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 - 19^th 18^th 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 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

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)

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)

Talk:Al-Azhar University -- Add to this discussion

• As a one-day-old user of and contributor to Wikipedia (initial impression: this is astonishing!) my suggestion would be to make the distinction between 'talk' pages and Articles much clearer. At first (i.e. about 18 hours ago) I had no idea what 'talk' meant. I understand now, but it's not obvious to the casual browser - 99% of those who visit, perhaps. So I'd suggest that all talk pages are prefaced with a clear announcement that the text represents a specific contributor's point of view and that talk pages should be in a different colour. Pink, maybe? --Jerry cornelius 05:48, 19 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 [1] 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)

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, [[3]] or[[4]]. If it survives the copyright investigation, keep and send to cleanup. Rossami 04:05, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Copyvio with [5] and reinforced by [6] (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 (speedily deleted)

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: [7] 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: [8] 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 [9], 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 [10], 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 (speedily deleted)

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 (speedily deleted)

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 (speedily deleted)

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 (speedily deleted)

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

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

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 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 08:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC))

• Delete: Forum advertising. Geogre 11:45, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Just to clarify - the article states the game just moved, so rather than "no longer running," it's simply "not running yet." ... but yeah, delete. :P --Golbez 17:40, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable forum game, Wikipedia is not a web guide. — Gwalla | Talk 20:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Advert. At the old host (Frontier), using their "search this site" we get zero results for Shattered Sphere. The new host has the entire domain name "Still under construction." Finally, a forum-based game that gets only 967 hits from Google? Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE --moved anonymous edit on the main VfD page itself
• I, too, vote delete. • Benc • 08:02, 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.

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)

Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome -- Add to this discussion

This discussion has become very long, and is no longer being shown directly on this page. Please click here to view or participate in the discussion.

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 discussion has become very long, and is no longer being shown directly on this page. Please click this link to view or participate in the discussion.

{{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

Again, this discussion is available here, and you are welcome to contribute to it.

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 (speedily deleted)

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

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 [12]. - 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 (speedily deleted)

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 [13] [14] (tinfoil hattery?) [15] and [16] (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 [17]. 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 (speedily deleted)

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.

• 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"

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 [18]. 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)

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 (speedily deleted)

The consensus was for this article to be speedily deleted, as it was a recreation of a previously deleted article. It has been speedily deleted. The discussion is still available here until this VfD listing expires.

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

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)

Nebo School District

No evidence of notability. Little more than a substub. Not necessary. --Slowking Man 05:34, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Non-notable. Delete. RickK 05:43, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

This page is in the process of being written, but I guess if there is no desire to have these pages, then why even try. Oh, well.

• Anonymous Utahn
• Merge and redirect to a section of the county/city in Utah. Geogre 11:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable school district. — Gwalla | Talk 17:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 19:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a real school district. Therefore it should stay. -- Old Right 23:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Since its real! -- Crevaner 23:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: Existence is not a sufficient criterion for having an article. A private joke between two people can be said to exist, but it doesn't deserve an article. Vanity articles are for people who exist, but they are also against policy. — Gwalla | Talk 03:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. SWAdair | Talk 02:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete no redirect. Not notable. --Improv 16:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• The article makes no claim for notability (merely being a school district isn't notable), so delete unless there is note which no-one has bothered adding yet. 24 hours is long enough to make an article more than a sub-stub. Average Earthman 18:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I don't think 24 hours is enough time. However, unlike Springville High School (below), I'm not aware of any reason the school district is notable at all. All "content" here could be incorporated into Springville, Utah without being off-topic. Delete. CHL 13:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete I hate non-notable School district articles.--Plato 09:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. School districts should not have articles unless notable. --Lowellian 19:47, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If Point_of_Rocks,_Wyoming, total population: 3 can be in Wikipedia then so can this--Xed 22:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleted, 9 votes delete, 1 vote redirect, 3 keep — David Remahl 22:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

2004 deletion debate

from VfD:

Added by the same anon as Nebo School District. Again, no evidence of notability or interest to people not intimately involved with the school. --Slowking Man 05:35, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Non-notable. Delete. RickK 05:42, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

This page is in the process of being written, but I guess if there is no desire to have these pages, then why even try. Oh, well.

• Anonymous Utahn
• Delete if notability is not established by the end of VfD: Notable schools should be in, "normal" high schools should not. Just think about whether it would be appropriate for a print encyclopedia. Would Encyclopedia Americana want an article on this? Geogre 11:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Um. No. Wikipedia is not paper. If something is slightly notable and interesting it should be in. I believe wikipedia will be much more comprehensive than any other encyclopedia. CHL 00:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments to the contributor: there is no consensus and no policy about whether high schools should be included. What happens in practice is that posting an article on a high school in such a short and incomplete state is just asking for trouble.

Posting articles on high schools is never a sure thing, but the chance of acceptance depends a lot on how good the article is. Wikipedia:Your first article notes that: "Local-interest articles are articles about places like schools, or streets that are of interest to a relatively small number of people such as alumni or people who live nearby. There is no consensus about such articles, but some will challenge them if they include nothing that shows how the place is special and different from tens of thousands of similar places. Photographs add interest. Try to give local-interest articles local color."

For examples of very good articles about high schools that survived VfD, see Moanalua High School and Montgomery Bell Academy.

The VfD discussion runs for several days before any decision is made, and the article can be improved during that period. If you think you can beef up your article by mentioning a notable alum or two, and something special, almost anything, about the school, go for it. Pretend that your audience is a fellow alumnus. When they look up the high school in Wikipedia, you want them to get a warm fuzzy and have the feeling that the article is really about their school.

Do you, by any chance, have a photograph that you took yourself (and hence can give permission to release under the GFDL) that shows that nifty bell-tower-thingy? Not every high school has one of those. Someone from Springville won something-or-other in the 2001 Utah Multimedia Arts Festival; does this mean the school has a particularly good communications arts department?

Please, show us, what's special about Springville High School? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I know of one thing Springville High is famous for, so I put it on the article. Do have a look. Is that enough? - Non-anonymous Utahn CHL 23:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion... sure. See my vote below. I agree with your criterion, "slightly notable," and a national news story makes it more than slightly notable. Now, where can we get GFDL images of the mascot representations? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note: I'm putting these comments on the contributor's talk page as well. If he responds, showing that he reads his talk page, I'll remove them from here. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, decent stub - SimonP 15:40, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable school. — Gwalla | Talk 17:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The mascot controversy seems to have been fairly major, which makes it notable. — Gwalla | Talk 03:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 19:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't a decent stub. If you google on "Springville High School" now you get a reasonable school website. If Wikipedia kept this, browsers would have to wade through Wikipedia mirror after Wikipedia mirror showing this single uninformative sentence to get to that website and some real information. A short article that summarized some interesting things about the high school and its history and included a direct link to that high school's website would be fine. It would only take me a few minutes to add a little information and add the link. But why should I do it for this particular high school rather than for any one of the thousands of other high schools? Let the inclusionists who think high schools are so important do the work for this and all the others if they care so much. Or let those involved with these schools do the work. Some good articles have appeared. I'll vote keep on a good article, but not on any article so short and uniformative that starting a new article from scratch would be just as easy from information already easily available. Jallan 21:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, since it is a real school it must stay. -- Old Right 23:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Nothing with having high schools on wikipedia. -- Crevaner 23:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - I added content to the article which makes it notable enough in my opinion. (I don't think all HS articles should be kept, just ones that establish some sort of note, and I think this does now.) CHL 23:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable school even with the mascot issue. RedWolf 00:28, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. SWAdair | Talk 02:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, reasonable high school. Even if the article isn't great now, people who go to the school will eventually look at the page and add things. -- Creidieki 07:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. They can set up a webpage if they want. Wikipedia isn't here for their free publicity. Not-notable. Most high-schools are not, even if you can dig enough and find something mildly interesting about them. --Improv 16:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as improved by CHL. The section on the mascot controversy meets my objection. I don't think the article is great, I hope improvement will not stop here, and I flatly disagree with the inclusionists such as Old Right. But I set the bar pretty low on notability, and a mention in ABC News (under "US," meaning they consider it a national story) seems like plenty. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• D I don't think that alone qualifies it for inclusion. After all, it is just one article, not a whole series. I would guess they mean "US" vs. "World" as opposed to "US" vs. "Utah". Grand total Google hits for "Parents for Mascot Review" is 2. Not notable enough, I'm afraid. In fact, not even slightly notable. Chris 17:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I followed this issue, and it was covered on national television. A high school mascot isn't terribly significant, but they covered it for the same reason I still remember it: it's interesting. I couldn't find an online record of how many people attended the non-binding vote of the mascot, but I believe was in the thousands--their largest ever school board meeting, in fact. In a community of 20,000, that's mildly amusing. I think I might look it up. CHL 01:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep now. Vote changed. Though I wonder if the article should not be retitled Springfield High School Red Devil or something similar. Jallan 15:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, to counter votes to keep because "it's a real school." Wikipedia might reach the point where articles of this scale are appropriate, but I don't think we're there yet. Incidentally, the mascot issue seems to be little more than a blip on the radar of a small town, and less significant than the existence of the school itself. Inclusion as a short public interest segment on national television doesn't make it notable, either; we don't want to see articles on every cat stuck up in a tree. -- WOT 18:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If Point_of_Rocks,_Wyoming, total population: 3 can be in Wikipedia then so can this--Xed 22:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Missing Schools

The article currently says that there are only 3 HS in the district, but it is missing a the currently operating fourth, Landmark High School[19] located in Spanish Fork. Likewise there are two new HS's currently under construction. Should these be added? Thanks -- 63.226.38.165 18:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

More about the hidden schools; One of the new schools is Mapleton High School. It is currently under construction and will be open for school in 2009. And... Springville Middle School no longer exsists; it was turned into Cherry Creek Elementary. So I'll delete that. And... There is a new middle school; Mapleton Junior High School. I add that and Cherry Creek.--Emeraldstone 23:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is also the new high school in salem (salem hills high school) and payson also has a new jr high, the middle school has been turned into a jr. high with grades 7-9, 6th was moved back to elementary so the middle school is no more 67.166.103.119 02:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixes MJHS's enrollment numbers. I also removed Grant Elementary because the Grant Elementary building was closed as a school and opened as a district office. Emeraldstone (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Payson High School

I think that something should be said about the hit movie footloose being filmed at Payson High School

Also i think we should delete the notable alumni of Scott Williams, i'm sorry but having a movie filmed near your home does not make you notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omegablackbelt (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

High school page merger proposal

Spanish Fork HS, Salem Hills HS, Springville HS, and Payson HS do not have their own pages and all redirect here. However, Maple Mountain High School has its own page. I propose that any content there be merged with the section that already exists here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snay2 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposing merge of Mapleton Junior High School to this article

Mapleton Junior High School has a dearth of sourcing, no significant coverage in reliable sources for own article. The only content is the school colors, sports, and mascot-- without reliable 3rd party sourcing for that. Dlohcierekim 01:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've redated this merge tag because no references section was ever added (so how could unexperienced users ever add them?). Best, Markvs88 (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge. There is no content on this page except a list of classes offered. This page belongs merged into the school district's page. valereee (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Merged May 11 2014. Discussion had opened nearly four years ago and was reopened over two years ago with no objections voiced by any editor. valereee (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

"P" hillside letter for Payson High School

Are there any photos available for the the "P" hillside letter for Payson High School? Are there any other schools in this district with hillside letters? See also List of Hillside Letters in Utah for more details. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Shhs7.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Shhs7.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Spanish Fork Junior High

School is non-notable. valereee (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support as not notable for a standalone article. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How is Nebo SD "beneath" Provo SD?

Previously the introduction read "Nebo School District...lies beneath the Provo City School District and Alpine School District beginning at Utah Lake and moving south."

How is Nebo SD beneath Provo SD? The areas where the majority of students live in both districts are at about the same elevation. Mapleton is higher than Provo, but that seems an odd way to relate the two districts. I've therefore rewritten this part of the introduction to indicate which districts border Nebo. Lee Choquette (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nebo School District. 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/20060803065049/http://www.nebo.edu/sfhs/ to http://www.nebo.edu/sfhs/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

2021 Improvements/Changes

With the new middle schools at the Nebo School District, this page is in sore need of an update. In addition, enrollment numbers listed here are terribly outdated (not maintained or updated). I think the Provo School District is a good guide for updating this page, at least to begin. I am, accordingly, making a series of small changes, if anyone would like to review them. You can see them, with summaries, in the history.

The biggest concern for me are the paragraphs under some of the high schools and junior highs. If we follow Provo's model, we remove those descriptions and include a footnote that links to the various schools' websites. In general, these paragraphs are pretty haphazard and unsourced and have all sorts of POV problems, etc. Personally I would like to see web pages for these schools but that will require a fair amount of work to make sure they are up to Wikipedia standards.

That said, the current entry here is enough of a mess (sort of) that I feel okay being bold here. I hope others add to what I'm doing here. I think undoing these changes will be counterproductive (add to it instead!) but, hey, do what you gotta do. Begeun (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I attempted to create websites for Payson and Spanish Fork High Schools; both were rejected by admins. Payson was rejected for WP:NORG. That said, Payson has some great information on their school webpage, and I think it has potential. Currently Payson HS page redirects to Nebo. See the edit history for Payson HS here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Payson_High_School_(Utah)&action=history

Spanish Fork HS, on the other hand, has very little available information and will need some good research, and (as always, apparently) a kind and understanding admin. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Begeun (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The Casanovas -- Add to this discussion

from VfD:

Non-notable local band that the original poster couldn't even bother to write anything about except their name and where they're from. RickK 06:29, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. non-notable [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 06:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Agreed, delete. Fire Star 06:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable - they are played on Triple J and Rage, and have toured nationally. The stub just needs expanding. -- Chuq 06:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, notable Australian band. They're touring Japan at the moment, Chuq. I'll see what I can do to improve the article. —Stormie 06:46, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've had a little go myself! -- Chuq 08:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This ain't no garage band. Ambi 08:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Now a decent article, evidence of international tours and a recording contract. Average Earthman 11:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I believe there was also a circa 1970 Seattle-based soul band by this name, quite a good band, as I recall. Can't find anything quickly on the web, but there was actually quite a soul/jazz fusion scene in Seattle at that time, bet we have not a word about it. -- Jmabel 12:05, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Decent article. — Gwalla | Talk 17:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I was was going to return to add more stuff before someone else did it - thanks. It's a good article now. Vhadiant

• Keep. Notable band. --Viriditas 11:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

American Union of Men -- Add to this discussion

Tally: I count 13 delete votes and 4 keep votes. I ignored troll/sockpuppet votes from User:Crevaner, User:Old Right, and User:Bigbadsteve. I did count User:QIM as a keep vote. I'll delete American Union of Men now. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

