Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

VfD history is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion history archive 2004-09-20. Jamesday 00:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Shortcut

[[:|WP:VFD]]

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 - 23^rd 22^nd 21^st 20^th 19^th 18^th edit

Old votes - 17^th 16^th 15^th 14^th 10^th 8^th 7^th 2^nd 30^th 29^th 12^th

Template:VfD frontmatter VfD was archived on 28 May and 20 September. If you need to look at old history please see the history of Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_May_2004 and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_September_2004. Note that listings more than five days old should now be moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old.

September 18

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 - Tεx τ urε 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 - Tεx τ urε 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 [1] [2] [3]. 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 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.

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

Vvardenfell

Not encyclopedic, and if it were, it would need to be seriously expanded. --Chessphoon 03:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge and redirect. --Yath 04:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: How many times have I wondered what Vvardenfell was? How many times, weary with books of forgotten lore, have I sat straight up, thinking, "I simply must find out what became of lost VVardenfell?" Right. Merge? Perhaps redirect to prevent recreation, but I stick with just delete. (Sorry for the sarcasm. Just because the same thing appears here three times a day doesn't mean that each time it's not totally new to the contributor.) Geogre 04:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I greatly enjoyed all the games in the series, and can see having articles about the games, but this information should be kept in the main article. An encyclopedia is not a game guide. Besides, this could quickly look like the article for Tamriel. All of those red links scare me. SWAdair | Talk 06:03, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete if you wish, but the article will be greatly expanded in the coming weeks and months, with a section on the politics of Vvardenfell and a brief description of major towns and prominent characters (NPCs). Vvardenfell is where the game actually takes place. Nothing you can do in the game (without mods) exists outside Vvardenfell so it is pretty central to the game.

Having played The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind myself (poorly), I think the only reasonable conclusion is to merge this article into Morrowind and redirect to the appropriate section therein. Just because we can devote hundreds of articles to a fictional world doesn't mean we should. Even notable fictional worlds like the Star Trek universe need to be kept in check. This is an encyclopedia, not a walkthrough or video game manual. --Ardonik.talk() 18:48, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: fancruft. Another one for the fan sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Full details about the internal workings of a computer game are as inappropriate to Wikipedia as would be a complete and detailed commentary on every aspect of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Amd Romeo and Juliet is far more notable than Vvardenfell. Wikipedia should not be a spoiler for games. Jallan 17:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Strong Keep. The topic is important enough in The Elder Scrolls series to warrant its own article. And that series has a HUGE mythology and back-story to it, which is well written and coherent. This is ONE page for an important part of that mythology. I mean, if you want to really retch, check out List of Middle-earth rivers. These are separate articles for RIVERS in the LoTR trilogy. Read that again -- they are freakin' RIVERS!!! One page for an important aspect of a popular and long-lasting series of games is reasonable. Terrapin 15:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Surely there must be a stronger argument for keeping this article than "THAT fictional world has fancruft, too!" Is there anything else that makes this fictional video game world notable to people besides you and I who have already played? Given that the Wikipedia is not a game guide or walkthrough, what place does this have in an encyclopedia? What makes Vvardenfell culturally significant?
  Furthermore, an argument like that opens the floodgates. Tomorrow, the creator of the Pokémon cities that begin with "G" article will argue that her article should be kept because we have an article on Vvardenfell, too, and that's much less notable than the Pokémon franchise! Two days later, the creator of the Harry Potter's magical toothbrush article will cite both this article and hers as a justification for keeping his own. The snowflakes will become a blizzard, and the blizzard an avalanche.
  This is an encyclopedia. Vvardenfell, Tamriel, and Dagoth Ur are subsets of Morrowind; merging and redirecting is the appopriate action. --Ardonik.talk()^* 16:03, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Morrowind is not a notable enough game, with enough published material, to justify separate articles for everything in the game. It's not anywhere near the popularity of Tolkien or the published material of Forgotten Realms. --Lowellian 20:03, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - I played all the games in the series. Exploration of Vvanderfell is a fundamental part of the game. It shouldn't be compared to Pokemon, where the point of the game is action and strategy. Although, since there is nothing in the article, it wouldn't be a big loss if its deleted.

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.

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. Rick K 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 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 - Tεx τ urε 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 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 - Tεx τ urε 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) 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 - Tεx τ urε 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.

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. Rick K 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 - Tεx τ urε 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 - Tεx τ urε 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. Rick K 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 - Tεx τ urε 17:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)[reply]

This project page was nominated for deletion on 14 July 2021. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This page was proposed for deletion by Mean as custard (talk · contribs) in the past with the comment:
Advert for unnotable entity
It was contested by Kvng (talk · contribs) on 2019-10-07 with the comment:
[4] is good evidence of notability. Discussion below leads me to believe there may be more.

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? - Tεx τ urε 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This project page was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Fisheries and Fishing NA‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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 - Tεx τ urε 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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 - Tεx τ urε 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 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)

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

Daedalus Publishing

What is the point in having Wikipedia pages on every publisher? What makes Daedalus Publishing noteworthy? Also: isn't this a bit of an ad? JFW | T@lk 21:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete JFW | T@lk 21:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep (please). Daedalus Publishing is a very well known and respected publisher for the GLBT and BDSM communities. They are the publisher of well known titles such as William A. Henkin, Sybil Holiday, Consensual Sadomasochism : How to Talk About It and How to Do It Safely, Daedalus, 1996. ISBN 1881943127, and have been nominated by the American Library Association for the 2005 Stonewall Book Award for another title (Painfully Obvious). This probably does not mean much for a lot of folks out there, but for the rest of us that makes them a noteable publisher, probably second only to Greenery Press. Besides, the article was a stub, I had only just created it. Dlloyd 12:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed, the article was a stub, but it hasn't grown much apart from the ALA Stonewall reference you added. How about listing other books, who runs the company, etc. At the moment, it has few merits above any small publishing house. Many companies in Category:Book publishers have a bigger claim to fame that Daedalus. JFW | T@lk 09:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmm... it is probably the most prominent publisher in its niche- but it's a pretty small niche. No vote for now- has there ever been a consensus on "big ghoti in small (non-geographic) pond" entries?. -FZ 18:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Niche. Well, it all depends upon your POV really, doesn't it ? As I have pointed out previously, there are more individual entries in Wikipedia for Formula One drivers than BDSM related articles, yet I don't know a single person who is into Formula One racing.... Also, I only add entries for books which I own or at least have read. Dlloyd 19:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: promo. Publishers are less interesting than the books they publish, incidentally. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:21, 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.

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 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 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.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Chemicals NA‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this page or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

September 19

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. - Tεx τ urε 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 - Tεx τ urε 17:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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 - Tεx τ urε 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 - Tεx τ urε 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. Rick K 23:31, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - not notable - Tεx τ urε 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 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.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Schools NA‑class

	Schools portal This page is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	Reasoning for assessment: A couple sentences without much substance. Adam McCormick 07:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 - Tεx τ urε 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:

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)[reply]

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 - Tεx τ urε 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

List of worlds largest companies

I hate to post it here, since the guy spent so much time on it, but... Mikkalai 03:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First of all, "To list a page for deletion: 6. Follow the Add to this discussion link and write why, according to our deletion policy, the page should be deleted."
- Sorry. The notion of "largest" is vague. How many to keep? Largest by what? Revenue? profit?head count? capitalization? Are you going to update it with each market move? Why don't you leave this information for those who can do this job best? Wall Street, Forbes, Guinness, whoever. This article is doomed to be hoplessly incorrect and out of date, IMO.Mikkalai 06:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Votes:
- Keep. Deletion? Why? If anyone see any reason for this list to not be here please speak now. Jerryseinfeld 04:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see any reason to delete it except for one thing, this should be titled "List of World's Largest Companies by Revenue". Also, it should say when and where this statistic is from. Revth 05:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - I agree that it may just as well be called "List of companies by revenue" or "List of worlds largest companies by revenue". - Jerryseinfeld 06:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- ~~Delete~~(changed my vote). "Largest" is volatile term: imprecise and depending on time. Are you going to update it each quarterly report? Mikkalai 06:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Revenue for companies of this size should grow at roughly the same speed as GDP which is roughly 3% worldwide, so it'll probably take a long time before any numbers become grossly inaccurate. And if you ever read a quarterly report, now you know where to go and do some good with your new gained information. And remember that this is annual revenue and multiplying a quarter by four isn't always very accurate. - Jerryseinfeld 06:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - And secondly, whichever way you measure the size of a business, be it by revenue, assets, profits, employees, it's always going to be volatile. - Jerryseinfeld 06:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Which is why it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Delete.
      - I don't know where this whole effort comes from Mikkalai, every single data point in any encyclopedia is prone to change, and everything will change, all the time, that's the nature of man. - Jerryseinfeld 06:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      - One thing that could however be added is that the numbers should reflect the fiscal year 2003. - Jerryseinfeld 06:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but perhaps rename, List of worlds largest companies by revenue. - SimonP
Keep, useful information. Davodd 12:29, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
If the title is bad, move it, but don't delete this content. This article is useful and well-constructed, so I can't imagine why one would want to delete it. Keep. CHL 13:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I hate lists. I really think they're not encyclopedic in any way. When there is a poorly conceived list, it's worse. "Largest" companies usually are those with most employees. "Companies" is also misleading, since GE, for example, owns many companies. Corporations are usually the really big guys out there. If we don't distinguish between corporations and companies, and if we use "large" for "rich," we've got two big mistakes. Therefore, if someone wishes to create a new article that addresses these two issues and then merge and redirect, that would be fine, but, if not, this is a misleading entry and should be deleted. Geogre 13:59, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced of the validity of the article either, but I should point out that the distinction you make between 'company' and 'corporation' is an American usage. The word 'corporation' is rarely heard in Britain except in the names of very old firms. Our big firms (like BP, second on the list) are PLCs, which stands for 'Public Limited Company'. -- Necrothesp 14:14, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - FWIW some pretty big American corporations, such as The Boeing Company, officially call themselves "companies" rather than "corporations." (I'm about 99.9999% sure Boeing is a corporation!) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - A company can be unincorporated. But it is extremely unilkely for larger firms. Mikkalai 16:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No vote yet, leaning toward "keep." I'm not a list fan, but this looks OK to me. The imprecision of all such lists is intrinsic. If it's OK for Fortune to make such a list, why not us? The article defines how it measures size. I don't see a big problem with the information being dated as long as the date is given. If it's not updated than, say, in 2006 people will be able to judge that the ranking is probably still roughly correct for companies that are not closely ranked, but that the actual numbers are stale. The biggest problems I have with this article are: a) it doesn't give the source of the data, and b) I worry about what that source is and whether we could be dealing with a copyvio. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There are various degrees imprecision. In this case IMO it is inacceptable. Fortune has resources and knowledge to maintain such a list. Leave it to Fortune. Mikkalai 16:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Rename if necessary, and note references, but keep. —Rory ☺ 15:46, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Foor all you keepers maintaining this is useful information. It is useful, but it is misleading. (You know this old say about lie, big lie and statistics?) First, it is incomplete. Even Microsoft is missing. Second, it is actual only for particular finance report. Hence there should be a new list created each year. IMO it is doomed to be inaccurate. A fresh point: Someone already hurried to add "as of 2004" I am wondering what source delivers results for 2004? Not Forbes. I checked myself. Each line in such table must be easily verifiable, otherwise there is no confidence in our work. Mikkalai 16:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The last entry in the table is a Turkcell with revenue 2.5. The first 1000 Forbes-listed companies have revenue over 4.37. Turkcell is somewhere between #1,300 and #1,400. Who is going to add these 1,200+ missing companies into the list? And maintain the list year to yea? I urge you to put more thinking and analyzing in voting on this issue.Mikkalai 16:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As to "intrinsic imprecision": Of course, no one expects, e.g., List of the addresses of fictional characters to be neither complete nor precise. But there is no "intrinsic imprecision" in finansial data (not counting round-off). Mikkalai 17:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete as it is. Seemingly this is original research since no sources are provided. If not original research, whose researched list is this taken from? Are there other lists from other sources that disagree? Jallan 18:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Excellent point, Jallan. Delete please; original research, news, unmaintainable. - RedWordSmith 18:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, unless sources are provided prior to expirationof VfD. Jallan is right. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) P. S. I think an inline external link to the appropriate location on a corporate website would be perfectly adequate for this, even though corporate websites are frequently reshuffled. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, I see no problem with maintainance or accuracy of data. All these companies have to publish annual reports. These numbers are no secret or hard-to-get information. Therefore it cannot possibly be orgininal research (as someone mentioned above). These numbers are on the websites of these companies and whoever compiles any such list anywhere, be it Forbes or Fortune, will take their data from annual statements. Of course the list is incomplete, because the author is still working on it. --Fenice 20:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- When he is done adding some 2,000 companies missing from the list, it will be outdated. Mikkalai 21:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Well, we could move it to List of the world's corporations with the highest revenue for Q1 2004. Imagine it! A new list every quarter, each one perfectly accurate, and almost certainly important in a business context. The Steve 10:05, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - original research - Tεx τ urε 17:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, what Fenice said. --Conti|✉ 17:58, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete as unmaintainable. If I may, I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions: Rossami
1. The growth rate of these companies are not well correlated to the GDP growth rates. On average, that would be true but there is significant volatility for each company. See, for example, the companies who move in and out of the Fortune 500 each year.
2. "Company" is the general term for any collection of people doing business as a unit. "Corporation" and "Public Limited Company" are specific examples of kinds of companies. The distinction is based on their charter or articles of incorporation.
3. It is not true that "all these companies have to publish annual reports". In the US, only publicly traded companies are required to file reports of revenue. Privately-held companies may choose to or be required to as the result of a bond covenant but that's no guarantee for our purposes. In the UK, I believe that essentially all companies are required to report. In Russia and Japan, essentially none do (unless they choose to be traded on a US stock market).
4. The data for these lists never comes solely from annual reports. Despite all the good intentions of GAAP, there is no single definition even for as simple a measure as revenue. Fortune Magazine keeps dedicated staff who do nothing but all year and they still must rely on the active cooperation of the companies being evaluated.
5. Even if you do standardize the revenue calculation, the answers will be significantly skewed by difference in fiscal year reporting, currency fluctuations, etc.
Keep. I like lists, although this one should be renamed List of world largest stock listed companies --Pgreenfinch 14:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree w/ Pgreenfinch. Lists are good. If contents are inaccurate, edit boldly! jni 14:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Agreed w/ Rossami (thanks for the excellent commentary). Wile E. Heresiarch 19:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Also agree w/ Rossami. Suggestion for what to do instead: have some kind of article where you discuss the difficulties of determining the world's largest companies and then link to the pages on websites like Forbes or Fortune which list their Fortune 500, etc., lists. --Lowellian 20:11, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Seems nice on paper, except that you lose all the wiki links to the detailed article for each company. The good thing in wikipedia lists is precisely that possibility.--Pgreenfinch 22:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Just doesn't seem like it belongs here. Chuck 02:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep Suggest limiting the # of companies (500? 1000?) and make the list for a single year or fiscal year, thus eliminating both maintainance and accuracy complaints. The Steve 05:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Limiting the list to a single year solves some of the maintenance concerns but does not resolve the inherent accuracy problems. Rossami 14:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Pgreenfinch and Thesteve Stock listed companies and updated quarterly. --Viriditas 09:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep as long as I don't need to maintain it ;-) . The "should we keep lists" discussion has come and gone , and consensus was to keep lists. Kim Bruning 17:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Mark Richards 19:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I reconsidered my opinion. It must be kept, provided that

reasonable criteria for inclusion in the list must be set that will allow the list to be maintainable;
a notice about its incompleteness must be dded and kept until the list is completed. Mikkalai 21:30, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

keep William M. Connolley 21:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC).
Keep. Reasonable information, which might be of interest to readers. Sources must be mentioned. Andris 23:58, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Keep - excellent encyclopaedic work but needs improvement - pir 13:24, 25 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.

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 - Tεx τ urε 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 - Tεx τ urε 17:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

Cancer Coast

User:Wetman questioned the accuracy of this article on Talk:Cancer Coast back in Sept 2003, but no response has been given. A current Google search reveals 29 hits once an attempt is made to filter out noise, none of which on the first page look good. Seems unverifiable to me, so I recommend a delete. - RedWordSmith 04:19, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

~~Delete unless verefied. Timbo 05:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)~~ Keep, merge. Timbo 22:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I don't doubt the veracity of it. I'm sure that the amazing area of heavy carcinogenic plants has cancer clusters. However, it is of small regional interest. There is a "heart attack band" in Savannah to Charleston. There are lots of places like this. I would recommend merge and redirect to the appropriate article, but I cannot figure out which it would be. Geogre 13:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The proper redirect would be to cancer cluster ~~but that article doesn't exist.~~ Out of curiousity, I decided to see how much of the article I could verify, and I was able to positively verifiy the entire article except for the claim that the term "cancer coast" was coined by oncologists at the Texas Medical Center. Curiouser and curiouser, I found this in the article on the AAAS website, ...the Texas Medical Center...has a conspicuous absence of environmental health initiatives on its research agenda. Some believe that this represents the institution's accommodation to sponsors in the petrochemical industry, which drives the institution's conscious complicity in ignoring the adverse public health effects of petrochemicals. This claim is attributed to an an investigative reporter named Bob Burtman, a former journalist for the Houston Press. He published an informative article on this subject for the NRDC called, The Silent Treatment. A similar article was published in the Sept-Oct, 2003 issue of Mother Jones. Finally, the medical literature is full of citations. I found numerous articles on pub med, such as: Int J Health Geogr. 2004 Feb 26;3(1):4., Tex Med. 2003 Aug;99(8):58-64., South Med J. 1998 Feb;91(2):173-81., and South Med J. 1997 Aug;90(8):801-5, Also, I found this on the U of Texas at Austin library site: The United States Department of Health and Human Services, in its Atlas of U.S. Cancer Mortality, has noted that cancer death rates for white males along the Texas Gulf Coast are among the highest in the country. In addition, the death rates from cancer among whites are increasing faster in this area than in the rest of the United States. Studies at petrochemical facilities have indicated marked increases in cancers of the blood system, brain, prostate, and skin. Citation can be found here. --Viriditas 12:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- So it looks like this is, indeed, a political move? Very odd. This article is an attempt at making TMC look innocent? Very much not a good thing. I'm going to check the history on the article to see if perhaps that claim was added later. Perhaps this material can be merged with Environmental Medicine or Epidemiology? The facts are worth preservation. There are too many sites around the nation that could be/should be mentioned. Geogre 13:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - So what is our general consensus? Is it that the phenomenom of high levels of cancer in the area is real but the term "Cancer Coast" to describe it is questionable or non-existant and that the actions of the TMC's oncologists are possibly misrepresented, and the contents should be moved elsewhere? I'm cool with that. - RedWordSmith 18:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Geogre is correct in his assertion that the term is regional. Also, I couldn't find any evidence that the oncologists at TMC coined the term. If possible, I would like to add this information to the cancer cluster article. --Viriditas 00:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      - Fair enough, I'm changing my vote to keep, with the understanding that it will be made a merge or redirect. I think you've done a good job of verifying the information, so I guess "Tim's" conditional vote doesn't count unless it's reaffirmed, and Geogre has said he'd like to see the contents merged, so it appears we all agree. - RedWordSmith 22:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        I guess I should have waited before I created cancer cluster. Should I redirect and add the info? What do you think of another article linked to that page, something like List of cancer clusters. I can see a number of ways of doing this. --Viriditas 05:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - I've never heard of this term, and I lived there. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:54, 25 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.

Engrish

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

Moderator's rant

Obviously the page will remain, but out of 20 some comments, two or three were constructive while the rest of you, I assume some of the more enlightened members of the wiki community, were abusive. I'm torn: on one hand suppose I should do a mokusatsu but then again, I should tell off a few of you.

If you were born in America or Canada or Australia, what merit have you in speaking English correctly? The article is derogatary and insulting to people the world over studying English as DISTANT second language. But by all means, laugh and insult if it's entertaining you, even if it is an encyclopedic context, rather than a comedic one.
My 15 years here mean that I see the level English here as half full rather than half empty. I mentioned it because someone questioned my familiarity with the article and the topic. This was an ad hominem argument, so I gave an ad hominem defense.
Someone had the bad taste to compare my vote for deletion to one for deleting a page on Jews. It's worth repeating this to make sure people get a grip on it. I hope no further comment is needed, though.

End of wiki rant.Vincent 23:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well spoken, Vincent. A big sumimasen for all the abuse thrown at you by my fellow native speakers. Like Andrewa, I vote keep but also see some merit in the reasons for your listing, and would encourage you to participate in the discussion at Talk:Engrish#Is it derogatory? and to edit the article to better take into account the fact that this term is considered offensive by some. I personally don't feel that the article portrays Asians or Japanese as inherently prone to make mistakes in other languages, but if you do, you could probably improve it considerably by removing such implications. Thanks for your patience. Fpahl 16:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vincent, I was one of those who made a joke, and I'm sorry. There were ad hominem statements directed towards you, and they were inappropriate. My vote still stands, but you were not treated very nicely here, and I am one of those to blame, I am very sorry. func (talk) 01:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vincent, like it or not, it is funny. And I bet in every nation 66.7% of population laughs and frowns and becomes pissed off when a foreigner distorts their speech. This is an objedctive fact, and encyclopedia has to portray this. YOu don't like comparison with Jews? How about prostitution and manga? I bet much more people are offended by thse than by the article under discussion. Relaxen and watchen blinkenlights. (Sorry, I meant blinkenlights) :-) Mikkalai 03:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would say that coming from an English-speaking country and having good English is something to be proud of, even though it should be commonplace. My job involves dealing with letters from the British public, and quite frankly the standard of written English is appalling. Apparently, the average reading age in the UK is 9.0 and falling. I would also challenge you to point out something specific in the article that is derogatory, pejorative, or otherwise offensive?
15 years in Japan does not in itself qualify you as an expert on the sociolinguistics of Japan. Unfortunately, you responded to ad hominem statements with an attempt to foster honour by association. With logical fallacies, just in the real world, two wrongs often do not make a right - your case was no better proved.
It's an extreme comparison, but a valid one. The argument was that your nomination was of the general form "I find X offensive, so pages about X should be deleted." - a form which has been tested on VfD many times, and has the rather impressive record of "played n, lost n". The counterargument (which wins 100% of the time) is "I find X offensive, so we should document X for people to see themselves why it might have offended people."

In general, you've blown everything out of proportion. You proposed a VfD, and it got slated, and heavily at that. It's something that happens all the time, and you have to live with it and move on. Chris 04:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was I that made the Jews argument. As Chris eloquently put it, it was an analogy and an effective one that made a point. I'm sorry that you took it the wrong way-- I could have as easily said that Doughnuts offended me. The point was not to do one of those ridiculous Nazi/Hitler/Jew/Holocaust ad hominem comparisons that people are so fond of doing to really insult a position. So I apologise for any over-bluntness, I agree that the VfD arguments have been somewhat overrude. Nevertheless, the environment of the debate does not change the facts and position of it.

I'd like to make an additional point, by the way. Before I saw this VfD I had never thought of or heard the word Engrish used as if it were in any way derogatory to anyway, nor would I have imagined it. And to reiterate a point I've made before, it doesn't matter anyway. Vincent brings up how it doesn't have significance in Japan or how some people find that it is nonsense and so on and so forth. But none of that has relevance. Unless it is patent nonsense, there is no justification to say there should not be any article on the topic. Clearly the existence of this debate is (out of much) evidence of how well-known the word is.

Finally, the article itself might be somewhat charged or NPOV or something. In the future, if there's a problem with some wording in an article, please hit the edit button or go on the talk thread if you're unsure how to edit, rather than VfDing it.

