to items that deserve encyclopedia articles. - SimonP 23:26, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • • Comment. There is no such rule. Because someone or something appears in a list in Wikipedia does not mean that a list item must either be acceptable for a full article or must be dropped from the list. Imagine: unable to list particular kings in a list on Wikipedia because we don't know anything about them except that they appear on ancient lists. Demanding removal of every number in List of prime numbers that doesn't deserve an encyclopedia article. Jallan 16:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I suppose if the list was limited as Ardonik suggests above, there isn't anything wrong with it, but I don't see how such a list is any better than just using the Category system. I mostly am opposed to this list based on the fact that a good deal of wikipedia lists are full of red links and external links. I'll change my vote to Keep-with-restrictions. ~leif @ 23:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I would support deleting list of wiki and the other lists you profile for similar reasons. These lists can easily get out of control with promotions. And again, this is what web directories are for. -- Stevietheman 05:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, or redirect to Category:Weblogs, or keep with note disallowing red-or-external links. If a weblog is notable enough to be on wikipedia, it should have an article, and it will show up in the category view. Incidentally, a few days ago I edited List of weblogs to redirect to Category:Weblogs (instead of a nonexistant section on Weblogs which it had been redirecting to for quite some time before). Now I can't find any record of my making that edit... Did someone move another page on top of List of weblogs and obliterate the previous history somehow? Just wondering, because I know I made that edit. Anyhow, delete or redirect-to-category is fine with me.~leif @ 22:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

adding to my confusion, I noticed that I appear to have edits listed on Talk:List of weblogs that I actually posted to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of notable weblogs. I now see that User:SimonP moved moved that VfD discussion on top of this article. My comments refered to List of weblogs in the context of being on the VfD page for List of notable weblogs, and are out of place now. Why was that page moved?~leif @ 22:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• delete this is just asking for a list of sveral thoudsand weblogsGeni 22:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: those who are voting on this topic anew should look at the recently closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of notable weblogs (it was, in fact, delisted from VfD just this morning), the presence of which is the basis for my vote to keep. --Ardonik.talk() 23:08, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. This is the sort of thing that can be done far better by the "outside" web. And it's just asking for abuse from bloggers anxious to boost their Google pageranks. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, replace with/redirect to category. List of notable weblogs should have also been deleted. -Sean Curtin 03:02, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe it is nessesary to have a list of more notable blogs so people could see what a blog is really all about, or to see what's popular in the blogging community. The page would have to be watched so as to exclude non-famous ones, but that's really true with any web-oriented list. And the fact this has already been through VfD (and survived, obviously) adds to the fact that it should be kept. It's double jeopardy, and I know that surviving VfD once does not guarentee immunity, this was rather quick. But, the suggestion to make sure the blog has an article isn't too bad of a second place. -- KneeLess 04:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, only on the condition that the Weblogs category stays. -- KneeLess 04:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - what was wrong with List of notable weblogs as a title? Better than this, anyway. If the rule is, no redlinks, no external links, then this would be justifiable, but I suspect it is too open to abuse, and would require round-the-clock monitoring. Unconvinced either way. Average Earthman 11:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. People can use links from the Weblog article for more information. There would be nothing wrong with more links in that article pointing to sites that contain their own individually maintained lists of notable blogs. But keep such things at arms length from Wikipedia. Because things change so quickly, maintaining a list of up-to-date weblogs which are currently notable would be "original research", similar to maintaining a unique list of currently popular songs within Wikipedia (instead of links here and there to external lists or reproducing data from such lists). And exactly who is going to "own" this article if it continues to exist? Who is going to do the original research to determine notability month by month? Jallan 16:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory - Tεxτurε 19:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep with extreme prejudice. If this survives again I hope we wait at least another month. This page has no direct links, and the topic doesn't seem inherently unencyclopedia. Significant weblogs could and should be discussed for their impact. At best, move to "list of notable web logs" and cleanup. CHL 23:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • "Survives again?" When did it survive before? The result of the only previous VfD I know of was to delete List of notable weblogs. But before that article was actually deleted, someone moved it's VfD page to this (List of weblogs) article's talk page, and moved some of the content to the article under the heading Notable weblogs. Note also that prior to that VfD the List of weblogs article was just a broken redirect, not a list. So as far as I'm concerned, this is an edit of the same list we already voted on. And it didn't survive the first time, so the article should have already been deleted. ~leif 19:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• You're right. SimonP. Interesting. That does seem to go against wikicracy. Nonetheless still keep. There are no external links in the article now. CHL 02:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. It's an open-ended, non-encyclopedic list. It's gotta go. --Improv 16:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It is inherently incomplete and hence biased. There are zillions of them.Mikkalai 05:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, send to cleanup. Maybe it just needs to be organised better. OK, maybe it seems "open ended" but if it was organised, it could be a useful resource. There's a list of everything else on this wiki, why not a list of weblogs? --Ce garcon 02:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The problem is how do you determine whether a weblog is notable or not? --Lowellian 19:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Little Mac -- Add to this discussion