American Union of Men

See Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#Masculist_Trinity. -- Solitude 07:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Very odd political argument, non-significant. Geogre 11:47, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep; article may need extensive work, but this is not a reason to delete. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - this is more Tom Smith vanity nonsense - Tεxτurε 19:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems significant to me. -- Crevaner 23:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. RickK 00:08, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP, I don't think its vanity at all, just info. -- Old Right 15:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if the organization in question were notable, a reader of that article still comes out with no idea what it is that the organization does, if anything. Livajo 16:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • As a side note, it also seems that an article with this name has been deleted in the past. See here. Livajo 16:15, 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
• KEEP - I am a masculist rights activist and writer from Melbourne, Australia. I have used Tom Smith's AUM as an important source of gender rights information and debate for some years. The attempt to delete information about it is probably the work of radical feminists and their fellow travelers, many of whom will use any means possible no matter how immoral and totalitarian to try and stifle debate about their outmoded beliefs which lamentably are practiced by many Western governments partly via sexist Womens' Departments funded to the tune of millions of dollars a year. In Canada, for instance, there is a govt-funded Women's department campaign for feminists to 'take control' of the internet. Recently the department was named in the Canadian Parliament for trying to make male-positive reporting illegal, monitor pro-male journalists and activists, and jail them. This is typical of tactics used worldwide, since logic and fact alone are not enough to allow the outdated and exaggerated lies of radical feminism to prosper. To give in to their demands by pulling Tom Smith's article would be the digital equivalent of book burning on the grounds of 'political incorrectness.' The fact that AUM expresses what are often presently minority points of view no more justifies censorship than would an article by an author expressing opinions common amongst his or her minority race or minority sexual preference. To do so would be discrimination, pure and simple.- Steven Stevenson Bigbadsteve
  • You're calling me a feminist? Please excuse me while I go provide some colleagues with their daily entertainment, haha. -- Solitude 12:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: User:Bigbadsteve has only recorded 2 edits so far, both to this discussion. See contribs. Rossami 03:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Google knows about Mr. Smith's organization, but offers no hint of him or it having any particular notability beyond aggressive self-promotion on the internet. According to the above, however, I am probably a tool of a vast international radical feminist conspiracy, so my vote should probably be ignored. RadicalSubversiv E 07:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable vanity. ElBenevolente 09:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete in the interest of National Security(tm)--MaxMad 12:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Jallan 19:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, non-notable, pseudo-personal attack on women and feminism under the guise of empty, politically-motivated "criticism", aka propaganda. --Viriditas 02:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete... sorry, but the feminists who control me have made it quite clear how I am to vote. func(talk) 01:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: agenda promo, personal promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP This article is currently thin but gives insights into an aspect of the debate on the role of men and women in society. If this is deleted where do you draw the line on other pressure and advocacy groups? JPF 10:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, this seems a sufficiently noteworthy topic and I don't believe that Wikipedia should succumb to such censorship. StuartH 12:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. The line is drawn on notability. Positions put forward by advocacy groups should be given in articles about that position, where people would expect to find them, probably listing the more prominent groups supporting that position. A prominent advocacy group is likely to get its own article. Small advocacy groups themselves are not especially notable. Ideas are not being censored. But non-encyclopedic articles are dropped according to policy. Edge cases are mostly argued here on this forum. Generally articles that appear from their manner of presentation to be progaganda are dropped, whether feminist, masculinist, pro-Christian, anti-Christian, pro-Bush, anti-Bush and so forth. In theory, articles on minor organizations are dropped, no matter what their purpose. If you want to call it censorship, then Wikipedia does attempt to censor obviously POV articles and non-notable information. I presume American Union of Men also "censors" on its website, including only material that is generally relevant to its purposes. Most people voting here so far do not feel this article fits Wikipedia's purposes. Jallan 15:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I note that during the voting period, none of the "keep" voters have improved the article. If the subject is encyclopedic and notable, surely there are some newspaper articles that would provide the basis for an acceptable article. The page seems to be no more than a self-promotion, poorly conceived, non-encyclopedic, non-salvageable. ---Rednblu 17:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry that the vote has gone this way, but considering the group think of the times and the enormous power of feminism, it's a hopeful sign of Wikipedia's NPOV that my page got the "Keep" votes it did. Many thanks to those who voted to "Keep". User:QIM

Ellen paulsson

A "Swedish female" who "has yet to become famous" and other nonsense. Ianb 07:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Joke article. Average Earthman 11:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: More humor from Sweden. A new IP in this game, I think. Geogre 11:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Sub-BJAODN. Delete - TB 11:45, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• This article has yet to become deleted but is stated by the "Wikipedians" to be more than 97,6% likely to do so. Livajo 16:44, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Prank. — Gwalla | Talk 17:22, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Guys, get a sense of emotion or sympathy will you? Of course it will be deleted, don't worry your hyperserious minds over it. I was just trying to do something nice, so don't worry, it will be deleted and your order will be back.
  • User:62.163.6.253: we feel your pain and would like to express our deepest vuffespijder to you in your Dutch exile. --Ianb 20:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 19:33, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - worthless content. RedWolf 00:30, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Sooner rather than later. Wikipedia is not a place for score-settling in RL. The more we allow it to fill this role, the more junk like this will happen. --Improv 16:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, bad joke. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• The article or vuffespijder can now be legally speedied. I e-mailed the original author — found his address on the web — with non-threatening auntish reproof, and got a very nice message back, stating that he knows his page is not encyclopedic, that Ellen has now read and enjoyed it, and that he'll therefore be fine with its being deleted. We have documentary evidence of original author voting delete — do we have any trigger-happy admin out there? Bishonen 08:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I appear to have caught a flu-like illness, so nothing makes me happy except the trigger. Speedy deleted per author's request Geogre 14:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tom Smith (filker) -- Add to this discussion

This nomination is no longer an implicit Del vote. -Jerzy(t) 02:41, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC) Vanity stub on a guy apparently acknowledged for one joke filk music performance at a Sci-Fi convention. Deletion will enable demolition of dab structure built to accommodate this article. --Jerzy(t) 08:33, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not convinced this, or the related pages, are notable. Average Earthman 11:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Ad for a non-notable individual. Notice that it's one sentence and then "go to his page." And then there's the subject of filk that we shall not breach here. Geogre 11:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite. Geogre 13:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. In my opinion, the pattern that we see here of 1) a one-sentence statement and an 2) external link with 3) nothing else on the page should qualify generally for a "speedy delete." ---Rednblu 15:45, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I hate newly-created stubs with nothing but an external link. However, I know that Tom Smith is the most notable filker among those who sit around finding rhymes for 'Saruman'. He's had national radio play and albums and such. I don't even care for the genre but I know his name. I'd suggest a trip to cleanup for this entry in the hopes that it can actually be expanded into a useful article. Spatch 16:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Notable in filking circles. Current substub is pretty dire, though. — Gwalla | Talk 17:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I created the stub, hoping that other people who were more in the filk community would fill it in a bit more. Definitely not a vanity stub, though: I created it because of the "Boy and his Frog" reference in the Jim Henson article, and this led to the creation of the Pegasus Awards article. He is hardly known for "one joke performance", as Jerzy seems to think -- he's a multiple-time Pegasus winner.--SarekOfVulcan 19:12, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please flesh it out some, if you can, during VfD. Some of us take pleasure in changing our votes, and mine was based as much on the one line -> link format as anything (advertising). Also, it would help if some of the non-filk stuff were there, at least for me. Geogre 00:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - more Tom Smith vanity nonsense - Tεxτurε 19:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is not the User:QIM Tom Smith, by pure coincidence this Tom came up here at the same time. -- Solitude 07:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Ummm... how is it vanity if it was created by someone (not the subject)as a reference for another entry?--SarekOfVulcan 20:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Please read: Wikipedia:Vanity page. - Tεxτurε 20:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Got it. Well, we'll see if I can get other people to come edit it with more interesting information, so it's not a single-editor stub anymore. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 21:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• We interrupt this process for an important Howdy.
  
  Hi! This is Tom Smith. For what it's worth, I didn't create the page, and barely knew of its existence, and wouldn't know it was up for deletion except that someone told me. My only reason for posting this now is a little bit of good-natured self defense.
  
  I've been writing music and performing (and filking) for about twenty years. I've got seven albums, including a brand-new one just off to the duplicator this week. Larry Niven has compared me with Tom Lehrer; Dr. Demento has featured me on the Funny Five; I wrote the official song for Talk Like A Pirate Day. I've been a guest at about a hundred conventions in the U.S., Canada, and Britain, and have (to my surprise and delight) fans around the world.
  
  And I genuinely don't know what is meant by "more Tom Smith vanity nonsense". I have one web page to sell my albums, and another for my LiveJournal (note that I am not putting those links here); I don't spam, don't overload rec.music.filk, and don't advertise myself all over other message boards and comment sections.
  
  If this page goes, it goes. If it stays, it stays. But I did not put it here. I don't need a vanity page. Is all I'm sayin'.
  
  Thanks,
  Tom

• I just cleaned up the article. What do you think now? --SarekOfVulcan 00:35, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's fine now. I'll bet that if you had waited to post it until you had assembled those three high-quality sentences, it would never have come up on VfD. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can't guarantee it wouldn't have been nominated by someone, but it indeed wouldn't have been nominated by me, who in fact nominated it. --Jerzy(t) 02:41, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

• Notable within the filk genre. Keep. Rhymeless 00:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: notable in a widespread, if silly, genre. It appears that this Tom Smith is a different person from the one posting the "QIM" stuff. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Seems pretty darn notable to me. I, for one, am glad to see performers like Tom Smith bringing the songs from my favourite books to life. Welcome to the Wikipedia Tom!. The Steve 08:46, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. After another Tom Smith added his vanity link to the Tom Smith disambig page, some guy thought the other Tom Smith articles should be deleted as well!! Don't know if that has anything to do with this VfD nomination though. -- Chuq 11:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP, there is absolutely no good reason to delete this page. -- Old Right 16:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - The page informs us who Tom Smith the filker is. Informing is what wikipedia is suppose to do! -- Crevaner 16:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in present form. Official song of "talk like a pirate day," Christine Lavin's blessing, testimony of Wikipedians who have heard him convince me of notability. Plus I have got to say that the "we interrupt this process for an important Howdy" note, neatly formatted as a bullet item, coherent and informative, is about the classiest anon comment I've ever seen in VfD. Genuinely helpful in evaluating the situation. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Heh. I agree. Keep. CHL

• Keep. Notable. Jallan 15:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I'm pleased to have nominated it for VfD/TbO, now seeing the editing it produced. [grin] Dunno, maybe i shouldn't have trusted an obviously lousy article to represent the topic well. --Jerzy(t) 02:41, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
• Keep in this version. JamesMLane 23:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Intro very confusing

The third sentence is really sloppy language. I don't know the field, so tell me, in defining new institutionalism, what's the article trying to say here? "One of the instiutional views that has emerged has argued that institutions have developed to become similar isomorphism across organizations even though they evolved in different ways, and how institutions shape the behavior of agents (i.e. people, organizations, governments)."

I tried to reword it to recover the meaning and I got something like: "One of the institutional views that has emerged has argued that institutions across (within?) organizational fields, though they evolved in different ways, have developed to become isomorphic in the way they shape the behavior of agents (i.e. people, organizations, governments)." That's a sentence I can at least understand; is it right? Does it actually describe what is novel about new institutionalism? Kyle Cronan (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

---

I am an expert on this field and I agree that the article is extremely confusing. To my mind the core of the problem is that it tries to cover too many variations on the theory and so it's hard to understand the basic idea, or to tell what is the basic idea and what is some fairly idiosyncratic variation. Typically when new institutionalism is taught in grad school, there's a bit of background on Carnegie school bounded rationality associated w Herb Simon and a bit on Pfeffer and Salancik's resource dependence model, then the theory itself begins with Meyer and Rowan 1977 (organizations use ritualized behaviors to signal legitimacy to stakeholders), and then to DiMaggio and Powell 1983 (like M+R, but distinguishing three broad classes of stakeholders).

That's the basic theory and what needs to be clearly laid out. Anybody who needs more than that shouldn't be reading Wikipedia but should go to the academic literature. There's also the problem that "new institutionalism" is a term used by different social science disciplines but they all use it slightly differently and the literatures by and large don't overlap. Hence the mess that is the "sub-fields" section.

Bottom-line the article needs a complete rewrite and that rewrite should be much more focused in its ambitions. Ghrossman (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This lemma is not very accessible and therefore not always helpful. Especially the paragraph on "Critiques of new institutionalism" needs to be re-written completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbröer (talk • contribs) 13:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

New institutionalism

this whole page is a bit confusing. "new institutionalism emphasizes sociological views of institutions" whereas "old or historical institutionalism is from the tradition of dewey, veblen and others and is opposed to the new institutionalism since the new places an over-emphasis on maximizing behavior" ???

that makes no sense! is new institutionalism emphasizing social and cultural behavior or maximizing behavior??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.33.161 (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

as far as I understand, the three 'sub-types' actually developed autonomously with little dialogue, and are all called 'new institutionalism'. historical institutionalism is a part of comparative politics, which is a part of poli sci; rational choice is somewhere in poli sci as well; and 'normative' developed under sociology, possibly political sociology but not exclusively. the paper at the bottom 'political science and the new institutionalism' is short, clear, and sums up the theories, there strengths and weaknesses, and their relations quite well.

---

I want to see what was deleted from the page. I'm new here, but my opinion on the matter is 'who other than an academic (per se) or academic-type person would search for "new institutionalism"?' There should at least be an option for a more-developed discourse, we already suffer from enough over-simplification in this world.

mcgrathster@gmail.com (can anyone tell me how to contact other people on this site?)

Sure. When you click on "history", you can see who has made each edit to the page. Most people also sign their comments; click on the "Lunkwill" link at the end of my comment and you can leave me a personal message on my page, or leave it here and I'll see that it's been edited recently, because it'll show up on my "watchlist". You can have one too by creating an account, which requires only choosing a username and password. Lunkwill 23:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's the discussion and voting from when this page was listed on "Votes for deletion":

Non-notable (first three Google hits are Wikipedia and two mirrors), reads like original research. Susvolans 14:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(My google search returned many pages of references, including quite a lot of academic papers.) Lunkwill 20:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Read's like someone's term paper for school. Interesting, but not particularly encyclopedic as it stands. Delete. -FZ 14:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm in the process of revising this article. I admit that it currently reads like a term paper, but I don't believe that new institutionalism is non-notable. It is an emerging school in sociology. Obscure, perhaps, but relevant. While its true that wikipedia mirrors dominate the google results, there are also legitimate academic citations ([20] and [21] for example). Dimaggio and Powell are two regularly cited academics who are proponents of this theory [22]. Their book "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields" was as significant contribution to this field. mennonot 15:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: What's new about it? What makes it different from Institutionalisation? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Institutionalisation describes the process by which large, often bueracratic organisations began to dominate our society, what Max Weber describes as the Iron Cage and in more common usage is the process by which movements or networks become formalized into institutions. New institutionalism is the study of the way those institutions operate, relate to each other and organize themselves[23]. It builds on Webers work (hence the Iron Cage Revisited title above) but goes in more depth. I admit that I only have a superficial knowledge of the field, but I'm willing to put time into improving the article and making it more understandable. mennonot 16:16, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I've finished a major revision of the article. Please check it out. It still has a long way to go, but I hope you'll agree that it is now readable enough to avoid deletion. mennonot 19:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - original work/derivation - Tεxτurε 19:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - I find plenty of references to the concept in google, both academic and derivative. The article uses lots of sociology lingo (it was, in fact, written for a class presentation on the topic by a grad student), but is NPOV, informative and relevant. Lunkwill 20:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Google finds quite a lot of hits (20,000, it appears that a significant fraction is relevant). It still needs work, though. What is the history of this theory? Who introduced it? How does it relate to other theories? Andris 22:59, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've added a history section in an attempt to begin to answer these question. Its fairly vague, but its a start. mennonot 15:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Worthy topic; notable, with literature. Keep. Rhymeless 00:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - The influence of institutions on individuals seems to me a key subject, although imo more related to social psychology than directly to sociology. --Pgreenfinch 13:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• (Ineligible anon vote) Keep. The new institutionalism is an important movement not only in sociology but in economics and political science. (Douglass North won the Nobel Prize in economics for an early contribution in 1993.) Because of diverse contributors to the movement, everyone who tries to summarize it has trouble. But the article is as good an effort as any, and can be very useful.
• Keep - I even linked to it from organizational studies

Cuts to article by GoodOlPolonius

I'm not happy with the deletion of five paragraphs from the New institutionalism article by GoodOlPolonius with only "simplified approach" as an explanation. Cuts those extensive need a better justification than that. I'm open to listening to the rationale for major cutting, but I don't think those cuts should be made without discussion. mennonot 10:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am quite happy to talk about the cuts, the lack of changes to this page and its votes for deletion led me to believe that it was not being actively modified, so I went ahead and made the changes. The original version of this page did not serve as an introductory article in which a layperson could expect to find their way, nor did it place new institutionalism in the context of other approaches to the field of organizational studies/sociology. For example, your intro included:

"In new institutional theory Institutions are durable, transmittable, maintainable, and reproducible (Scott 2001). Berger and Luckmann (1966) speak of a dialectic process in which institutions are socially constructed but also influence the people who create them. "Man…and his social world interact with each other. The product acts back upon the producer" (p. 61). In this way, institutions are durable - they persist across time (transmittable) and are somewhat difficult to change. Institutions are also maintainable and reproducible. When individuals follow appropriate institutional logics, they are reproducing institutions."

This is very difficult to understand, since you dive right into some heavy academic discourse about various approaches to institutions, rather than discussing what new institutionalism is and how it relates to other fields of study. I thought it would be much better to explain, in general, what the approach of new institutionalism is. Think of this as a general interest encyclopedia.

I am, however, definitely open to change.--Goodoldpolonius2 18:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't write most of the article. I just did a fair amount of revision when it came up for deletion in order to try to improve it. It was even more inaccessible before I started messing with it.