Not Wikipedia Administrator 01:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Votes

Keep - Enough said. --81.77.136.134 21:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Frankly, IMO it is a ridiculous nomination. A large, informative aticle, with plenty of backlinks, and last but not the least, no explanation of the nomination. Mikkalai 04:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's because I was writing the nomination when you stumpled on the page. Ridiculous, eh? Vincent 07:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I wonder who nominated this. "Engrish" is a well known term with well known ideas behind it, all well described in the informative article. There's no "theory" involved. Is this just being deleted because the deleter isn't familiar with the article? I could submit Quantum mechanics to VfD too just because I don't understand or am interested in it, but I don't. Why? Because I'm not an arse pirate. 207.99.6.125 04:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I nominated it, thank you. I live in Japan, and it's a mocking, derisive, condescending term. OK as a (lame) joke. Do you think it's used in serious discussions? It's at best light hearted, but does not merit its own article, IMHO.Vincent 07:53, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Point of order, Mr. Chairman, (i.e. Vincent} point of order. I don't believe I see a proper nomination giving a reason for deletion. Do I? If not, there should be one... please supply it. Just add it at the very top, above all the chitchat. Your signature will show the chronology if anybody cares. You can delete this comment after you've added it. Maybe you think it's obvious from your comments above, but let's have it on the record. It does not merit an article because... why? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:04, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. Indeed, instructions for VfD say that the nomination has to have a reason. It also says that all votes must be signed and indicate a reason. For my money (and that's not much), a signature only vote is as invalid as an unsigned one, and a nomination without justification is out. (I am too conflicted about this article to vote.) Geogre 17:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- I am familiar with the article, and I've lived in Japan 15 years. And while I don't disagree with everything the article says, I think it's a rant, not an encyclopedic article. Vincent 04:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rant? No, it's most definitely not a rant. Keep. -- Necrothesp 13:49, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If it is a rant, why not just fic it? This is the Wikipedia. -Litefantastic 12:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- You've lived in Japan 15 years. Therefore (the reasoning goes) you of all should know whether it's a well known term or not. Except wait, this isn't the jp.wikipedia. So that's irrelevant. It is in fact a term of wide use, for several meanings of the word wide. Wikipedia could restrict itself to topics that are listed in the dictionary, except wait, that's idiotic. This is the English wikipedia and as such that's the basis. Anyway, such a piddling basis for deleting an article like Engrish is insufficient.
  - This is an encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia for English. There's a difference. That being said, the subject is worthy of an encyclopedia entry, so Keep. --Improv 18:01, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. "Engrish" is not a generally received term for bad English. Wikipedia may be a place to archive a variety of theories and scholarly pursuits, if they already exist elsewhere, but it is not a forum to 'develop' them. The term used is simply "bad English". Vincent 04:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. "Engrish" has gone beyond merely being "bad English". It is a part of Internet, Usenet, IRC, and video gaming culture. The article is not developing anything, it is explaining the phenomenon. I thought perhaps you were going to suggest that it was a racist term, but in fact, many Japanese are aware of the iconic nature of Engrish in primarily English-speaking countries, and they don't tend to be all that bothered by it. func (talk) 04:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. No case to answer, term is well enough known. - RedWordSmith 04:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely keep. There's even a hilariously funny website at [5]. This is no neologism but an accepted term. - Lucky 6.9 04:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course keep. Rick K 05:04, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. IMO not a neologism; I've heard it for years. Timbo 05:30, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Jayjg 05:32, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I doubt it needs saying: keep. TPK 05:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep - it's not just a term for general bad english of any type, it has more specific meanings. It is generally a known term with the possibility of an article talking about many aspects of it's usage. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 06:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep, obviously. –Andre (talk) 08:54, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep: this is a rather well known term. [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 08:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Obvious keep. The term is currently in widespread use in the U. S. It may well be, or be perceived as, mildly derogatory, insensitive but, if so the article can state that. It looks to me like a good article, but if people see POV issues with it or inaccuracies, they can be corrected. It's a perfectly legitimate phenomenon. The word is not in AHD4 but I would not be surprised to see it in the next edition. 102,000 Google hits! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Others have said it all. (How many keeps do we need before this listing can be rescinded?) -- Hadal 15:44, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Q: Why was placed on VFD?

A: Somebody set up us the bomb.

Q: How should Zig vote?

A: Keep... for great justice!

Q: What you say ?!

A: All your vote are belong to us

(this is how I should have voted the first time ;-) ) func (talk) 16:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Watch out when you step out without Sabrina! Mike H 17:25, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I doubt you need yet another, but what the heck. Keep. Antandrus 17:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Have we achieved consensus yet? Smerdis of Tlön 18:26, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Keep. Pyrop 19:26, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

So to sum up one single person (Vincent) thinks that the article should be deleted, not for any specificly thought out reason that was mentioned, but because it is "derogatory" and so forth. Give me a moment. I'm going to go submit Abortion to VfD. And Jew. I really don't like Jews! Not Wikipedia Administrator 19:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Informative, well written article on a subject that might be insulting to some, but I don;t think that is a reason for deletion, is it not?

--Martin Wisse 19:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep, for many reasons already listed above. But I also think the listing here was reasonable, and that Vincent has shown commendable grace and forebearance in his replies. Andrewa 19:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Valid topic. The phenomenon of "Engrish" is pretty well-known net-wide. The article IMO does a reasonably good job of documenting it without endorsing it. Needs work, but so do a lot of articles. — Gwalla | Talk 21:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep, just in case someone makes a few dozen socks and a few dozen delete votes. Livajo 21:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I don't approve of the use of the term either, I view it as quite linguistically uninformed. Regardless, however, it has a widespread currency. Lacrimosus 23:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What you say !? Keep, for sure, widely used term, and a good article. —Stormie 01:48, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

I am say Kep. "Japanglish" just as goofy. Denni ☯
Keep. Can we speedy-keep it yet? --Yath 04:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep - in widespread use. -Litefantastic 12:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All your Keep are belong to us. Average Earthman 13:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Is some nitwit going to outlaw Franglais next? --Phil | Talk 13:42, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I'm astonished that anyone would nominate this for deletion. I think what we have here is a case of one crusty deletionist who thinks he can delete any article just because it upsets him or because he doesn't like the font or some other asinine reason. Binadot 15:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - "Engrish"? "Chingrish"? This is so wrong. I swear it must have been written as a joke and it's a joke to keep it. - Tεxτurε 17:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it's a deplorable term, being, as I said linguistically uninformed. Nevertheless, the term itself has been around for decades, descriptions working their way into (eg.) my copy of The Story of English. Of course it's a joke, and a mildly offensive one at that. Still, its spread is inescabable, and its prominence is very high. Lacrimosus 22:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - 99,500 hits for engrish on Google. Nuff said. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - What's wrong with educating people on what their English should NOT be like? Plus, some people might not understand what Engrish is, and will check here to see what it is. Evice 23:08, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
I have to say, the term is in very widespread use, and I'm not aware of a body of Asians who are incensed by it. The term refers to not just bad English, but a specific sort of bad English, and one that is especially found in advertising, published materials, and other non-casual works, and especially when the bad translation results in a humorous entendre. Therefore equating it with "bad english" is inadequate. As the interest in the phenomenona is itself a cultural phenomenon, it is notable, so that's no argument. Basically -- this is a widely used term, that deserves explanation, and the article does a suitable job of NPOVing the phenomenon, the interest in it, and its cultural popularity. So, uh, keep. - KeithTyler 23:23, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
I almost feel like someone should put this article up on the ja: VFD, so it isn't just en: editors determining the suitability. - KeithTyler
I'd love to see the result from a non-english wiki. Perhaps we'd learn something. - Tεx τ urε 00:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
K Accurate article from NPOV describing an actual cultural phenomenon. Chris 00:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This word has currency.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 07:58, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Question for Talk:Engrish: is the use of the term "Engrish" in fact a slur or offensive? I was thinking that perhaps the article needs to be NPOVed to reflect this, but was rather surprised by the small number of Google hits for Engrish slur offensive (29) and Engrish slur derogatory (9). Even "Engrish derogatory" gets only 352 and most of them are not directly relevant. If the "Engrish" is regarded as derogatory or insensitive or insulting, the article should say this—but in fact a very quick look didn't turn up any obvious evidence of this. Please continue discussion at Talk:Engrish#Is it derogatory? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Given the currency and popularity of the term (and length of and amount of work in the article), and given that there is no shortage of Asians on the Internet, and given that there is no movement against the use of this term by the allegedly wronged party that even the proponents of deletion (including one who has lived in Japan for 15 years!) can show evidence of, I don't consider any argument on the offensiveness of this term valid unless it comes from a native Japanese person and speaker. Even the submitter admitted that he did not totally disagree with what is said in the article. However, instead of cleanup, he submitted for deletion -- even though by his own admission he believes the article is partially valid! In itself, that practice IMO approaches abuse of VFD. - KeithTyler 17:13, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC) (Note: Some previous statements alleging deletion of comments have been retracted as they were incorrect. - KeithTyler)
Keep, obviously. James F. (talk) 22:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, like it or not it is a noteworthy phrase in widespread use (100,000+ google hits), and censorship isn't going to make it go away. StuartH 13:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, notable phrase. Mackensen 05:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Do I dare say ummm, keep? Kim Bruning 17:55, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not sure of why this is happening, but whoever thinks this article should be deleted clearly doesn't understand what it is really about. If anyone thinks the arguments got a little "racist" at some point in the article, that part should be edited and turned milder. Deleting the entire thing sounds just way too extreme. – Kaonashi 04:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. As mentioned above, the phrase is part of the lexicon and needs to be explained. If anything offensive is in the article, it can be reworded, but the term is in widespread use. If the term is considered offensive, then this needs to be included in the article. 23skidoo 08:32, 26 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.

Sparta nazi germany totalitarian states

Somebody's school project? Hardly an encylcopedia article, anyway. Rick K 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)

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 - Tεx τ urε 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. [6] 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 [7]... --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: [8] [9] —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. Rick K 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)

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

WMAX-FM

Delete. This callsign is no longer belongs to this station; its callsign is now WWVA-FM. 66.245.126.39 13:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've made this a redirect to the new name, which it should remain. Keep. —Rory ☺ 15:37, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. People might come looking for it under the old name. --Improv 18:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. Andrewa 18:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect, definitely. Could be all kinds of references around containing the old call letters. Jallan 21:13, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A simple "move this page" would have sufficed. - KeithTyler

A good reason for our lister to register. Keep as redirect. CHL 01:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cut and paste page move repaired. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:38, 26 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.

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. Rick K 18:12, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
According to [[10]], 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. Rick K 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 - Tεx τ urε 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 [11]. 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 - Tεx τ urε 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 - Tεx τ urε 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. Rick K 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 - Tεx τ urε 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)

Paradise Community Church

Also Austral-Asian Christian Church and Burnside Christian Church.

Sites Paradise Community Church, Austral-Asian Christian Church, and Burnside Christian Church are three similar articles by same anon and read like yellow-page adverts without address or phone number. Not encyclopedic. Looks like an excuse for web links. At best merge to list of Australian churches or Adelaide churches or wherever they are. The weblink from the first one hung my system. Jallan 19:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete All: I've looked at all of them, and none of them establishes notability, nor passes beyond a Yellow Pages listing. They do, together, look like page rank boosting, but, even if they are not, they're advertising, even if for laudable entities. Geogre 21:08, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete all. Guy Sebastian is reasonably well known for being a fundamentalist Christian, but I hardly think his particular church needs his own article. The other articles are so far from notability it's not funny. Lacrimosus 23:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete all - Tεx τ urε 17:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete all. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment: most of the other edits of the anon that created these were vandalism [12]. (William M. Connolley 21:37, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maritza Campos-Rebolledo

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

The result was delete. Blanked request - tidy up Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kalledout

Looks like a band vanity page. 28 hits on Google, of which only the first six are displayed (attempts made to eliminate wikipedia mirrors, of course). I recommend a delete. - RedWordSmith 21:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability. Livajo 23:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Not notable, except for loading up the adjective train to the point where the engine can't pull it, 1 contemporary, 2 Christian, 3 hip-hop, 4 gospel, all being pulled by that poor little "music." Two guys without records. Good luck and godspeed them, but not notable. Geogre 01:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 17:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 17:24, 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.

David Hartwell

unclear what page has to do with David Hartwell, or who that might be. no internal links to page. seems to be a proposal for a study on stock market trading issues. Wolfman 22:37, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: I've had ticks. They start small and get bigger. The stock market didn't notice, and I didn't get any richer. Original research, misnamed, incomprehensible and unformatted mess. Geogre 01:10, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 02:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Incoherent original research. Looks like a random excerpt from something. — Gwalla | Talk 17:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - incoherent vanity titled research? - Tεx τ urε 17:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete [added by Andre🚐 22:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC) for afdstats][reply]

Tobias Mainprize

Sounds like utter nonsense regarding a seemingly non-existent Belgian scam. The original contributor User:Rarr's other contributions do not exactly inspire confidence in his/her seriousness, e.g. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Earwig&diff=0&oldid=5982365 ]. --Ianb 22:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

comment: having said that, the edit history here List_of_New_Zealanders seems to imply this Belgian scam might be a phenomenon in New Zealand. Can someone there comment? --Ianb 22:07, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
~~I'm pretty sure the Belgian scam/scheme is something in NZ, so keep. However, not positive, no google results for it. –Andre (talk) 22:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)~~ Alright, this seems decidedly non-notable, so I change my vote to Delete. –Andre (talk) 22:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I'd be willing to bet there aren't any google results for some regional kiwi phrases or people either, but that doesn't mean they doesn't exist or warrant an article. ~~Keep.~~ αγδεε(τ) 22:25, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
  - In retrospect, I have heard of the Belgian scam/scheme previously, but I must admit I've never heard of this Tobias bloke. Hence move to Belgian scheme and flesh out with more information. αγδεε (τ) 03:21, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
The earwig edit was made in all seriousness, though I must admit that I am going on secondhand information on that. The Belgian Scam is also completely serious and existant and is in no way a New Zealander thing. It's most often used by males that wish to fool their girlfriends into thinking they are more intelligent than they really are, and is used by those who have thought of or heard of it in most countries. Tobias Mainprize often tells people in need of something like this about it anonymously through the internet. Rarr 23:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Rarr, I think that it's probably more of an NZ thing than not... you don't hear it much in the States. –Andre (talk) 00:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Rarr, apologies for any offence caused by casting doubt on your edit, it unfortunately matches the pattern of many recent less well-intentioned new-user edits. I'm still not convinced of Mr. Mainprize though, and I say that as a fluent speaker of Swiss. --Ianb 08:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Let's all shake the cobwebs out of our heads for a second. Forget the Belgian scam. Is the guy called Tobias Mainprize notable? Not so far as I can tell. Is this person essentially a spammer or viral marketer? Seems like it. Hence the delete. (BTW, did you know the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?) Geogre 01:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --Improv 02:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Spammer? Viral marketer? He just tells guys who need something to impress their girlfriends with about the Belgian thing when they expressly state their need. I've heard it several times here in the US, Andre, before hearing of Tobias's help. Rarr 03:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 06:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The article says he's one of the "least known" proponents of a rather common and silly lie. In other words, non-notable. — Gwalla | Talk 17:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This is all just a bunch of baloney. Toby is just a guy who goes to IRC with a few of the people here (myself included) and it's all just a huge scheme to put mis-information on Wikipedia. There. That's the whole truth. Pembertond 03:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Baloney it is. Hey, wiki needs an article on Baloney. Heaven knows we could cite some great examples from wiki archives. Present Baloney redirects to Bologna sausage, and gives the briefest mention of slangword baloney meaning nonsense. Moriori 22:34, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral - Wouldn't that be for Wiktionary instead? --TIB (talk) 02:54, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)--
  - Not necessarily. Think outside the square. Moriori 03:04, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

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

Ô Canada! mon pays, mes amours

No indication in this article that this is a notable song, except that it is NOT the national anthem. Lyrics should be at Wikisource. Rick K 22:13, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. 68 unique google hits, a large portion of which are Wikipedia and its clones. Non-notable. Livajo 22:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: And take care that that funny mark over the O doesn't fall off and cause unnecessary punctuation. Not notable as a separate entity. Geogre 01:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Hello. I am the author of this page. I agree that the full lyrics of the song belong to wikisource. I did not know of wikisource when I created the page. A short excerpt should suffice for the article as it is with many other songs or books. This song is one of the most famous patriotic songs of 19th century French Canada (or Lower Canada, today Quebec). It has the same historical and cultural value as, let's say, Yankee Doodle for the American people. There are no more reasons to delete it than there are reasons to delete Yankee Doodle or any old patriotic song. Counting the number of hits a title gets in Google is not a very convincing way to determine the validity of a cultural and historical item. Anyways, I will add more paragraphs on it. I admit that it does not provide much information as it is right now. In the meantime, it can be tagged as a stub. -- Mathieugp 20:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'll agree with Mathieugp here -- the song is historically notable, but RickK is also right that the lyrics belong at Wikisource rather than here. Keep as stub, hopefully to be expanded with some of the song's historical context, but transwiki the lyrics to Wikisource or erase them. Bearcat 23:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep Google is totally unqualified for determining the importance of a 170-year-old song that was popular enough to be recorded on some of the first-ever 10 inch gramophone records The Steve 11:52, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Please change your signature so that we can read it. If the article had SAID that this was on some of the first-ever 10 inch gramophone records, that would PROBABLY have swayed my decision to list it here. But we have to go by what the article says AT THE TIME IT WAS LISTED, not what somebody had wished it said. If the article were modified to make it clear why the song is notable, then it's worth keeping. RickK 19:27, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
  - Please change your background to read my signature. One easy way to do this is to select it. All I'm saying is that a little less dependence on Google results and a little more research would be nice for an encyclopedia. The Steve 05:15, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Keep I am Palestinian by birth, and now I am living in Canada, after we became refugees in 1967. My wife is from Quebec, and is also in agreement. This piece should be kept, and allowed an opportunity to grow and develop. French culture, especially songs and stories, are very important.

Lets give the contributors a chance to work on it. It is only fair. Anyway I thought that it was important to contribute articles not delete them, if there is no inherent problems. Please keep it. Joseph 02:03, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

The contributor has five days from the time the article is listed here before it's deleted. If the article can't be made worth keeping in that time, then it should be deleted. Rick K 02:10, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Keep this one. Antandrus 02:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep revised article. Btw I don't see that vfd voters have much, if any, obligation to do research that the original author couldn't be bothered to do. If a topic is notable, the best place to make that case is in the article itself. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No obligation whatsoever. However, in my opinion, no research makes for poor and uninformed encyclopedia writing. The Steve 03:50, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  - Agreed entirely. That's why an author ought to do some research instead of bestowing a cryptostub on Wikipedia. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Well, my definition of writing includes editing and thus deletion. I do what I call notability research on everything I vote for, which is why I end up adding to a lot of Vfd articles. The Steve 23:25, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

And all is good in the end. Let us now all kiss and hug and go back to recording humanity's knowledge! ;-) -- 13:08, 24 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.

Liberal healthcare system

Seems to be a neologism. - SimonP 22:42, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Libertarian POV passing as universal truth. "Liber" is Latin for free, folks. Geogre 01:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 02:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone has evidence for significant political/journalistic/academic use of the term (google doesn't turn up any). RadicalSubversiv E 07:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism, POV. — Gwalla | Talk 17:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - POV - Tεx τ urε 17:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - POV. --Viriditas 04:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Neologism. ClockworkTroll 06:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Beau Berman

The last 2 sentences of this short article, included by the original author, are: In 1821 he met Napoleon on the island of Saint Helena where the two fought to the death, Vice Admiral emerging victorious. Two days later after a passionate romp with 18 African prostitues Vice Admiral Berman died, suffering from multiple orgasm's. Given that Napoleon did not die in a duel & that it seems unlikely an Admiral died from too many orgasms, the credibility of the entire article is in doubt. Wolfman 22:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Very much nonsense/prank. Geogre 01:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. -- Jmabel 01:19, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Or maybe not. The very first version of this looks more legit. Can someone check into it? I'm going to restore that first, more reasonable version (but the patent nonsense comes from the same editor). -- Jmabel 01:22, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
I can't find a naval Beau Berman, and our own article on HMS Pathfinder seems to suggest that such a ship did not exist in this time period. It's rather odd that the original creator placed what looks like a legit article, and then immediately put in the patent nonsense. I'm going to guess that he cut and pasted from somewhere, and then just changed names around. Oh... Delete. func (talk) 01:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Perhaps a coincidence, but there was a Rear-Admiral John Willett Payne with the same given birth and death dates: 1752-1803. (Odd that this Berman should have died prior to meeting Napoleon in 1821). func (talk) 02:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Nonsense. Jayjg 02:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - unsupported by facts - Tεx τ urε 17:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zuckermann ghil'ad

Non-notable college professor, and the article should be at Ghil'ad Zuckermann, anyway. Rick K 23:30, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I do find two books of his on Amzaon. What's the criteron for "notable"? - Kbh3rd 23:46, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Move, cleanup, keep. Pjacobi 23:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure he is notable, given where he is, but the presentation here is deathly poor. Send to clean up with a note that it should come back here if the only earth shaking thing about him is that he thinks that Modern Hebrew is a hybrid. Geogre 01:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Change to delete: What the heck is with the people who can't find the shift key? This isn't his name. Geogre 15:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 02:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: random academic. I'm sympathetic, but he doesn't have, say, an endowed chair, presidency of some school, or even tenure. Article appears to be a book advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - not notable - Tεx τ urε 17:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I recommend to delete it, however his ideas need to be added to the Hebrew language page with a link to his homepage http://www.zuckermann.org. Mr. Zuckermann is not unique in claiming that modern Hebrew, which he calls "Israeli", is not a revival of ancient, Biblical Hebrew, rather a mixture of primarily Yiddish and Mishnaic Hebrew with largely Sfardi pronunciation. Where he differs from other scholars is the amount of Yiddish in modern Israeli: some say modern Israeli has Hebrew words on a Yiddish grammar, Zuckermann claims that its roots are about 50/50 and others differ. Zuckermann discusses these other ideas as well on his homepage. Melamed

Beyond Maxwell-Lorentz Electrodynamics

I don't know if this a copyvio of a work by George Galeczki, or original research by George Galeczki himself, but it doesn't belong here. Rick K 23:55, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

The original article carries no copyright notice. Please do not delete. This paper may open an urgent path to new understanding of electrodynamics that opens paths to superseding fossil and uranium fuels as well as beginning to reverse Greenouse Warming. Overtone 00:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Just because something doesn't have a copyright notice doesn't mean you can copy it. Just because my car isn't locked in the garage doesn't mean you can steal it. If this is NOT your property, you need to get approval from the originator to release under the GFDL, with the understanding that it can and will be edited. Otherwise, this has to go. Rick K 00:46, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Listed on copyright problems. All works are automatically copyright under the Berne Convention. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fringe physics. -- Decumanus 00:24, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
Overtone, Wikipedia isn't here to attempt to open urgent paths to new understandings etc. That's what those free personal web pages over at yahoo.com are for. Delete func (talk) 03:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete'. Crackpot. The guy who wrote it is supposedly the president of the "Society for the Advancement of Physics" which does not seem to exist (according to Google) except in references to this particular fellow listing it as his title. I think regarding crackpot/fringe science, the general policy ought to be something along the lines of: 1. Wikipedia cannot present it as anything reasonably close to fact if it does not appear in some sort of mainstream scientific literature; 2. If we aren't pretending it is anything close to fact then it would have to be an article about George Galeczki's theory and how people on the internet (but no actual professional physicists) believe it will do all sorts of wonderful things. And only then if it is notable -- if a lot of people believe in the crackpot theory and it is worth noting (i.e. the Apollo moon landing hoax). This guy Galeczki seems total crackpot the more of his papers I Google -- he's in with some crowd of "dissident physicists" who are anti-Einsteinian and probably anti-QM, using most of the same old arguments that have been made unsuccessfully since Einstein first published a hundred years ago. --Fastfission 05:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, Einstein himself was anti-QM. ;-) func (talk) 16:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Copyvio, promotion of non-notable crackpot theory. — Gwalla | Talk 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Copyvio or not, it is, scientifically speaking, bullshit and does not belong in any encyclopaedia. StuartH 13:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete (William M. Connolley 21:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
Delete. Fringe science, original research, possibly copyvio. Andris 00:00, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

September 20

Johnnie Rivers

This stub duplicates information already listed under the proper spelling of the musician's name, Johnny Rivers. 23skidoo 22:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) Another contributor has suggested turning this entry into a redirect instead, so this vote can be discontinued. 23skidoo 23:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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 - kept

Scientific enterprise

I add this here more for editorial review, and possible deletion. This article recovers the information already present in Science and Scientific method. It has NPOV issues, and reads like an essay. While it is a large article, and largely factual the term "scientific enterprise" does not seem to reflect what the article is about. It seems more like an alternate viewpoint of science filled with opinion. It has been on cleanup for over 2 months and has never been edited by a large group of people. What is the consensus? [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 00:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete for POV and duplication what is not POV. This seems to be about science entrepeneurs, not science, not scientific method, and it seems to be advocacy of science for profit. That kind of explains the two editor thing. To me, the issue is POV and solely POV. I didn't find much that was NPOV that wasn't covered better at Science. Geogre 01:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I get the feeling there might be an interesting article in here about the role of money in science. On the other hand, if it hasn't been extracted in 2 months, then perhaps it won't ever be extracted. It seems a pity to delete though. Abstain --Improv 01:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I fill the same as the above. There could be a great article on the role of money and the notion of enterprise (and even empire) in science (some of which is covered, though, in Big Science). But this isn't it, this doesn't make any sense at all. I was the one who listed it on cleanup, which did really nothing. Mostly because there is so much jumbled and disconnected content there already, it is hard to know where to start. I'm going to abstain myself -- I don't really think the article has any hope in its current stage but deleting it feels drastic. It doesn't help that the original author is fond of non-standard formatting either (lots of needless and confusing indents). --Fastfission 01:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism, original research. --Yath 04:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would have given it one last try at WP:PNA with specific objections, but I doubt there would have been better results there than at cleanup. The thing does not read like an encyclopedia article; I think the best words to describe it would be "freshman business major essay." I won't feel sad to see this one go. Delete. --Ardonik.talk()^* 05:00, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
I agree w/ others that there seems to be the kernel of an article here, if only someone would spend some time on it. Weak keep -- move to WP:PNA and hope for the best. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep. I think a good article could be salvaged from this. — Gwalla | Talk 17:21, 20 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.