0 google hit movie director. TPK Talk 23:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Someone who saw his film might google him and come across this article. But it wouldn't tell them any more than they already know. Either stub or delete. - Kbh3rd 23:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: If it's not a hoax, it's useless. If it is a hoax, it's useless. Geogre 23:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!!? -- Cyrius|✎ 07:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 08:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is likely a hoax. Andris 15:28, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 19:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Baith -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable. Although the word is supposedly used "on the internet," I can find no mention of it within this context Joyous 00:01, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Neologism. A Google Test turns up something in Arabic and a bunch of people with "Baith" as a last name. Delete. --Slowking Man 00:29, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: dumb, dumb joke. Geogre 01:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree. Andrewa 07:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for boring private jokes. Average Earthman 11:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, in-joke. — Gwalla | Talk 17:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sir George Cayley's coachman -- Add to this discussion

from VfD:

absurdly minor character to an important, however not stunningly famous figure in the history of flight. or perhaps we should create pages for the assistants of all other scientists? ✈ James C. 02:45, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

• Delete: Ok, so there's this guy, see, and we don't know his name, but we're going to write an article about him. Merge and redirect to the inventor's article. Geogre 03:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 08:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Well, the first man to perform a recorded successful flight in a heavier than air machine, so not absurdly minor, but not enough info for an article either - merge and redirect.

The above vote was by User:Average Earthman

• Keep. First airplane pilot. Should be linked from Sir George Cayley and other places though. — Gwalla | Talk 17:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sir George Cayley and include this small paragraph there. It will never grow to an article. If not, Delete.- Tεxτurε 19:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - IMHO the fact that we don't know his name isn't enough reason to delete. "Cayley's coachman" returns 734 hits on Google when wikipedia mirrors are filtered out. Where's the harm in allowing this to stand as a short article? --Rlandmann 04:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. If the article is correct that "nothing more is known about him" then the article is never going to grow. There is plenty of room for this paragraph in the article on Sir George Cayley. What is the point of having it be an article of its own? This individual is notable and known only in relation to Cayley. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect.. Reasons as above. The first human being to create fire, the first human being to shave, the inventor of the first sailboat, and so forth are surely more notable. But we don't know their names either, hence no article on them. Jallan 16:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. Being the first heavier-than-air flier is notable. But it's impossible for the article to grow beyond that fact. Shimmin 17:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

First man to fly in a machine that is heavier than air, and land it safely. First Pilot ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boalal1017 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

end moved discussion absurdly minor character to an important, however not stunningly famous figure in the history of flight. or perhaps we should create pages for the assistants of all other scientists? ✈ James C. 02:45, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