I agree with what you say about the introduction being too academic. My main concern was with cutting the whole "Regulative, Normative and Cultural-Cognitive Frameworks" section. While this section was pretty academic, I think there might be more that could be used from it. I think you did a good job of starting the process of synthesizing it, but perhaps we can work to pull some of the explanation of the different frameworks back into the article in a more readable format.

Thanks for taking the time to write a longer explanation. It's helpful for understanding how to go forward from here. mennonot 14:46, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good to get a dialogue going. I guess I did not see that the Regulative, Normative, and Cultural-Cognitive frameworks were the key structural elements within New Insitutionalism. If you want to take a crack at putting them back, with some context around why they are important, that would work. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tried to add three types of the new institutionalism in fairly non-academic language here (although my writing is quite clumsy.) I think it's important to look at how different approaches to institutionalism can be. I welcome the alteration of the text to make it more accessible still. Nach0king 18:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see that the discussion is here among persons really interested in the field, mayby there might be someone helpfull? I have some problems undestanding the link (or if there is any) between social constructionism and the new institutionalism? Maria

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New institutionalism. 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/20110927173812/http://www.mps.it/NR/rdonlyres/B6F3EB33-518F-4310-8137-D2EC9B7C77F2/34110/722NICITAVATIERO.pdf to http://www.mps.it/NR/rdonlyres/B6F3EB33-518F-4310-8137-D2EC9B7C77F2/34110/722NICITAVATIERO.pdf

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) 19:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Stacy Rotne -- Add to this discussion

Tally: I count 13 delete votes, 5 keep votes, and 1 merge/redirect vote. I'll delete Stacy Rotner and its redirect Stacy Rotne now. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:42, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Stacy Rotne

Game show contestant. Participating in a game show is not evidence of notability. Come back after she wins the grand prize. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Comment updated above. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Necrothesp 17:14, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • But if it is kept, for Gawd's sake someone clean it up. It looks like a fansite at the moment, not a serious article. -- Necrothesp 10:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable game show contestant. Betcha that photo is a copyvio, too. — Gwalla | Talk 17:26, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Greed is a sin. Non-notable. Geogre 18:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Greed is good - Tεxτurε 19:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed, Greed is good, but encyclopedic is better. -Vina 20:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, for What she lacks in height, she more than lacks in notability. --Ianb 20:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• KEEP - The Apprentice is a highly rated show. As this season continues she'll gain more notoriety. After all Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth has an article. -- Crevaner 23:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Never heard of it. Or that Omarosa person. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • So? You're a hermit crab? Must that affect everyone else? -- user:zanimum
• Delete. Non-notable game show contestant. SWAdair | Talk 02:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, she inevitably will gain more notoriety! -- Old Right 15:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not about what might be, but about what is. Unless and until she becomes of note separate from this gameshow, there is no need for an article. Average Earthman 18:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know what you mean by Greed; this woman was on The Apprentice 2, a show which causes more water-cooler talk than I've ever seen. The show has a cult following and if every minor character and place in Star Trek, Star Wars, Pokemon and other fictional universes can have pages, I think a REAL live person on a reality (NOT game) show should have one.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 15:36, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The winner *might* warrant a break-out article, but not every participant. BTW, if there's a "winner", I'd say it's a "game" show. And get rid of all the red-links for the "candidates" at The Apprentice 1 and The Apprentice 2. (Second season debut watched by 0.2% of the population)Niteowlneils 21:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Survivor, The Apprentice 1, and other shows all have contestant articles (even contestants who did not end up winning). Expand, don't delete. - MattTM 04:12, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. An expanded article won't make a non-notable person notable. --Improv 15:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment I just discovered that her name seems to be Stacy Rotner, not Rotne. [24] (I refrained from moving it now since it's on VfD.) And, if doing a Google test on Stacy, a search for "Stacy" + "The Apprentice" would be more accurate than searching for "Stacy Rotner", as the Apprentice candidates' last names were not even know until very recently, and are rarely used on discussion and other related sites. So, this needs to be moved if it is kept. - MattTM 05:01, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect into List of Apprentice 2 candidates Kuwanger 07:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Note: above user has only four edits, 2 in VfD. Tεxτurε 15:57, 21 Sep 2004

• Keep, and here's the reasons why: -- user:zanimum
  • There are multiple categories in television that are relevant to this discussion.
    • The game show: Where "characters" don't emerge, unless they become Ken Jennings; the sole purpose of watching the show is see their path to the prize. Take Fear Factor, please.
    • The reality show: Where "characters" interact, often in a closed environment, for no true purpose but the entertainment of the viewer; may be artificially situated (The Surreal Life or The Simple Life.
    • The reality game show: The purpose of watching is both to find out how characters interact, and to see how they get to the prize. Take Survivor, Big Brother, The Real World.
  • Out of the above, The Apprentice fits into the reality game show most comfortably. However, unlike pretty much any other show before it, the prize is continuous, and would have existed without the show. Why? Trump needs to employ. Simply, it's an odd interview process, that balances character over credentials. It's quite clever really; while you can hide a dark side in an interview, it's going to come out in a longer, more grueling process. Mark Burnett has essentially tried to stir up a format (interviews) that has worked for decades, with a completely unique idea.
  • In like reality shows, Stacey et al are the equivilent of any character; take Injun Joe. Without Injun Joe, the story of of Tom and Huck would fall apart. There's many elements of the duos adventures that would be left intact, but it just wouldn't be the same creative work. Same with any independent reality show contestant, and I will explain this classification later. Without Stacey, the chemistry of the show simply wouldn't be the same. The show would have a different outcome entirely, etc, etc. The difference between Stacey and a girl on the Bachelor, say, is that unless she makes it until the final episode or so, Jayne http://abc.go.com/primetime/bachelor/bios/6/jayne.html won't have an truely individual personality or thoughts. And I don't mean to undermine that show. It's just the sheer quantity of contestants on The Bachelor makes it nearly impossible to create identifiable characters, beyond a caricature, possibly. But seeing just one episode of The Apprentice 2, you can tell how Stacey ticks, how she works.
  • If someone can go from relative obscurity, albeit with fairly good credentials, to have 20500 Google hits (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=stacy%2Bapprentice&meta=) in about a month, obviously there's a fan following of the show, and her.
  • "Greed is a sin." She is simply going through a unorthodox job candidate interview process. Anyone mentioning anything like this should quite frankly have their vote nulled, as part of their reason for voting to delete is solely based on their POV.
  • To those of you who say, "never heard of her", I say might as well go the same cocky-know-it-all route and say that "I've never heard of the United States v. E. C. Knight Co. court case. We should delete is because I'm a genius, and if I'm a genius and I haven't heard of it, it mustn't be important." I'm frankly tired of people using this pathetic attitude, it doesn't belong here.
  • Googling for Stacey + The Apprentice would find Stacey Rotner just as fast now as if it was part of a jumbo-sized contestant article.
  • The name was a slight typo that I've corrected.
  • The photo is not a copyvio. It is a press photo available to anyone, even without registration or proper press credentials, from the NBC press website.
• Delete. Unless she gains the fames of someone like Osamara (sp?), I see no reason why this information couldn't just be listed on a convenient "The Apprentice 2 - List of Contestants" page. If she's still that well known to google a year after the last episode of this season airs, then maybe she should get her own entry. --Lifefeed 19:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Raj Bhakta -- Add to this discussion

Tally: I count 13 delete, 4 keep or maybe 5 if User:Kuwanger is counted. I have deleted Raj Bhakta. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Raj Bhakta: game show contestant. Participating in a game show is not evidence of notability. Come back after he wins the grand prize. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete -- Necrothesp 17:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable contestant. Photo is probable copyvio (and features a ridiculous tie). — Gwalla | Talk 17:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Twerp in a bowtie, part of the Celebrating Greed series on television. Delete for not being notable. Geogre 18:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 19:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, I protest mightily at some user's disdain of Greed. I don't even know that winning the grand prize will get enough notability. I mean, who cares about the dude that won Apprentice 1? -Vina 20:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I guess I don't. Comment updated above. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• His suit appears to be made out of my old curtains (disclaimer: it was the ex-wife's taste). But enough of this prittle-prattle, Delete non-entity. --Ianb 20:54, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable game show contestant.
• Delete. Unless and until he becomes of note separate from this gameshow, there is no need for an article. Average Earthman 18:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know what you mean by Greed; this guy was on The Apprentice 2, a show which causes more water-cooler talk than I've ever seen. The show has a cult following and if every minor character and place in Star Trek, Star Wars, Pokemon and other fictional universes can have pages, I think a REAL live person on a reality (NOT game) show should have one.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 15:34, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The winner *might* warrant a break-out article, but not every participant. BTW, if there's a "winner", I'd say it's a "game" show. Niteowlneils 21:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Lets not say to delete this page because we do not like the Percieved charter of the show or the show in it's self. If we were to say that no charaters except the winner should deserve a page then so be it, but this page give information about a charater in a show that's status is still unknown. I say we decide if any contesent on any reality show should have a page or not, rather than a piticular person. Asian Animal
• Keep Survivor, The Apprentice 1, and other shows all have contestant articles (even contestants who did not end up winning). I see no reason for this to be deleted, only expanded. - MattTM 04:12, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into List of Apprentice 2 candidates Kuwanger 07:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Note: above user has only four edits, 2 in VfD. Tεxτurε 15:56, 21 Sep 2004

• Delete. Not notable. An expanded article won't make a non-notable person notable. --Improv 15:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I think most of the votes to delete are coming from people who aren't fans of the show or reality tv as a whole. Raj, through his actions and manner of dress, has certainly proven himself notable in this cast of the show. Inturnaround 17:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Apropos, I don't think winning at a game show confers encylopaedic notability, either. -- WOT 18:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Albanian proverbs

The Wikipedia article Albanian proverbs also exists on Wikiquote (verbatim) as Wikiquote:Albanian proverbs. I think Wikiquote is the more sensible place for this, so I think the Wikipedia page ought to be deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (quiz)}[[]] 17:26, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: As it has been transwikied, it should be deleted. Geogre 18:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree, but what do we do about the pages that link to it? – Quadell ^{(talk) (quiz)}[[]] 18:29, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Can't it be linked to Wikiquote? - Tεxτurε 19:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. And fix links leading to it to lead to Wikiquote. — Gwalla | Talk 03:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: no information is lost. Wetman 01:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Post-deletion: I doubt anyone will see this (unless they spot it on RC), but whoever deleted it did not update the links. Also, I plenty of X proverbs pages still on Wikipedia. This is an all or none issue as far as I'm concerned (I would have voted to keep, but perhaps reduce the number and expand to an article, which I may well do at some point). Dori | Talk 03:46, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

I see ya, Dori. I've gone back and updated the links. Yes, I agree, all proverbs pages should be treated the same. (The Albanian one was the only one I found where the Wikiquote version was exactly the same as the Wikipedia version.) I've listed many proverbs pages on Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. I'm not sure what one could say in an Albanian proverbs article, other than "Albanian proverbs are proverbs from Albania." But maybe you can think of something. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 12:58, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Aza raskin

Page was initially speedily deleted by myself as it appeared to be badly named vanity (Aza raskin is listed as the manager of a website) however a complaint from the creator of the article on my talk page made me rethink my decision and I have since restored it. I still think it doesn't appear notable. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: We don't advertise websites, and the article is about the website, not the person. The person appears to be a minor player in the article on his/her own name, in fact, and the article establishes its context so poorly that it's hard to tell what it's about. Non-encyclopedic. Geogre 18:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanity/advert - Tεxτurε 19:37, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. An article about Jef Raskin would be nice though... oh, there is one already. --Ianb 21:00, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Having read the Guidlines with care, I concure with Graham's decision to DELETE the page. As a newcommer I did not realise that the level of care and consideration for fragmentation (detailing) of subject matter ran so high. Please accept my apologies for the misnomer. -Mr. Aza Raskin is unaware of my posting, which, by the way, was made in good faith, as a matter of information on the person who is the coding architect for 'THE' on behalf of Jef Raskin (who does not code as I understand it). It would have been nice however had Graham elected first to investigate, say hello, attempt to have a brief dialogue with the writer, prior to deletion. perhaps an effort to add to or correct the situation. Any blind mob can destroy, but it takes a true artist to find the usefullness in the appearantly dull. -After all, wikipedias are for the benefit of the people, to bring people closer together, not the reverse. When one removes the civil and humane element from the process... its just the same as any other encyclopedia or self-centered endeavor. My original text to Graham is on the "User talk:Proton44" page should anyone care to read it. Congratulations! a splendid job at making the world feel welcome... Vanity? hmmmm... one wonders... Please delete the offending page post haste with my blessing and be of good cheer!!! The writer.

PS: this page was very enlightning: Pet_rock just the sort of information every school child should know. It has had a profound effect on me already in the past 24 hours alone! --Proton44 03:31, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)

• Delete. The project may be notable, but the guy who runs the website isn't. Also, article is misnamed: unless he's one of those goofballs who likes to be "creative" with capitalization, it should be "Aza Raskin". — Gwalla | Talk 03:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree that an article on the project might be acceptable. Jallan 15:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Failure of SAARC in light of ASEAN Success

Looks like a huge copy & paste, whether from original research or copyvio, I don't know, but the POV is inescapable, and the discursive style is non-encyclopedic. Geogre 19:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. POV title, no useful content. Andrewa 20:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, although it'd be nice if some of this material, if relevant, could find its way to the article on SAARC. Lacrimosus 20:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The key words here are relevant and (in my vote) useful. The problem is, extracting and verifying the information is going to take at least as long as starting from scratch IMO. Andrewa 22:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Incurably POV. — Gwalla | Talk 03:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Title screams original research. Shimmin 17:22, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Vfd discussion

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

Exopolitics

Neologism, original research, dubious factuality, possible copyvio. - KeithTyler 20:50, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

Resolved. I decimated, merged, and redirected to Extraterrestrial life, which I cleaned up and expanded a bit while there (so the merge wouldn't make it lopsided, which I hate). - KeithTyler 23:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

---

Update: Given the amount of near-vandalism on this discussion, and the editing that is going on the article in the meantime, it's pretty clear that deletion will probably not work as an option, as the article will only be re-created. (I had no idea there were so many sock-covered hands watching this one. I won't speculate upon what metal they are wearing on their heads.) I will have to go ahead with some combination of decimate-merge-redirect, and then sit on this one, and look forward to a revert war. - KeithTyler 19:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Update 2: Can someone find a better place for a merge and redirect? Ufology is lacking, Extraterrestrial life also lacking, Astrosociobiology too focused to be appropriate. TIA - KeithTyler 19:28, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, "Exopolitics: A Decade of Contact" seems to say it all for me. -Vina 22:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep! - Its a real term, not neologism. -- Crevaner 23:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • OK, then find me a dicdef at dictionary.com [26] or even Merriam-Webster [27]. Even WordSpy doesn't have it [28]. - KeithTyler 00:32, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Who boasts of an MEd? They come in the bottom of cereal boxes now. At any rate, when we get representation in the exoparliamentary bodies and can exoembargo the exostates, we will need to worry about exopolitics. For now, this is exorational. Geogre 00:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Good god, will we have to start worrying about losing our jobs to exoshoring? - KeithTyler
• Keep, its a good article. Eventually more information will be added to make it better. -- Old Right 15:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: The term does get over 4,000 Google hits, but the current content seems in need of, ummm, NPOVing? (Sigh) I'm trying not to mention tin-foil hats and I just failed. No vote at present. Andrewa 18:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Nearly all of those have to do with Michael Salla (who owns exopolitics.org), Alfred Webre (who wrote the book Exopolitics), Universe Books (who supposedly published the book), or are spams posted to mailing lists and forums. I dunno. Does two people, a website, and a book all on a dubiously factual and neological topic count as notable? Some of those links claim that exopolitics is just another word for ufology. - KeithTyler
    • Delete. Well put. Andrewa 07:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Semi-proprietary jargon. Jallan 16:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Beam it up, Scotty. - Tεxτurε 17:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• (Ineligible anon vote:) Keep! I just finished a course in Exopolitics. - Robert Colee - http://global33.com
• Keep Exopolitics is a legitimate field of human knowledge and scholarly inquiry. There are many objective hallmarks of academic scholarhsip which demonstrate Exopolitic's legitimacy.