New Bark Town

If this is all that can be said about this subject, it doesn't deserve an article of its own. Rick K 00:43, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Even if there was more to say about it, it's an article for a Poketown. These things need to be in a table in some article where folks will find it. Every time one of these things survives VfD, we license every vanity creator to say, "But, but, but the Pokemon are there!" Geogre 01:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete as above, this could not possibly be expanded. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 01:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete both this and Template:Johto so as to discourage additional pokétown breakouts. Cianwood City (Cianwood Island) and Ecruteak City, linked from the template, are also suspect; they read like game guides and teach an outsider like me nothing about their subject. --Ardonik.talk()^* 04:48, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: useless pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete along with template. Agree with Ardonik. --Improv 10:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. An article for each pokemon? Okay, sure, fine. An article for each location in the games? Gimme a break. — Gwalla | Talk 17:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete both - Tεx τ urε 17:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It would save time and energy if a Wiki fictional universe project was set up where all this effort could go. Jallan 19:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Move to Wikibooks - I've created the start of a Wikibooks game guide to the Pokémon series of games, but unfortunately I haven't had any time to work on even basic structure of the Wikibook. However, I can imagine that these articles can become part of that game guide if and when it is started, hence the reason for the vote. kelvSYC 03:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Move > Wikibooks - His page for NBT shows that it exists (at least in his mind). However did anyone else think of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pok%E9dex|WikiProject Pokédex]] when they saw this? I did. --TIB (talk) 03:04, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hans-Erik Wennberg

Not notable, vanity. This person also changed Elizabethtown College to include vanity information diff - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 01:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

regarding:Hans-Erik Wennberg

Delete. Jayjg 02:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Don't delete. Hans-Erik Wennberg is one of America's premier academic Photoshop professionals.
- this comment by User:Smoothtom who is likely the creator of Hans-Erik Wennberg, (contribs). See creation of Weis Markets by that user, followed by addition of Weis Markets to Supermarkets in the United States by User:Smoothtom in this diff - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 03:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Smoothtom, have you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Vanity page yet? Your article fits the definition of a vanity page. This encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge for notable things, and that you think highly of your abilities does not establish notability. I am also ineligible for an encyclopedia article at this time, and if I saw an article on Ardonik in the main namespace, I'd be the first to vote for its deletion. Delete vanity page; nothing personal. --Ardonik.talk()^* 04:53, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
    - Comment: Anonymous User:138.28.35.21 deleted the above comments by cohesion and myself. --Ardonik.talk()^* 17:36, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
      - Okay, okay. New user here. I apologize sincerely for adding an article that shouldn't have been added. I did add another article, like you said, that is relevant here. Tell me, what was the reason for bringing that up? Some sorta "gotcha" kind of attack? Anyway, like I said, I shouldn't have added that one. Now, can it PLEASE disappear so that I can get on with being a positive contributor here? I will be, I swear it. --Smoothtom 00:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        No, sorry if it seemed that way, usually people sign their comments on votes for deletion, and if not people will note who they were by, because sometimes people forget etc. It is also common for people to mention if they were the page creator so that people know who is talking. Since you have signed up for an account in the interim the page Hans-Erik Wennberg looks to be created by an anonymous user, while the comment here is by a logged in user. I was just pointing out that the two people were likely the same, which would have been obvious in most circumstances. Thanks for joining Wikipedia though! Don't worry about this, there's no hard feelings about deleting pages. :D [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 05:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Yath 04:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - unsigned by user:24.210.83.107 - vote does not count
Delete --JumboFiske 12:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Vanity page. Geogre 13:03, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Average Earthman 13:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete for non-notability. (Not that the addition made much difference to Elizabethtown College, now listed on Copyright problems: it was an unembarrassed advertisement, copied from the college website.) --Bishonen 16:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable teacher. — Gwalla | Talk 17:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 17:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity. Nadavspi 23:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. ugen64 00:52, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Jonathan Yang

not notable, vanity page. Wolfman 01:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity. Jayjg 02:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. --Yath 04:37, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete pre-teen vanity page. Almost every welcome page on the Wikipedia discourages newcomers from creating vanity pages; I can only conclude that people start contributing without reading them. --Ardonik.talk()^* 04:44, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Vanity page, cute, empty, delete. Geogre 13:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 17:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 17:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity. Cute, like Geogre said. Nadavspi 23:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I took the mention of his birthday from August 13, where he was among Alfred Hitchcock, Fidel Castro and others who strive to reach the level of glory and fame that this 13-year-old robot designer embodies. Livajo 12:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jamie

Unverifiable, and content seems to contradict itself. "Famous woman philosopher" who died at age 13. SWAdair | Talk 02:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Bizarre. Jayjg 02:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not even an attempt is made in the article to provide verification references, and the language isn't 13th century English, to boot. Fire Star 04:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, fiction. --Yath 04:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete; unverifiable. A google search turns up nothing on the poem, nothing on "Jamie Greene" and "Henry III", and the article doesn't even specify where "her blood can still be seen." The cynic in me says that User:168.102.16.178 just made her up. --Ardonik.talk()^* 04:41, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Hilarious. A guard kills a 13 year old girl on sight. Uh-huh. People have funny ideas about the middle ages (not to mention the Modern English cliches that this medieval girl utters). Prank. Geogre 12:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, and "Jamie?" Excuse me, but that's a male name and Scottish in that era. Oh, and "the saint" would lead her? Which one? Hooo-boy, it's not even a good one. Unless someone has something nice to say about this soon, I'm going to make it a speedy delete. Geogre 12:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Kids, Wikipedia is not the place to document your daydreams. That's what LiveJournal is for. — Gwalla | Talk 17:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Cool! Martyr fanfic! Delete. Spatch 17:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Tεx τ urε 17:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I don't believe a word of it. Average Earthman 17:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - amusing, but utter crap. Nadavspi 00:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This guy doesn't seem very notable, except that he happens to be related to Saddam Hussein. But he's not important enough to be mentioned there, as the article is an orphan. Adam Bishop 02:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Jayjg 02:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Mohammed Nour al-Din Saffi is wikified and not bad as far as bio-stubs go, but has this man done anything more notable than merely being a nephew of Saddam Hussein? Perhapsthe argument could be made that his detention by US authorities established notability, but one would have to ignore the thousands of other non-notable people similarly detained. My vote is to delete. --Ardonik.talk()^* 04:31, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: There really isn't any notability established here, either. If it gets better, I'll change my vote. Geogre 12:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I remember reading about this guy in the paper. This article is what I'd call a fat redirect: it has a short note on Saffi's minor notability and a link to Saddam Hussein. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --Improv 16:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The bit on how he was detained after taking a refresher course in flying was interesting. — Gwalla | Talk 17:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - nothing in the article makes him notable - Tεx τ urε 17:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, Texture is wrong! Everything in the article makes notable. -- Old Right 22:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Really? I'm on a course related to my employment right now. Does that make me notable? Although a non-criminal relation of Saddam seems to be pretty rare... Average Earthman 08:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep. -Sean Curtin 00:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Noteworthy deportation story. --Viriditas 04:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Kim Bruning 18:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I've heard his name mentioned before, so he must have done something. The bellman 07:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete - he sounds like an ordinary guy, nothing too notable except the relation. Given that he has not made any attempt to be in the media or raise attention, I think it is fair to respect privacy as well. I am sure he doesn't want this information about himself readily available. Lupinewulf 05:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alonso High School 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 kept. SimonP 22:07, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

My count of the votes: 17 Keep, 16 Delete.

A non-special primary education high school.

(Note: above rationale was added by User:DraQue Star.) --Ardonik.talk()^* 05:06, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
A Google search for "Alonso High School" gives 263 hits. Since I think the community's consensus on high schools is to let each one stand or fall on its own merits and notability, I find it hard to vote for anything but delete. As always, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. --Ardonik.talk()^* 05:06, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- However, note that "Alonso High" gets 1380. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:20, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: The article does not establish anything special about this high school. It is not poorly written, but it does not establish notability. Geogre 12:51, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. --Improv 16:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep consensus is not to delete high schools and 90% of them listed on VfD are kept. - SimonP 17:01, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- There is no such consensus that I'm aware of. If there is one, please point me to it. I believe that the correct statement is that because there is no such consensus, and because consensus is required for deletion, it is fairly easy for a high school article to survive VfD. That is not a reason for automatically keeping them without discussion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - The difficulty with having no policy on high schools is that most of them are kept, but some also end up being arbitrarily deleted. Since we are fairly evenly divided on the inclusion of high schools it generally works out that stubs or unformatted articles on high schools get deleted, while longer ones are kept. This violates basic Wikipedia principles. - SimonP 20:00, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
    - I'm not trying to be argumentative—really. This is not a rhetorical question. I agree that the tendency is that "stubs get deleted, while longer ones are kept." But I'm happy with that. What basic Wikipedia principles does this violate? I'm willing to listen. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      - How many other articles get deleted simply because they are stubs? Being as stub has never been a criteria for deletion, nor should it be. Yet high schools are getting deleted simply because they are stubs. Not because people vote to delete them for that reason, but because others refrain from voting to keep them. - SimonP 23:25, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
        SimonP has either not been reading reasons given by those who vote to delete or doesn't understand them. I vote to delete most high school articles not just because the article is a stub but because most schools are not notable and won't ever ever generate an encyclopedia article beyond a bad stub. Most high schools are normal high schools much like any other normal high school. People mostly neither know nor care about any of them individually. Those who care about a particular school are mostly those employed at that school or by the local Board of Education or who are attending that particular school during a few years of their lives at most. Immediate family also care while a child or sibling is attending such a school. But most don't think that their school is special or notable or stands out. That most high school articles are uniformative stubs reflects the fact that the editor writing such an article either doesn't care much or just can't make a good article from information easily available oor both. What people do care about is their own years in "high school" in general rather than about the history of the particular high school or high schools that they attended. Notable high schools, like notable people, or notable organizations of any kind, would be those mentioned in media as being recognized for some reason other than merely existing and performing their normal, mundane functions. The repetative litany that "high schools are notable" is belayed by the substance of most Wikipedia high school articles which don't provide any reason why a particular high school is notable and often don't say much at all. An encyclopedia article should not provide only the minutiae of present day information such as the name of the current prinipal and whether a football team is doing well, all likely to be out of date even a year from now. Yet a history of a high school would be mostly nothing but such disjointed minutiae: names of principals, lists of teaching staff, awards won each year by teams or bands or clubs, average grades obtained compared to other schools, additions and renovations of the building, and so forth. Such an article would be encyclopedic. But people don't write them. SimonP doesn't write them. And there's no point in retaining bad stubs when it would be just as easy for a knowledgeable editor to start an article fresh. Wikipedia is not improved by bad articles that don't improve and are unlikely to improve. Jallan 17:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        Jallan, I agree with you. I further would say that said articles with all that detail is not encyclopedic, and that this kind of topic, with very rare exceptions, is never encyclopedic. --Improv 18:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith. Furthermore, I can point you to the "consensus." It was informally reached when someone wrote List of schools and someone else listed it on VfD. That debate went on for a few epochs, and, in the end, people voting there sort of kind of agreed that high schools stay (there) and others go (there). That's it. No policy, no consensus reached in any deliberative forum except the VfD debate on one article. Since then, people have used the chimera of a consensus that "High schools stay" in VfD voting, but the truth is that it's exactly as Dpbsmith says: every single nomination is its own case. The only policy is the deletion guidelines. Thus, notability, encyclopedic content, non-advertising, etc. Geogre 00:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - not notable - Tεx τ urε 17:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Why not? There are lots of high schools and lots of colleges. There's no good to add all of them, but, so far as I'm concerned, there's no good reason to delete them either. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:53, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- My view is that they should be kept if they are good articles, and discarded if they are basically stubs, because stubs are essentially a request for someone else to write an article. In a developing encyclopedia it makes sense that there are those who can reliably judge "we need an article on X," knowing that they can't write it themselves, and that there are others around ready and willing to flesh out the skeleton. In this case, there is value in submitting a stub. This is not the case for non-notable high schools. If we had a high-school expert who loved to write articles about high schools, such a person might well take high school stubs into account in prioritizing his work. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There is good reason to delete anything that is not notable, that isn't likely to be mentioned in books or other media outside of its local area (and is considered rather ordinary and non-notable in its local area). There is good reason to add only those that are notable in some way or other. This particular uninformative substub article contains more information on Braulio Alonso than on the school. Since the Braulio Alonso article (created by the same editor who created this article) is marked as suspected copyright violation, perhaps the Braulio Alonso information here could be moved to that article's /Temp subpage to create a new stub there. Jallan 19:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Rick K 19:13, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
delete. While there is no consensus to delete high school articles, there is no concensus to keep them, either. This school appears to lack notability. Gentgeen 19:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless greatly improved before the expiration of VfD. Delete because it is not an article that says anything of much use or much interest even to alums; because stubs are not worthwhile in themselves, but only as they lead to articles; and because it is unlikely that the Wikipedian community contains anyone able and interested in adding more to this than the original contributor. People who want high school articles to Wikipedia should submit articles, not stubs. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Just curious -- is that an argument not to write stubs at all? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:20, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
  - No. There are better stubs and worse stubs. See Wikipedia:Perfect stub article. A stub is not useful in itself. It's only useful if it grows into an article, or if it provides a useful amount of information itself. We should write articles when we can. We should write good stubs when we are quite sure that the topic is encyclopedic, and the stub provides enough information to have some value of its own, and we think there's a reasonable likelihood that someone will expand it within a month or so. We should not write worthless stubs, and we should delete worthless stubs if others write them. Wikipedia:Perfect stub article says that when you do write a stub you should be prepared to keep adding to it yourself. "If nobody contributes to your stub for a few weeks, roll up your sleeves and expand it yourself." This is an encylopedia; it's not the Britannica "Micropedia" and it's not a nanopedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - My opinion is that a useful stub gives a reason why the article should be expanded - so if the stub states nothing other than that the individual is a nobel prize winner, or that the school is the oldest in Virginia, or similar, then it's clearly worth expanding (as long as it is true). If it merely says John Smith is a scientist, or Bog Standard Comprehensive is a high school, then it isn't a useful stub. Average Earthman 09:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Well, you'll hate me, but in my random acts of cleanup at Special:Deadendpages, I've been known to turn a substub into a stub and hope that the winds of Recentchanges and What Links Here traces will push it towards its full potential. Especially when I don't know much of anything about the subject matter. Of course, turning a substub into a stub is still improvement. - KeithTyler 06:07, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I don't have a good reason why, maybe I'm just feeling generous. Something about the former high school of a former NEA president lends it a touch of notability to me. - KeithTyler 21:22, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, agree with KeithTyler about NEA president! -- Old Right 23:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I just wanted to point out that this high school (and most high schools, actually) has more students than Alligator, Mississippi has residents. I'm just saying. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:20, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I have no idea who decided it was a good idea to start importing Census data for every little town in the world, and, despite having contributed to a description of a place I used to live (Brecksville, Ohio) and another place where my grandparents live (Bath, Ohio), if there ever were a discussion that would have a reasonable guideline by which all nonnotable towns were to be removed (Bath and Brecksville are really not notable), I probably would vote for their mass deletion. --Improv
Delete: no evidence of notability. The notion that there's a consensus for keeping high school articles is just wishful thinking. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless evidence of notability added. There is no consensus on high schools. Average Earthman 09:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, just so if my high school ever comes up, I can vote keep without being a hypocrite. The Steve 12:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Articles on random high schools might be considered community vanity. -- WOT 18:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep ugen64 00:47, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete as not notable. FWIW, my high school is notable and happens to have an article which someone else started. - Lucky 6.9 17:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, and the article says almost nothing about the school anyway. It just talks about the guy the school is named after. Isomorphic 00:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep I'm new to Wikipedia and came across this by pressing random page and couldn't believe that an article about a real school would be deleted. The Recycling Troll 00:48, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. SWAdair | Talk 07:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I think all schools (primary and secondary) should be kept. I see no reason to delete. However, this article should be improved. Still, I vote for keep. --AAAAA 20:03, 25 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.

Islamonazism

POV essay attempting to prove a connection between Islam and Nazism based largely on the actions of Amin al-Husseini and a few other Palestinians, some tendentiously-presented photographs, and the theories of a few right-wing cranks. —No-One Jones ^(m) 04:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've seen the term used by right wing cranks before, maybe it should have a page, just one that it is encyclopedic ("Right wing cranks use the term Islamonazism to indicate that they consider various extreme forms of Islam to be morally or functionally equivalent to Nazism under Adolf Hitler" etc). The biggest problem with this article (and theory) is that it confuses two completely different aspects of Middle Eastern politics (as I understand it): Pan-Arabism (which is functionally similar to Fascism, i.e. the Baath party in Iraq and Syria) and Islamism (radical Islamic rule, i.e. the Taliban, or Iran). The problem is... the ideologies are generally mutually incompatible (hence the divisions between Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Iran, Al Quaida, etc.). ~~Which is really here nor there on the VfD page, but I guess maybe this could be turned into a real article, but you'd have to start by blanking the current version.~~ Actually, nevermind: redirect to List_of_pejorative_political_slogans#Islamofascism. --Fastfission 04:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Kill it. Kill it dead. Kill it dead dead dead. Also the redirect Palinazi. Kill that one dead dead dead too. Bearcat 05:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
My gut reaction is to delete this irritatingly stupid jab at all of Islam, but a redirect to List_of_pejorative_political_slogans#Islamofascism is more appropriate and is more than this topic deserves. --Ardonik.talk()^* 05:11, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- The contributions of the article's creator are also suspect. --Ardonik.talk()^* 05:13, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete or redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:17, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to List_of_pejorative_political_slogans#Islamofascism as suggested, but also delete the history. This page is thoroughly disgusting. --Zero 07:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC) Don't worry about Palinazi, it was an obvious fast delete and I did it already.
Agree with redirecting and deleting the history. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Livajo 09:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, come on, not this again? We deleted Islamonazi per VfD recently! This ought surely to be speedied as a mere reposting of that. I so vote: Speedy delete. Bishonen 12:12, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Islamonazi was recreated as a redirect to this one. I speed-deleted Islamonazi but on second thoughts it may have been better to make it a protected redirect to List_of_pejorative_political_slogans#Islamofascism. --Zero 12:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete JFW | T@lk 12:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect: Make Islamonazi a protected redirect per all the suggestions above, but the way to delete this one's page history is simply to delete it outright. Delete also Palinazi, with no need for a redirect there, as it is unlikely that another orthographically challenged person will mistake PalEstine for PalIstine. Geogre 12:50, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This article is an anti-Islamic witchhunt, suggesting that Islamism = Islam, drawing connections about as strong as, say, that the KKK is representative of the United States. While it is possible to collect data, as Iceman has, that provide a bare semblance of an argument, this tie is only there because of his selection, not because of an actual underlying regularity. Ahh, the joy of kooks with an agenda. --Improv 16:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Keep this article". I see no reason to delete an article that is factual in every respect. A policy of deletion simply because the facts are unpleasant is a poor policy for a reference source.
- Anonymous votes are not counted. —No-One Jones ^(m) 15:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I showed the history and modern days of Islamonazism based purely on facts and nothing more. Not only that you call a balanced and honest article a "biased and disgusting" basing your statements on absolutely nothing, but you want to delete it along with its history. Iceman 14:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anybody like to prove this article wrong with facts other than feet stamping.

This article is based on fact and history. There is no reason to delete it. You can't change history by ignoring it, or pretending it didn't happen. Tony Sopranostein
It's a must stay factual article.
- Anonymous votes are not counted. —No-One Jones ^(m) 15:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
An article should NOT be deleted because of "Political Correctness" Hurt feelings and ethnic pride must not come ahead of the truth. An article should only be judged on its factual content. Mephisto 4535
- Probable sockpuppet: user's first edit was to this vote. —No-One Jones ^(m) 15:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Loony [vote by User:Xed ]
Some of the history in this article could reasonably survive under a suitably neutral title like Arab support for Germany during World War II, but not this article, which tries to draw a conclusion from insufficient data and is factually wrong in several places. Delete. Author: see talk page for why this article is wrong. DJ Clayworth 15:19, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yet you didn't show what data is insufficient and where I was factually wrong... Iceman 15:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I show exactly that. Read the talk page. Skorzeny, for example. DJ Clayworth 15:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Otto Skorzeny article will show you that I am right.
- Don't argue here, go to talk page. DJ Clayworth 16:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
*KEEP* as is. This is a comprehensive well done piece that is not a point of view, but a factual history that is certainly worth keeping in Wikipedia. If "neutrality" of information means facts are not acceptable, then Wikipedia is doing itself a disservice. Truthseeker0001
- Probable sockpuppet. —No-One Jones ^(m) 16:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To whoever is stacking up sockpuppets to vote on this page: Please don't. It's really, really, really obvious that a new account is a sockpuppet when it makes its first edit to an obscure VfD page, and sockpuppet votes are not counted. —No-One Jones ^(m) 16:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is showing up elsewhere on the net. As a user of wikipedia, though a new registraton here, I see no reason for *certain* votes to "not" count. It smacks of censorship and control of information by virtue of how long you have been registered Truthseeker0001 16:28, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some criteria are necessary to make votes legitimate, otherwise this page could be mercilessly abused by anonymous cranks. . . Lacrimosus 22:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So long as there are criteria for how votes count, it's not a problem. The reason new accounts count less is that it's too easy for someone either to make new accounts for the purpose of multiple-voting, or for someone to go find a bunch of their friends to vote their way. Suggesting that people hang around for awhile and make some contributions before their votes count is a good guard against these problems. --Improv 16:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Antandrus 17:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete, Delete, Delete, and Delete. That is actually just one vote, btw, and not the attempt of a single person to vote multiple times, like the sock puppets above. Oh, or Redirect to the pejorative thing, whatever. func (talk) 17:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - do not redirect - even if you accept the terms as slang the content is rubbish when applied thus. - Tεx τ urε 17:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: POV rant nonsense. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 17:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, what he said! -- Billy Bob Sock 17:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - That there above user may be a sockpuppet. -- Sheriff Sock 18:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Billy Bob Sock is no such thing! -- Sock Dude 18:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Merge into a black hole and redirect. -- There's no way I'm a sockpuppet! 17:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, some of the info can be merged into pan-arabism and islamism, if NPOV-ified and factual, but the problem with this is that it is just an NPOV rant. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Speedy delete because islamonazi was already VfDed. -Vina 18:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Unforunately the votes of sock puppets and one-issue new contributors are sometimes counted when a sysop wants to keep an article. Jallan 18:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- - Right. Which is why we need a strict policy on not allowing votes by users who registered after the vote commenced. func (talk) 19:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - I'll second that. The VfD vote counting process is too arbitrary! Bishonen 19:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Adding one more Delete to help the count against the sockpuppets. RickK 19:12, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- - (Ineligible anon vote): Keep this page. It should be clear by now that there exists a radical version of Islam, which is rapidly becoming mainstream (unlike the KKK), which is the modern, murderous equivalent of Nazi fascism. Sorry to disappoint the ultra-liberals among us, but this is an accurate portrayal of a large number, though far from all, Muslims.
Has anyone said "original research" yet? ~~Delete~~ for that and all other reasons already stated. - KeithTyler 21:19, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I concur with comments made by DJ Clayworth. If the original author is interested in salvaging the article, (which does contain useful information) he or she needs to read and understand NPOV. --Viriditas 22:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This misuse of the VFD process here is deplorable. Lacrimosus 22:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, not POV at all. Its simply informing the readings of an important topic. -- Old Right 23:02, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Old Right has a great user page.--Xed 23:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(I've already voted) On the question of delete vs redirect (obviously keep is a ridiculous option for anybody who isn't a sock puppet or an extreme right-wing crackpot), I think redirect is probably best. I've seen people use the term Islamonazi and leaving it open will just encourage someone else to think it doesn't have an entry. I don't see the purpose in killing the page history -- who cares? Anybody who is seriously looking up the term here will find similarly nonsensical and hate-filled things if they have typed it into Google first, I could care less, personally, if they read that at one time a crackpot had once again filled up Wikipedia with hate-filled nonsense... --Fastfission 23:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree...Old Right's user page is kinda cool. Speaking as a lifelong Republican-voting, Drudge Report-reading, Sean Hannity-watching, LA Times-hating conservative who would greatly enjoy the opportunity to give Dan Rather an atomic wedgie, I have to give this horrific rant as emphatic a delete vote as I have ever given. There are conservatives and there are crackpot, extreme, hate-filled individuals who wrap themselves in the flag while spouting their vitriol all over this site. This is almost worse than the damned kiddie porn apology articles! Lacrimosis hit it on the head. Just get rid of this thing and the sockpuppets that go with it. - Lucky 6.9 04:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to [[List of Perjorative etc.. and delete. There is obviously a history of association between the Nazis and Moslems but that belongs on the appropriate pages, not as a aseperate article. You could probably find a similar connection between the nazis and any other historical opposition to British rule. Presumably we don't have an article on IRA-Nazism, and yet there was definitely some contact between them. Similarly, in more recent times, there may have been contact between the IRA and Libya, are we to expect an article on Irish-Islamism?