VfD debate

The content is highly contentious - whilst something certainly happened in May, and has been hushed up, this account comes from a single source not known for his reliability. I'd think it's also potentially libellous and certainly likely to cause distress. -- Gregg 03:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Well, we should have an article on her. We should also have a neutral account of whatever happened in May, including speculation as to what it is. I have no idea if it is what the article says it is, but there should be some mention of it, assuming it's a notable fact about her, as it seems to be. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:40, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Why should we have an article on an a sixteen year-old school girl? She's not a public figure, she hasn't done anything notable. Even if this story does turn out to be true, it could (and IMO should) then be covered by a few lines on Tony Blair. -- Gregg 11:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I don't think we should be detailing private lives except where they become a prominent public story. Indulging in gossip would be wrong. This is not a public story so I vote to delete. Timrollpickering 07:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • From what's in the page it seems to be a public story, or at least a public item of speculation, and should be reported as such. People are talking about it; how is it not a public story? Honestly confused, not trying to pick a fight. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 08:35, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • No, we should not cover it. WP doesn't do rumours, it does verifiable, significant material, and the supposed info is neither. --Jerzy(t) 09:27, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
      • I disagree, I say we delete it. It's not whether or not it's verifiable. It's whether or not it's good for society for a person who has not chosen to live in the public sphere to have their life documented. I love WikiPedia but I am deeply ashamed of this article. Brian Attard
• Del Unverifiable, non-notable, and she is adequately covered in the article on the only newsworthy family-member's article. --Jerzy(t) 09:27, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
• Delete. Verifiability is the requirement, and anything that cannot be verified should not be included. The remainder is not significant enough for an article. Anything relating to whether or not Blair considered retirement should be in the article on Tony Blair. Average Earthman 11:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable in her won right, merge speculaton about suicide bid with Tony Blair if verified as reported by a credible source. - TB 11:51, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Jerzy is right: verification is impossible, and that makes this a deletion candidate. Geogre 13:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable in her own right. I have tried to check the story and it doesn't stand up: on May 13, 2004, Tony Blair was in Coventry and on May 14 he went to Newcastle-upon-Tyne as part of the local and European election campaign. There are no reports that he cancelled engagements and returned to London, which would have happened if the story had any basis in fact. Dbiv 14:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable kid, Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer. — Gwalla | Talk 17:09, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Adequately covered at Tony Blair#Private_life. Controversy about Blair's other children does appear in that section, but those at least are incidents that might in some way relate to politics, and this story about his daughter, true or not, really isn't. —Triskaideka 18:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Undecided - There is not mention at Tony Blair#Private_life about the May incident. Are we voting to delete because the suicide attept is illegal to report in U.K.? (I assume that is why the content was removed from the article.) The information is notable since it shows the pressures on his family related to the Iraq war. Perhaps it can be restored after she turns 18? - Tεxτurε 19:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Query: What about verification? Articles that are unverifiable cannot stay. Since this episode, if it happened, cannot be confirmed, we're not much of an encyclopedia if we report it. Geogre 00:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • We have many unsupported conspiracy theories. Do they go away as well as unverifiable? We're not much of an encyclopedia if we ignore reports in multiple media sites. - Tεxτurε 20:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• If the article had been the rant it was at first, I would have voted for speedy deletion. Now I vote for expand or delete Aecis 23:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable and a non-notable person in her own right. --G Rutter 20:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Please Delete. If it's not true, then it's not true. If it is true... then it's no one's business. Her father ran for office, not her. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. func(talk) 02:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. So long as she's listed in her father's article, there's no reason to have this as she's never done anything worth noting. PedanticallySpeaking 18:15, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Whether a person has done something "worth noting" is subjective. I'm reasonably certain that there are Wikipedia entries for children of other prominent historical figures. Adraeus 03:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - deleting this would be like bowing to the Chinese censorship of Wikipedia. If article is deleted, the information should be inserted into the Tony Blair article. Kathryn Blair's suicide attempt is clearly related to the medias interest in Melvyn Braggs recent pronouncements about Blair--Xed 20:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Um... what you've said might make sense, if the people who voted delete did so out of concern for British censorship rules... which they didn't, and if my google search for: "Melvyn Braggs" Blair had turned up more than 2 unrelated hits. Who is Melvyn Braggs, and why is a guy that the media is interested in have so few hits? func(talk) 21:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Melvyn Bragg news links
      • Whoops... please forgive an unlearned U.S. dude. I still don't like this. I remember the crap that Rush Limbaugh used to insinuate about the Clinton's daughter. Is this seriously notable??? func(talk) 00:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep; re-work to avoid libel, though. James F. (talk) 22:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tony Blair - not notable on her own. Andris 06:33, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --Viriditas 11:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable (or at least not enough for her own article). Why are we talking about her anyway? What good is this going to do any of us? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. It's a completely unverified theory, but that it gained some credibility temporarily is worth noting. Johnleemk | Talk 15:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep/Redirect Do something (there is a problem with the current situation). Not delete. Again with the US-centricism, some major US politician's kids (not just President) would not be deleted. zoney ♣ talk 15:49, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, if Euan Blair and Bushs kids have articles, why not she? Especially when one considers her suicide attempt almost caused the resignation of one of the most powerful men in the world. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 15:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, or Merge and Redirect. My delete vote was predicated by my concern that the article was going to contribute to a tabloid-like smear campaign against a child who just happens to have a famous father, but if the consensus is that this is truly notable in a political sense, and if we are getting to the point where the charge of US-centrism is being bandied about, then I guess it's a keeper. func(talk) 16:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - mention daughter on Tony Blair's page. Chuck 19:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - whatever happens to Kathryn Blair's article, it would be only fair and consistent to equally treat Leo Blair's article. But... merge and redirect to Tony Blair's page. --Edcolins 21:16, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable in herself. It's of dubious legality to report the private issues of a child in the UK. Also, it's irrelevant who her father is or its effect on him or people's opinion of him. Sc147 22:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep She's notable because she's Blair's daughter, she's notable because her attempted suicide highlights some of the complexities in the relationship between the government and the British press, and she's notable because she nearly caused Blair to step down. Acegikmo1 23:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• - SimonP 16:29, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Unified Knowledge Management