Exopolitics as a discipline is the study of politics, government and law in the Universe, and includes the politics of extraterrestrial contact by Off-Planet Cultures with Earth or with humans in space. As a science, Exopolitics derives its primary scientific data base via the scientific method from the following Categories of data: Category A – Voluntary Conscious Physical Contactees Category B – Involuntary Semi-Conscious Physical Contactees (Abductees) Category C – Voluntary Semi-Conscious Alter-physical Contactees (Star People) Category D – Voluntary Psychic Contactees (Channelers and Visionaries) Category E – Neutral Psychic Contactees (Remote Viewers and Shamans) Category F – Whistle-Blowers From Inside Secret Government Category G – Documentary Evidence From Government Category H- Superficial Excited Witnesses and Sightings Reports Category I – Astute Debriefers, Debunkers and Interpreters Category J – Alien Artifacts Category K – Independent Archeology Category L – Occult Societies Category M – Science Fiction Category N: Revelations authorized by Universe Governance Bodies. There has been, for example, an International Exopolitics Conference (http://www.paradigmclock.com/X-Conference/X-Conference.htm), held in Washington, DC in April 2004, at which many of the researchers writing in the field of Exopolitics participated. Alfred Lambremont Webre's book, Exopolitics: A Decade of Contact (http://exopolitics.blogs.com/exopolitics/2004/07/exopolitics_a_d.html) (Universebooks, 2000; Brazil: EditoraMW, 2004), published in the year 2000, was the original book to define the formal field of Exopolitics (the study of law, governance and politics in the Universe)." Webre's first June 2000 book in the field of Exopolitics was followed two and one-half years later by Dr. Salla's initial January 20, 2003 article "Research Study #1 - January 20, 2003. "The Need for Exopolitics: Implications of the Extraterrestrial Conspiracy Theories for Policy Makers and Global Peace" (http://www.exopolitics.org/Study-Paper1.htm), which cited Webre's and many other scholar's prior work. Exopolitics7:29 PM, Sept 20, 2004 (UTC)

• • Sockpuppet, first/only edit is this discussion. - KeithTyler
• Keep There is enough credible evidence pointing to the fact that we are not alone in the Universe. Former CIA remote viewers (http://www.courtneybrown.com/publications/cosmic.html / http://www.davidmorehouse.com & many more...), to former government/military whistleblowers (http://www.disclosureproject.org), to experiencers (http://www.centerchange.org/passport) to contactees (http://www.eceti.org) We need to evolve a potential political understanding of law in the Universe to better understand how we fit within its possible hierarchy of higher intelligence. Alfred Webre was the head investigator of President Carter's proposed ET/UFO investigation study in 1977 through Stanford Research Institute and has credentials. Our world is clearly being engaged by a higher intelligence and we need to find ways to establish diplomacy by first understanding how the Universe culture is organized. --Pierre2012 17:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Another sockpuppet. - KeithTyler

DELETE! It's Salla's proprietary term, mostly meaningless to other UFO researchers.

Unfortunately, to be fair, also a sockpuppet (User:Luciuspym). - KeithTyler

KEEP--there is certainly a great deal of evidence, even physical, that we are not only not alone in the universe, but have been visited many times over the centuries. The US Govt and military know this very well! We need to have intelligent dialogue, not denial and cover-up! Acknowledgment of the existence of another is the first step toward communication, in all types of relationships. (User celestialleo)

• KEEP!!! This is a new term that may have many uses in the future. I observe that there is much infighting among UFO researchers, but that is no reason to remove a perfectly logical word that exactly describes the subject matter. I note that most delete votes include comments that either ridicule or invoke 'the giggle factor', rather than valid reasons for deletion. In any event, it is a new term in use in our language, and should have a definition listed here for the curious. Our belief in extraterrestrial intelligence is NOT a prerequisite for their existence. I imagine we'll eventually need to use this term, whether we like it or not. -Marilyn, Sept. 21, 2004

Sockpuppet (User:Mrlynt1), who also for some reason edited some junk into my opening comment. - KeithTyler

• Delete - Even ignoring possible copyright vios, it's impossible to have a political dialogue with species and civilizations that we cannot even prove exist. No "giggle factor", this just plain cannot exist. Maybe worth something if slashed to the bone and rewritten as a purely theoretical article (but even then, pretty much worthless and not very encyclopedic). Rewrite it when aliens visit the UN. ClockworkTroll 06:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• If anything, decimate, merge, and redirect (to Ufology). - KeithTyler 06:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

• In spite of my deepest respect for "UFO researchers", I'm afraid this is as obscure as it is speculative. I agree wholeheartedly with KeithTyler above. This isn't a repository for pseudoscience. Sorry, I meant to say "open-minded science". Binadot 14:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Harvard Medical School professor Dr.John Mack has done much research about alien/human encounters and has even met the Dalai Lama in this regard in 1999. --Pierre2012 18:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Second comment: Former Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, the 6th man to have walked on the moon, confirms the ET/UFO cover-up: http://www.soultravel.nu/2004/040813-Mitchell/ and http://www.sptimes.com/2004/02/18/Neighborhoodtimes/Astronaut__We_ve_had_.shtml Also, former astronautGordon Cooper also confirmsthe UFO cover-up. Indeed, this is not pseudoscience but a reality that we need to address and exopolitics will help humanity to better understand what all of this means. --Pierre2012 18:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's too bad he doesn't think to put any of this socially critical information on his webpage, else there's a glimmer of a chance that I might buy it. - KeithTyler

(Sockpuppet, first/only edit is this discussion:) KEEP:This is a subject that is not only important now but will be of more importance in the future.--Agondonter 21:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

(Sockpuppet, first/only edit is this discussion:) KEEP! Perhaps there is much to learn from the field of exopolitics that is broadly regarded as an erroneous measure of ultra-terrestrial dealings. As our civilization decays, why underestimate the countless witnesses and findings from credible sources within government bodies (re: http://www.disclosureproject.org/), these ones being human. What limits our understanding of higher intelligences is our stronghold on age-old beliefs that humans are and have always been in control of its evolution. If there has ever been a time where man needs assistance, I couldn't think of a better time than now. I, for one believe that the research in exopolitics will bring much truth to the upcoming space threat or space terrorism era that we are entering. "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).--Chameleon2012 21:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

delete posibly give it a passin mention on one of the UFO pagesGeni 21:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes but which one? - KeithTyler

• • Sockpuppet comment: I know it's hard to track, but if someone has just registered to wikipedia because of the threat of exopolitics being deleted from the encyclopedia, it doesn't make them a sockpuppet. For example, an accused suckpuppet called Marilyn is actually Dr. Marilyn Rossner of the International Institute of Integral Human Sciences, a non-governmental organization affiliated with the United Nations DPI, promoting educational programs for the 21st century. --Pierre2012 22:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Calling all of your friends over to vandalize this page with spew is hardly any different than sockpuppetry. Furthermore, Wikipedia Is Not A Megaphone. - KeithTyler 22:52, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

KEEP! What sort of totalitarian language fascists try to expunge a word from the English lexicon just because the people who normally use it are so much more intelligent than they are? That said, why should anyone care what the Neanderthal language police think about a subject they know absolutely nothing about? Exopolitics Researcher

---

People who registered after the creation of the Votes for deletion page are considered sock puppets and their votes are not counted. People who do not sign in with registered names are not counted. RickK 23:02, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

• I redirected to Extraterrestrial life today. - KeithTyler 02:52, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, Delete, Delete, Delete... it's a sock puppet party going on here! func(talk) 00:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Alien sock puppets must die. FWIW, I have heard the term 'exopolitics' before, but its too obscure (non-notable) at this point to justify its own article. I am willing to admit that I'm wrong if I can be shown as such. Sadly, the alien sock puppet invasion force has made the case worse by providng nearly worthless citations. I may have a go at this when I have more time. --Viriditas 01:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, am I the only one now receiving hate mail from these people? - KeithTyler 03:37, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. "Exopolitics" is a viable study, a useable term concerning government ops and hidden knowledge, and something that your children will not believe you tried to squelch. User:marykmusic 18:27, Sept 22, 2004 (PDT)

KEEP this is the 21st century and only a mentally handicapped person or someone who is interested in fomenting trouble can argue against it. The following is just one example of something that provides solid scientific proof that craft from other worlds are visiting this planet.

The question of whether or not we are alone in the universe has been answered for many years. Unless you believe that we have the ability to put saucer shaped motherships the size of independence day craft up there, because that is what is on official NASA space shuttle mission videos that you can order at ufonasa.com The scientific proof of extraterrestrial vehicles in this size range has now been made available thanks to the near ultraviolet cameras that NASA took aboard the space shuttle during the tether experiment which was an experiment that involved the dragging of a 12 mile long tether of wire behind the space shuttle to see if it would generate electric current when moved through the earths magnetic field. It did and it broke away as a result and was glowing in the dark like a neon sign from up to 100 miles away. As the shuttle was looking back and recording it with a special camera that could see into the ultraviolet it picked up about 50 craft that had moved in to investigate what to them was a 12 mile long object that was glowing like a neon sign. As they traveled around and behind the now free tether we could still observe the tether as being in front of these objects.

This means that the objects were at least a hundred miles away and that they could be estimated to be at least 2 miles across if they were right up on the tether. If they were farther back then they could have been as large as 10 times or more that. The video does not lie and these were broadcast on CSPAN back years ago and then the objects were discovered well after this and then brought up to NASA's attention. They claimed the objects were dust that light was bouncing off of it near the shuttle but we know this is impossible since the objects passed behind the tether which was at least 100 miles away. When an object passes in front of an object you no longer can see the object in back. The tether was completely visible at all times indicating that the object as it passed by was in fact on the opposite side of the tether further out away from the shuttle.

So there you incompetent morons whose world will obviously come crashing down because the world is no longer FLAT like your head I dub thee el stupido. By the way its precisely because of this type of thing that they no longer show the space shuttle missions live on TV.

KEEP! The only ones that will be alone in the universe is those that do not believe. But it is no wonder they don't. It is hard to see anything with your head shoved down in the sand. It is even worse when people do this intentionally. Better to embrace new possibilities so as to lessen the reaction you could have when those new possibilities turn into fact and decide to embrace YOU!!!

--Anonymous visitor 03:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep It may mean nothing (to some people) now, but so have many things in & of their time in past decades.... Leave it alone & let it grow. If it has no substance it will decrease & eventually die of its own accord

--Praminasava 14:30, 23 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.

Extramural

Dicdef and substub. - KeithTyler 20:59, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Do not transwiki, as this is an inaccurate definition. Geogre 00:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictdef, no potential for expansion. — Gwalla | Talk 03:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 17:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 08:00, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Meta-human

• Delete. Some vandals have way too much time on their hands. Binadot 22:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I actually think it's interesting! -- Old Right 22:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Hey, just because it's interesting doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. Binadot 22:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • "Interesting" is not a criterion for keeping.
• Delete. Is this from some fictional universe? Andris 22:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep! - Just include a line about it being fictional. -- Crevaner 23:05, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Um, so I can put any fiction I want on here and it would be kept because I label it fiction? RickK 04:31, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - After I make a personal copy for its entertainment value (not what Wikipedia is about, though). - Kbh3rd 23:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If it has entertainment value, WP:-) could be a good place. Andris 23:26, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: fanfic. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Fanfic, conquering hero fantasies. People dream these things, but they don't go to encyclopedias for them. Geogre 00:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Probably a copyvio from some Wild Cards-esque superhero story anyway. Redirect to superhuman. -Sean Curtin 00:23, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Db Not one for mainstream WP, but well worth preserving in BJAODN. Chris 00:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• BJAODN and Redirect to Superhuman. Kevyn 00:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• This is great, but delete. I wish there was a place for it. -Seth Mahoney 03:09, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to superhuman. — Gwalla | Talk 03:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I think Metahuman would be more appropriate. Davodd 12:43, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Do NOT redirect, this is fiction, people, and not from some fictional universe, it's somebody's short story. Or something. RickK 04:31, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • DC Comics has been using the term to generically refer to superheroes and supervillains for years; the term should have a redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:13, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fiction. --Yath 04:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Put it on BJAODN if you want, but it's worthless as an encyclopedia entry. Livajo 05:10, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. A great read, there must be a place for this, but Wikipedia ain't it. Andrewa 18:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and

Fire Star 21:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - no bad jokes. Then redirect namespce to Metahuman to thwart future use of this article title. Davodd 12:43, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Excellent scafolding either for some genuine fiction or fan fiction. More readible than most Wikipedia articles. It deserves posting. So the author should post it somewhere where it belongs. Jallan 16:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete original fiction. Redirects not necessary. Rossami 04:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Very creative, but wholly fictional and therefore not encyclopedic. Is there a WikiFiction? ClockworkTroll 06:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Only in proposed discussion. Wikifition Davodd 02:48, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to the legitimate article metahuman. --Lowellian 19:53, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ericksonian hypnosis -- Add to this discussion

from VfD:

Maybe there should be an article on this topic, but the current one is gibberish. --68.20.232.73 23:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Total BS. Binadot 23:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I bet it's BS, too, and the article suffers from maximum POV difficulty. But it's encyclopedic. --Yath 04:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• This is the sort of thing that makes people whine about deletionists. I cleaned it up a bit. It's not really our place to rule on its validity as a therapy or not (I think hypnotherapy is pretty BS at best, damaging at worst, but that's neither here nor there), and with 9,400 google hits I think it is notable enough to have at least some sort of entry (preferably one which distinguishs it from other forms of hypnotherapy). I broke it down into a NPOV stub, I think it can be keeped. --Fastfission 17:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge with Milton Erickson. If information on the technique ever gets expanded, then the redirect can again become a separate article. Jallan 16:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge & redirect -FZ 17:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merged. Redirect. Rossami 04:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and list on Cleanup, although I can't help build it up until after this week. --Zigger 16:51, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
  • Comment. Deleting this article would not prevent a new article on the subject with different content being written. There is no need for the article to go to cleanup rather than being deleted in order to enable Zigger to write an improved version. Similarly, if the current content is merged with Milton Erickson, which seems to be the consensus now, Zigger or anyone can at any time in the future expand material in Milton Erickson and, if it starts getting too big, move the newly written Eickson hpynosis material back into its own article. Jallan 15:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • While I agree with Jallan's points above, deletion removes attribution & history, which are both important parts of wikipedia. VFD exists because we don't take deletion lightly. OTOH, the content is probably too misleading to merge anywhere else. --Zigger 18:51, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
• merge&redirect Chuck 19:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Frank R. Wallace

Vanity, non-notable, commercial, and besides, the article is really about "Neo-Tech", a neologism and commercial item. - KeithTyler 23:44, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Lunkwill 00:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Ad, mysticism. Geogre 00:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad for somebody's pet theory of life, the universe, and everything. — Gwalla | Talk 03:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --Yath 04:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Neo-Tech is worth an article, if the article were a study of it as a cult. A factual bio of Wallace would be relevant in the same context, if you could write one. This isn't either article. Delete if not rewritten - David Gerard 15:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Amateur philosopher.
  • [Last comment was by User:Binadot] - KeithTyler
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 17:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fundamentalism vs. Realism

Er... well, this is an article comparing two existing concepts, is original research, deals with the topic only as it applies to a specific group. And I think it's POV. I'd love to be more confident about that, but the wording is only borderline POV, though it seems to be based on certain unprovable assumptions. Basically, I don't think it can be cleaned up, so it should be deleted. - KeithTyler 23:52, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Original research, misleading title, appeal to only a very small party, another example of people mistaking their private concerns for encyclopedic content. Geogre 00:14, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Some content might be salvaged into German Green Party and/or worldwide green parties]; if not, delete. -Sean Curtin 00:32, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral, I do not have an opinion whether it should be deleted but I know that this is a well known and documented battle, as I read in Dutch newspapers, between factions in the German Green party. So I am quite sure it is not original research. Andries 00:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• The article's title is misleading... nothing to indicate that this is about Green Party politics. Possibly merge relevant content into approriate Green Party article(s), but as it stands, this article should be deleted. Kevyn 00:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• This is useless POV stuff as it stands, but weirdly, our only discussion of the fundi vs. realo split, which uses German terminology, for crying out loud, is in the article on the Canadian Green party. We have a stub on fundi, not even that on realo. There is content we need on this topic, but this generalizing isn't it. -- Jmabel 03:12, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. --Yath 04:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. There is a lot of well-written and encyclopedic content here that should be saved. Agree that the title is wrong, and there's a lot of work still required, but I think this can and will be salvaged if given the chance. Andrewa 18:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Davodd 12:36, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing here but generalities, that mostly apply just as much to socialist parties, ultra-right groups, purist and revisionist Tolkien fans in respect to the films, anti-abortionist groups, pro-abortionist groups, and so forth. Just wool-gathering. Jallan 16:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Agree w/ Jallan. Delete. Lacrimosus 21:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with Jallan as well. Let it go with no regrets. ClockworkTroll 06:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Basic Public Dental Health