Furthermore; articles like this are by their nature contentious and involve Wikipedia in unnecessary acrimony. ping 09:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Why are we even letting this go on and on? Anon votes count zero. As for the people being reasonable and trying to find content to merge, let's remember one of those really basic truths: Islamic and Arab are not the same thing. If someone wants to talk about Arab tribes that supported the Nazis, well, whatever. That's not Islam. Secondly, if we do decide to trace that out, then, as Ping says, the IRA supported Hitler, and so did Prebscott Bush (current president's grandfather) and so did Charles Lindbergh. So? There is a big difference between a realpolitik supporter of the enemy of one's enemy and ideological agreement, and therefore there is a big difference between, say, a sheik and Ezra Pound (or, pre-war, Prebscott Bush). Delete the article, no redirect. Make a new Islamonazi as a protected redirect to the ethnic slurs article. Geogre 13:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: agenda promo. Redirect to List_of_pejorative_political_slogans and protect the redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. POV garbage. Jayjg 16:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Islamo-fascism Shimmin 17:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Don't create redirect that only goes to a redirect. (See Ardonik above) - Tεx τ urε 17:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete this junk POV page. Is there a Judeonazism page? Or is that synonymous with Zionism?Alberuni 17:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I could—but am not going to—write such a page, which would be just as valid as Islamonazism. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Now that you ask, yes, on the List of pejorative political slogans page there are gems like Judeofascism and Zionazism. Whatever happened to just using adjectives? --Fastfission 23:56, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - I dunno, but you could ask whoever came up with the term Wikipedia. :) - KeithTyler 23:58, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete this logic-free garbage. Binadot 19:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I might support a short entry that says something like this "This is a term used as a pejorative, etc."--iFaqeer 20:29, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, redirect, protect. SWAdair | Talk 07:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You probably won't believe this, but I vote Strong Keep. Why? We've dealt with this kind of thing with people like User:WHEELER, and we can do it again. Change the article title to something non-godwin inducing, and then NPOV the thing to pieces to see what remains of it. Things may or may not remain, but I'm curious as to the result. Kim Bruning 13:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Change vote to neutral. If it is a verifiable historical and current phenomenon, crop article to those provable NPOV facts. Remove baseless insinuations e.g. Islam==Nazi or Arab==Nazi, etc. Priority cleanup. If, say, Arab nazism is the more accurate explanation, then do the same cleanup, and move article to Arab Nazism. And so on. KeithTyler 16:43, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 04:19, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Undelete - Nothing but liberals and towel-heads wanting deletion so keep it for purposes of objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.8.188 (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ode To Unix

This didn't quite fit the candidates for speedy deletion, but doesn't belong here; it's source text, and I'm not sure it's notable. Wikisource (?) if anything. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:04, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. As a side-note, what qualifies this as source text? - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 06:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I suppose it could be one of those Internet funnies floating about, if it were funny. Geogre 12:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic. At all. — Gwalla | Talk 17:30, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete and wikisource - Tεx τ urε 17:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no doubt. Nadavspi 17:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Let's not inflict this stupidity on Wikisource, they don't need it either. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
BJAODN.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 08:19, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete this crud. RedWolf 04:37, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Digifolk

Neologism, original research. There's not a lot of info about this term in a Google. Maybe it is common and I am not aware. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 08:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a widespread term, but as it is used, I would vote for not deleting that article. (It does need a rewrite, though).- Katherine Shaw 08:37, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Slang, neologism, a few references can be generated far too easily. Geogre 12:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Filk --Improv 16:55, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism, POV original "research". — Gwalla | Talk 17:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism, slang, I can't verify it's wider use. Average Earthman 10:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud Cocaine

I'm almost certain that there is no person or brand of cocaine named Sigmund Freud Cocaine—although it would be pretty funny if there were—so Wikipedia should not have an article with this name. If any of this is true and not already in Sigmund Freud then it can be merged. Unfortunately, such merging probably won't include my favorite line from this article, "Sigmund Freud was already a pretty weird person." —Triskaideka 15:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This looks like a fast-track delete. Straight to BJAODN? -- The Anome 16:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
BDJAON and speedy delete: It's just some kid's ramblings from his book report on Freud. (Yes, I did have students write like this. "The Boy Scout Manual could have helped many on the gloomy isle of Britain," one student wrote.) Geogre 16:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Essay. I got a good laugh, though. — Gwalla | Talk 17:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - BJAODN - Tεx τ urε 17:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete.. Drivel, not bad enough for BJAODN IMHO. --Ianb 17:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
delete. Who was paying him this salary, anyway? Rick K 19:09, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This might be true. Searching google for "Sigmund Freud" +cocaine returns 5,000 hits, the first being [13]. The title is, however, not proper, as User:Triskaideka noted, and the style is unencyclopedic. Merge with Sigmund Freud, after a fact-check, might also be appropriate. Andris 19:27, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, it's quite true that Freud used cocaine for his patients. It's one of the big scandals that invalidates his results. When discussing "hysteria," he'd shoot his female patients full of cocaine until they began to wig out. He'd then demonstrate to his colleagues that they were hysterical. As for Freud himself using recreational cocaine, it's hard to say. He may have. Addicted? Well, since it's not a physically addictive drug, that's hard to say. Was he one weird dude? Dunno. Geogre 00:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete, but why merge this brilliant prose and unparalleled scholarship? Even if it's true, there's nothing redeeming here. CHL 01:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BDJAON and delete: This is one of the funnier entries on VFD. It needs to be saved for future generations. -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 19:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete and

The title is fatally flawed, and the article doesn't have much either. Fire Star 20:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If this article is deleted, we should also delete the mirror of its contents currently being writen by the same author at Sigmund Freud and Cocaine (oh, and by the way, Delete)Iain 15:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no reason at all to have a separate article for Freud's adventures with cocaine when we could just as easily discuss them at Sigmund Freud in greater length than we already do, if necessary. —Triskaideka 15:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Article does not contain enough good material to be reworked. Any treatment of Sigmund Freud's use of Cocaine should be within one or the other of these articles. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Robert Taylor (computer scientist)

from VfD:

Looks like vanity to me. Might be notable, but I tend to doubt it. -R. fiend 16:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

keep (tentative), not vanity, poor stub, is connected with the founding of ARPANET, quick reference for further research [14]. Somewhere I have a book with more info. --Ianb 17:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This info appears to have been taken directly from [here]. But a significant figure, certainly. Keep Average Earthman 11:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
keep. Notable. Mikkalai 02:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Neobond (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
DaveLegg (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
The Decryptor (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
Mr magoo (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.
D'oh! (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article.

This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 23 September 2021, see discussion.
Keep, 12 March, 2006, see discussion.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Websites: Computing NA‑class

	This page is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This page is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Microsoft Subject matter

The article states that the news is generally Microsoft-centric, and i don't think this is true anymore. I think the site has grown into a broader aggregation of news topics, and now focuses on the full width and breadth of the computer tech industry. I'm changing the article to accurately reflect this. Tzvi Friedman (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From checking the site it appears to be predominantly microsoft related and have a microsoft advocacy slant. It's listed as an advocacy site in the Os_advocacy article. I will alter the page slightly if there are no objections IRWolfie- (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone objected and reverted without discussion, Instead I have found citations for Microsoft Enthusiast website IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main categories

The categories of "News, Software, Gaming" are a little outdated. Recently, the front page has changed the sidebar tabs to "Top Stories, Blog posts, Forum Posts". Software and gaming still have tabs on the main feed, but are accompanied by Microsoft, Apple, and Editorials.

I think that adding editorials to the list of "main categories" would be fine though. Tzvi Friedman (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

The article does not point out clearly that neowin is a MS "supporters" site. Moreover, sensationalist terms are used. An example: "Neowin is considered to be one of the great representations of the growth and concentration of enthusiastic users in computing, and of the omnipresent Microsoft Windows Operating System in all its forms." I think it should be rewrote by someone neutral (I do not write well in english). 83.190.232.232 22:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Neowin is a MS Supporters site, They may have started out as a Microsoft orientated site, but they now have pretty large communities of both Apple and Linux/Unix/FOSS users and supporters. (82.34.56.106 (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The site is very much a microsoft advocacy site IRWolfie- (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stardock Affiliation

Can someone add something to the article about Neowin's affiliation with Stardock. I would do it my self but I can't seem to find any info on it, other than it exists.Mossman93 (talk) 07:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archives of Previous Discussions

/Archive 1: December 2004 – January 2006.
/Archive 2: January 2006 and page vote.
/Archive 3: From last archive to 26 September 2007.

it is a broke ass slahsdot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.90.64.177 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote that this article be deleted for irrelevance. Neowin isn't any different from a hundred other popular websites out there without a Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.21.230 (talk) 05:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Is neowin notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia? The only thing currently noteworthy appears to be coverage of the leak of Windows 2000 source code onto the internet IRWolfie- (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the particularly non-notable parts: i.e the parts with no references from reliable sources as to why they are notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have drafted a possible compromise article in my user space. The draft retains what I believe could be construed as encyclopaedic in nature, cutting out a lot of chaff that is not notable (please see WP:NOTE for more information). Whilst I don't think the article is worthy of a WP:AfD nomination, I think a considerable amount of evidence must be added to the article to show its notability in general. Links to any news stories that Neowin has broken (other than the Windows 2000 one already included) need to be added, along with the gist of the story. Any material I deleted from my draft is because I thought it was excessive detail (forum statistics), unverifiable (staff count), or trivial and therefore not worthy of inclusion (development section). If you flesh it out with something, then make sure it's both important and well-sourced. Feel free to make changes to it, but bear in mind that others may have edited the draft. This diff is my original proposal. CoI note: I know user DaveLegg personally, but have no links to Neowin. I decided to offer this compromise as an impartial third party. Regards, Brammers (talk/c) 12:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your "11:50, 27 October 2010" draft appears a suitable compromise, except that reliable sources list it as a Microsoft/Windows enthusiast website. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the site structure part of the draft to the article IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from just a quick look at the front page, or forum list, that it is a technology site in general, and not just a Microsoft/Windows enthusiast site. DaveLegg (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the draft. And I think that if the description of the site is disputable, for now it could be simply as it is in the draft: a technology news site. Look at the front page and you'll find that roughly half the stories are not related to Microsoft or its products. There are, for example, stories on Android, Symbian, Ubuntu and Limewire. The draft states that editorial focus is predominantly on Microsoft and its products, but that there is also other news covered. I don't see how that clashes with the sources or the website itself. Brammers (talk/c) 20:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three reliable sources say it's an enthusiasts website, (half the articles being about microsoft and products is a good indication of that to me). Wikipedia is for material with Verifiability not truth. Note that the intro as is says that neowin "actively focuses on Windows, Mac and Linux." IRWolfie- (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to deny that it is a MS/Windows enthusiast site. My argument is simply that it is that, and far more, and thus it would be inaccurate and misleading to describe it purely as a MS/Windows enthusiast site.129.67.127.65 (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction does not describe it purely as a MS/Windows enthusiast site, it mentions other topics covered. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eric

Haydar

Trippy pseudomyth. Geogre 17:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Questionable, as I'm finding sites that go both ways on whether the story is true. Someone who knows more about this than me should probably do the research and write it up as either truth or legend -- but either way, I think it's notable enough to be worthy of an entry. Keep and fix. —Etaoin 20:20, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Issue closed for now: it is 'copyvio. Mikkalai 05:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aristasia

Circumciser

Originally an anti-circumcision rant. When the POV was removed, what remained was a dicdef. An attempt to redirect this to circumcision has already been reverted. --Ardonik.talk()^* 17:20, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. till an anti-circumcision rant.JFW | T@lk
Delete - weak support for redirect - Tεx τ urε 17:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Dictdef. Nobody is going to search for this as opposed to circumcision. — Gwalla | Talk 17:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: no redirect, no useful content. I sure wish these people had a different cause or hobby. Geogre 17:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's not even a dicdef. Someone who cuts a toe nail isn't a "toe nailer", and someone who cuts hair is a barber, not a "hair cutter". The intact POV pushers are taking a real delight in inventing words, like "circumfetishists" and "circumcisiophiliac". func (talk) 18:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Lest I be accused of circumcisiophiliaciation... My vote is still delete. func (talk) 21:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Your 'toenail' analogy is wrong. The term 'Circumciser', ritual or otherwise, is a widespead occupational title. Do a Google search, and you'll find its usage is common, not "invented". It's used just as much by the proponents of circumcision. The circumcision article, if you take the time to read it, focuses on the subject (or "circumcisee" to truly invent a term), but does not cover the personal motivations and mindset of the circumciser at all. Attempts to remove irrelevant psychological motivations and blatant homophobic bias from the foreskin restoration article have been reverted, apparently because cultural practices are OK to criticise without justification, as long as it's not mutilating boys that is. So now we have attempts to delete this whole article without merging the info with other articles, which is contrary to NPOV by definition. This is typical pro-mutilation bigroty against circumcised men. But apparently it's OK with some irrational POV agenda to psychoanalyze practice A , but permit nothing said about the psychology of practice B. Nice. DanP 18:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, for Edit War bait and participating in the circumcision NPOV war. Frankly, if foreskin restoration shows up here, I'd vote to kill it too. Ideally, the war can be resolved, then an NPOV of each can be written, but as it stands, delete the lot is my vote. -Vina 18:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- ¿Why would you delete foreskin restoration, a perfectly legitimate, medically accepted article about a proven procedure? Ŭalabio 05:31, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
Delete. Does not warrant its own article. ~~It's also not a word.~~ Rhobite 19:05, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- The pro-mutilation lies get deeper. 'Circumciser' is not a word? Well there is quite a bit of info about circumcisers, do a Google search. Even Jewish mohel have their own Wikipedia article. It's time to confess that this deletion effort is pure POV to hide this topic. If you think the article is POV, then fix the article instead of deleting it. If the only claim against this article is its insufficient content, I've have just added some more, and you're all welcome to do so. DanP 20:18, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - It appears to be a word, but I still object. This topic doesn't warrant its own article. All of the information should be moved to Circumcision. Rhobite 21:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Rick K 19:05, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. In the West, in English at least, medical "circumcisers" are actually called "surgeons." Fire Star 20:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- OK, instead of listing a reason from deletion policy, your reason is just because the word belongs to a larger group. So maybe delete the "circumcision" article because it falls categorically under "plastic surgery"? Does that make the same amount of sense to you? DanP 20:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Fair enough. I, for one, smell a little "Article is biased or has lots of POV" (from the deletion policy) in the use of the specialty word "circumciser" (whereas circumcision and plastic surgery are both common surgical terms, I, who have worked for ten years in an OR, have never once used or heard used the inelegant word "circumciser") as a title for an article on what could be a pediatric or urologic as well as a plastic procedure. Interestingly, myself, I believe that most circumcisions are pointless (pardon me) in that the risks outweigh any possible advantage from the procedure. So, while I would normally be sympathetic to such a POV, I unfortunately or not believe in NPOV for our articles. We have had a lot of hot air from the Intact crowd trying to make Wikipedia a soapbox rather than an encyclopaedia. So, while I may agree with you in principle on most of your concrete arguing points, I find your political approach to be pushy, off-putting and also that it ultimately undermines your attempts here to establish articles inclusive of your POV that other editors would support. It is possible to report on issues you know about here without preaching them, and such reporting will perhaps convince more capable associates than your present approach. Fire Star 22:33, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Any content that should be here should be in the circumcision article and any that shouldn't be there shouldn't be anywhere. Aside from being POV and argumentative, it's just bad. Aside: I'm confused by the comment above about "pro-mutilation bigroty against circumcised men". Are you refering to men who were circumcised as minors and who would rather not have been? Are there many men like that? —Rory ☺ 21:50, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- So few cut guys are anxious to meet up and shake their circumcisers hand and say "great job obliterating most of the nerve endings. And what nice big scar. Now I can't feel a thing!". This is not a popularity contest, as NPOV clearly indicates. If you are intact, then great. I have no problem moving info to the circumcision article, though traditionally that article has grown too large and unwieldy. Often breaking it up has been suggested, and that is why we have several articles now on related topics. In any case, I can only ask you to change your mind, as this is not a topic that can be jammed into one article. But obviously the drive to delete the article long before correcting it for NPOV says a lot about the pro-mutilation mindset. Even the proponents of circumcision use the term 'circumciser' and many online articles describe the persons motives and feelings. DanP 22:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Did you read my comments at Talk:Masturbation, by any chance? I addressed this 20,000 nerves issue there. func (talk) 00:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sigh. What a wacky place this is sometimes. Delete. Lacrimosus 22:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
'Keep Circumciser is a real profession. Some religions use different titles, but so what. Many American Ob/Gyns, who are not even licensed to practice medicine on males, are more circumciser than obstetrician or gynecologist -- and one wonders why the price of malpractice-insurance Ob/Gyns must may for covering lawsuits and damages is so high that it puts many Ob/Gyns out of business (in most other countries (the Brazilian Gynecologist Doctor Nelson Soucasaux wrote an essay] about this), Obstetrician and Gynecologist are separate specialties, and only pædiatric Urologists would perform surgery on the genitals of children, and then only if absolutely necessary). Ŭalabio 22:59, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
- Urologists circumcise adults, occasionally, too. Fire Star 01:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - I know what urologists do. My point is that the greedy Ob/Gyns, without any qualifications for operating on males, should not be cutting pieces of the genitals of boys. Being both Obstetricians and Gynecologists makes them avarous jacks of all trades, masters of none. When the Ob/Gyns take to cutting off pieces of male genitals (Ob/Gyns are not qualified to work on males), that is just greedily stupid. When Dubya Shrub complains that patients sue Ob/Gyns out of business. I say the Ob/Gyns should get their house together:
    1. Become either obs or gyns
    2. No more medically unnecessary surgery of nonconsenting minors for whom they are not qualified to treat.
    It is no wonder that patients sue Ob/Gyns out of business and their rates for malpractice-insurance is so high. The Ob/Gyns reap the harvest of their own greed.Ŭalabio 02:59, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
  - Not qualified to operate on males? Funny, I had always assumed that Ob/Gyns were, you know, doctors, with real medical degrees from real medical schools and everything.... you guys do a lot better when you stick to the medically unnecessary line of reasoning, but no, you then have to start talking about conspiracies, like how each and every single circumciser and Ob/Gyn in the country is a money grubbing fiend. I'm just glad Walabio hasn't used the word frottage yet, (which is a crime, btw, not a form of masturbation). Yikes! You are all turning me into Robert Brooks! func (talk) 03:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Yeah, we are getting a little off topic here. Perhaps this could be taken up on Talk:International male genitalia alteration conspiracy theories? Fire Star 05:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - ¿If you needed an emergency coronary-bypass, would you prefer a cardialogist or a neurologist to operate? Pædiatric Urologists are the ones who should operate on the genitals of children, and only if absolutely necessary. Indeed, Pædiatric Urologists often [ complain about stupid Ob/Gyns circumcising without checking for Hypospadias, thus making a bad situation worse. For your information, frottage means to rub. If someone rubs up against his own pillow, it is not a crime. If one attacks another person and rubs up against the victim that is assault and is a crime. I know one thing for sure; involuntary medically unnecessary circumcision is worse that some weirdo rubbing against a leg like a dog. Ŭalabio 05:31, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
Redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:31, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. "Circumciser" is a word, as is "mohel" and the other words in other cultures. Although the present article contains material that is critical of circumcisers this is not in itself a ground for deletion. Rather it is a ground for other material to be added that would give more information about the role of the circumciser in various cultures.Michael Glass 01:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Dictionary definition, nothing more. --Viriditas 04:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The topic is covered in the circumcision article. -- DanBlackham 06:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Change back to redirect and protect if necessary. Livajo 12:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to circumcision and protect. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:02, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. At its best, this can never become anything but a dicdef or redirect. Moreover, it invites all the anticircumcisionists out there to come and vent their anger. Maybe it's time we create Opiniopedia. Binadot 14:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Any useful information here should be incorporated into the Circumcision article; the only bit that can't be incorporated is the 'Psychological aspects' section, which is deeply POV and does not have enough credible evidence to support it. If 'Circumciser' were to be an article in its own right, surely there should be some more information on the roles of circumciser in different cultures, not to mention those roles' histories. There isn't any of that here (and I doubt there ever would be of the article were left). Katherine Shaw 14:47, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Concur with Katherine Shaw. --Improv 19:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
merge with circumcision and redirect, as appropriate. Kim Bruning 22:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Just more from the monomaniacal anti-circumcision zealots. There is lots more of there POV stuff that needs to be looked at. - Friends of Robert 07:07, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1000 Needles 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

Incredibly unnotable "chip music" group. -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 18:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Well, they certainly have a web site. I suspect they're not yet ready for prime time. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The "band" (read: group of friends with a computer) has existed for about a year, and has no commercial recordings. — Gwalla | Talk 22:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Advertising. Now we wait for the Christian hip-hop gospel rock chip music. Geogre 00:29, 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.

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 - kept

Handstand

Dicdef, nothing else of substance. - KeithTyler 19:58, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

If this went, cartwheel would have to go too. Both these articles could do with some more work, but I don't think it does much harm to keep them. I believe they could potentially be expanded from mere dicdefs. Keep. Lacrimosus 22:16, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Factual. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Gymnastics or something. This doesn't merit an article. Binadot 14:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect. Concur with Binadot. --Improv 19:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Gymnastics indeed. Very good suggestion. All the basic acrobatic moves should be there with at least this much detail. Geogre 01:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just plain Keep; handstands are popular among non-gymnasts, especially children here in the U.S. You also see them in anime and such from time to time. - RedWordSmith 20:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Went ahead and made a few changes. - RedWordSmith 20:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Gymnastics. SWAdair | Talk 07:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, wikipedia is not paper, breakouts are encouraged. There's probably plenty of things to write and illustrate about handstands. Kim Bruning 18:40, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, this could be expanded. If this was a computer-related topic of equal importance it would be kept in an instance :). *Does a handstand* Thue | talk 20:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I expanded it a bit -- it's a fundamental skill often heard of outside of gymnastics; I think it deserves an article of its own. Mindspillage 21:36, 25 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.

Hardwarezone 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

Whee, we're a website with a forum, we talk about hardware, we have a general discussion forum, look at us, we're so cool. - KeithTyler 20:02, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

One delete, hold the sarcasm. Although a Google search on "hardwarezone" comes up with plenty, a link: query on "forums.hardwarezone.com" returns 35 hits. Unnotable, unencyclopaedic, deletable. —Etaoin 20:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, yet another internet forum. --Ianb 22:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. — Gwalla | Talk 22:24, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I don't know, the sarcasm is a needed response to seeing forum after forum after forum after forum after forum after forum after blog after forum entered. Still, we should realize that it's the author's first vanity, non-notable entry. Geogre 00:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a web guide. Livajo 03:06, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - advert - Tεx τ urε 15:31, 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.

How to dress at night fighting

Perhaps its a bad translation of something, but it reads almost like patent nonsense to me. The article title seems comical (how to dress at night while fighting?) Still, someone familiar with nocturnal combat dress under fire might show me that it actually has merit. - KeithTyler 20:42, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Uh...Delete? No, seriously, I don't know. It's like you combined Chinese philosophy with 'Fight Club'. I now understand that "Order is the shortest road, and if followed, there will be nothing forgotten". Well I think that's super! Terrapin 21:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That's gotta be a copyvio from somewhere. Delete. Lacrimosus 22:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like some kind of survival guide. Missing the most important item of all though: the delete key. --Ianb 22:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In the history's edit lines, the creator says that this was translated from a 1913 Japanese military manual. So, it is out of context and out of date. Delete. Fire Star 22:15, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Source material. — Gwalla | Talk 22:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
~~Couldn't this be transwikied to Wikisource?~~ Upon further review, it doesn't look like this translation could be salvaged. Delete -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 23:11, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Be sure to preserve propriety when night fighting. You do not wish to be indecent before you kill. Not really a source matter. Geogre 00:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete; it's not a copyvio - [15] says it's from 1913 and not copyrighted (and, IIRC, it can't be copyrighted from that far back anyway). ugen64 01:10, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like nonsense to me. It shall soon meet its disgraced ancestors. Binadot 14:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Tεx τ urε 15:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
BJAODN? Otherwise, delete. Rick K 20:11, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
I don't want to sound like too much of an inclusionist, but if someone supplies the original source, it would be possible to do cleanup (and then keep since it's then encyclopedic). Else delete. Kim Bruning 18:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The original wouldn't belong here but in ja:. - KeithTyler 18:52, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
  - Sure, and then we'd have the translation on en: . Article would clearly be encyclopedic for ja:. Kim Bruning 19:00, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please find out where this actually came from before your itchy deletefingers get too restless. An article on historical Japanese combat manuals could be kind of interesting if cleaned up. Mark Richards 19:15, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Move to wikisource & delete. It's completely sensible; dunno where the comprehension problem is coming from here. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:25, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Images of Galle A. P. Mathur 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 university teacher. _R_ 21:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. No notable accomplishments listed. Wolfman 21:47, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, does not appear notable. --Ianb 22:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment: the alumini list of BITS_Pilani contains possible even less notable entries. --Ianb 22:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Is associate dean of computer science notable enough? ugen64 01:09, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- associate deans are a dime a dozen, that title just means you don't mind dealing with bureaucracy and want a reduced teaching load.
Delete: nonnotable. An associate dean is not notable without further evidence. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - not notable - Tεx τ urε 15:33, 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. Lush Bar 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

some bar in Beijing. no internal links to page. written like an ad. 1 month with 'notable' tag & no response. fails google test for "'lush bar' beijing" Wolfman 21:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable local bar in Beijing. — Gwalla | Talk 22:26, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, looks like it could've been taken straight out of an ad. Nadavspi 00:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Echo above concerns. ugen64 01:06, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Tεx τ urε 15:33, 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.