Manager/marketroid jargon. Pyrop 03:27, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Can we say "jargon"? Delete. --Slowking Man 05:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Transfer this information object synergetically to the circular under-desk document repository. Ianb 07:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 19:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. (If not keep, then merge or redirect to Knowledge management). Its a real thing. It could definately use a little translation to english (from consultant-speak) though. Needs Cleanup! Kim Bruning 10:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep if the article becomes less general and theoretical, therefore useless, it needs precise explanations and exemples. --Pgreenfinch 13:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • ie. you're saying that potentially the article will be good? In that case, I think you can just vote keep. :-) Kim Bruning 15:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• By coincidence, I am currently consulting on an integrated IT solution combining Content management, Document management, Collaboration management and intelligent Search engines. We're not calling it "Unified Knowledge Management". None of the articles I'm reading use that specific term. It's either "Knowledge Management" or "Content Management" (or more often "Electronic Content Management" because TLAs sell better). Excluding the wikipedia clones and the non-specific uses of the phrase (i.e. "wouldn't it be nice if we had a unified KM system..."), I find very few uses of that specific phrase and none outside of the marketing pages of consulting websites. Either delete as a neologism or redirect to content management system until the market settles on a standard term. Rossami 03:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect, according to User:Rossami's reasoning. Neologism. Andris 20:50, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: neologism with no currency. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VfD footer

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

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

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

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

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

II – Create the article's deletion discussion page. The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear. You can do it manually as well: Click the link saying "deletion discussion page" to open the deletion-debate page. Insert this text: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ Replace PageName with the name of the page, Category with a letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done. Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion for [[PageName]]. Publish the page.

III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions. Open the articles for deletion log page for editing. At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:{{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}} Replace NominationName appropriately (use "PageName", "PageName (2nd nomination)", etc.) Link to the discussion page in your edit summary: Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. Publish the page. Consider letting the authors know on their talk page by adding: {{subst:Afd notice|Page name}} ~~~~ If this is not the first nomination, add a second parameter with the NominationName (use "PageName (2nd nomination)" etc.): {{subst:Afd notice|PageName|NominationName}} ~~~~

[[fr:Wikip&eacute;dia:Pages &agrave; supprimer]]