Original research / opinion. --Chessphoon 01:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

pointless debate article Allthewhile 02:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. — Gwalla | Talk 03:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Personal essay. --Yath 04:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: We have no power to affect policy, so no point in telling us how to make the world better. Geogre 04:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly both the title and some of the content could be saved, but I'm not competent to do it, and unless someone who is offers to I think we're best just to delete it. POV essay as is, probably beyond cleanup. Interested in other views on this. Andrewa 17:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - original research - Tεxτurε 17:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete; original research, however there are aspects of the article that could be merged with Public Health although the focus of the current article is on dental health practices in Australia. Sihaya should be encouraged to apply NPOV, and perhaps create a more neutral page, as the article has useful information that could probably be substantiated in the relevant literature. --Viriditas 02:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities"

Should this be moved to Wikisource? The capital letters really hurt your eyes too. --Chessphoon 02:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Since the whole thing is available here, I think it would be best to just delete it and put the link in the External Links section of some relevant page. Livajo 03:43, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: That link doesn't work for me. Andrewa 17:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic report. — Gwalla | Talk 03:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedia. --Yath 04:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Seems to be another voice in a political debate. Geogre 04:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic report / source material from 13 years ago. SWAdair | Talk 08:35, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: There is interesting material here that could be useful, but agree the title is unsuitable, the facts in need of checking and the block letters painful. Unsure as to how it could be used, so no vote for the moment. Andrewa 17:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 17:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: exists elswhere, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Mackensen 05:29, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete but if it's authentic, it is evidence of a war crime, intentional targetting facilities essential for civilian population. What's the frequency Kenneth? Alberuni 05:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I can see this as an external link for any number of pages, but it's not entirely appropriate for an article by itself, under that title and with the current content. --Viriditas 05:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of ethnic slurs

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

Archive of previous VFD

This page is unencyclopedic and has become a lightning rod for bigoted editors to have a playground to list as many dubious terms as they can. I can't see any value this page adds to the Wikipedia community and could only be hurtful and offensive. There was a previous vote on this page in September and the consenus was to keep, but I request a new vote and discussion. Jewbacca 08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Jewbacca 08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, highly informative and as encyclopedic as almost any of our gajillion other lists. The page is a jerk magnet and the content is (inevitably) offensive, but these are not reasons to delete it: shall we get rid of every page with offensive content and/or antisocial editors? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Why should this page be kept? (I know that's not the burden on this page, but I can't think of how it makes Wikipedia better) Jewbacca 08:20, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Already explained: the page is informative and lists are a firmly-established part of Wikipedia. A side benefit is that this page (and the numerous redirects to it) help prevent the constant creation and recreation of miniscule articles devoted to individual slurs—as the page's sheer size (over 70k) may have told you, people like to write about these things. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • So the benefit of having a list of ethnic slurs is that it consolidates all ethnic slurs in one place, people like to write about these things, and after all it's informative and lists are part of Wikipedia? Solid justification for having this trash among us. Jewbacca 08:30, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
        • Ethnic slurs, as much as they suck, are part of the world; why should we not document them in a coherent, neutral fashion? Genocide is much more offensive than nasty names, but we have a great deal of information on it, including (yes) a big-ass list. This page is far from perfect, but that's no reason to delete it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 08:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Genocides are a part of history, these ethnic slurs are not. What does someone learn by reading this article? That he can call an effeminate black man a "Chimp-Pansie"? -- CPS 10:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Assuming the list is accurate, the reader would learn that someone has already used the slur in question. Slurs contribute to the forces that cause genocides. I am afraid that some terms on the list may have been made up. Personaly, I find it unbelievable that anyone in the US would put together a term like "Chimp-Pansie". Fraudulent entries aside, naming a term a slur exposes it to sunlight. -Willmcw 02:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Periodically, you and your friends try to get something deleted that you don't approve of. Unfortunately for you, "I don't like it" is not a reason for deleting a page. I don't like it either but I'll fight for what I don't like as hard as what I do. We call that the NPOV way, dude. Why not try it for once? Keep this.Dr Zen 08:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep this, it is highly informative. Naturally it is offensive, it is a list of racial slurs, but as it does nothing to condone their use (only lists them) it is nothing more than a useful reference document. You wouldn't want to delete the page on Neo-Nazism either, even though that offends a lot of people. Brother Dysk 08:29, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Y'know, the problem with lists like these has been clearly demonstrated by the anti-semitic troll sockpuppet Wiesenthaler. Take a look at WP:VIP#User:Wiesenthaler to get a sense of what he's trying to do. At any rate, I agree: this list has no value unless it is carefully vetted to make sure that what is listed is actual ethnic slurs in common enough usage to warrant encyclopedic treatment. I mean, I could make up something like "Kinkajews: jews that wear Afros" and use it once to insult a friend, and then enter it on the list as an ethnic slur. Is someone going to go and check out every entry on this list for its actual usage? Is someone going to make sure that the definitions themselves are not ethnic slurs? I'm sure not going to, and unless some person or persons wishes to take on this task, I suggest delete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't necessarily audit the entire list (being non-American and non-British, my knowledge of racial slurs is not complete, and Google isn't the most useful thing ever for slang that rarely goes to print) but I'll be doing my bit to monitor this - I suggest others do the same - add it to your watchlist, and whenever there's an addition, check it's acceptable. Brother Dysk 09:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Very well, though I can think of a million better uses for our editors' efforts than verifying additions to a list of ethnic slurs. Jewbacca 10:02, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • How awfully subjective. If I'm bored, and all other articles on my watchlist are inactive, then should I pick up my guitar or audit racial slurs. What's more useful to the Wikipedia project? Brother Dysk 12:08, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Thoroughly contemptible. Keep anyway. --Korath^会話 08:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but as at Republican/Democrat In Name Only we should require citation for every reference. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:04, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously, but sadly. No censorship here, please. No need for citation for every entry - not a requirement for other articles, and rather unreasonable. Dan100 09:22, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep.. Xezbeth 09:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I hate the fact that there are ethnic slurs, however this is the only place I can think of that can list them in a neutral fashion. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is a wonderful academic journal called Maledicta that is entirely about how people insult one another. I don't read it regularly, but they have done some fascinating comparative articles on this sort of thing -- Jmabel | Talk 06:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Content is offensive by nature, but that is no reason not to document it. (Groaning while placing this one on my watchlist). SWAdair | Talk 10:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If the list is suffering from too many not widely used words, they should be weeded out. It would be a pity to deprive people of such a potentially useful list. Ливай | ☺ 10:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep otherwise the practise is clear censorship.
• Keep. Obviously. Inherently encyclopedic, useful and informative.--Centauri 11:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: As has been stated before, "I don't like it" is not reason enough for deletion. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Perfectly good page which has already survived a vote once. The apparent allegation that anyone who adds anything to it must be racist themselves is insulting and bigoted in the extreme. It is not racist to record a fact, and the sad fact is that people use these terms. -- Necrothesp 11:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Who has made such an allegation? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: DCEdwards1966 14:36, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The only problem is that this list is that it's a target for vandalism but so are th births/deaths sections of the year articles. Should we remove them too? Jeltz talk 16:35, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
• Delete. A list of words per se probably doesn't make an encyclopedia article. If wiktionary deals in lists you could transwiki, I suppose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Clearly encyclopedic, we are not the morality police of the internet. GRider\^talk 17:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: Mirv's reasoning is sound. Wikipedia is to reflect the real world, not the way we wish the real world was. If we didn't have a "List of" article, we'd just have individual articles on each slur, and even if you volunteered to watch vigilantly and VfD each one as it was created, it wouldn't be a stable situation -- so that's reason to Keep even besides the fact that yes, it is a fact of life, albeit an unpretty one. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: It's ironic that practically the only editor who wants to delete this page chose an ethnic slur for his User name. --Wiesenthaler 17:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Voting one time only)
  • The above user is an admitted sockpuppet. This vote should not be counted per Wikipedia:Sockpuppets despite the dubious guarantee of "Voting one time only" Jewbacca 03:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia policy requires that statements be referenced, yet not a single one of these entries lists a source. This means that racist editors could add a list of slurs they had invented, or had heard a few friends use. It is unencylopedic to have an article explaining that "gorilla" is a big, fat black person; "goatfucker" is a word for Muslims; and "German candle" and "German mitt" are terms for Jews. The publication of material like this encourages racial hatred and debases Wikipedia. Slim 19:10, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

The study of ethnic slurs, or ethnophaulisms, is a valid academic field even if the content offends you. See [29] [30] [31]. There are whole dictionaries on this subject; Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Oxford Dictionary of Slang, The Color of Words: An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Ethnic Bias, Dictionary of Contemporary Slang, Dictionary of Euphemisms, American Thesaurus of Slang, etc. To claim that this subject is not encyclopedic is absurd. --Wiesenthaler 20:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If none of the entries have sources, then why can't we just go through them and validate the ones in current use and delete the others, then make it clear that new entries are to be provided with sources? It may be a lot of work, but it doesn't make sense to discard all of them and the very idea of having a list like this just because there's a possibility some racist could add made-up words. Ethnic slurs are a reality, like it or not, and I don't see a reason not to have an article showing what slurs in actual widespread use and to whom they refer. Ливай | ☺ 20:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• DELETE. This page would be a magnet for creative bigots to add new ethnic slurs and give them a ready-made "source". A2Kafir 21:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Un-sourced, un-encyclopedic, and a magnet for bigots. Jayjg 21:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, useful to dweebs. Wyss 21:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, useful and encyclopedic. --SPUI 04:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, useful. Some Wikipedians shouldn't be so thin skinned. Wikipedia is not about pandering to "political correctness". Megan1967 23:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Weak keep offensive, yes. But I don't think that is a reason for removal. -Ld | talk 00:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, Unfortunately Wikipedia attracts a few people who want to write offensive but valid articles. Putting them all together in a list is the best way to defuse the issues they give rise to; it makes them all look stupid. ping 03:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's an encyclopedic topic. Acknowledging their existence and explaining them does not imply condoning their use. (Where else are you going to go to look up information of this nature without getting your butt kicked just for asking, anyway?) Mindspillage 04:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Isn't one unsuccessful VfD enough? The arguments put forth for deleting this article don't really justify such action. We should delete it because it's a troll magnet? But so are a lot of articles. The main page would be a troll magnet if it weren't protected. As for "what value this article adds to the Wikipedia community," "the value it adds" is that it's a source for research into this subject. The ideal situation would be that we wouldn't have this conversation because there were no ethnic slurs. But, in the real world, ethnic slurs are a reprehensible part of life. Not all Wikipedia articles have to be morally uplifting. Some subjects are unpleasant and even offensive, but if Wikipedia is going to be a good, NPOV source of information, it must deal with them. BTW: the last VfD failed by a pretty wide margin; right now, that seems to be happening again. --Szyslak 05:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: This really looks like a lightly reworked copyvio. Isn't this basically the Racial Slur Database (cache) ? iMeowbot~Mw 06:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) (clarifying: meaning in its current form. The original 2003 Wikipedia version looks original.)
• Keep much as I disapprove of its regrettable contents. Sjc 06:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. But as iMeowbot points out, editors must avoid the temptation to make it a rewritten mirror of the www.rsdb.org Racial Slur Database. Another danger with this kind of list is that editors will make up slurs to add, so having additional citations should an expectation for editors. Overall, the list right now needs work but is about as good as can be expected. -Willmcw 08:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I do hope that everyone who votes keep is willing to spend a little time maintaining the page. As some have pointed out, it is a natural POV magnet. (or maybe sacrificial anode) Though I voted keep, and have done some maintenance, don't be surprised if I come back in a month or two asking for VfD, tired of the constant weeding and reverting. -Willmcw 08:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This page has no encyclopedic value. Kids aren't out there doing research projects on ethnic slurs. The internet is already filled with racist websites and if people are that desperate for a list of ethnic slurs they can find them there. Anyone buying into this garbage about Wikipedia being an unlimited, neutral source of information needs to get a grip on reality. Wikipedia is made by people and it is read by people. Articles like this are just offensive and serve no purpose. -- CPS 10:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • When I was in middle school, I wrote a paper on race relations where I discussed the issue of racial slurs. I asked my dad if he knew any I didn't IIRC. But I digress. Again, not every article on Wikipedia has to be morally uplifting. --Szyslak 06:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep --fvw* 14:30, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
• Keep, really informative, much of this information is not easy to find elsewhere. -- Note: 24.137.84.198 only has ten edits so far.
• Weak Keep. Very weak. But let's keep some perspective here: This article was listed for deletion by user 'Jewbacca.' Does nobody else find this ironic? Auto movil 02:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes it is ironic. I've noticed going through the history page that some ethnic slurs that were there last year are now missing. Looks like some user/s have been doing their own creative "deletions" :) Megan1967 03:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. When browsing the internet/wikipedia you sometimes stumble upon seedy webpages with ethnic slurs in them. Not everyone knows those slurs, so for understanding the text you're reading it is useful to have a reference list with ethnic slurs. saturnight 16:28, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
• "Keep". Informative, as these terms have been prevalent throughout history and continue to be. It is important to know them to understand the cultures that produce these terms, as lamentable as the terms are. -- this edit by 209.179.222.31, six of whose seven edits are to the article or to this vote.
• Keep. Neutrality^talk 18:22, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this page supports racism. 08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC) -- This unsigned edit by 84.112.11.114, whose two edits are to the article and to this page. The edit was also made at 00:28, 25 Dec 2004, not 08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (simultaneous with the creation of the VfD) as claimed.
• "delete" Although this page gives information, there is no use, or need for it. what is the point of having it? If anything, it simply arms racists with more ammunition. It also humiliates jus about every race there is. This page serves as a reminder of racism in the world. We would be better off without it. -- Note: This is 82.32.26.215's only edit.
• Keep the arguments against this little page are hilarious. Scary but hilarious. Actually, as a kike myself I am more offended by your arguments against this page then by any of the words on here! Since when is a mature non-condoning presentation of knowledge offensive? Are you suggesting Jewbacca that we burn all history books that mention the word "holoucost"? No. Do you know why? Because to not chronicle them is to deny there existance. And Jewbacca, I think we can both agree that listening to people who deny the holoucost happened is a million times worse than learning about it. Furthermore this is not in the least bit racist, and the author takes a much mature attitude towards the whole thing than you appear to be doing. If this were racist I would want it taken down. It's not. What is offensive however is your suggestions of censorship. Thats just my opinion. -- Note: This is 216.175.85.162's only edit.
• Keep I would understand a movement for deletion if the terms listed here were used derisively on the page itself. However, the terms are listed in an objective way: the contributors have not written that they agree with them, or that they encourage their use. It's current form is informative, not derogatory, and it should be kept that way.>--Jordanperryuk 19:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) -- Note: Jordanperryuk has four edits, two of which are to this VfD.
• I've already voted, but I spent another few minutes looking at the page, and at Jewbacca's user page, and it would seem that we're dealing with a right-wing zealot whose most avid contribution to Wikipedia is in policing articles for content he doesn't agree with. My own work here is mainly in writing (or rewriting) articles from the ground up, which leads me to take a strong position on unwarranted deletions, and sometimes on users who appoint themselves as deletors or censors. I'm modifying my vote to Strong Keep. The article is flawed in that it seems, at least in part, to be a repository for invented ethnic slurs, but there's nothing inherently wrong with having such an article here. I think there is something inherently wrong with having such an article bounced into VfD by an activist user. Auto movil 05:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic, useful and informative. As long as the terms are in use , however regrettable this may be, indexing and documenting them from a NPOV perspective has indisputable value.
• Keep. Odious, but legit. Needs diligent monitoring not deletion Icundell 00:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and expand by adding references. Ethnic slurs are real and notable: people have gone to jail or worse because of them. Compare with list of fictional curse words, which are not even real, yet we're not voting on whether to delete that article. --MarkSweep 06:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, for the reasons MarkSweep has stated. Provide sources for the ones where possible, monitor carefully, but it has every reason to be here even though the subject matter is offensive to some. -- asciident 16:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the subject matter is offensive to some like Asciident has mentioned, it provides sources for the slurs mentioned and what they mean. Wikipedia articles are here for a reason (vandalism included, but most vandalism is reverted within 5 minutes.) Scott Gall 20:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Certainly useful information, especially if it includes information on origins of words, etc, that aren't long enough for their own articles. Just because something offends someone doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. I think our society needs a slightly higher tolerance for being offended. Besides, the only way to deal with things like this is to walk headlong into them, not hide, censor, Bowdlerize them, or pretend they don't exist. That will just make it worse. - Omegatron 02:16, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic, useful and informative. Hiding our eyes from racism and "ethnicism" solves nothing. One must know the enemy to fight it.MasterJ 13:56, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC) Note: this vote was actually made by 155.84.57.253.
• Keep If someone thinks it should be deleted, they should instead rework the article up to encyclopedic standards. There is no reason we can't have a list of ethnic slurs. They exist, people use them, they have a history, and we are neutral. --Alterego 04:53, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree it's a sad page but closing our eyes to reality is the real unencyclopedic approach. Anyway, the huge variety of this article shows that derogatory terms against "the other one" go in all possible directions in Homo sapiens. It shows a lot about what we are as a global community. - Piolinfax 12:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  It's good for people who use them to see that there are ones about them, too. - Omegatron 14:26, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