John Carmack describes the fight for Doom 3

Consists entirely of one entry of John Carmack's .plan file. Non-encyclopedic. (I could easily fill up VFD with items from Special:Deadendpages, and I try not to, but this one really stood out.) - KeithTyler 23:52, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Non-encyclopedic. Geogre 00:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: questionable copyright status, non-encyclopedic. ugen64 01:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
It does not have questionable copyright status, the email is fair use, having said that Delete this, put the text in the doom3 article and the email on wikisource and link to it. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 07:45, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
- For the record, the text is not an email. See finger protocol. - KeithTyler
  - I forgot that John Carmack is one of three people alive still using finger, thanks for the reminder. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:10, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)
Move to wikisources. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - do not wikisource - Tεx τ urε 15:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Do not wikisource, they don't need it either. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, do not wikisource. Concur with Bjarmason. --Improv 19:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Frankly, I could see putting a history of Carmack's .plan file on Wikisource, but not just one by itself. That's assuming that Carmack intends his .plan texts to be freely redistributed. - KeithTyler 19:18, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Do not put on Wikisource. And even if it isn't an email, emails are NOT fair use -- the originator is the sole owner of the email. Rick K 20:07, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Who cares? Not notable enough for either Wikipedia or Wikisource and a probable copyvio anyway. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic. Andris 23:17, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

September 21

European Union at the 2004 Summer Olympics

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

VfD debate

Originally, this article was nominated and hotly debated in August. During voting, the article was rewritten at least twice. Additionally, many, many nonce accounts emerged to vote "keep." At the end of the debate, the total was roughly 35 delete and 18 keep. The article was kept. The decision to keep has been challenged. Therefore, this is a renomination, with a request that voters please vote only once, with only one account, and only with delete or keep. Geogre 00:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Hope I don't get accused of sockpuppetry... ugen64 01:03, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Since my nomination was procedural to answer user questions, it had no vote implied. For what it's worth, I still vote delete. Geogre 01:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - SimonP 02:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Livajo 02:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's still abuse of statistics. — Gwalla | Talk 03:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, same reason as last time. —Stormie 03:21, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, as previous. Lacrimosus 04:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Expand to give complete picture. First, I'm not entirely sure what the point of this article is, but whatever it is it's sided and incomplete. ClockworkTroll 06:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. -Vina 07:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. What are the motives of this harassment? Why this idea of eluding discussion now? --Pgreenfinch 07:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Please note that the August VfD discussion, plus user comments after the article was kept and the comment of the admin who kept it, can be consulted here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004.--Bishonen 12:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Article is verifiable and may be of interest to someone. Warofdreams 12:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. As previous. Misleading and flawed statistics. My vote could change to abstain if the title was changed (the EU didn't compete in the Olympics) and if the final medal tally was also deleted, as an EU-wide NOC would not get those results and therefore having a final medal tally is inviting a comparison which would in the end be false. Impi 13:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This is an embarassing POV attempt to insinuate without arguing the extremely high caliber of Olympic athletics from EU countries at the 2004 Summer Olympics. But if EU had competed as a separate entity, many of these athletes would not have been on the very much smaller EU Olympic team. Similarly, if UK had competed as four separate countries, those countries together could have fielded up to four times the number of contestants, some (perhaps many) of whom would certainly have earned medals, boosting the total medals for UK as a whole. There's no point to this article other than EU chavinism by EU boosters. Yet presenting these figures out of context actually suggests that EU results don't measure up, otherwise why would someone present them in a way that appears intended to mislead?. Wikipedia should not have articles pushing USAmerican chauvinism, EU chauvinism, white racial chauvinism, Birmingham chauvinism and so forth, especially with figures not in their proper context. Jallan 15:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- What is POV is that comment and what would be POV would be to suppress information under such pretence. --Pgreenfinch 17:59, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Are we going to have Association of Southeast Asian Nations at the Olympics and Organization of American States at the Olympics articles as well? --Lowellian 19:26, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- If you are interested, the counts for ASEAN and OAS are at 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization. And given the existence of *that* page I feel that this one's unnecessary. All its contents can still be seen in either the link above or the mail medal count. ~~So, sorry, PGreenfinch, but I vote delete as I see the page being needless now.~~ On rethinking this, I turn my vote to "abstain". Didn't notice the Romano Prodi bit. Aris Katsaris 23:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Have any other *what if*? Come on, you can do better, I'm sure the people here will be more interested that you state your real problem. --Pgreenfinch 21:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Meaningless totals, as I have argued ad nauseum before. RickK 20:05, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm, you know, Rick, I understand your disappointment, but some might see nauseating reasons as a bit short for suppressing real info. --Pgreenfinch 21:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - You know you're on the losing side when you have to make personal attacks instead of reasoned arguments. Rick K 00:55, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This information is presented as an arbitrary intersection. This would be better suited to a database, which would allow arbitrary queries. An encyclopaedia (especially one that isn't paper) should be careful in choosing the most useful intersections for article topics. Better organization means information is easier to find and maintain. -- WOT 21:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Romano Prodi declaring that European Union has won Olympics (section 2) and getting rebutted by euroskeptics was a major news story in European countries. Since it has generated so much publicity there, we should cover it (with clear explanation why the count is not fair, of course). Andris 23:48, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Austin Hair 01:56, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Encyclopedic and verifiable. ElBenevolente 03:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Are you going to keep on submitting this page for deletion until it is finally deleted? And then, will we be able to recreate it so the cycle begins again? This is pointless. This was already discussed and the page was kept.Kevloral 03:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Note that above user has only contributed to this vote, both times, and a single article, Cantabria. Also note that it is, in fact, nonce accounts and sock puppets that have made this renomination necessary. Geogre 04:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - So what? Aren't you mixing up users and contributors, considering the huge majority of users as small obedient people that should just shut their mouth and leave you decide what food they can get or not for their meal? Are you creating your own rules and deciding they are THE wikipedia rules? I invite people to look at your VfD "advices" on your user page, about, for example, forbiding discussions. --Pgreenfinch 07:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. In 100 years this article will have a big historical value and it already has. bbx 09:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So if we on a vague whim combined the medal tallies of say East Germany and West Germany for say, the 1960 Olympics, that would be meaningful historical information now? No, it would be misinformative and useless. There are currently a dozen odd different olympic committees throughout the EU, with European athletes competing against each other, not for the EU. *If and when* there is a single EU Olympic Committee , with a single set of selection criteria for athletes, and some centralised uniformity in training and in policy, a combined EU tally becomes in some way meaningful. Not before. Lacrimosus 02:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete --Conti|✉ 14:37, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Meaningful and neutral facts with political implications. Why do you want to hide them? Ejrrjs 14:47, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It seems historically signifigant. If it's this hotly debated then I'd rather see it rewritten than outright deleted. - Lifefeed 19:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The article says itself "The total is not representative of any official count." I could submit an article entitled "Average IQ score of populations living in countries whose names have an odd number of letters," but it would be meaningless. Or, I could submit an article entitled "Average IQ score of populations living in countries higher than 30 degrees North latitude," but it would be equally meaninless—unless it had the unstated purpose of advancing a point of view about intelligence and geographical latitude. Similarly, this article is either meaningless or advancing an unstated POV. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- All NOC results are unofficial, the Olympic charter says that the awards are given to athletes, not NOCs. Thanks for raising this point, I just gave a precision about it in the article. On the other hand, what I see as "unstated purpose" of advancing a POV like the one you mention is the will of some to destroy the info. If you follow their logic, all results by country or any grouping should be deleted. Well, what about a vfd on the main page or 2004 olympic summer results? ;-)) --Pgreenfinch 08:04, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)--
Delete. I'm breaking my own rule here, but for good reason. Admins frequently have to make judgement calls as to which votes should be discounted (probable sockpuppet, anons, brand new accts), and I can't fault anyone for making a good-faith judgement call. Still, after checking the votes and voters from last time, I think concensus had been reached to delete. SWAdair | Talk 08:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- See Consensus. --Pgreenfinch 09:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article is even worse now, saying: "medals are awarded to athletes and not to NOCs anyway." The thing is, NOCs are not as irrelevant as is suggested. No athlete may contest at the Games unless he/she belongs to an NOC. As such, medals are awarded to Athletes who are part of a specific NOC, and thus it is relevant. This is aside from all the issues with regard the EU being able to enter far more athletes per given event. The fact that these types of statistics have already been used by Europhiles in the media to compare the EU favourably with countries like the US and Russia, both with only one NOC each, proves my point about how the statistics are flawed and misleading. They create an impression of strength that should not exist. This has nothing to do with whether any of us like or dislike the EU, it's all about the suitability of this article for Wikipedia. For the reasons listed above (and on the previous VfD discussion) as well as due to the fact that this borders on original research, it is unsuitable and therefore deletion is in order. Impi 20:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"They create an impression of strength that should not exist" seems POV to me. Nothing ad nominem from me, just that I don't see on what basis it rests. Also, keeping on the ad verem ground, but still puzzled, I don't understand the point in hiding figures, how can this be suitable for wikipedia, neither the point about europhiles as a reason to hide them. Pure mystery for me, the village idiot for sure. --Pgreenfinch 22:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, in short, the Olympic Games operates in term of NOCs for a reason. It allows them to regulate athletes and ensure that no country has an unfair advantage due to the structure of the system, etc. Therefore each NOC is allocated limits, including, as mentioned before, limits on the number of athletes an NOC may enter per event. Now, also as discussed in detail previously, the EU is made up of something like 25 NOCs, each of which is allowed to enter the number of athletes required by limit. Therefore, to take any event as an example, let's say each NOC is allowed three athletes in the 200m freestyle swimming event. So this means, for instance, that the US, Russia, China, Australia, South Africa and so on are all allowed only three swimmers, as are each of the EU member countries. However, when combining the medal tally of EU nations into a single amount attributed to the EU, you have a situation where the EU is being compared to countries such as the aforementioned, yet was able to enter perhaps as many as 75 athletes, as opposed to the three of other countries. Statistically, it's obvious that the EU has a far better chance in this event due to the higher number of athletes. This is what I mean by a false illusion of strength. As for "hiding figures", that's totally POV. By saying that you are implying that those of us in favour of deletion harbour some sort of anti-EU feeling. We don't, we harbour pro-Wikipedia feelings. In short, we're looking to make it as good as possible, and that includes keeping everything within the rules and getting rid of misleading, inaccurate or POV articles. Due to the misleading data on this page, in which it aims to compare a bloc made up of 25 NOCs with countries having only one NOC each, I feel it shouldn't be here. However, my vote would change to abstain if, and only if, the overall medal tally is removed and a suitable disclaimer is prominently inserted. Otherwise you invite comparison that is inaccurate, and you're bordering on original research. Impi 21:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Impi, I understand that you want the article to be the best possible. But, imo, to start with the concept of "false illusion of strength" would only result in POV as it implies, even if it is not what you really mean and if it is just a misformulation, "EU athletes inferiority".

I give facts and only facts. I'm sure you want to stick to facts also, and you are welcome, as everybody is, to add any fact and disclaimer you feel useful to the article.

From the beginning I adapted my wordings, and accepted editings by others, even if sometimes it led to some confusing and contradictory wordings, but I believe in co-operation, for me it is the essence of wikipedia. It is the first time I see such pounding, not on the wording, but on the existence of the information itself, after my thousands of article creation and editing in two different language. I have problem in understanding the motive of those crossfires. As all technicalities had been discussed and addressed at length without making the harassment budge, I wonder if statistical and contextual purity is the real motive af those attacks.

I think that in the present case, wikipedia neutrality is at stake, and that to suppress an information, which existence cannot be refuted, would be, to say the least, a dubious precedent. --Pgreenfinch 08:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the last vote was won by a hefty majority (two-thirds, in fact), why is it still here? 82.6.10.139 23:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Curse my inability to log in first ... Chris

- - Because VfD dispositions are made by a sysop's determination of rough consensus. Number of votes are simply a guideline that the sysop uses in determining that. There is apparently widespread suspicion that the previous vote included a significant amount of sockpuppetry. VfD is not bound by rigid rules that would make it easy game the system. It is more akin to the legal system, where a judge rules based on his own judgement and precedent. In simple cases, a competent lawyer can predict quite accurately how a judge will rule, based on "the law." In complicated cases, the ruling is the result of human group interaction and judgement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization. --DMG413 19:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have reordered the page's structure a bit to be a relevant hard fact right at the top. Please, the people who voted in favour of deletion, take a look at the page again to see if you feel it's now better suited for keeping. Aris Katsaris 15:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete Tuf-Kat 22:40, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
It's reasonable of Aris to ask us to look, but I'd like to know this: if we don't feel what he hopes, do we now have to choose between a) repeating our delete votes for the pleasure of getting sneered and snapped at by Pgreenfinch again, and b) keeping quiet and getting our original delete votes count less, or not count, because the article is supposedly rewritten? The way I understood it, there was some of (b) in the sysop's determination in August. I'd appreciate an answer from someone familiar with policy. Meanwhile, just in case, here it comes again: delete. The manifest agenda of the article is still absurd, and the pretence at NPOV phrasing in it is some of the weazliest I've seen. --Bishonen 00:00, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Please, spare the ad hominem attack. As for the best policy basis I know, it is the bit about the right to imformation in the Declaration of Human rights. --Pgreenfinch 11:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - I'm criticizing your debating technique. It's funny the way you can't tell the difference. --Bishonen 11:55, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, again. It's still factual, breaks out mre than the "international orgs" page, and of interest based on the media coverage. Rich Farmbrough 00:49, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, again. It's still useless and misleading. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless. If ifs and ands were pots and pans..........Moriori 03:44, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Keep --- The official said it, the scores are there and the drift towards the 'United States of Europe' is shaping into one of the themes of the current era. This article gives a perspective I hadn't seen before which really drives home the potential of the expanding European block...........User:A_Brit_Abroad 03:08, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, as my vote before, and make use of 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization if this "info" is desired. I am also puzzle why the previous vote failed as it had 2/3 concensus for deletion, but somehow the vote failed by decree. --kjd 11:18, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It had roughly 2/3 consensus. That's right at the boundaries of deletion/non-deletion. Aris Katsaris 12:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - It gained roughly 2/3 consenus previously only by counting all newby votes, though again and again it has been stated here and on the Village Pump that such votes aren't counted. Such votes are almost always either by true sockpuppets or people specially recruited from outside only to stack a vote. The sysop who deleted also claimed to have cast a vote himself, though that doesn't show. Any sysop who decides to keep or delete on anything but an obvious case is in effect already casting a deciding vote. Fair enough. But to cast yet another vote on top of that and then to count that vote in the tally as justification should not be acceptable. Jallan 14:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's factual and verifiable informations, and pro and cons are listed. Alfio 16:19, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. -- J3ff 02:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. RadicalSubversiv E 06:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I've stated my reasoning in great detail during the last VfD. -- Chuq 07:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's somewhat interesting, and it can be thought to be something that Romano Prodi said. Note that it has an objections-section too. --kooo 08:22, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
Keep. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 15:31, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It is time for people to get used to the fact that the European Union is something more than just an ordinary confederation. This kind of phenomenon is one way it shows. --oswd 17:05, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, but it is not surprising that new realities take time to get acclimated, be they the existence of the EU as a real community of people, or that it has first-rate athletes. Every new fact thar changes previously widely admited concepts has problems crossing the critical threshold of scepticism. It is confronted to a barrage of "rationalizations", often based on technicalities. People are just sincere in their gut's opposition to the realities of world changes. It is hard for them to see that resistance to change, anchoring or cognitive dissonance are at play, often unconsciously. But wikipedia, which mission is to make knowledge accessible to everybody, has to overcome that, and put reality above individual tenets or biases, however explainable, sincere and respectable they can be. --Pgreenfinch 06:51, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The content might be controversial, but can be presented as purely factual, and from a political, cultural and historical perspectives, it seems truly relevant to me. --Edcolins 19:35, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Merge matter into Sport in the European Union (if it is not already done), and delete the article with such a title. --Edcolins 20:38, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. - If this stays then a Nato at the 2004 summer olympics is just as applicable an entry and something I'll be creating. Chuck F
- I agree with you but please Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Head of NATO hasn't proposed anything such as merging national teams, right? A "NATO at the 2004 summer olympics" article would have no factual value. --Edcolins 19:46, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
  - Still irrelevant. The fact is that neither NATO nor the EU compete under a single NOC, and thus a medal tally is misleading an has no factual value for either of them. Prodi's comments would only be suitable under a page called something like "proposal for the EU's member nations to compete under a single NOC at future Olympic Games" (clumsy, but you get the idea). The fact remains that the EU did not compete as a single NOC at the 2004 Games, and therefore to tally their medal results as if they did is wrong. This once again has nothing to do with whether we like or dislike the EU. I mean, Oswd for instance has the total wrong idea, seeming to think the vote to delete is over members' dislike of the EU. That's not the issue, and in fact quite a few EU supporters are voting Delete. The idea is to put your personal beliefs/opinions aside and consider this purely in terms of the Wikipedia rules and conventions. Impi 20:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - You are right. I must agree with you that the title stinks. See above for my vote now. --Edcolins 20:38, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
A borderline case, but I tend towards delete. -- Mike Rosoft 19:57, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
delete'. there is no EU team. dont create one --Jiang 19:56, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm, sorry, don't see the point, what is the relation with giving info about the EU area athletes performance? --Pgreenfinch 21:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Useful information & factual. --*drew 12:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bodg 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-notable. Joyous 01:29, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable DJ. — Gwalla | Talk 03:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I think something is up with this. I think this same article title has been used before, recently, for some oddity or other. I don't see deleted edits, but something is very strange with this. At any rate, delete it this time for notability. Local DJ's are common enough. Geogre 04:19, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Article does not establish notability, sounds like PR puff. --Ianb 10:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 15:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Postdlf 09:57, 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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Sexology and sexuality NA‑class

	Human sexuality portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

New Section?

Should a new section about the health benefits of hugging be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.133.58 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Hugging is a happy exercise to preform!--~209.232.148.99 (talk)WOW[reply]

(untitled)

hug should be an extra article in many cultures thi8s is a big deal.--yidi 14:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC) WOW[reply]

NPOV

magical properties??? citation please. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 06:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[16]] .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the hug

Unless there's a good reason to think that the origins of the hug can be traced to a specific time and place, maybe the article should just be mute on the subject. --24.147.86.187 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has got to be somewhere talking either about the origin of the hug, or how it has been studied as a common form of expression in unconnected cultures (like native americans and Europeans when they first landed). Im surprised this topic is so neglected, while i think something regarding origin is a big need-to-have there are so many things lacking from this article. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 21:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugs on holidays?

"Many people hug on holidays, such as Mother's Day, or Christmas."

Seems a bit silly to put this in. I'm not saying it's untrue, but people hug for tons of reasons. Graduations, after not seeing each other for a while, etc. I don't know why we're calling out holidays. Does this warrant a list of "typical reasons to hug?"

Drewmutty (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I went ahead and removed it. Maybe someone wants to resurrect this and other original research in a page called list of occasions upon which people might hug. maxsch (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd Jr. High Controversy

I fixed up Shepherd Jr. High's controversy part, by source and by experience as a current student at Shepherd Jr. High (March 5th, 2008) as well as reading the newspaper article on the front page that explained the situation. Thecutnut (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

There was a lot of nonsense on this page. I moved Groping and Tree hugging to the see also section. The CDC does not single out hugging as mode of transmitting SARS, rather SARS (like many contagious diseases) can be transmitted by close contact. Hugging is clearly close contact, but the specificity of the line about SARS is misleading, so I took it out too. The prehistoric hug is cute but not encyclopedic: removed. The bit about hugging and the female brain is controversial and I'm removing it for lack of independent scientific support, some of Louann Brizendine's other numbers in the book that this supposedly comes from are not from her own research and turn out to be false (see, for example, the claim that women use more words than men: it's not true!). I'm not sure what to do about the school controversy, some of the links in it were dead and it is really not about hugs or hugging per se, it is more about American hysteria about child sexuality and exploitation. It seems like it really belongs elsewhere...maybe in its own page, or nowhere... maxsch (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)was a lot of nonsense on this page. I moved Groping and Tree hugging to the see also section. The CDC does not single out hugging as mode of transmitting SARS, rather SARS (like many contagious diseases) can be transmitted by close contact. Hugging is clearly close contact, but the specificity of the line about SARS is misleading, so I took it out too. The prehistoric hug is cute but not encyclopedic: removed. The bit about hugging and the female brain is controversial and I'm removing it for lack of independent scientific support, some of Louann Brizendine's other numbers in the book that this supposedly comes from are not from her own research and turn out to be false (see, for example, the claim that women use more words than men: it's not true!). I'm not sure what to do about the school controversy, some of the links in it were dead and it is really not about hugs or hugging per se, it is more about American hysteria about child sexuality and exploitation. It seems like it really belongs elsewhere...maybe in its own page,[reply]

Hand Hug

I think we should add Hand Hug for the see also Section (Arian19 (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Let's work out one thing at a time, and wait until the CSD on Hand Hug is resolved. P Carn (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dog

What's the nonsense about James Corden's dog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.10.16.107 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this about Dogs like hugging less than other primates? Dogs aren't primates... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.244.66 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hugtherapy

i believe in the positive and healing effects of a loving hug i believe relationship are improving if people feel free to hug eachother i believe even therapy gives with hugs can do so much of healing in lifes of people i am really EXCITED about communication with a hug

Hugtherapy (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i love to cuddle when its cold outside — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.141.177 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Himba people

The bit about Himba people is without any reference, and the only mentions I can find on the internet that Himba people supposedly don't see hugging as affection are people referring to *this* article and its unsubstantiated info. What's more, here's a picture of Himba girls embracing and smiling. http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4082/4942315938_2b1d9b161e_z.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatero (talk • contribs) 22:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddling

Why doesn't cuddling have its own article? Benjamin (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

Please add some history. I can't remember seeing friends hug in a movie of the 40s.--89.12.125.184 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Edit

Cuddling Business Cuddling has become a profitable business worldwide for the many ‘professional cuddlers’ who offer their cuddling services for a fee. Professional cuddlers promote their business as non-sexual and offer it those who are missing the touch and connection of another person.

Some professional cuddlers prefer to open retail shops while booking is available via official websites. One of the first ones, Cuddle Up To Me, was launched in Portland, Oregon by Samantha Hess and gained a lot of media attention worldwide. Following the success of Cuddle Up To Me - A number of online startups emerged. While some suggest choosing from a great variety of cuddlers (both male and female), others let anyone run their own business in any country. Cuddlr was the first mobile app (launched in 2014) and is mainly focused on offering free hugs. CuddleUp.com launched in early 2015 and is a network which connects professional cuddlers with clients and helps the latter hire a spooning partner. CuddleUp.com removes the barrier to entry and allows virtually anyone with access to the internet become a professional cuddler.

Another way of running a cuddling business is cuddle parties (or cuddle workshops, usually paid^[1]).

Despite not everybody approving this kind of relationship and business model, it has proven to be successful. For example, Cuddling Con crowdfunding campaign has raised $169,000 and the Cuddlr app has hundreds of thousand downloads^[2].

References

^ "Fancy snuggling up to twenty strangers for FOUR hours? Join the 'cuddle club' where you'll pay £29 for 'therapeutic touching' sessions". MailOnline. Retrieved 27 April 2015.
^ "Professional Cuddlers Embrace More Clients". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 27 April 2015.

Zverolen (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hug. 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/20080516085731/http://www.kpho.com/news/15456156/detail.html to http://www.kpho.com/news/15456156/detail.html

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} 15:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah carey Lylah26 (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hug. 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/20141020091114/http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/acts-of-worship/fasting/fasting-rulings-and-regulations/169766-hugging-ones-spouse-while-fasting.html?Regulations= to http://www.onislam.net/english/ask-the-scholar/acts-of-worship/fasting/fasting-rulings-and-regulations/169766-hugging-ones-spouse-while-fasting.html?Regulations=

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} 09:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hug. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090601085031/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2009/05/28/style/28hugs.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/style/28hugs.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hug. 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/20120320005015/http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2010/Apr/15/ar_news_041510_story1.asp?d=041510_story1%2C2010%2CApr%2C15&c=n to http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2010/Apr/15/ar_news_041510_story1.asp?d=041510_story1%2C2010%2CApr%2C15&c=n

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) 23:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense in cuddling section

"In 2014, British sociologists Eric Anderson and Mark McCormack published a study which shows that 93% of British heterosexuals student-athletes had spooned or cuddled with a male friend, as a sign of friendship."

That can't be true. There's no way such a high number of people in Britain are gay, (even if they oddly claim to be straight). It looks like propaganda and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griefslams (talk • contribs) 10:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Hugging really universal among all communities?

The lead of this article states that Hugging is universal in human communities while a sentence below in the Characteristics section states "Unlike some other types of physical contact, a hug can be practiced publicly and privately without stigma in many countries, religions and cultures, within families, and also across age and gender lines". However, I'm not entirely sure I agree with either of those statements especially the second one, because hugging of the opposite sex in Islamic countries (especially in most of the conservative Arab nations) would definitely be stigmatised publically unless it was between members of the same family. I also doubt hugging is very common in conservative Hindu/Buddhist cultures and in some of the East Asian countries (e.g. China and Japan) unless it was between people who know each other well. Maybe privately it would be practiced without any stigma but definitely not publically so I would suggest rewording those bits or maybe giving more information on cultures where hugging is stigmatised (like the example I've given for Islam cultures and the East Asian countries). I might do it myself later if I get time although I would be grateful if anyone else can do it before I do. Does anyone else agree with this? Broman178 (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 7 November 2022

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

What I think should be changed:

These edits should be reverted ^[1]^[2]

Why it should be changed:

WP:SOCK: Erez Ben-Ari was using sock puppets to promote himself and his business, please see investigation archived here ^[3] which concluded in blocking all his accounts. BillShearim, NCSFreedom, and BenAriAtMicrosoft all belong to Erez as recorded here ^[4].

WP:COI: Erez has added his own business "Hugz & Cuddles" to this article (as BillSeharim). This is self-promotion and conflict of interest. Erez Ben-Ari's page and his self-authored Hugz & Cuddles page ware previously deleted ^[5] due to some of the same violations as well lack of notability.

PressSourceCheck (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hug&diff=1061598829&oldid=1061439915
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hug&diff=1061599138&oldid=1061598829
^ "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BenAriAtMicrosoft/Archive". March 12, 2022 – via Wikipedia.
^ "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of BenAriAtMicrosoft". March 12, 2022 – via Wikipedia.
^ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erez Ben–Ari". March 19, 2022 – via Wikipedia.

Done. I did leave one of the citations because it seemed to help support the prior sentance, and the section had no citation at all. Grorp (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"🤗" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 🤗 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 27 § 🤗 until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 11:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

other species

Seems from this article that hugging and cuddling is unique to humans, though it seems to me that other ape species also hug, and cuddling occurs in many species and between species. Exjerusalemite (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of my recent edit removing the last paragraph of "Cultural Aspects"

This one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hug&diff=1183403528&oldid=1183165424&variant=en

The issue about this paragraph is it does not represent entire India's culture, not even South India. I live in Tamil Nadu, a state nearby Kerela where the "culture" is similar. It is highly unlikely for something like this to happen in a well developed city like Banglore. Currently hugging between opposite genders is an accepted thing in many schools, and there are many schools that don't allow it. You can't generalise based on one story. Outside schools, in the urban areas, nobody would care if two people of opposite gender hug each other. However, in the rural areas, two people of opposite gender hugging is not a common thing. If they see two outsiders in their village of the opposit gender hugging each other, they probably wouldn't care. But if it was someone they knew, it is not welcome. I have seen and heard many stories of what happened to such people and I don't want to bore you with the details (however if you want to know, just reply) but that doesn't mean it is the right thing over there. All started due to the degeneracy and ignorance of shallow and narrow minded people and that need not be discussed in an educational site like Wikipedia.

For additional context: https://youtube.com/watch?v=EpCUmJM89fk ShobanChiddarth (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Biography: Musicians NA‑class

	Biography portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This page is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Pop music NA‑class

	Pop music portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

New York (state) NA‑class

	New York (state) portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

from VfD:

Un-notable...um...band. I think it's a band. Joyous 02:10, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Oh holy wiki, I misspelled the name when I searched for it. I humbly withdraw my nomination. Joyous 11:22, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Real, established band, with something like 11 albums on major labels. I've certainly heard of them before, although I don't know much about them beyond that. Too bad the article is a substub. — Gwalla | Talk 03:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Real band according to AllMusic.com. Looks like they have four albums with one upcoming (one on RCA, the rest are indy, it looks like). ClockworkTroll 07:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, for the reasons stated above. Plus, 7,090 Google hits. - MattTM 07:38, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Removed notice from article, Ortolan88 02:35, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Syd Barrett fan)
K Even if it's too late to mention this, anyone remember the the sitcom "Game On"? Theme song "Where I Find My Heaven" by this band was heard and made known to several million people. Now that's airplay.

Forgotten signature: Chris 00:07, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

What, no mention of Syd Barrett? --Mmartins 06:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC) Artur Wasiak 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[reply]

Delete. I presume this page is a tribute from Wasiak's students, and, as such, it's cute, but it doesn't have a place in the Wikipedia. Non-notable. Steve Casburn 02:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Many college professors are debatable, but high school teachers? Not on my watch. -R. fiend 02:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable high school teacher. — Gwalla | Talk 03:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Famous cultural science teacher? Prove it. If not, delete. Average Earthman 11:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Very sweet, and I love it when students say nice things about their teacher, but not notable. Geogre 13:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Tεx τ urε 15:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not even a teacher any more. Delete. Rick K 20:00, Sep 21, 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.

Joseph Tham

I understand that weighing 125 kg while being only a few cm tall is a burden, but I just don't think this is encyclopedic. Almost (definitely?) a speedy. Joyous 02:25, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. It's nonsense. Steve Casburn 02:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Certainly a speedy. moved it there. -R. fiend 02:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The contributer (User:192.169.41.33) seems to be into Anime/Manga/Hentai - could be a character from some fictional universe ? - TB 13:36, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2 Gryphon Clou 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

Seems like an insignificant bar. Why is this important? Rmhermen 04:03, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

It is the article author's responsibility to handle the question of importance, and he or she left this answer blank. Delete, non-notable. • Benc • 04:22, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. --Yath 04:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete for reasons above. --Ianb 10:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yup, delete - TB 13:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Advertising, complete with directions. Geogre 13:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - advert - Tεx τ urε 15:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert. — Gwalla | Talk 19:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. What are turbofolk? RickK 19:55, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- comment: turbo-folk is an Eastern European pop music style. — Gwalla | Talk 01:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sorry guys, but me and my friend were planning to cover the whole Sarajevo scene (the most important places), starting with this small bar. If you've once visited it, you would know it's importance. Ask anyone coming from Sarajevo for Clou, and they'll justify the bars importance in Sarajevo underground scene. Please note that this no way any kind of advertisment! The bar is listed in all the travel guides to Sarajevo, but has never advertised itself anywhere in the city! (as I said, youll hardly find it on your own). If this is not an encyclopedia material then it's a totally different story. Anyway, let it live, we'll expand it and make it sound more serious and not like an ad. And yes, if your destiny brings you to Sarajevo, drop by! Esad
- Esad, I think your desire to cover Sarajevo's nightline is laudatory. You're just going about it wrong. Why don't you start by contributing to the Sarajevo article? If your coverage of the party scene grows too large for the article, it can perhaps be split off into Sarajevo nightlife. We really don't need individual articles about every bar in Sarajevo. Besides, as a reader, I'd much rather read a single, lengthy, organized article than dozens of stubs. Aim for depth, not breadth. Thanks, • Benc • 04:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The article does not describe what is notable about this bar. If the bar is notable, at least the bar has a history, and at least the bar has notable people who have stories about that bar. Either the bar is not notable, or the article is non-encyclopedic. Better to start from a blank page when someone gets the stories and data that would make this bar notable. ---Rednblu 02:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. We should write articles on all of the bars in Sarajevo--[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 15:41, 27 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. Internet Poisoning 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

Apparently a neologism - Googling suggests that this is not a term in current usage. Note that anonymous contributor has also edited Internet to include a link to this article. --Rlandmann 04:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Correct term is computer addiction. --Viriditas
Delete. Neologism. --Yath 04:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. "...the government and society around the world..." I wasn't aware that we had a global government... Anyway, obvious neologism.. ClockworkTroll 07:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, only because it's already at computer addiction. Maybe just redirect? - MattTM 07:36, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Ouch, my brain! delete - TB 13:31, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Just because I'm neglecting job applications to do Wikipedia doesn't mean I'm poisoned. My health is fine, except for the cough, the hair falling out, the skin dropping off, and the new light allergy. Geogre 13:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Tεx τ urε 15:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. No need to redirect to computer addiction, although that's plainly what it's referring to, since the term is simply not in common use. — Gwalla | Talk 19:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Unofficial term, not widely used --*drew 06:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete and don't redirect to anything. This looks like some neologism made by someone who, for some reason, think the Internet is "evil" or unhealthy. — Kieff | Talk 08:11, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The article is incorrectly titled, gramatically unsound (what exactly does 'Olaying computers,' mean?) and basically pointless. And to top it off some IP-numbered fool is now adding links to it on other articles--Cynical 15:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete Not only a neologism, but it is quite POV regarding the effect on people --Asmodai 08:01, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -- J3ff 02:31, 27 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. Aloomi 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

Vanity-neologism? Acronym unknown to Google. I dithered over speedy-deleting but decided to throw it open to the community. —Stormie 04:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism. --Yath 04:35, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Googling turns up a couple of people that happen to have the last name "Aloomi", but that's it. ClockworkTroll 07:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I Googled on the name of its creator. I wasn't impressed. Average Earthman 11:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Vanity dicdef by author of Popsc listed below. Delete - TB 13:30, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Vanity neologism (great term, Stormie) by Andreas Schwatner. Geogre 13:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Tεx τ urε 15:36, 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. Popsc 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

Vanity-neologism? Acronym unknown to Google. I dithered over speedy-deleting but decided to throw it open to the community. —Stormie 04:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism. --Yath 04:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete Dictionary.com hasn't heard of it. Clear neologism. ClockworkTroll 07:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Vanity dicdef - delete - TB 13:29, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Slang invented by Andreas Schwanter, it seems. Geogre 13:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - fiction - Tεx τ urε 15:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - neologism. Nadavspi 18:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. "Package orientated"? — Gwalla | Talk 19:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- these days some debased dictionaries (including AHD4) do allow "orientate" as a synonym for "to orient." Ain't it terrible? O tempora, O Moses. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:30, 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.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Food and drink NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

NA

This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Retailing NA‑class Low‑importance

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of retailing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RetailingWikipedia:WikiProject RetailingTemplate:WikiProject RetailingRetailing articles

NA

This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This page has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Retailing To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : SM Lanang Premier
Copyedit : Retailing in India
Expand : :- Please expand this project's list of articles. The subcategories of Category:Retailers is also an excellent starting point.
- Expand this project's image gallery page

- More articles for expansion: Automated retail, Big-box store, Chain store, Hypermarket, Store manager
NPOV : Retail loss prevention
Photo : Retail design
Stubs : Leakage (retail), Retail geography
Verify : Department store, Discount store, Retail clerk, Retail in the Republic of Ireland, Retail media, Retail software, Suggested retail price
Other : * Please add this project's banner {{WikiProject Retailing}} to retail-related talk pages. Also, bots can be utilized to automate this task.
- Also, add biographies to the articles list.

–When a task is completed, please remove it from the list.

from VfD:

From cleanup. Advert for non-notable local store chain. — Gwalla | Talk 03:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. non-notable. [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 04:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- change my vote due to regional importance. Keep. :) - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 18:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't know... 104 stores? I'd vote keep, but I'll wait to see what some more people think. --Yath 04:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Definitely needs cleanup, but it seems notable to me. 104 stores, strong New Jersey presence. - MattTM 07:33, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Needs cleanup.[[User:Nricardo|--Nelson Ricardo >>Talk<<]] 09:29, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Notable. Keep and cleanup. - TB 13:28, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Send to clean up. When I was 8, my family moved to New Jersey, and my buddies and I had a daily bike pilgrimage to the Quick Chek. These things have high sentimental value in their communities, and there are a ton of them. Geogre 13:31, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. With 104 stores, it must be notable for the region. Nadavspi 18:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm on the fence, but with 104 location, I'm leaning towards Keep. ClockworkTroll 04:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 15:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Here's a source

This is a link to the history page on Quick Chek's website.

http://www.qchek.com/history.asp

It refers to the first store in Dunellen, and also mentions the pharmacies and gas stations. I'm trying to improve the article, but I don't think I understand the code. I thought a footnote should go after the word "departments" in the first paragraph. I hope someone else can do it right. Kire1975 (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quick Chek. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20141218184833/http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2010891422_apusnjweaponsarrest.html to http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2010891422_apusnjweaponsarrest.html

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) 00:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC) from VfD:[reply]

After re-writing this so that it makes more sense, it still seems like a fairly pointless, uninformative article. I vote for getting rid of this. - Katherine Shaw 09:20, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Merge into water cooling --Rlandmann 12:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge into water cooling Kim Bruning 12:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge into water cooling (do I hear an echo?) — Gwalla | Talk 19:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. But by all means, if you find something to merge, then <<echo, echo>>. ---Rednblu 23:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge, and maybe add a redirect. ClockworkTroll 04:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge into water cooling There's not much new information in "cooling water", but there is a little unique information about nuclear reactor cooling.Raazer 02:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

POV style written advertising, vanity page about a Dutch metal band I never heard of (I'm Dutch) and of which this article seems to be the only information source on the web. -- Solitude 10:12, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Recording demos, no contract, no records, no notability. Band vanity. Delete it before all those redlinks bloom into 20-30 VfD entries, and get the graphics, too. Geogre 13:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: no evidence of notability. I've also taken the liberty of removing all of the red links. -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 18:07, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Garage band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 19:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - I'm all for listing bands, but even AMG AllMusic has never heard of them, and they have the entire history of The Gerbils, complete with detailed dicography. Way too obscure. ClockworkTroll 04:13, 22 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. La Salle College Computer Team 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

plain, simply not notable, though I've no doubt they're all a great bunch of guys and gals. --Ianb 10:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: There used to be a ton of these. Not notable. Geogre 13:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Must agree. Nice article, but not notable - delete - TB 13:27, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 15:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Average Earthman 16:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Jondel 04:14, 24 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. from VfD:

Dicdef :S --Rlandmann 12:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: dictdef for "sexual promiscuity" rather than "sexually promiscuous." Not needed. Geogre 13:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to the existing article on promiscuity Fpahl 14:11, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to promiscuity - Tεx τ urε 15:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - it's an adjective. Deb 17:23, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Harmless redirect as it is a highly common term and a likely search term. - KeithTyler 19:59, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to promiscuity - common term that might be searched for, but there is no need for duplicate articles. Andris 06:30, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect Wikimol 11:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Stationery design

Advert for Logo Design Works. Could the term 'Stationary design' be written in a NPOV way? CheekyMonkey 13:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Advertising. The folks are hiding their ad under a misleading title. I don't think that anyone interested in graphic design or logos will search by "stationery." Stationery design should be about making correspondence papers. Geogre 13:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - advert - Tεx τ urε 15:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert. — Gwalla | Talk 19:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete ad, and please note that 217.205.189.146 has also added the Logo Design Works link to articles Design, Graphic design and Brand. More advertising. :-( --Bishonen 03:05, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: ad. Tregoweth 01:41, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Carnage: a history

Fabrication. Same as other contributions from same author [17]. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A bit more difficult to completely discredit than this contributor's other articles, but since it seems he's batting 0 for 4 so far I'm not giving him any sort of benefit of the doubt. This article mentions the entries listed below, which certainly seem to be fictitious, so I fail to see how this can be real. Delete. -R. fiend 15:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - original work/fictitious - Tεx τ urε 15:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete — refrs to obvious fabrications. Susvolans 16:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Carnivore/carnage/carnal: I.e. Carnage is slaughter. Complete bunk. Geogre 17:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's obvious rubbish. --Heron 17:55, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 19:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, and display yew-plucking finger while doing so. - KeithTyler 20:00, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 20:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax is a polite word for this odiferous article of bovine excrement. Fire Star 04:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Patent nonsense. Speedily deleted. Beginning was: Carnage was first introduced as a word by the ancient Sumerians, after the disasterous battle with the Hyksos, who killed hundreds. The few sumerians that survived recounted the terrible 'Carnos' which was the site of the horrible massacre. Mikkalai 07:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hadios

Fabrication. Same as other contributions from same author [18]. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Seems to be a legit Spanish word, and I think that's what every single google hit leads to. -R. fiend 15:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - original work/fictitious - Tεx τ urε 15:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete — patent nonsense. Susvolans 16:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Given 2/4 being provable nonsense by this author, the other 2, by induction, have to rise to an enormous burden of proof. None is offered within the article. Therefore, delete presumptively. Geogre 17:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax vandalism. — Gwalla | Talk 19:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 20:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Adios, Hadios! Livajo 21:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- One more comment: it is not a legitimate Spanish word. In Spanish, all H's are silent, and it seems those Google hits are people who have misspelled the word adios (actually adiós). Livajo 21:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Speedily deleted patent nonsense. Content was Hadios was an ancient Constantinian philosopher. "On the Fall of Constantine" is attributed to him. (1160? - 1236?) Mikkalai 07:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bezra

Fabrication. Same as other contributions from same author [19]. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like he made it up. -R. fiend 15:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - original work/fictitious - Tεx τ urε 15:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete — patent nonsense. Susvolans 16:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: This is a real place in Israel, I believe, where research into Assyrian culture (not Sumerian culture) is taking place. This article is incorrect. Geogre 17:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax vandalism. — Gwalla | Talk 19:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete Jayjg 20:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hoax. Speedily deleted. Beginning was: Bezra, a small town on the Syrian border with Iraq. Population: 2,543 Mikkalai 07:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Manclians

Fabrication. Same as other contributions from same author [20]. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

0 google hits makes me think it's a figment of this guy's imagination. A speedy delete candidate as patent nonsense?-R. fiend 14:58, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - original work/fictitious - Tεx τ urε 15:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete — patent nonsense. Susvolans 16:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Joke/prank. I wonder if they eventually settled in Manchester? Geogre 17:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax vandalism. — Gwalla | Talk 19:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 20:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Speedily deleted. Content was: Ancient people of mysterious origins, probably near Egypt. Eventually pushed the Sumerians from their ancestral homeland. Mikkalai 07:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Exoarcheology

Idiosyncratic neologism, original research. From same author as Exopolitics. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:03, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: It would be xenoarcheology, if there were ancient civilizations on planets and if we had gone to those planets and if we had people to do it and if there were a chance of understanding it. Since none of those "ifs" are met, there shouldn't be an article on the proper term. Geogre 17:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

KeepThe very credibility of the Wikipedia process of knowledge gatekeeping is now at stake if Exoarchaeology is deleted, as it is an ESTABLISHED UNIVERSITY-LEVEL FIELD OF STUDY FOR YEARS! Please read the definition and note that the articles there are from established Uniersity Departments discussing the very subject of exoarchaeology. If Exoarchaeology is and has been for years an established field in the University world, and it is now subject to a Wikipedia deletion process, then this process has fundamental flaws, and is subject to attack by malicious actors, unerinformed and misinformed and biased minds. Look at the simple article on Exoarchaeology provided in the defintion.
- Cut a whole shload of ensuing cut-and-pasted POV source material by above sockpuppet (User:Exopolitics). This may or may have not been against the rules, I don't know, but it didn't belong here. See the history. - KeithTyler 19:51, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- ...the articles there are from established Uniersity (sic) Departments... Exoacademics? Uniersity, indeed. Kook U, perhaps? --Viriditas 13:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete on the grounds that the above user is a crank. Rick K 19:49, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Althought it could be expanded with xenoarcheology in fiction, I don't think even that would make it a wikipedia article. It can be remade when alien artefacts are found :) Darksun 19:52, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep All one has to do is study the research of Richard C. Hoagland to realize that exoarcheology is already a real process of study by scientists. Mr. Hoagland is a former museum space science Curator; a former NASA Consultant; and, during the historic Apollo Missions to the Moon, was science advisor to Walter Cronkite and CBS News. --Pierre2012 21:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet whose first edit was to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Exopolitics . Rick K 22:20, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It's possible to find kooks who have worked at NASA, respected universities, or similar. That doesn't make their work respectable. --Improv 22:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How can it be a real process of study when there are no alien artifacts to study? We already have something on the face on Mars, and its veracity. Delete. Lacrimosus 22:28, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Note that the Richard Hoagland cited above is in fact the most prominent proponent of the "aliens built the face on Mars" theory. ~~Zap with heat ray~~ I mean, delete --Rlandmann 00:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wouldn't exoarcheology mean digging holes under the surface of other planets to discover artifacts of previous now-dead civilizations or communities? Which, uh, we're not doing. - KeithTyler 23:19, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and uh, my personal vote is to delete with extreme prejudice, but my real vote (due to my experience with Exopolitics) is to redirect to Exobiology. - KeithTyler 23:21, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The equation '"Richard Hoagland" + Anything = Delete' is one of Life's Fundamental Principles for me. Quack. Denni ☯ 02:49, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
Delete - Complete fiction. We haven't quite made it to Mars, and are nowhere near sending archeological expeditions to other worlds. Delete it all, and don't even bother to merge or redirect. Oh, by the way dear author, there is no face on Mars: it went away when we took a less fuzzy photo. ClockworkTroll 04:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The claim that exoarchaeology is an established field is patently false. As for Hoagland, there are plenty of people with doctorates in science who go on to believe absolute guff (Newton is a fine example). Average Earthman 08:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Newton only had a Master's degree. If he'd gotten his doctorate, he'd have never invented the Calculus. His publications instead would have been On Professor Macclesleigh's Theory of Matter and the Recent Experiments in the Matterlab. Geogre 12:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Also, about the "university field" of exoarcheology, the only university source in a link in this article is about whether it would be possible to travel to other planets. All the rest are (gasp) geocities and home pages. Geogre 12:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Likewise, the only thing on the page on Hoagland about life on other planets has to do with the possibility of microbes beneath the surface of Europa's ice. Not archeological by any means, exo- or otherwise. - KeithTyler 18:44, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It is a shame that the authors of this page did not dig up the scholarly journal articles and books that would have provided the Reference section required for such an important exploration of our history and place in time. :) I am looking, but I don't find them here on this page. So I conclude that this is Pseudoscience. ---Rednblu 17:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Josh Cherry 03:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. SWAdair | Talk 08:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Aaargh! Preferably a protected redirect (to stop it coming back- and also for exoarchaeology) to Xenobiology or delete (please!) G Rutter 08:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. My vote has been forced by the feminists, the Reptilians, tin-foil hat wearing exopoliticians and of course, our new furry overlords, the Kzinti. --Viriditas 09:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rakatan

Delete.This article is nonsense, surely? Unencyclopedic and it makes no sense. Katherine Shaw 14:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense in its purest form. Delete. Fire Star 15:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - advert for website - Tεx τ urε 15:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I think it's something from the Star Wars mess, but this is a joke/nonsense. Geogre 17:27, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's not Star Wars, it's an incoherent advert for a non-notable musician/band. Check out that link (but keep a spoon ready to gouge out your eyes). — Gwalla | Talk 19:48, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Lord above, you're not kidding! My eyes! The goggles do nothing! It is one of the most notably bad web pages I have ever seen. I wish I were still teaching web page construction, because this is the best example of every single web page crime I have ever seen. Even deliberate hoax sites made to illustrate bad design couldn't come within 100 miles of this. I apologize to the web author, if he or she reads this, but, well, he or she may need to apologize, too. Geogre 04:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 20:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: patent nonsense. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The Rakata (Star Wars race in Knights of the Old Republic) already have a page. The person who made this page apparently went to Yahoo! or Google and mixed references from everything he could find.Baryonyx 00:38, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Two Words. Yikes. Delete. Dralwik

Dynastyunification

At the very least this needs to be changed to "Dynasty Unification" (or more likely "Dynasty Unification in China"), but I think it deserves plain old deletion. I'm sure this is covered in a number of other places. I gotta say though, I loved the statement that seven warring dynasties killed "several" Chinese people. -R. fiend 15:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Nothing which isnt already better covered at History of China#Ancient history. Given the title issues, Id even argue for speedy. Iain 17:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: If it weren't covered in China, then let it be merged. However, it is already present. Also, note that there is not much here. "Several" people were killed in wars? Geogre 17:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, material is covered elsewhere, title is horrible. The "several people" is probably a bad translation, maybe somone used Babelfish and did not read the results. I'd imagine the orignal would be translated either as Tribes or groups. Heck, I've done the same a couple of times in my translating youth. -Vina 17:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Stub duplicating material at History of China, bad title. I don't think "several people" is a result of machine translation; it reads like a grade school kid's world history report. — Gwalla | Talk 19:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete for reasons given above. Fire Star 20:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The title is incorrect and the material already covered in History of China. Andris 20:20, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Architecture NA‑class

	Architecture portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1

from VfD:

Delete. This is a duplicate of Politics of China, and doesn't really contain anything new. Binadot 18:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This really doesn't belong here. I've placed a {{merge}} Politics of China on Chinese politics and listed it under Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 18:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
redirect --Jia ng 18:33, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why the hell would you not want this to redirect to Politics of China? Honestly. Keep as a redirect. Mark Richards 19:11, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

this one should be merged with Politics of China —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tastetrees (talk • contribs) 20:51:24, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Hebrew thought

And there is a companion page Greek thought, also nominated below for VfD for the same reasons.

Non-encyclopedic. Original research. Essay. Nonsense. Pseudo-science.