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

Fundamental equation -- Add to this discussion

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

---

Not standard usage, as it is not a meaningful concept. When is an equation "fundamental" and when is it not? -- CYD

• Delete. Neologism, at least in this sense. — Gwalla | Talk 03:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. --Yath 04:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsensical. -- Creidieki 07:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism that was reverted when inserted into Differential equation. SWAdair | Talk 07:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. I'm sure I've never heard that term used in that way. Nevertheless... there are a number of selected theorems that are generally known as the "Fundamental theorem of..." The Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is that every positive integer has a unique prime decomposition. The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra is that every polynomial has at least one complex root. I've always wondered who decides "when is a theorem 'fundamental' and when is it not?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The word "fundamental" in the context you describe has a very different (and more or less well-defined) meaning. In mathematics, a "fundamental theorem" is a theorem, based on a set of axioms, from which all the other more complicated results follow. There is no similar thing in physics, because physics isn't concerned with axioms. -- CYD
    • That's not particularly true; many fields of physics, such as Hamiltonian mechanics and quantum mechanics, have axiomatic formulations, at least for parts of them. You don't generally see these axioms until around graduate level. It might be more accurate to say that physics has been less successful at axiomizing itself than mathematics has; we would love to have sets of axioms from which all the more complicated results follow, we just don't yet. -- Creidieki 17:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Mathematical physicists would love it, anyway. -- CYD
• Delete. Not used this way in physics. -- Decumanus 19:00, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism that gets off to a poor start with a bad and useless definition. ---Rednblu 21:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete- meaningless & unused neologism -FZ 17:33, 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.

Green Party of Canada Seal Hunt Controversy

Bad capitalization. Most of the article was a copyright violation from an NTV news report. Since that has been deleted, the article itself now has virtually nothing to do with the title. RickK 05:25, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Transwiki to wikinews. (Oh darn, we don't have that yet). Ok, fair deal, Delete Kim Bruning 10:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Stop the presses! Breaking news put in Wikipedia! (You know, we set ourselves up for this by having the In the News feature on the main page.) Geogre 13:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge any genuinely usable information (which ain't much) back into Green Party of Canada (from whence it came in the first place), and then delete without redirect. Bearcat 08:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Bearcat's suggestion. JamesMLane 11:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ars Nova School of the Arts -- Add to this discussion

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

Only three related Google hits for a school with 140 students. It's mostly echoing what's on their own website anyway. - Lucky 6.9 05:36, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing to indicate it is notable. Well, except for the fact that all of their "instructors hold college degrees or certification in their field of expertise," but "...it is estimated that the school has grown to 140 students." Estimated? 140? Well, it is a school of arts.  ;-) SWAdair | Talk 06:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Not notable, not encyclopedic, advertising, link forest. Geogre 13:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - not encyclopedic - Tεxτurε 17:08, 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.

Ars Nova, Incorporated -- Add to this discussion

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

---

Same reasons as above. I find the fact that the author has wikified the names of the faculty members to be a tad disconcerting (no pun intended). Gimme a break...been a long time since I've posted anything to this page!  :^) - Lucky 6.9 05:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. "Ars Nova" + Incorporated = 599 hits. Not a good showing. SWAdair | Talk 06:19, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable. Redlinks for every single fellow and gal in the joint. It's either page rank boosting or a very, very mistaken idea of encyclopedic content. Geogre 13:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 17:08, 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.

Ars Nova (production company) -- Add to this discussion

Ars Nova (production company) 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

---

More of the same...and after I swore I'd stay off of "newpages." Lots of red links to major works. Wondered why until I started to edit the page to add the VfD header. The plays in question link to non-existent articles about their own productions. I have a feeling we're about to be spammed big time. - Lucky 6.9 05:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Ars Nova, and thousands of others, have produced those plays. These three articles are simply an advertisement. Those red links cinched it for me. SWAdair | Talk 06:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable production company, and Guffman will come to see the most recent production, I'm sure. Geogre 13:06, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 17:09, 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.

Steller Secondary School -- Add to this discussion

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was: Keep. - SimonP 17:55, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Steller Secondary School

Non-notable secondary school. RickK 06:26, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Isn't the consensus to be keeping high schools? This entry is actually well-written. Keep, I suppose. Rhymeless 06:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus. Whenever there has been an attempt to establish one, the opinions among those participating has been very close to evenly divided. I don't mind hashing over high schools but I really do object to what occasionally seem to be misrepresentations of policy. Every VfD discussion on a high school starts from ground zero. Those who say "it should be kept because its a high school" or "all high schools are notable by definition" are stating their own opinion, not established policy or consensus. Those who say "Delete, non-notable" are stating their own opinion, not established policy or consensus. In practice the probability of getting listed on VfD and the vote balance is strongly affected by the quality of the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: The school doesn't bill itself as a high school, but as a secondary school, accepting students in grades 7-12. That covers the high school years, but would open the door to articles about junior high schools. I'm tempted to vote keep since it covers the high school years, but I don't like the slippery slope possibility, and there is nothing particularly notable about this secondary school. Neutral. SWAdair | Talk 07:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Please be aware of national differences. Though this is in Alaska, it's not at all aware for what you would call a high school to be called a secondary school or secondary college in several other countries. Furthermore, in many other countries, there's not a split between junior and senior high. So if you were to vote to delete on that slippery slope basis, you'd basically be setting a precedent to delete the vast majority of high schools in at least Australia, and probably others as well. Ambi 13:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, I was aware of this. That is why I didn't vote on St Francis of Assisi School (VfD listing immediately below this one), since that school is in a nation where "secondary school" has an entirely different meaning. Because this article is about a U.S. school, where there normally is a distinction, I'm not comfortable voting either way. SWAdair | Talk 00:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, decent article on a school. -- Creidieki 07:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. RedWolf 07:50, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Hmmm, there are redlinks that need to be unwikied, but the coverage is excellent. Additionally, the case for notability is genereally made. I suppose I have to say "keep," since I think our only criterion for schools should be notability. Geogre 13:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep notable HS's delete non-notable HS, just like anything else. This one, however, seems to be a student-run or at least partly student-run public high school, which seems interestingly notable to me. Keep.--Samuel J. Howard 13:17, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Sounds notable to me. Ambi 13:22, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - there is no valid reason whatsoever for this to be a deletion candidate - David Gerard 15:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Borderline keep, mostly because the article is more complete and more interesting than most high-school-VfD-candidates The writer respected Wikipedia enough to complete a decent short article before pressing the "save page" button. I believe it was perfectly appropriate to list the article for VfD, and perfectly appropriate to decide, after discussion, to keep it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Improv 00:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Decent article. -- Necrothesp 14:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Nothing in the article is notable. Reads like Dennis' description of how his commune is governed in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Are these voting rules even worth mentioning? They seem quite normal. The problem with such high school articles is that even when detailed like this, they come out mostly the same: nothing but non-encyclopedic fluff about the school as it exists at the moment. If many graduates begin talking about the wonderful (or hideous) education at Steller Secondary School or this school is being talked about in educational journals or even if it was getting press in the local community for something unusual, it would have some notablity. Otherwise, just a school like any other. Yes, it is an alternative school. But nothing here makes it look like an especially different sort of alternative school. Jallan 17:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Please note that Steller's philosophy makes it a very unique school. As soon as I talk to Dorothy (the principal), I should be able to directly implement it rather than just having a link. --Stellertony 00:00, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 17:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all schools unless they are notable. Chameleon 17:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable --G Rutter 18:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

St Francis of Assisi School

Delete - Non-notable secondary school. RedWolf 06:35, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete unless useful content is added. -- Creidieki 07:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Kid vanity. Geogre 13:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not-notable, badly written, and overly generically named.--Samuel J. Howard 13:18, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless enormously improved before expiration of VfD period. By the way I moved it to St Francis of Assisi Catholic Technology College because that's what the referenced website lists as the name of the school. Sorry about that, I probably shouldn't have done that. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just make sure that the redirect gets deleted as well when the page does.--Samuel J. Howard 05:37, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Will do. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable --Improv 00:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Has potential, even if not particularly worthwhile yet. -- Necrothesp 14:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What potential, exactly, does it have? If you know of anything interesting or notable about the school, please, just add it. I looked at the school's rather problematical website and couldn't find anything, other than the correct name of the school and the headteacher's first initial. This article doesn't have enough facts in it to be a helpful start. If we delete it and someone comes by six months from now with the knowledge to write a good article, they can write it then. Starting from zero won't be any harder than starting from this. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you want to delete all stubs. Fair enough, if that's what you enjoy. -- Necrothesp 23:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some stubs are useful, some are not. I want to keep the ones that are useful and delete the ones that are not. Stubs are only useful they grow into articles. This is likely to happen for an article that Wikipedia needs, in an area where we believe that there are Wikipedians with expertise who are likely to come along and fill out the stub. It's not very likely to happen with articles like this one. Have you looked at Perfect stub article? One of the most telling comments is "If nobody contributes to your stub for a few weeks, roll up your sleeves and expand it yourself." In effect, a stub is a request for someone else to do some work. In the case of a not-very-notable school, the person who wants there to be an article about the school should just write the article, not drop in a stub and expect someone else to write it for him or her, because the chances are small that there is anyone in the current pool of contributors who will know anything about that school. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Almost any short and useless sub has potential, more so than an article already complete and excellent in every way. By that logic no article at all has even more potential, as a null article can develop into anything at all. So deleting this article improves its potential. Jallan 17:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unless significantly improved. The stub, as it stands, has no significant information in it, and in particular no evidence of notability. Average Earthman 12:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 17:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete random secondary school. Isomorphic 18:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable --G Rutter 18:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If Point_of_Rocks,_Wyoming, total population: 3 can be in Wikipedia then so can this--Xed 22:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. RickK 22:41, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Jitu Das

Vanity page. Markalexander100 07:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. ClockworkTroll 07:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity. Agree with speedy deletion. RedWolf 07:52, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Sadly, vanity pages don't qualify as speedies. Markalexander100 08:12, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Ianb 08:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. SWAdair | Talk 08:26, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity. If we develop a new speedy alternative, this would go there. Geogre 13:00, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

De Vermis Mysterii -- Add to this discussion

from VfD:

delete. This stub presents an imaginary book as it it were real. There is nothing in it worth saving or merging. There is already a good stub on this same book under the name De Vermiis Mysteriis. AlainV 07:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect for spelling. I just learned, yet again, that trojan/worm coders love literary references. SWAdair | Talk 08:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect for spelling, don't delete. You might consider redirecting it to "De Vermis Mysteriis". I don't understand why a fictional book can't have an article of its own? As long as the article explains it as work from Lovecraft it can stay there. Jee, I've even seen articles about "Protoss", why these latter are fair game? --Kensai 11:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I've made it a redirect, which I suggest we keep. —Rory ☺ 11:54, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it has good information and it mentions the book is fictional. -- Old Right 15:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uh, Old Right, you are referring to the page De Vermiis Mysteriis with two i's in Vermiis, which does indeed have good information and does mention that the book is fictional. De Vermis Mysterii with one i in Vermis was made into a redirect by —Rory ☺, as noted above. The original content of the article that is being discussed was:

Written in a prison in Prague by Ludwig Prinn in c1542, this terrible Tome has been known to contain knowledge that would drive men to madness. Banned by Pope Pius V, copies may still be found at the Starry Wisdom Church in Providence Rhode Island, at the Huntington Library in California, and at Miskatonic University.

which has bad information and does not mention that book is fictional. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep in current form as redirect to De Vermiis Mysteriis. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:27, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in current form as redirect to De Vermiis Mysteriis. It would be encyclopedic to know the correct latin translation for The mysteries of the worm as well as the forms in which Lovecraft wrote them, and put them in the good little stub. AlainV 21:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but CORRECT both the syntax of the word AND the information needed to show that the book is FICTIONAL! --Kensai 21:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) ☺

end moved discussion

FANTASY?

This is not a fantasy related article, it's a horror related article. Is Wikipedia really so similistic as to see no difference between the genres? --Xinoph 16:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 01:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Untitled

from VfD:

Blatent advert. TPK 10:13, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I cut out the advertising, leaving us with a stub. I believe it's a sufficiently notable company, so keep. —Rory ☺ 11:51, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as written now. Geogre 12:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rewritten version indicates an international company of note. KeepAverage Earthman 12:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - advert - I still don't see anything notable about this company. Are we going to list the toilet makers for the military latrines? - Tεxτurε 17:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• They're the major military supplier (for several nations) of a technology that's in the news frequently- they seem notable. Looks like a decent stub. Keep. -FZ 18:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Need More References, Article Re-Write

Marked for Cleanup, need references and re-write. Proper inline citations need to be included for validation of presented facts. The article also contains content that is very promotional. An example is the RFID Industry Standards section. --TRL (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Bankruptcy, restructuring in 2021

FYI, if this in relevant to anyone who might want to update the page: Savi filed for bankruptcy and restructured in 2021. (See (current) results from https://www.google.com/search?q=savi+technology+bankruptcy+restructure.) Dsb765 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sniggle -- Add to this discussion

This page was nominated for deletion in 2004. Expand to show discussion.