Possibly, the Hebrew thought and Greek thought pages could be combined to a summary of Boman's book, as discussed in Talk:Hebrew thought. But I would not want a high-school student to find either Hebrew thought or Greek thought in the undefined, unreferenced, and unexamined form that they are now. The curent page does not represent even Boman's writing--and does not present the writing of the critics that say that Boman's distinctions of "thought" are bogus. ---Rednblu 20:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with the title, it is the article itself which doesn't make the grade. In it we have opinion, opinion and more opinion masquerading as documentation. Delete. Fire Star 20:15, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
POV articles representing a solitary intepretation of the old "Hebraism and Helenism" argument (see Matthew Arnold, e.g., and R.W. Emerson). It was once de rigeur to make this kind of comparison, and I suppose some intellectual historians still attempt it. This is secondary thought that is not NPOV and critical to a fine point. Suppose I wrote a #Themes section for Hamlet and presented only a psychoanalytic criticism? It wouldn't be original research, but it would be highly POV. Therefore, while these are valid arguments, they're POV, and we have to delete them. (BTW, I'd say that the Hebrews understood the same pre-Socratic arguments about motion and time as the Greeks did, and there's a lot of evidence for that, but that's another matter.) Geogre 20:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete Delete Delete. POV, bad science, etc etc. --Improv 22:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A Google search of "Hebrew thought" turns up 3,740 sites that discuss "Hebrew thought". The claim that it is pseudo science is laughable and POV on the part of Rednblu. This is NOT original research, rather secondary, using an acquired definition. This article is linked to from at least two other articles in wikipedia. User MZ said there is a second definition for the term, which he planned to add in a couple of weeks. This is NOT science, but history and philosophy. In his original call for claiming this article was in "need of attention" user Rednblu claimed that this was some sort of "weird Christian" view, which is laughable in that the authoritive book on the subject was written, as far as I can tell, by someone who is not a Christian. It does not fit Jewish philosophy as it predates anything mentioned in that article by close to a millennium, if not more and it is based on a completely different thought method as the Jewish philosophers mentioned all used Greek thought. Another argument for keeping is that several sites unrelated to wikipedia have downloaded this definition to use as their definition, as can be tracked by Google. The offer is still open if there is another definition for "Hebrew thought" the offer is still open to add it to the definition. Well? Where is it? Finally, I will restore this article and the links I know to it because this is a valid concept and I would prefer to work with people who know the subject to improve the article (leave out Rednblu, he's a fool) so that it can provide a full description of what philosophers call "Hebrew thought". This is a valid subject, it is used by many and is at the heart of public policy disputes (follow the links), just how is best to present it as an encyclopedia article? Melamed
Merge into a Hebraism and Hellenism article along with Greek thought. It's a valid comparison, historically notable. The current article is an essay, though. The merged text should make reference to the comparison as a historical phenomenon. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Recreate as redirect to Jewish philosophy.--Samuel J. Howard 02:34, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. "Hebrew thought" is often simply an expression used interchangeably according to context with "Hebrew scriptures", "medieval rabbis" and so forth without reference to Boman's ideas (and is often sloppy usage). I have no objection to some of the content being merged with something as Wile E. Heresiarch suggests, provided this is done with indications that these are the ideas of one thinker. But I don't believe that Boman's ideas, save when obvious and not especially Bowman's, have gained much of a following and statements that make sense in a comparision and contrast between Greek thought and Hebrew thought do not make the same sense when expressed alone. As presented this is hideously POV, Boman's thought alone presented as true, without attribution in the text itself. That misrepresents the case badly. Jallan 16:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- Additionally, it's a really difficult topos for contemporary historians of ideas, because of the poisoning of the well done by some. Nietzsche, for example, treats this old comparison in Thus Spake Zarathustra, and we all know what he thought of Hebraic thought. For the most part, the contrast has been used to bash Hebraism to elevate Hellenism. Still, a report on the theme itself and some of the many, many contrasts that people have drawn would be good stuff...if there were someone scholarly enough to do it. This is actually a dissertation topic at a good university, I'd say. Geogre 18:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is a hobby of mine to study the usually unfriendly interaction and exchange of Hellenistic/Hebraic cultures from say 1400BC (many think the Philistines may have originally been Greek) until the Arab conquest. Both hebrew and greek culture changed quite a bit in that time frame, as well. Much could be written on the contrasts between them to shed light on their situation if such factors are taken into account. Fire Star

Delete – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 04:17, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Greek thought

Re: Greek thought -- to match the Hebrew thought nomination above

Non-encyclopedic. Nonsense. Personal essay. Original research.

Details of the flaws of the Hebrew thought and Greek thought pages covered in fine detail in Talk:Hebrew thought. This page as it is now does not represent the views of even one published author. ---Rednblu 20:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Again, nothing wrong with the title as such, which could be an enlightening and encyclopaedic article some day, it is the article itself that doesn't make the grade. In it we have opinion, opinion and more opinion masquerading as documentation. Delete. Fire Star 20:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As above, an attempt to rescue these by moving would be ok, but any move that's appropriate would make them un-findable. Both articles are POV, although educated. Delete. Geogre 20:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Junk Science, POV --Improv 22:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh man, delete and then create as redirect to Greek philosophy.--Samuel J. Howard 02:31, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Merge into a Hebraism and Hellenism article along with Hebrew thought. It's a valid comparison, historically notable. The current article is an essay, though. The merged text should make reference to the comparison as a historical phenomenon. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Reasons mostly the same as given above under Hebrew Thought discussion. I have no problem with Wile E. Heresiarch either now or at any time producing a good article summarizing and explaining what people have thought about the differences between Greek perceptions and Hebrew perceptions. Good idea. If some of this material is of value, a merge to a new Hebraism and Hellenism article to be placed immediately on cleanup would be appropriate. Jallan 16:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 04:16, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Kaiou

Non-notable software, lots of POV and cheerleading, possible vanity. - KeithTyler

IRC bots are two a penny, nothing notable about this one. Delete Darksun 19:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity/not notable - Tεx τ urε 20:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, as per above. (Now if only I can work out how my VfD submissions for the following two articles ended up in the edit history of this subsection, I'll be a wiser and happier --Ianb 21:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)).
Delete. Vanity, non-notable. — Gwalla | Talk 21:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

from VfD:

WikiUniversity: can't see the point of this stub. --Ianb 21:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

well, it seems to have been redirected to WikiBooks, probably a gross policy violation but who cares. --Ianb 21:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Olden days

Olden days: can't see the point of this substub, seems to have been created due to being linked fron WikiUniversity. Just part of a rather tired phrase (back in the olden days we didn't have them fancy Wikis, we got up at 4 o'clock in the morning and scratched our collaborative community project texts onto granite blocks using rusty nails). --Ianb 21:20, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You had rusty nails? Kids these days. We had to use our fingernails. Delete. RickK 21:32, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
- You have fingernails? Spoiled! Back before we evolved those fancy hands, we had to gnaw rocks wih our blunt teeth, and that was only after we laid on a rock for two hours to warm up enough to work! (Delete) ClockworkTroll 04:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- And you got to sleep in till 4? Jmabel 07:10, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
- in my defense I must state we had to make our own nails using bog-iron ore, and we had to burn our underwear to get it smelted, and we had to add our own tetanus bacteria to the rust, none of this modern shop-bought stuff.--Ianb 08:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You had underwear? You were lucky. We had to run about naked, and that was after our father beat the clothes off our backs, and we had to do it all while sporting a whopping big case of tetanus. Geogre 16:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
From Fowler:

...The adjective, which is of strange formation & not to be reckoned among the numerous -EN ADJECTIVES, is also peculiar in use; the olden time(s) is common, but outside that phrase the word is usually as ridiculous as Ye substituted for the in the sham-archaic advertisements of shopwindows...

At any rate, this must have become an article by accident, delete. Fire Star 21:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: So now we have to hit "edit" by an article name to add comments? Very ugly page changes, folks. Back in the Olden days we had an "Add to this discussion" tab to click. It cut down on edit conflicts and kept the discussions in a subdirectory. Delete this non-def dictdef. Geogre 00:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. At first I thought it might be vandalism to the VfD page. Interesting... Fire Star

Comment: the discussions are now in subpages, the edit links access those and not the main VfD page. Makes it easier to add links, but the change is not immediately obvious and caught a lot of people off-guard, including myself.--Ianb 08:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Dictdef. — Gwalla | Talk 05:04, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I think this one could have been a speedy, "Very short articles with little or no definition or context." Since apparently this portion of the speedy criteria is now under discussion, I won't do what I've done in the past, i.e. speedy it while retaining the content here to allow discussion to proceed. I don't believe for a minute that this will give anybody a useful headstart on writing a full article on anything. Ta dum dum, in Olden days, a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking but now God knows (tiddle-tiddle-pom-pom) anything goes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:12, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) P. S. Entire content of the article is currently

folklore and storytelling

I have substantially improved this article. ugen64 01:39, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
- comment: err, no you haven't. --Ianb 05:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

from VfD:

Was going to send it to speedy as nonsense, but it's probably from some sci-fi something or another and needs to be attributed as such. Not sure it's noteworthy in any case. -R. fiend 22:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

~~Delete~~. I'm tired of this scifi-anime-fantasy-whathaveyou detail cr*p where the contributor can't be bothered to provided the teensiest bit of context, meaning the page looks like a statement of fact and the only way to tell what it is about is to plough through the "What links here" pages. --Ianb 22:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, thank [insert name of deity here] it has nothing to do with Sailor Moon, which prompted the above rant (yes, I'm biased).--Ianb 19:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge into the relevant fictional universe article, if one can be found. Delete, otherwise. "What links here" gives links from articles about two different fictional universes and I am confused to which of those this text refers. Outsiders is another article similar to this. Andris 22:09, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: fancruft. No need to look for someplace to merge it. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I offer a weak vote to keep and attibute appropriately - Wiki is full of fancruft. I see no problem with the contents so long as it's headed with a statement of its source.
Keep, now that it's properly attributed. Niven's works are quite popular and influential. — Gwalla | Talk 05:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If not for the starseeds, the Kzin would have conquered Earth. JamesMLane 18:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Let them come. Maybe the Kzin will eat the Reptilian humanoids. DJ Clayworth 21:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
~~I for one, welcome our new Kzin overlords.~~ Keep. I for one, welcome our new Starseed overlords. --Viriditas 02:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep keep keep keepity keep. Kim Bruning 18:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Bryan 07:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, notable for any sci-fi fan. Alfio 16:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

deleted the old thing, because it doesnt seme to have anything to do with what the new articles about. I will expand it, and will welcome others to expand it, but im moving this week, so be patient with me pleaes... dont speedy this for a while, okay?Karaveks voice 13:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seanchai

I had a hell of a time putting this on the VfD page, because the supposedly new and improved way of doing things didn't leave a link to edit to get to this page. So anyway: This is a portmanteau article. 1-A non-notable band. 2-a dictdef that belongs on Wikipedia. Rick K 22:17, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

disambig article, keep 2nd half at least. Kim Bruning 22:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete both parts: I'm waiting to see what our Irish Wikipedians have to say, but the first half is vanity. The second half demonstrates no fluency in English and is unwikified. The second half is close to being appropriate, but it's more a dictdef than anything else. Given that the Irish language was studied in a scholarly setting all the way along, roaming teachers keeping the language alive is a bizarre concept. If the locals spoke it, they spoke it already. If they didn't, were they going to learn it from a minstrel teacher? Meanwhile, the university folk never stopped studying it. Geogre 00:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. 1/2 band vanity, 1/2 probable fabrication. — Gwalla | Talk 05:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pepi Tsesmeli

POV, non-notable stub. Sc147 23:14, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: (Great, now we have the VfD page COMPLETELY MESSED UP.) Grr. Vanity/tribute to a woman with high morals. Geogre 00:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A fan's POV ranting. Delete. Fire Star 22:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Monte Vista High School

Non-notable school. If all it has to offer is its address and phone number, it doesn't belong here. Rick K 23:40, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I heard in a position in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that Wikipedia is not a place for phone numbers. 66.245.10.194 23:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, the article about a real school. Remove the inapropriate info. Mark Richards 19:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Removing the "inappropriate" stuff leaves "Monte Vista High School is a public High School located in Danville, CA.". How does this make a meaningful Wikipedia article? Rick K 19:38, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. RedWolf 04:42, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Might as well keep every article submitted about a real person or real business or real animal or real plant or real rock or real bowling league or real local Shriner's lodge or real local Red Cross chapter or real local YMCA or real police station or real firehall Jallan 17:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - yellow pages entry. What Wikipedia is not and all. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:08, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. BEEFSTEW score 1/10 (item A only).
Delete. The article is about a real school that probably affects the lives of thousands of people. I'm all for keeping articles of this kind, but only if they contain a certian amount of interesting information. If someone wants to contribute to this subject, then they would not mind re-creating the article.Raazer 02:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It is indeed a notable school, although you wouldn't know it by reading the official website. In the mid-60s it nationally famous for its innovations. It was the first, or one of the first, high schools without bells; the dress code was extremely permissive; teachers were hired for their intelligence and creativity. Ultimately, the conservatives who dominated the area drove out the district superintendant responsible for it, Richard Foster. First class graduated in 1969. TedC 01:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marius_Kleiner

Vanity page; No encyclopedic value. Was going to put up for speedy deletion, but perhaps there is something that could be expanded upon for this person, at this time there seems to be no reason to have an article of this subject.

Vanity articles are not currently speedy candidates. Regular delete with a hope that the anon user creates a user page that we can move this to. Rossami 01:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: The Managed Delete process may take the load off somewhat, if it is approved (voting will open soon). Obvious vanity page. Geogre 01:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 05:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. I wrote it and I must admit, it completely satisfies all the criteria of a vanity page. Sorry for writing something without understanding the Wikipedia concept. Mariusk 05:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I have taken the liberty of moving the page to your User page. I will take your comment above as permission to remove the redirect that was automatically created. Feel free to build out your user page. And welcome to Wikipedia. Rossami 21:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stone_Valley_Middle_School

Not notable; Wikipedia is not a telephone directory.

Delete. Not notable, there is no policy on keeping all middle schools. Rick K 23:50, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. --Improv 02:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable middle school, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. — Gwalla | Talk 05:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing here suggests notability. Average Earthman 08:40, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. --G Rutter 13:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete for reasons given above--Ianb 18:02, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete for good reasons given by others. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's a real school. Mark Richards 19:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. RedWolf 04:43, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a yellow pages. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. How come my old middle school can't be in Wikipedia? Rhesusman 20:28, 25 Sep 2004 (EST)
Comment: BEEFSTEW score 0/10. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:43, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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 - redirected

Coat of arms of Malaysia

Deleted or merge to Emblem of Malaysia. Most of pages about emblem are emblem of <countries>. For instance, Emblem of Afghanistan, not Coat of Arms of Afghanistan. __earth 08:23, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Talk about consistency, Most? Did you ever count them?--Garlics82 10:31, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)
__earth has since turned this page into a redirect to Emblem of Malaysia. This discussion may be considered closed. Rossami 01:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Regardless, this is not the correct forum for this type of proposal. Davodd 02:52, Sep 22, 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.

September 22

Ol' Rip the Horned Toad 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

Orig. listed for speedy deletion, the presence of an external link linking to what looks to be a decent web reference means I have trouble deleting this speedily. Still looks like rubbish though. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I ran across this awhile back and was going to do something with it, but did a Google search and found some confirming sites. Rubbish, it may or may not be, but if it is, it's apparently widely believed rubbish. Recommend Keep, and maybe put it on the list of unusual articles. - RedWordSmith 00:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep I don't know if the story is true, but it is a very well-known story in Texas. I may even have seen it mentioned in some Texas history textbook. Joyous 01:30, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Abstain. I changed the article to note that it's a legend, but have no opinion as to whether such legends belong in an encyclopedia. --Improv 02:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm, if this is the basis of the Finneas J. Frog character of Warner Brothers cartoons (who is in a cornerstone, uncovered later, and discovered to be alive by a demolitions man), then there is a method of broadening the article somewhat to show that this legend has had some effect. If so, it can keep, but we'd need to know that such were the case. I suppose one of the Tex Avery sites would do it. Abstain for now. Keep if broadened. Delete if not. Geogre 04:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Seems like it's a known legend, and articles about folk legends do belong here, I believe. BTW, it's Michigan J. Frog. — Gwalla | Talk 05:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, for reason suggested by Geogre, although the WB mascot is Michigan J. Frog, not Finneas. At least one source confirms Geogre's guess that Michigan's story was based on Ol' Rip's [21]. JamesMLane 18:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - notable regional folktale. -Sean Curtin 00:39, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I've reworked and slightly expanded this article and added two further external links. This is not a "folktale" or "legend" as Improv added to the article (though it might be a hoax). There is a difference. In any case Wikipedia should and does have many articles on folktales, legends, and probable or certain hoaxes. I mean, we even have articles on the purported resurrection of a crucified man and on his Holy prepuce. Jallan 16:10, 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.

Solar eclipses as seen from Tianjin

Related to the other Solar eclipses as seen from other Chinese cities also on this page. Unless the dates for the Solar Eclipses can be salvaged and possibly put on some page about dates of solar eclipses, the page should be deleted since it's very specific information and information other than the dates does not apply globally.

Delete. This page was on vfd several months ago iirc. I guess it wasn't deleted then. Wile E. Heresiarch
If we do decide to list future solar eclipses, this is not the way to do it - they should be listed by solar eclipse, and a statement of the regions they will be visible in, not by city. Are we going to list every city in the world like this? I'd rather not. Delete. Average Earthman 08:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete, if we had to list every possible astronomical phenomenon as seen from every single city in the world, it would constitute about 90% of the articles on Wikipedia, a listing of the coming solar eclipses with a summary of where they are best visible should be sufficient (not sure if such a page exists). Same goes for the other cities listed. StuartH 13:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. DJ Clayworth 21:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Solar eclipses as seen from Shanghai

Related to the other Solar eclipses as seen from other Chinese cities also on this page. Unless the dates for the Solar Eclipses can be salvaged and possibly put on some page about dates of solar eclipses, the page should be deleted since it's very specific information and information other than the dates does not apply globally.

Delete. This page was on vfd several months ago iirc. I guess it wasn't deleted then. Wile E. Heresiarch
Delete. This is not the way to list future solar eclipses. Average Earthman 08:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. DJ Clayworth 21:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Solar eclipses as seen from Beijing

Related to the other Solar eclipses as seen from other Chinese cities also on this page. Unless the dates for the Solar Eclipses can be salvaged and possibly put on some page about dates of solar eclipses, the page should be deleted since it's very specific information and information other than the dates does not apply globally.

Delete. This page was on vfd several months ago iirc. I guess it wasn't deleted then. Wile E. Heresiarch
Delete. This is not the way to list future solar eclipses. Average Earthman 08:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. DJ Clayworth 21:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Indestructible Ink for Resisting the Action of Corrosive Substances

Tulsa Computer Society

Non-notable organization. Low Alexa rank in the millions (see the link http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=&url=http://www.tcs.org). Not really an expandable article. In original form, vanity/advert ([22] - note the use of the words "Our motto..."). Wikipedia is not a directory of minor organizations or websites, and are we really going to have an article for a computer society in every city in America? --Lowellian 02:46, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: We have already faced precedent with other computer clubs, and many of them had their proprietors show up on the VfD page and try to bend the article to meet standards. In general, such very local voluntary organizations are not known outside of their towns and are therefore not notable. Geogre 04:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The article contains nothing notable. Average Earthman 08:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Computer clubs are computer clubs are computers clubs. Dog bites man is not notable. Jallan 16:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stafford High School

Orphaned non-notable substub article created by me due to self-vanity against naming conventions and established policies. ugen64 03:28, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Speedy delete candidate, you know. If the author blanks it (hint hint), it can be a speedy delete and not involve any gut twisting debate here (hint hint). If the author blanks it and puts a delete tag on it, or puts a note on it saying, "Blanked by author," I'm sure some admin or other will kill it. (I applaud your confession. Ten Hail Maurays ought to do it.) Geogre 04:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Liu Di 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

this page has had the notable tag since July. Liu Di is listed (with details) as a dissident by human rights watch. is it notable or not? it's time to either remove the tag or delete the article. Wolfman 03:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Wolfman 03:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 09:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but it should be updated. Geogre 12:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Could be a good article when finished. Fire Star 22:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Notable and historically relevant. --Viriditas 00:11, 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.

Hidden drive

Admits to lack of notability itself. In the unlikely event that we need an article on hidden drives, there's no reason to have this unrelated text in the history. —Triskaideka 05:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete -- essentially a vanity page Wolfman 06:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- Agree with Wolfman. ScribeOfTheNile 10:56, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Band vanity, but it's really cute. We really need some way of letting all first time users of Wikipedia know that we're no good at advertising for them. Geogre 12:40, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: There're probably hundreds of thousands of such bands. --webkid 12:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Garage band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 18:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tzmerth shmarya 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

Do we need artices on all Mossad activists? What's his notability? Mikkalai 05:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep -- seems interesting to me. Wolfman 06:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep - looks like it could do with some cleanup though -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 07:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Agree with Wolfman & Zaphod Beeblebrox. ScribeOfTheNile 11:37, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Alright, let me be the one, then, to point out that the article is misnamed. Also, it needs clarification of context. How as there a "Mossad" before there was an Israel? Perhaps that's something Everyone Knows, but it seems contradictory to me. Furthermore, all this interest on the Mossad seems...well...iffy. So, rename to Tzmerth Shmarya, if that's his name. Clean up. Geogre 14:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
After looking into this for a bit, it appears that Mossad was initially organized in 1938 for the purpose of aiding illegal Jewish immigration [23]. I don't know if this organization was reorganized into Mossad as it is known today or if the name is just a coincidence. The article Tzmerth shmarya associates him with Yehuda Arazi and the Darien II (a ship), which appear to be real (lots of hits for Arazi; sole relevant hit for Aliya Bet Darien is [24]). This article seems meaningful and interesting, although it will benefit from cleanup, and references especially. Keep. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:59, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Anyone looking for info on the web should bear in mind that there are many alternate transliterations for Hebrew words. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:01, 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.

Foreskin folding

Listed for speedy deletion by User:Mooses with the comment: yuck. While I agree with the comment, this is not a valid reason to delete. Furthermore, this article does not meet the narrow criteria for speedy deletion. No vote from myself, by the way. • Benc • 06:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not so yuck, but Delete (after folding into Foreskin :-). It is not a medical or anatomical term. There are many things one can do with foreskin. Mikkalai 06:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete Sorry, but I don't think Wikipedia needs every type of thing one can do to their precious bodily part. squash 06:40, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Elbow bending is the act of moving your forearm but we don't need an article on that either. silsor 06:42, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, fifteen Google hits does not an article make. Don't need an article about every combination of genital and gerund. Fuzheado | Talk 06:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This makes an excellent companion-piece for Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome - Nunh-huh 06:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, it's an insightful article. Delete. I'd rather have it deleted, then played around with hack writers. unsigned comment by User:Foreskin, creator of the article
- don't worry, no-one will be playing around with your foreskin, uh foreskin texts.--Ianb 07:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Surely this content should be part of the foreskin article, and this article title should simply redirect to foreskin? -- The Anome 07:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is pretty much covered in Foreskin#Hygiene. Delete --Ianb 07:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: No need for a redirect, non-encyclopedic and not significant. We don't need foreskin origami either. Geogre 12:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Actually...genital origami appears to be another name for Puppetry of the Penis on which we do in fact have an article.--Samuel J. Howard 07:05, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Aww, but I was going to write an article about my boyfriend's- err, nevermind. Delete. -FZ 15:38, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, redundant information about hygene already covered in foreskin. -- Zwilson 17:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant article, already covered at foreskin. — Gwalla | Talk 18:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. What's next, Thumb twiddling? Fire Star 22:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Actually, Thumb twiddling would probably be a more interesting and useful article. Jayjg 02:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I couldn't resist the temptation. KeyStroke 07:20, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

Zoe Trope 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

Non-notable. Mikkalai 06:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

~~Delete~~Keep (weak). The book (seems to exist, not vanity) might make her notable, the article as is tends towards vanity advertising / link placeholder for her blog, which is not in the least interesting. --Ianb 07:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - the book's notable enough - HarperCollins isn't exactly a vanity press --Rlandmann 07:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. See [25] (and navigate from there if you like). Seems notable to me. -- Jmabel 07:18, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Author is notable. --Viriditas 09:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep (weak). Amazon sales rank 74,251. My rule of thumb is a sales rank higher than 200,000 indicates that a book is "real." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The book was discussed in several young-adult literature & education forae in the US press- weak keep. -FZ 15:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
YOur votes are misaddressed. All what you say relates to her book. She may easily be a redirect to her book. The article contains nothing else notable. Mikkalai 18:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree - I think that if a book is notable, then its author is as well (not that you'd know it from the article as it currently stands). When we don't even have an article on the book to redirect to, it's an even stronger reason to keep. --Rlandmann 21:49, 22 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.