This appears to be a neologism, a made-up word that is not in general usage (and an obscure word for eel fishing which is also not in general usage). A quick Google for the word returns usages, in the "culture jamming / prankster" sense, ONLY pages on sniggle.net and Wikipedia and its clones. I don't think that a word made up by the people that run a web site and not used elsewhere justifies a Wikipedia article, and I vote to delete it, as well as remove the word from all the pages that link to this, since it is not a word understood by the general English-speaking population. It clearly survived VfD once before in November 2003; since it is functionally impossible to look back in the VfD history that far, I have no idea why. It was removed from VfD after four days, suggesting that a complete vote was not taken. —Morven 10:41, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC) Delete. The eel meaning appears to be legitimate. Transwiki that to wiktionary. —Rory ☺ 11:41, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC) I would say keep, since it only links to culture jamming (we need to check that article to make sure that snigle.com hasn't been added to it inappropriately). However, because "sniggle" is a sort of proprietary slang term, this amounts to advertising stuck on top of a dict def, so delete. Geogre 12:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC) I have removed pretty much all the references to this on Wikipedia. —Morven 02:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC) I can't appreciate that: you seem to have started removing without re-linking to culture jamming, e.g. in the September Morn/Harry Reichenbach case. --Francis Schonken 22:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) Delete - Tεxτurε 17:12, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) While the present content of the sniggle article is in fact a disambiguation page I vote for: (1) create Sniggle (disambiguation), where the fishing term links to wiktionary and the prankster meaning to culture jamming; (2) make both sniggle and sniggling redirect pages to the sniggle (disambiguation) page. --Francis Schonken 22:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) note: at least consider using soft redirect, for the part that goes to wiktionary. --Francis Schonken 22:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I'm trying to get my head around why anyone would consider this article in need for deletion. Complete ignorance on the subject? A hatred of eels? What appalls me about so many decisions the faceless troll-like masses that make up the bulk of Wiki editors make when it comes to what should be included in this encyclopedia is how poorly ill-informed they appear to be, but arrogantly so, and act as if their personal ignorance should be the measuring stick which determines if an article should be deleted. It's only a very lazy person who'd base their editorial decision on a quick google search. Of course sniggling isn't a neologism, it's in almost every English language dictionary (because, you know, eel fishing is a real thing). Do some research before you start claiming this article is of no use to anyone. There are 513 books on eel fishing on Worldcat alone, plus countless articles in angler magazines (obviously these are not big New York Times crossword fans either, Will Shortz uses the term in almost ever other puzzle). For example, I highly recommend "Consider the Eel" by Richard Schweid (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002) which looks at how people around the world cook, eat, harvest, harm, protect and study eels. The irony with this peculiar form of mob-rule editing Wiki has chosen to settle upon is that we spend more energy arguing with the loudest, and usually not the best or well-informed, voices than time spent on actually crafting well-researched encyclopedic entries. I mean, I could work to edit this article, but if it's simply going to get deleted by people who obviously show no interest in the subject why bother? As a sniggler myself all I can say is if the majority decision is to delete this article, so be it, life is short and I'd rather spend my energy and skills helping projects that actually reflect that somebody, somewhere, did a modicum of scholarly research before hand. Himeyuri (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• This article is not going to be deleted because I, for one, am watching over it now. Please feel free to expand the article further. Warden (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual heart

POV new age ramblings. Non-encyclopedic. yadda yadda yadda ... Danny 14:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• My spleen is the organ that tells me to delete this. The Heart article does in fact need to take some notice of the ♥ heart shape, the heart in metaphor, and its supposed rôle as seat of love and emotion. Not sure that this stuff would be very helpful in that regard. Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a copyvio from here, anyway. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth ─┼─]] 15:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I wiped out the infringing content, put {{copyvio|url=http://www.swami-center.org/en/chpt/heart/page_5.shtml}} on the article, and listed it on WP:CP. --Ardonik.talk() 18:15, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

V.V. Balaji Viswanathan -- Add to this discussion

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

The result of the debate was delete

V.V. Balaji Viswanathan

Vanity. User signed this name as their own on another page earlier today. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:48, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Ugh. In this case, the word "vanity" is entirely appropriate. To add insult to injury, he expects us to expand his stub. Delete; I wish we could speedy delete resume/tooting-my-own-horn pages like this. They add nothing to our work. --Ardonik.talk() 22:53, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I didn't even know that UMBC had graduate programs. Anyway, it's vanity. The new Managed Delete proposal might take care of things like this if it passes, but the criteria will need debate. Geogre 14:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability established in the article. Average Earthman 12:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:12, 20 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.

X86 vitualization -- Add to this discussion

X86 vitualization was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.

---

Delete: I added the page a few days ago, and unfortunately made a typo in the page name, although the link to it from X86 was to the correct page name (which didn't exist). I've moved the content to the correct page name. --Brouhaha 17:20, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• make it into a redirect, and put it on Redirects for deletion. --Ianb 17:44, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Why bother with all that? Put {{deletebecause|this article is misspelled and its correct title is [[X86 virtualization]]}} on the article so that it can be speedied. --Ardonik.talk() 18:00, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, I tried putting it up for speedy, but an admin redirected it. As nothing linked to the page and nobody would type that title into the search box, I fail to understand why a speedy delete was not considered appropriate, but that's neither here nor there. --Ardonik.talk() 22:47, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't put the request in for speedy because it didn't seem to fall into any of the stated criteria in the speedy policy. Perhaps name typos should be added to thte criteria. --Brouhaha 08:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I have no idea why you want to delete the article. X86 virtualization is very real. Keep --G3pro 01:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Typo in the name, that's why. Mikkalai 04:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Damn, I didn't see that originally.  :-) Delete --G3pro 04:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Per author's request, the article has been speedy deleted Geogre 14:07, 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.

Prince of Persia 3D

The article is an almost exact copy of the Prince of Persia 3D web page (ref: http://princeofpersia3d.com/html/leg/leg_body_1.html)

Copyvios go on Wikipedia:copyright problems. Anon who listed this should also special:userlogin Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:31, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

HBMS Future -- Add to this discussion

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

---

Made up nonsense posted by an anonymous user. David Newton 21:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I can't find any reference whatsoever to these things in a web search. Delete; the Wikipedia is a non-fiction reference. We ought to add "obvious, fictitious BS" to the list of things qualifying as candidates for speedy deletion (or, at least, to the definition of patent nonsense.) --Ardonik.talk() 22:42, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, look like micronation stuff. Rmhermen 22:57, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Deleted as patent nonsense. Mikkalai 03:58, 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.

Destroyers - Future Class -- Add to this discussion

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

---

Made up nonsense posted by an anonymous user. David Newton 21:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, as before. What are these things, and why was it decided that the Wikipedia was the right place for them? --Ardonik.talk() 22:42, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Rmhermen 23:06, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Do we now begin the guessing game of what this is from, micronation, alternate history, or movie? Geogre 23:29, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleted as patent nonsense. Mikkalai 03:58, 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.

Navy of Britannica -- Add to this discussion

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

---

Made up nonsense posted by an anonymous user. David Newton 21:42, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete fictional meanderings. --Ardonik.talk() 22:43, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense Ianb 23:03, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Rmhermen 23:08, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Didn't you hear? The Future Navy of EUpia decommissioned all those ships in the future just before this future, whenever that is, and the nation of Britannica had trouble funding the shipworks anyway. (Delete for fiction.) Geogre 23:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleted as patent nonsense. Mikkalai 03:59, 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.

Magnesium Fluoride -- Add to this discussion

from VfD:

This article doesn't provide any useful information about Magnesium Fluoride aside from its formula, which can be determined from its name. Unless the article contains information about its special properties or uses, I don't see a point of having it, as we could just as easily have an article like this for the other ten million compounds. --Chessphoon 22:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was listed as a "requested page" which is why I created it, including only what I knew. But now that you mention it, I suppose you're right. I'll vote to delete it, unless someone has more information. --MatrixFrog 22:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. I've expanded the substub into a stub, will work on it further over the next few days. Yes we could have millions of articles on compounds. As long as those articles are capabable of being made encylopedic, we should have them. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 22:45, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - perfectly fine stub, now. Sould be Magnesium fluoride (uncapitalized) though. TPK 00:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I would have loved to say keep as I want meaningful chemistry articles, but Magnesium fluoride is just not a significant chemical. As far as I know, it's just a random salt. If anyone can come up with some meaningful uses for the chemical, please add to it. Delete with reserve --G3pro 01:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • It probably isn't significant chemically, but it has useful physical properties, which make it important enough for an article. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 01:24, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep good stub. 8000 Google hits on "magnesium fluoride" in quotes, many optical applications in addition to AR coatings. This sort of stub is quite likely to grow. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Current stub is fine. Thue | talk 15:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --G3pro 15:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Major importance in high-energy laser develpment, much research going on in this area (yes, I'll write it up & add it later when I have time)- it's an important component of a lot of new research & industrial lasers, & is going to have increasing notabiliy if someone notices how much the US military is spending on it for their non-working missile defense project. -FZ 17:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Now that the article has been expanded, I'm going to vote keep as well. --Chessphoon 00:30, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Good example of a VfD rescue. Antandrus 00:44, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Irtran-1 ambiguity

"...it was sometimes known by the Eastman Kodak trademark Irtran-1 but this term is quite obsolete".

"Quite" is ambiguous: does it mean "fairly" or "utterly"? In either case, I would say this adverb is redundant: if it is "fairly obsolete" then it should be described as obsolescent or dated; if it is "utterly obsolete", then it is simply obsolete. No qualifying adverb is necessary in either case. — Paul G 08:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magnesium fluoride. 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/20060116134617/http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/44.html to http://www.npi.gov.au/database/substance-info/profiles/44.html

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) 05:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The picture in the info box

The details state it is titanium dioxide. Is this not wrong? TVGarfield (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magnesium fluoride. 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/20060519173812/http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/IRwindows.html to http://infrared.als.lbl.gov/IRwindows.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.crystran.co.uk/getfile.php?file=134

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) 17:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

but WHY is it put on lenses?

we see in the article that it is put on lenses. please someone add: WHY? Cramyourspam (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

List of U.S. State medical licensing agencies

Is possibly a copyvio but minimally a hopeless list of agencies that extend medical licenses. This is not encyclopedic by any measure. This is the second time this is listed on Vfd; there have been no improvements since its previous listing. Wikipedia is not a phonebook. JFW | T@lk 00:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete JFW | T@lk 00:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Pointless. Delete. Rhymeless 00:17, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a list, and like almost all lists on Wikipedia, it's not encyclopedic. --Improv
• Delete - It had possiblity to be useful but a directory listing isn't. - Tεxτurε 17:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If any (or all) of these agencies are individually notable, an article can be written about them and added to a "Category:U.S. state medical licensing agencies" that would function as the list. --Delirium 06:40, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Lala laj pat rai bal mandir

Is a high school in India. Despite absence of consensus re schools, this article is unlikely to ever reach encyclopedicity. JFW | T@lk 00:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete JFW | T@lk 00:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Improperly named and non-notable. Geogre 02:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Improv 17:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication that this school is any different from the other high schools in India. And there are a lot of high schools in India. Average Earthman 12:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 17:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arif Khan -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable. Former Taliban warlord. Full story here. Four years after his assassination, "Arif Khan" + Peshawar gets only 241 hits. There is a story here, but a non-notable one. SWAdair | Talk 00:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Er... neutral, for the moment. I did just want to comment, however, that the most powerful figure in Taliban-controlled northern Afghanistan sounds pretty notable, but I don't know enough about it to help improve this 1 sentence article. func(talk) 01:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: List on Requested Articles, as this was a very notable figure whose assassination was the immediate precursor to the 9/11 attacks and whose assassination was probably al Qaeda's payment for Taliban upcoming military support. This, however, is not an article and could be speedy deleted for not even establishing clearly what it is. Geogre 02:36, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The current version doens't give any usefull information unless you know who he is in advance. Keep current version. Thue | talk 15:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Sounds notable, at least in theory, so belongs as a stub. Article could be improved a lot though. --Improv 17:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable figure in recent history. The current article is pretty bad, but that just means it needs some TLC. — Gwalla | Talk 20:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Inadequacy of the current version doesn't mean there shouldn't be an article about him. Lacrimosus 23:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with Geogre - if not improved by the end of the VfD period, delete this article and add to List of Requested Articles. The current article is worse than useless, it actively makes Wikipedia look bad in its inadequacy. Average Earthman 12:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Well, I did a quick rewrite so it's at least a slightly more informative stub. Does it look all right? -FZ 18:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Historically notable and relevant, and currently linked to List_of_Taliban_leaders. One thing I'm confused about, is whether he's alive or dead. The list linked above reports that he's "at large" and various western media reports claim he's alive and the US is hunting him down. I can't help but notice that this wanted man was reported killed in Pakistan on April 5, 2000 by The Times of India, and Reuters on April 24, 2000. Now, I know the name "Arif Khan" is probably popular in that area, but the Arif Khan that this page refers to was murdered four years ago. Perhaps both pages should reflect that change. I've noticed that the media reports tend to say, "fighters loyal to Arif Khan", not Khan himself. --Viriditas 03:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: notable, potential for expansion. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: notable, relevant, potential for expansion. We do not delete stubs, we expand them. Kim Bruning 17:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Richard Mackay

Vanity page, non-notable. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 00:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Vanity by a person who is not worthy of an encyclopedia article yet. Geogre 02:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This person is littering WP with self-agrandizing articles. C.f. Ricball and Kinlochbervie High School. Kbh3rd 02:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. C in English, Richard? You need a GPA of at least 4.0 to get into Wikipedia. Timbo
• Delete, unnotable juvenile vanity. --Ianb 07:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly speedy, if the person who blanked it really is the author. Vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 20:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity and deletion appears to be requested by the author. StuartH 13:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gillian Belbin

Vanity page, non-notable. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 00:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Sublocal high school band vanity. Geogre 02:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely. Kbh3rd 02:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, unnotable juvenile vanity. --Ianb 07:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Get back to us when you're actually famous, not just "planning to be famous". — Gwalla | Talk 20:49, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. - MattTM 07:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Whelan

Not encyclopedic, non-notable. not a good starting point for any real articles. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 01:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Looked like a dicdef to me, so I transwikied (transwikified?) it to Wiktionary:Transwiki:Whelan and listed it on the Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Transwiki log. I guess I'll clean it up over there or have it removed when the time comes. My vote is to delete it from here. --Ardonik.talk() 01:18, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Looks like another "all occurrences of this name" thing. Non-encyclopedic, random information without context. Geogre 02:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. "People with this name" random info. — Gwalla | Talk 20:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete surnames that are nonnotable. RickK 23:31, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I tend to be inclusionist when it comes to names, as they often have interesting histories or etymologies associated with them, and there's no real downside to including them. However, this article doesn't have anything along those lines, so delete unless there's something interesting to say about it. --Delirium 06:44, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Animal names in Papiamento -- Add to this discussion

Animal names in Papiamento 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 AND DELETE

Tagged for VFD in April by User:RickK. Joyous 03:37, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete this. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not even a translating one. - RedWordSmith 03:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a regional dialect primer. Geogre 14:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• The previous discussion is here. The decision was to transwiki it, and sure enough it is listed as such on Votes for deletion/Old. - 16:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. — Gwalla | Talk 20:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki Rich Farmbrough 23:57, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki: move to Wiktionary. Danny 00:01, 26 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.

Untitled

from VfD:

Part of a vanity campaign. See Ricball, Richard Mackay, and Gillian Belbin. -- Kbh3rd 03:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, unnotable school, students not aware of proper use of shift key. --Ianb 07:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: High spirits and youth and vanity. Geogre 14:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. But get rid of the vanity stuff. -- Necrothesp 14:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnotable high school. Getting rid of the vanity would effectively blow away the entire article as it exists. Why not say when it was founded? Picture is nice. Jallan 17:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. School vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 20:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Ah, isn't it pretty. Delete this article, use the picture in the Kinlochbervie article. Average Earthman 12:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Vote changed to Merge and redirect per Average Earthman's suggestion to put the picture in the Kinlochbervie article. What real information was here about the school would serve as the caption. But currently some anons have deleted both text and picture. Jallan 19:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but remove the crap, of course. Mark Richards 19:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. The picture in this article has been flagged as possible copyvio. Jallan 16:27, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - SimonP 23:40, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, of course. Mandel 18:21, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kinlochbervie High School. 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/20100505030723/http://www.kinlochberviehigh.highland.sch.uk/SchoolHistory.htm to http://www.kinlochberviehigh.highland.sch.uk/SchoolHistory.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505030754/http://www.kinlochberviehigh.highland.sch.uk/primaries_index.htm to http://www.kinlochberviehigh.highland.sch.uk/primaries_index.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Ricball

Part of the vanity campaign of Richard Mackay, including Ricball, Kinlochbervie High School, and Gillian Belbin. -- Kbh3rd 03:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, unnotable juvenile vanity sport. --Ianb 07:20, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --ssd 12:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Kiddie vanity. Geogre 14:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. "Hey look, I made up a sport!" — Gwalla | Talk 20:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  Delete, not blank, silly rick. --TIB (talk) 04:06, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. He's no William Webb Ellis. Average Earthman 13:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sentinels and Guides as Non-Human Species

Nonsense presented as fact. At best, could be called original research. SWAdair | Talk 03:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. At worst, it could be called non-sensical. func(talk) 04:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 04:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg 05:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Omits very important subspecies, the Wikipedians. --Ianb 08:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like a badly copied copyvio to me. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 12:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Very likely copyvio, but we don't need a non-copyvio version, either. Geogre 13:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. So much typing, so little point.... Fire Star 18:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Divorced from reality. — Gwalla | Talk 20:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, not nonsense. After all it does mention this being a theory! -- Old Right 22:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: That has to be the most ridiculous rationale for a keep vote I've ever seen. It even beats "Notable, because he's a farmer.". — Gwalla | Talk 16:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a theory isn't sufficient for deserving an article. There are all sorts of possible theories and theories held by one person or a small group of people. We want to include theories which are more well-known than that. Livajo 23:47, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:15, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep!- Agree with what Old Right wrote. -- Crevaner 12:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research based on a woeful misunderstanding of popular science and wild speculation. Also questionable sanity and probably appears on a webpage somewhere already. Merely claiming to be 'a theory' doesn't make anything notable, theories need to be tested. Average Earthman 13:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - I theorize its deletion - Tεxτurε 17:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - the article is ridiculously convoluted with little hope of improving, and describes a "theory" which is incomprehensible. If there is a legitimate theory, it needs a portrayal in this encyclopedia which differs so greatly from the current article that deletion is by far the wisest course of action. Jwrosenzweig 21:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Theory? Inventing a fictional universe and calling it theory doesn't make it one (and it especially doen't make it encyclopedic) especially when the article begins with the self-contradictory phrase "Much is known about Sentinels and Guides". I know it's fantasy. ClockworkTroll 06:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• I would argue that this could have been speedy deleted. Patent nonsense sums it up really well. It would take an explanation of what a Sentinel and a Guide are to raise it out of that category. In any case, delete. DJ Clayworth 20:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sentinel (human)

Nonsense presented as fact. Someone has been watching too much "Sentinel" on television. SWAdair | Talk 03:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. You say this is on TV? If it's a fan type of thing, then it needs to noted as such... oh, and it needs to make sense. ;-) func(talk) 04:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Mikkalai 04:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg 05:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Copyvio -- Turns out it is copyvio. I've listed it as such. No need to keep this listing. SWAdair | Talk 05:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm not sure we want this if it weren't copyvio. Geogre 13:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 17:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sparta nazi germany totalitarian states

Somebody's school project? Hardly an encylcopedia article, anyway. RickK 05:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. The heading Conclusion says it all... not an encyclopedic article. (I should never have put VFD on my watch list ;-) ) func(talk) 05:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Mikkalai 05:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. SWAdair | Talk 05:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete original research, non-encyclopedic title issues [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 06:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Original research, to be polite. Geogre 13:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• It's an interesting schoolpaper. It's almost a shame to Delete it. Almost. --Improv 18:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I think it is an excellent school paper. Top-notch thinking. Fascinatingly insightful. Creative topic. However, the others are quite correct, it's not an encyclopedia article by any stretch. Reluctanly, I must recommend a Delete. We keep bad jokes around out of the main article space, couldn't we do something like that for stuff like this? Maybe boot it into the User: space as a subpage at least?- RedWordSmith 18:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to WikiBooks, no? Also, either keep the redirect when using "move" to put it in user space, or modify Wikipedia:Cleanup/September#September 18 to point to it & to mention its new location, for those w/ a strong interest. --Jerzy(t) 03:18, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. I hope the author got a good grade on this paper, though. — Gwalla | Talk 21:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I personally would've speedied it. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]
• Delete. This was the first article i put up, did not read the 'NO EASSY' bit, think i might add it to my user: page, or to a user page of its own, its a good eassy took me 9 hours of straight work to get it together. i still think it might be revelent to the two topics as there is nothing connecting nazi germany, sparta and totalitarism together. --Whatsup will 11:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Candi Calvana Smith -- Add to this discussion

• Only notable because she is married to the boxer Evander Holyfield (who has been married 4 times previously :P). There is already a sentence about her in the Holyfield article, so the stub article on her should be deleted. Darksun 09:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Evander Holyfield, although I hate to knock a fellow Emoroid. Geogre 13:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with User:Geogre: merge and redirect. In fact, any reason why I can't just do this now? Joyous 16:24, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

None at all, and then see if Darksun agrees. If so, we can even remove this from VfD early-ish. Geogre 17:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done, and a note left on Darksun's Talk page. Joyous 17:45, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

• No, I don't mind. I don't think all that many people are going to search for Candi Calvana Smith, but keeping the redirect won't do any harm. Darksun 19:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aryan Koushik

I've never listed on VfD before, but I think this page is an easy candidate for deletion and doesn't seem to satisfy speedy requirements. It returns zero google hits, and it's safe to conclude it's vanity because it advertises his email addess. CHL 12:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He linked himself into a half dozen pages, which I've reverted. According to his entry on September 20, tomorrow is his 23rd birthday. Happy birthday Aryan! CHL 13:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete quickly: virtually vandalism in process, if he's going on a self-inflating spree in honor of himself. Vanity. Geogre 13:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, self-aggrandisement, he'll never achieve nirvana like this. --Ianb 17:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 21:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I would've speedied it. -- PFHLai 21:40, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
• I speedied it yesterday and it was recreated 20 minutes later. (Reincarnation?) I still say delete. Bearcat 00:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Nirvana means extinguishing, so we can help this article achieve nirvana. Delete. Average Earthman 13:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, for recreation of a speedy. -Vina 19:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alpine Club of the University of Leuven

With no hit on Google from the English title "Alpine Club of the University of Leuven", only 9 hits on the Dutch title "Leuvense Universitaire Alpinisten Klub" and only 90 members, I personally think this student outdoor/climbing society is not worth an encyclopedic article. --Edcolins 13:14, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable. If there is a university entry, this can be merged to a section, but no separate article. Geogre 13:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: these guys have climbed the north face of the Eiger, it may not be noticable to you, but I'm pretty sure that it is very useful for climbers, especially those interested in information about climbing said mountain and for climbers from Belgium. Perhaps a climber or someone from the University of Leuven may comment about the popularity of this club. Who knows if one day someones creates a Timeline of Eiger ascents and LUAK is mentioned but we don't have an article about it? This article doesn't hurt anyone and it is NPOV and informative, so why the hell would you delete it? /boggle I don't know about you, but I learned a lot of new info with just this small article without even visiting their website. I did got a few hits for "Alpine Club of the University of Leuven" on Google, and saw it mentioned on the website of the Sports Council of the Catholic University of Leuven Student Organization. [34] By the way, size is irrelevant, it doesn't matter if the club has only 90 members; you should be focused on their accomplishments instead. —Joseph | Talk 16:50, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • How did you get a few hits on your google for "Alpine Club of the University of Leuven"? You must be kidding. Mine returns 0 hits [35]... --Edcolins 18:38, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment from the author: isn't that normal? We speak dutch here, not english. I just thought it might be interesting for some people, not for everybody of course. You decide guys.
    • Remove the quotes young padawan: [36] [37] —Joseph | Talk 02:07, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • Obviously without quotes you get multifarious web sites, master Jedi...;) --Edcolins 19:25, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. I hope not every student organization in every university everywhere starts making entries for themselves. Oy! --Improv 18:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete no more notable than the clubs from Dartmouth College. RickK 18:14, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. This information should be preserved. The resulting redirect is not the best but will preserve the history; Perhaps later move the redirect to University of Leuven and list the resulting Alpine Club redirect (which will then have no significant history) as a redirect for deletion. The thing we lose by this, of course, is the category link to climbers. Andrewa 18:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: It'd be nice if we could get some sort of rough consensus on what counts as a notable student society - some may be quite article-worthy. As far as this particular one goes, I'm undecided. Lacrimosus 23:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: for a student society, why not the same as for a person? That is, if mentioned by people outside the society reasonably often, whether in the press or in books or on the web or in other media, then it is notable. If no-one knows much about the socieety except the members, and it's not doing anything especially unusual, then however big it is, it really isn't notable, at least for encyclopedia purposes. One shouldn't explect to find information local rock-climbing groups and local bowling leagues and local bridge clubs and local trampoline clubs and local antique car enthusiasts in any encyclopedia, though one might occasionally find one mentioned in an article on that interest. Web directories and local lists of local clubs and associations is normally the place for such things to be mentioned. Jallan 00:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment from the author again: OK, delete it, no problem. But am I allowed to say one more thing please? :-) Concerning the argument about press and media: I will give you some external links that you don't find on google. article 1: from a local newspaper - article 2 and article 3: from national newspapers - video: LUAK on television - article 4: LUAK in a climbing magazine - audio: LUAK on national radio (ok, this was some years ago) - website 1: LUAK on the most popular belgian climbing website - website 2: LUAK discussed on a climbing forum - interview: an interview with a LUAK member (one of the members that climbed the Eiger).... so you see, google doesn't say it all! Delete LUAK, but remember it for the future. ;-) ciao, Maarten
  • I suppose that sounds reasonable. Some functions of some student organisations might make them notable even if they aren't widely known. In this case, Delete. Lacrimosus 22:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 05:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete another student organization probable vanity piece. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:00, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Carlisle_Adams

Vanity meets crackpottery. Josh Cherry 15:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• They meet in the house of non-native English. Delete, but why did "Petrosyan P.M. from Armenia" choose this title for his nonsense? Carlisle Adams is a notable cryptograher who helped develop CAST5. Keep if anyone puts an Adams article here. CHL 15:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Jayjg 15:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Likely an attempt at hiding what the author knew to be spam/page rank boosting. I nowikied the web site to do my bit. Geogre 17:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, tin foil hattery. — Gwalla | Talk 21:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Endearing, but altogether useless, vanity. Spatch 22:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Speed deleted as patent nonsense. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alice Peisch

Delete. Non-notable, possibly a vanity page. Even if POV problems were resolved, subject's main claim to fame is as a state representative, and that alone does not warrant a Wikipedia entry. Steve Casburn 15:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: I don't think she's a state representative. I think she's a city/township person. No notability established, and the article is her CV. Recommended material for a user page, but not for a main article. Geogre 17:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• She is a state rep, and an article about her is appropriate, but this is a campaign ad. If the article doesn't get made NPOV and written as a bio and not an ad, then delete at the time deletion is due. RickK 18:12, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• According to [[38]], she is the representative of the towns of Natick, Weston and Wellesley to the Massachusetts legislature. The first line of criteria for inclusion of biographies says "Political figures holding statewide ... elected office" are generally noteworthy. I interpret that to mean the Governor, Attorney General, Speaker, etc. - people voted on by the entire state - not each local representative to state government. (We should probably clear up that ambiguity on the "criteria" page.) Rossami 06:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dave gaspar

Initially I thought to edit this piece of drivel, but honestly don't see how it can be rescued. If this person is notable enough for a page, I suggest it should wait for a real article, not this. -- Kbh3rd 17:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete, does not seem notable, article unencylopedic. --Ianb 17:47, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of notability. Joyous 17:55, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Kim Bruning 18:06, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Non-notable. Vanity. Delete. RickK 18:09, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I laughed, I grimaced, I scratched my head. Geogre 19:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 21:06, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. Zwilson 23:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Interstate 76W

• The highway is Interstate 76, not Interstate 76W. The content from this article was merged into Interstate 76. -- Gregory Pietsch
  • First, you should not write your name after votes; you should write ~~~~ . Second, you should know that your vote doesn't count as much as most other votes because you aren't a registered Wikipedian. 66.245.124.202 19:06, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes I am a registered Wikipedian, I just wasn't logged in. Gpietsch 19:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: it's actually quite simple and works completely without vfd, logins and the like: set a redirect. In fact, I'd do that myself, but I'm not sure whether Interstate 76W is a common moniker which would be a valid redirect.--Ianb 19:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, what is a better title?? Do the 2 highways go together on a single article for any reason independent of sharing a name?? 66.245.124.202 19:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• So...rename? redirect? Sorry. I didn't realize you were new. The best thing to do is to merge the material over to the new article, I-76, and then blank this one and type in # and then REDIRECT and then I-76. That's better than moving the page. I would assume that I-76W is just I-76 West, probably a spur off I-76. The spur should never take precedence. Geogre 21:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• To paraphrase "Logan's Run", THERE IS NO INTERSTATE 76W! There are two separate interstates called Interstate 76 in different parts of the country. Both are discussed in the Interstate 76 article. The I-76W article is then superfluous. 4.239.183.132 23:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete "Interstate 76W" is a neologism. Both segments are "Interstate 76". The Federal Highway Administration does not distinguish an E or W segment [39]. If we are to keep this article, then Interstate 76 should become a disambiguation page with both east and west segments in separate articles. But personally, I think they should remain in one article. older ≠ wiser 00:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 17:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Given that the W is not officially part of the highway, try this: rename to "Interstate 76 (West)" or "Interstate 76 (Western)" or something like that, and put the Eastern Interstate 76 at somethign similar, making Interstate 76 a dis-ambiguation page. Please try whatever technic is possible. Both sections are large enough to be separate articles that are not stubs. 66.245.10.194 01:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A.L. Goodheart

• This person is not notable. Content is entirely copied from Nuremburg Trials. _R_ 20:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete if a real article doesn't materialize. I would imagine that an Oxford don is quite notable and that the fellow has a great deal of significance. However, this is just an opportunity for someone to get in a dig at international law. Not nice. If there isn't a blanking of this with a new page in its place, or a heavy context given, I can't see its remaining. Geogre 21:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 17:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Poetic Terrorism

• looks to be some poetry, not an encyclopdia entry Allthewhile 19:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• See Special:Contributions/EDGE. User:EDGE moved User:Jongarrettuk to Yellow mustard rabbit (the user talk page was moved also) and blanked the page, evidently in retaliation for listing him on WP:VIP. Yellow mustard rabbit was subsequently speedy deleted, destroying Jongarrettuk's homepage. Here, EDGE was trying the same thing with User:Jiang. (I can't see the history now, but Jiang's page was moved.) Delete now that Jiang's user page and talk page are safe and EDGE has been blocked. --Ardonik.talk()^* 20:33, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: If he's blocked, keep him blocked. This, however, is primary source stuff, a manifesto. Geogre 21:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is either poetry or a manifesto. In either case, the content does not fit the criteria for an encyclopedic entry.
  
  In addition, taken as a manifesto, the article merely seems to advocate some mean-spirited pranks, apparently on the grounds that they are clever. Too bad. An article on the intellectual history of challenging performances (a la Ken Kesey, or, more cerebrally Shea/Willson) with commentary about the role of art in illuminating social conventions would have been quite interesting. --TuringTest 21:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Manifesto. — Gwalla | Talk 21:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a manifesto/poem by Hakim Bey, a mildly notable anarchist writer. The term itself is somewhat obscure, but I've definitely heard it used a fair bit in anarchist circles, and might be worthy of an article. RadicalSubversiv E 07:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Created by a vandal. RickK 00:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
• I'm over my vandal ways. Have you not seen my most recent contributions? There is no need to hold a grudge. I plan on being an administrator one day. Poetic Terrorism, as it now stands, is part of a "manifesto" by Hakim Bey (as above user has noted). I support the deletion of this page as it seems manifestos are not welcomed in this encyclopedia. Would Wikisource be a better host? Regardless, I think I will replace it with a decent write-up in the following weeks. Godbless. EDGE 06:13, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm pleased to say that you really have changed your ways for the better (how often does that happen around here?) but I still can't tell what Poetic Terrorism is supposed to be. A manifesto, as you say? A neologism with a few examples of what might be classified under it? A "how-to" for what the original writer felt was subversive and radical behavior? I honestly don't think this thing has a place in either the Wikipedia or Wikisource, but maybe there's something I'm leaving out? --Ardonik.talk()^* 06:29, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • It seems there is precedence for discussing manifestos. I refer you to: The Hacker Manifesto and The Communist Manifesto. I'm sure I'm overlooking quite a few. I intend to add a write-up similar to The Hacker Manifesto for Poetic Terrorism. Does anyone object, or will this new article find itself on this page once again? As for what Poetic Terrorism is, I like to think of it as a form of artistic terrorism that hopes to shock and terrorize its audience out of its collective normality EDGE 06:39, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • comment: I, for one, would not be opposed to an article about the manifesto. — Gwalla | Talk 16:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - I haven't read Hakim Bey in a while, but this sounds exactly like him. And quick search on Google confirms it. Hakim Bey is a very well known author in many subcultures, his "T.A.Z." is an underground classic. I'd keep this up. Although It'd be nice if it was at least linked to or from some other article. --Lifefeed 19:26, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Allthewhile 01:13, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)Obviously there is nothing wrong with an article about the manifesto, but this clearly isn't even close to encyclopedic. If anything it's a source document.
• Delete: source text. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:46, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Talking Toby

Non-notable blog with 8 posts. Possible vanity article. (Toby's profile mentions Wikipedia.) - [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Possibly important subject in the US, but misusing Wikipedia to promote an individual, non-notable blog is not going to be a good basis for it. --Ianb 20:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. There have been lots of folks who have gamed the system. This seems just political (again). Geogre 21:06, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable cheater. — Gwalla | Talk 21:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity/advert - Tεxτurε 17:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - His blog mentions us only days before the creation of his selfrighteous article? Hah. --TIB (talk) 02:49, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Non-notable blog with 8 posts. Possible vanity article. (Toby's profile mentions Wikipedia.) - [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maritza Campos-Rebolledo -- Add to this discussion

Merge and redirect to College Roomies from Hell!!! - [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:10, 19 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]]

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]]