Portland Student Activists

Too vague article topic for encyclopedia. Mikkalai 06:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This should really be Portland Student Activism. I suspect it was created as a way of creating a reference to Zoe Trope. ~~Neutral.~~ --Ianb 07:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If anything it should be Student Activism in Portland, Oregon or similar. Weak Delete.--Ianb 07:47, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Weak delete: It should probably be a section of Portland, Oregon and its #Politics section. Student activists are all involved in these things, generally. Portland is a more lefty town than most, but I can't see its warranting a separate article. Who will search it without knowing all of this material in advance? Geogre 12:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If the content is not compelling enough then keep it as a redirect. Mark Richards 19:37, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Another marginal delete. It's arguable that Portland's student activist scene is notable enough for a serious article to be written, but this definitely isn't it, and it's obscure enough that it's not going to get any better. Let's not set any precedents here, though -- a similar article on, say, Berkeley would be a definite keeper. RadicalSubversiv E 06:41, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Weak delete. PDX is a political town, & an article about that would be good. This isn't it, though. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Galactipedia

Unencyclopedic - single throw-away reference in a single Star Trek:The Next Generation episode --Rlandmann 06:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete -- Jmabel 07:20, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fancruft. Average Earthman 08:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikimol 11:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. ScribeOfTheNile 11:31, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - also, as far as I can tell, it should be "galactopedia," or at least that seems to be how it was spelled in the Star Trek episode. Adam Bishop 13:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not only is it subtrivial fancruft (throw-away mention in single episode), but the bulk of the article is speculation about what it could be. — Gwalla | Talk 18:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jayjg 02:06, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: speculative fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kam Ruble

Vanity page for non-notable author: the sole contribution of User:KamRuble. —Stormie 07:03, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Publisher (Global Authors Publications) is a vanity press --Rlandmann 07:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Aha, thought so, I didn't have any luck finding them with Google though - they might want to work on their search engine optimization a bit. —Stormie 08:55, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Not at all a good sign to write "Passing the 'authoring pen' to his wife and award-wining poet, Kam has" when Kam is supposed to be the wife. Vanity entry and vanity press, and we should HAVE NO MERCY about the delete. Geogre 12:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If the author comes back, move it to a user page. If not, delete vanity. Rossami 14:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert for a series of books published by a vanity press. The lack of notability is overwhelming. Average Earthman 14:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. So unnotable it's zzzzz... Katherine Shaw 15:05, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, non-notable author(s?). — Gwalla | Talk 18:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete Jacob1207 04:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hasn't occasional vanity been placed on the user's page instead of deleting? Perhaps a more regular VfD member could confirm. Abstain.--Rossumcapek 03:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jesus built my hot rod

I will let this article speak for itself... -- Solitude 07:16, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

It's actually a song by Ministry (band). Page should redirect there, and the current contents moved to BJAODN --Rlandmann 07:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If it's a song, then delete and redirect. I don't think it's funny enough for BJAODN. --G Rutter 07:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete and redirect, agree with the above. Andris 07:42, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Psalm 69: The Way to Succeed and the Way to Suck Eggs the album containing this song. bbx 09:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep as a redirect to the album. Copy original text (Jesus built my hot rod is an expression used to describe the Christo-symbolic aspects of ones material posessions and personal physical manifestations as being holy or possessed of spiritual and metaphysical powers) to BJAODN as a perfect parody of NPOV writing style. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:18, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep redirect. The controversy stir was by Ministry. They thought it was cool. Me, I never thought they were terribly "industrial" or profound, but I was too old for their demographic, and cheap blasphemy has always seemed petulant. Geogre 18:13, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep redirect. The original article was patent nonsense though. — Gwalla | Talk 18:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
All of a sudden I found myself alone in the world and all I could say was ding-a-ding-dang-a-dang-a-long-DELETE!!!! Terrapin 21:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect, of course - it's a very notable milestone release in the history of industrial music. Gosh, I haven't listened to that CD for about 10 years. Davodd 07:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Keep of course, it's a real song. Mark Richards 19:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To me, this article feels a bit like an excuse for controversy. There is a point to be made, but couldn't it be better made in the relevant articles on language? Deb 16:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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 Deleted by unknown administrator (Closing old afd discussion) SoothingR^(pour) 14:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date management

delete Empty page, most likely a typo when trying to enter "Data management". KeyStroke 17:01, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
Comment: If it's really empty, it's a speedy candidate. It looks like it was a broken redirect though...Can we redirect to categories? -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 17:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I hate to sound like a controversial person, but the matter is resolved. Originally, there was an article here that got merged to Data management. Data management got redirected to [[Category:Data management]]. That meant that Date management was a double redirect. Timwi changed it to a redirect to [[Category:Data management]]. That should have fixed it. Then it seems that KeyStroke put the VfD tag on it. I reinstated the category redirect and removed the VfD tag. I hope that solves the problem. Geogre 18:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- KeyStroke has clarified that this is a redirect that serves no purpose. Pending a listing on RfD, I will vote delete. Geogre 00:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Bagger

Delete. This looks like some sort of joke. It certainly doesn't belong here. Binadot 17:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete and/or move to BJAODN. This has got to be a joke. -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 17:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete Nonsense -- Zwilson 17:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Obvious joke. It's too polished for BJAODN, I think. The best ones are the truly raving ones. This has all the signs of bored college grads. Geogre 18:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Don't Delete: It's partially mine, but I don't know how it got here. Funny as hell, though. Khlysti
- Note: this is this user's sole edit using this user name. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Joke. Jayjg 21:09, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Joke. — Gwalla | Talk 21:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. This is offensive to those who are homeless. Derek Ross | Talk 22:02, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
Delete, speedily if possible, in the normal time if not, but this utter nonsense should go notwithstanding. Fire Star 22:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And here I thought a bagger was the guy standing at the end of the grocery checkout line. Delete --DMG413 02:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Speed deleted as patent nonsense. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mimsglobal

Delete - advertising Zwilson 17:56, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: not notable either. -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 18:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: "MLM"=Multi-Level Marketing=Pyramid scheme/PONZI. Advertising for illegal activities, depending on state and nation. Geogre 18:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete Chuck 19:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete Jayjg 21:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert for scam operation. — Gwalla | Talk 21:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Speaking of scam operations, Adverts for pyramid schemse are illegal in some jurisdictions, for the protection of Wikipedia, do we need to speedy this? Oh yeah Delete if not speedied. -Vina 00:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Speedy deleted due to potential for exposing Wikipedia to charges of promoting illegal marketing though it was an edge case. Geogre 01:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) Content was: "MimsGlobal was started in 1991 by Phil Mims and his brother Bob as a network marketing organization (under Excel Communications) that grew to over 100,000 representatives worldwide in just twelve years. MimsGlobal claims to have a strict code of conduct and high ethical standards for MLM practices." This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Descartes – “Discourse on Method” Outline.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Descartes – “Discourse on Method” Outline

Delete, homework assignment; not encyclopedic. -- Zwilson 18:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep I think an article about Descartes "Discourse on Method" is very encyclopedic. Isn't it one of the seminal works in philosophy? It just needs to be cleaned up and expanded so its not just an outline. (Sign your posts by typing ~~~~, Chuckstar -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 19:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC))
Delete: There's already a good article on Discourse on Method. -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 19:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not an encyclopedia article, redundant with Discourse on Method. — Gwalla | Talk 21:21, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is there any content that can be merged and redirected with Discourse on Method? If not, then just delete. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It's a "plot outline" for a pretty short book. I suppose a person could scale it way, way, way back and put it into the Discourse on Method article as a #Summary section, but it's not really necessary or contributory. Geogre 00:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge into Discourse on Method, if useful informartion can be extracted. Delete otherwise. Andris 07:17, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

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

Dollar Menu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not encyclopedic Chuck 18:59, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Many other fast-food places have budget menus nowadays. We should probably have a more general article instead of one that just focuses on McDonald's, but until that's written, keep. Real phenomenom. - RedWordSmith 20:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. With EXTREME predjudice. "real phenomenon"? I must have missed that article in the Economist. Just another cheap product offered for sale. See also Wal-Mart. Non-notable. Terrapin 21:01, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete as advertising, orphan, trivial, information that will too rapidly go stale... It is not a cultural phenomenon even on the order of the Happy Meal. Might be a footnote in the current McDonalds article but not by itself. Rossami 22:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ugh, I want recompense for the matter of seconds I just wasted opening that page. Delete, please! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:22, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I can imagine all our British Wikipedians going down to their local McDonalds with a dollar. Provincial, ephemeral, and not notable. Geogre 00:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Do you want to send me a dollar so I can try that one out? In the UK it's called the 99p menu - hardly as much of a snappy ring, eh? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Definite keep. This is good, verifiable, notable information. Guan aco 00:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, advertising; not a significant phenomenon. Unless improved out of all recognition before expiration of VfD. I'm not aware of any trend toward "dollar menus." Guanaco, how is this any more notable than, oh, say, Burger King's "Cravers?" Or a Wendy's "Super Value Meal?" Or the McDonalds' promotion about a decade ago for meals where you could "get something you haven't seen in a long time: change back from your dollar?" Or any of thousands of loss-leader sales promotions? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) P. S. Redirect to Garbage plate! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless expanded. -Sean Curtin 00:44, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to McDonald's and merge. - Evil saltine 00:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - I do have a bias since I wrote the original stub, but I do think that the Dollar Menu at McDonald's is notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Consider the other McDonald's-related articles that we have here: Mighty Kids Meal, McFlurry, Big Mac, Mayor McCheese, and I'm lovin' it, to name some of them. The Dollar Menu is just as or more notable than many of these. It is true that this is a stub and has room for expansion. For example, some information that could be added include when the Dollar Menu was started and why it was started (i.e. McDonald's financial troubles). If it is decided that this article is not going to be kept, then it should at least be redirected to McDonald's like McChicken was. --Chessphoon 01:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. That other stuff probably should go too. Not at all notable, generic phrase. --Improv 04:12, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Personally, I think it would interesting and perhaps encyclopedic to have some kind of comprehensive summary, in tabular or timeline form, showing the lifespan of various McDonalds menu items. McLean Deluxe... Arch Deluxe... I remember back in the 1970s they had roast beef (steamed, greyish roast beef)... Because of the research needed to do this to encyclopedic standards, I'm not going to be the one to do it. Similarly, a timeline of advertising campaigns and slogans would be interesting if well-researched and comprehensive. (Is "You deserve a break today?" still being used?) ("Mac Tonight" with the Ray-Charles-like crescent moon urging people to consider McDonalds for dinner as well as lunch had a short life...) However, isolated individual stubby articles on these topics are not worthwhile. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Jacob1207 04:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. --G Rutter 08:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There's no point in referring to encyclopedic stuff that could be added which can just as well be added in the main McDonald's article. Jallan 20:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The dollar menu is a genie that McDonalds let out of the bottle which has substantially changed their economics and the economics of their industry in general. I added some commentary on the price war / financial troubles it got them into--plus a link to an article where the MCDonalds CEO is professing his continued support for the menu. User:A_brit_abroad
Keep and merge into McDonalds. Eventually keep a redirect to the appropriate section into the McDonalds article. Alfio 16:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

Disambiguation

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Untitled discussion

from VfD:

Delete, dicdef -- Zwilson 19:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not a vote: Tom is best known as a name, surely, and as such the article may be expanded (as seems to be the trend with Eric and John) to include famous/important/articled people with that name. violet/riga (t) 19:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ack! That sounds like the beginning of a bad trend I think we do *not* want to encourage. Delete --Improv 20:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Certainly not a delete. Also a disambig for tom-tom.--Samuel J. Howard 20:27, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep and disambiguate. Agree that it's not a deletion candidate. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:20, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I think it is a candidate. Tom-toms are tom-toms and won't be searched by "tom." All the Thomases of the world known only by the name Tom? How many is that? So that leaves us with the dictdef tom turkey. Geogre 00:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Geogre, check out the article tom-tom and you will see that a tom-tom is frequently refered to as a "tom".--Samuel J. Howard 02:48, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Has anyone got any references for Tom being used as a word for lunatic?

What about the Tom of Myspace? Tom/"Myspace Tom" as he's commonly referred as, is a common reference amongst young pop culture.

Should Logan Tom (b. 1981) - Olympic indoor volleyball player be mentioned here ? 84.129.185.74 21:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12/2/08 cleanup

I cleaned up the page in accordance with the guidelines MOS:DP and WP:Disambiguation. I removed several entries for phrases that contain the word "tom" as part of a larger phrase, such as "TomTom," that nobody would reasonably search for as just "Tom." I removed entries for articles that didn't include any indication that the topic is referred to as "Tom." I removed entries for things that are called "Thomas" instead of "Tom." I also removed the "Famous Toms" list entirely, because there's no criteria for which Toms are "famous" enough to be listed there, and I think there are literally hundreds of people on Wikipedia named Tom who were not currently listed and I'm not going to spend hours of my life compiling a fairly worthless list of people named Tom. If any of those people are actually CALLED just Tom on a regular basis, the way Oprah is called just Oprah, they could be added back. Propaniac (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with disambiguation page guidelines but I think this page needs to be split into several separate dab pages like those with {{hndis}} or {{SIA}} templates. I've tagged it with a cleanup tag for now. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 22:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"TOM (programming language) (disambiguation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect TOM (programming language) (disambiguation) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 5 § TOM (programming language) (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"TOM (programming language)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect TOM (programming language) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 5 § TOM (programming language) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Tom (programming language)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tom (programming language) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 5 § Tom (programming language) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Morss

Vanity. Non-notable person. Google returns 6 relevant links [26]. --Edcolins 20:23, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Banjax, if we have to have that. Geogre 00:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. Promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Darryl Collins

Vanity. Non-notable person. --Edcolins 20:32, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Banjax: they're page rank boosting by getting a link to their company in in all cases, I guess. Geogre 00:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. Promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Note that User:Darrylxxx is Darryl Collins. Contribs: [27] Wile E. Heresiarch 03:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - If this is accurate, then I'd delete all these related pages on the grounds that they are self promotion. Average Earthman 08:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Well, the claim that Darrylxxx == Darryl Collins is made on the User:Darrylxxx user page. I'm assuming it's true. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:49, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alastair McIlwain

Non-notable person. --Edcolins 20:35, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Banjax. Geogre 00:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. Promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dale Newton

Yet another non-notable folk. --Edcolins 20:38, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Banjax. Geogre 00:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. Promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aisling O’Brien

Non-notable person. --Edcolins 20:40, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Banjax, if we must have it. Geogre 01:22, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. Promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:33, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Broadfield 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

Suburb of "Crawly", article created in May, +NPOV tag for looking like an ad in June, that's it. One wonders why it wasn't VfDed in June. Delete for Ad and non-notability. -Vina 20:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Real estate ad, non-notable suburb. — Gwalla | Talk 21:26, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup - if places in the USA that have about 1 resident are worthy of articles, major suburbs should get them also. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:12, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete for advertising. It has been in search of cleaners for a long time. No one wants to delete a real place, but a housing development isn't a town or village -- it's an ad. Geogre 00:30, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Cleanup if necessary. One of 13 formal neighborhoods of Crawley, used in addresses--5 or 6 other neighborhoods of Crawley have articles. Seems to also be an election district. We have dozens, if not hundreds, of articles on US cities' neighborhoods that aren't formal enuf to be used in addresses--deleting this would be US-centric. We even have articles on individual streets in New York (much to my chagrin). Niteowlneils 03:04, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep--It's a place, not an advert. --A Brit Abroad 08:25, 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.

Fox Hunt

Non-encyclopedic. A POV diatribe against Fox Hunters. Jayjg 20:45, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

er.. redirect to Fox hunting? --Steinsky 20:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'd agree but I suspect Fox hunting seems very biased in favour of hunting, claims it's ancient etc. Misses out the bits about importing foxes from France in about 1900 etc.--Jirate 21:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I suspect that this user will interpret any votes that don't explicitly say "delete" as votes to keep the page. Jayjg 20:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - It is rather strange that in another conf, where your racism has been exposed, you had a bit of a paddy and now you've decide to go around marking up some of contributions for deletion. Is this just an other thing you do when stamping your feet doesn't get you anywhere. Seems abit personal, but atleast it's an improvment and is slighly more honest and up front than you normal attempts to introduce bias. Keep trying perhaps one day something honest will be said by you deliberatly and with knowledge of the facts.--Jirate 21:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Is that a vote for or against deletion? Jayjg 21:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If Fox hunting is biased, fix that then. Don't create new articles to avoid POV problems. --Improv 04:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I don't really want to get into more fights with the self righteous prigs, and this place is full of them see Jayjg, and fox hunting attracts many. Even this discussion is a covert attack by Jayjg.--Jirate 11:51, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - It doesn't matter if it's tiring dealing with them -- creating duplicate articles to avoid them is the wrong thing to do, and it'll just draw them to the duplicate article anyhow. Personally, I dislike fox hunting too, but if I felt the articles on it were POV, I would commit myself to dealing with their authors, and to making a good NPOV article rather than making another POV article on the other side. You need to do the same if you want to contribute. --Improv 13:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redirect to fox hunting. No merge, since it's hopelessly POV. — Gwalla | Talk 21:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to fox hunting; this is not the place to discuss the POV issues in the latter article. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Fox hunting. This stub suggests that there's a separate organization called "Fox Hunt" that organizes hunts. If so, it could be mentioned in Fox hunting or could merit its own article if there's more information about it, but this stub is completely uninformative about such an entity. JamesMLane 22:16, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirected to Fox hunting. See here for the old version. Rossami 22:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep as redirect.Mark Richards 19:37, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hunt Followers

Non-encyclopedic. Another POV diatribe against Fox hunters. See above. Jayjg 20:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is rather strange that in another conf, where your racism has been exposed, you had a bit of a paddy and now you've decide to go around marking up some of contributions for deletion. Is this just an other thing you do when stamping your feet doesn't get you anywhere. Seems abit personal, but atleast it's an improvment and is slighly more honest and up front than you normal attempts to introduce bias. Keep trying perhaps one day something honest will be said by you deliberatly and with knowledge of the facts.--Jirate 21:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Is that a vote for or against deletion? Jayjg 21:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism/POV. All this can be merged with Fox Hunting, which could stand to be NPOV'ed as well.
Delete. Dictdef padded with absurd POV ("if fox hunting is banned, they are likely to head up a terrorist campaign"). — Gwalla | Talk 21:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Personal research. Nonsense. ---Rednblu 22:11, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to fox hunting - living in the British countryside I have come across this term, it's not as much of a neologism as one might think. No content to merge, just redirect. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:17, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I think I've seen the term in a sense of nonparticipating spectators at a hunt. If that actually occurs, it could be mentioned in Fox hunting, and Hunt followers (lower-case "f") might be set up as a redirect to Fox hunting. This stub, however, might as well be deleted. JamesMLane 22:23, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The title isn't formatted well enough to use as a redirect. Delete. Fire Star 22:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: POV news item and advocacy. Geogre 00:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Too POV at the moment, but a valid subject. It's not a neologism at all - it's a term that's been around for as long as there have been hunts. -- Necrothesp 00:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. POV, and irrelevant. Information could be easily incorporated into Fox hunting. Binadot 02:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Move to hunt followers, then merge & redirect to fox hunting. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete no redirect. Duplicate article. --Improv 04:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I honestly cannot believe this. This is a real term. Redirect it - not a candidate for deletion. Mark Richards 19:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Both with and without caps, should be a redirect to fox hunting and the topic should be taken up there. In some areas, hunt followers outnumber actual hunters, and it is certainly not a neologism. -- Jmabel 21:28, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia

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 - kept

Cruciform

Dicdef; probably cannot ever be a true article. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 22:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: dicdef -- Zwilson 23:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia naming policy is to link adjectives to the proper noun, so I vote for a redirect to cross. Livajo 00:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure. It's not strictly a dictdef, since it explains cruciform architecture, but that's all it explains -- suggesting that this article arose as an adjunct to the Cathedral design article. Delete, as the worthy material belongs back with cathedrals. Redirect not necessary. Geogre 00:26, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge into cathedral architecture, then redirect to cross. -Sean Curtin 00:46, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Merge into cathedral architecture, then replace text with Cruciform means having the shape of a cross or some such (i.e., don't just redirect -- someone wanting to know what "cruciform" means won't be well-served by ending up at "cross" without a notion of the connection between the two). Wile E. Heresiarch 03:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Certainly this refers to Christian cross, any redirect or link should probably go there.--Samuel J. Howard 04:15, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
"Cruciform" also refers to (or used to, at any rate) some kinds of vegetables; broccoli, etc. Any redirect should mention that. Fire Star 05:13, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Plants of the mustard family are sometimes called crucifers, so called because the flowers have four petals in the shape of a cross. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
keep and do not rediredt, nor merge. The idea has application to more than just cathedral architecture, which I will show by adding to the article. KeyStroke 08:24, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
If it can be expanded, keep. Bear in mind that this is (or should be) not just about cathedrals but about churches of all sizes. --Phil | Talk 09:43, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Possibly rename to get rid of adjectival name. 'Cruciform shape', maybe? It neither refers just to cathedrals, as has already been pointed out, nor just to Christian crosses. -- Necrothesp 10:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. At first glance, seems to be a dicdef. Having looked at it a second time, it looks like it should be merged and redirected to the cathedral diagram article. --Viriditas 08:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The current juxtaposition of topics (cathedral architecture and city planning) is very odd. The cathedral stuff should probably be saved somewhere, while the city planning comment seems generally unnecesary. Isomorphic 17:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Cruciform" does not refer specifically to a Christian cross, but to anything in that shape- the term can equally be applied to an early Han dynasty building with four wings (or, apparently, to a broccoli). The article as it stands seems to lack something, though. I'd say merge and redirect to something- I can't see this article by itself getting more than a dicdef. -FZ 19:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Excellent point. This would certainly classify a merge or link in the Archetype article. Otherwise, it's a dicdef, so merge and redirect somewhere or delete. --Viriditas 08:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete - This is a dictionary definition, not an article. Also implies city layout of Washington, DC was cruciform by design as the Keystroke argues on my talk page. I refute this. - Polynova 08:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. That addition was utter nonsense, and actually a misleading way to demonstrate the idea. Cruciform is a term almost exclusively used in architecture. As such, I think this entry can progess beyond a dicdef by documenting the history of cruciform designs, notable ones, and so forth. Cool Hand Luke 07:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Whatever we do with this, do not redirect to something like cross. An article needs to exist for this, and redirects discourage creation. It's a commonly used word in architecture and does indeed apply to non-cathedral churches (see: Salt Lake Assembly Hall—an article I wrote, I'm afraid). Cruciform plans exist outside of cathedral/gothic architecture, so a redirect to christian cross is awful. Cool Hand Luke 07:21, 25 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.

Guy stern

The fact that this user had added vanity pages for himself at Daniel stern and elsewhere on wikipedia drew my attention to this page. There is a famous Guy Stern, but this guy isn't it. Google search for "Guy Stern" + photographer brings up 82 hits, the majority of which are still for the German Guy Stern. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: He has exhibitions, but no established career yet. It's something to exhibit, but these things can be very deceptive. Are they independent galleries? Since they're all at one, is this a school-based gallery? Geogre 00:23, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete and ban user. May seem intense but this user is adding vanity pages on an amateur photographer [himself] again and again, and vandalizing Daniel Stern, the disambiguation page.

Scottsdale Fashion Square 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

Non-notable shopping mall. Rick K 23:56, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable. • Benc • 23:46, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yet another vote change to keep. Thanks for the expansion, Chuck. • Benc • 05:59, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, unless they can tell us considerably more about this place. Ambi 23:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Much better now. Ambi 12:09, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ unless it's a really notable mall. Don't think so, especially since we don't even know what city it's in. Geogre 00:22, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep present revision by Chuckstar: the case for notability has been made. Geogre 04:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm certain it's Scottsdale, Arizona. Camelback Road runs between Phoenix and Scottsdale, if memory serves. If it's the mall I'm thinking of, it's a nice place but it's still just a mall. Heck, Del Amo Fashion Square in Torrance, California is the second or third largest mall in the world and it doesn't have an article. Delete as non-notable, especially since the author couldn't be bothered to tell us where this place is. - Lucky 6.9 02:21, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete: nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)~~
- I see the article has been expanded. Not sure now, no vote. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:12, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The article contains no evidence of notability. Average Earthman 08:49, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - OK, the original article was completely useless. However, I just added some information as to why this is a notable mall. Additional interesting detail is available, I just don't have time to add it right now. Please check it out. From a real estate development viewpoint, this mall is actually pretty interesting. If we can have all of the fancruft that litters wikipedia, why not some interesting facts for the real estate professionals among us. BTW, the fact that Del Amo does not (yet) have an article is not necessarily a guideline for whether any other mall should or shouldn't have an article. A lot of encyclopedic topics do not (yet) have articles about them. (In fact, I'm thinking about writing a Del Amo article...) Chuck 21:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I almost hate to say it, but the history seems notable. Keep -- Jmabel 21:32, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Seems worthy to keep. --YUL89YYZ 19:44, Sep 27, 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.

Dvoryanstvo

This is the English wikipedia. Rick K 01:45, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Beg mercy! To put vfd on an article 40 minutes old... But the blame is on the author, I admit. Russian nobility has its specifics that calls for separate articles, even the words are not English. We have szlachta and emir and <...> here. What's wrong with 'dvoryanstvo' besides being substub? Mikkalai 02:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep: notable historical term. Article has been expanded, it's quite informative now. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I've encountered this word (and its derivatives, such as dvoryanin or dvoryane) in a number of articles, and it's always a red link. Let it stay. Or we could probably create a separate article on Russianisms (or Sovietisms, for that matter), if people feel like it. KNewman 04:02, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- In fact, there is List of English words of Russian origin. A good idea would be to supply it with summaries. Mikkalai 15:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Historically important concept. --Improv 04:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, provided it's expanded further. Mackensen 05:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It is educational from historical point article. --Debora 14:44, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VFD removed, since the article became full. Mikkalai 05:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vfd restored, since the discussion period hasn't ended. Rick K 05:15, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. Aaaaa 05:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The above is a sock puppet masquerading as a real User. Rick K 05:49, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I'd rather have no article than tolerate the childish behavior involved with the VFD tag. GrazingCow 05:38, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The above is a sock puppet. Rick K 05:49, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment, no vote. No offense, but that's a terrible reason to vote delete. To quote User:SS: Articles aren't insane, people are. If this article was listed for deletion too hastily, then so be it. If not, that's fine too. We judge articles on their own merits, not by their authors or by the actions of voters on VfD. PS: please don't use sockpuppets. • Benc • 05:52, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sock or stocking, I'd suggest him to read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Unlisting_a_page_from_VfD before casting stones. I delisted the article primarily because the vfd page is very big, and IMO it is a good idea to clean it in the clear cases, to relieve some sore eyeballs. Mikkalai 05:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

from VfD:

A much more elaborate explanation of this topic can be found in the separate articles for introversion and extroversion. This article is not needed and poorly named to boot, so it would not even service as a useful redirect (which one would it redirect to anyways?). I'm not sure there even could be a good name describing the scale of "-troversion" that people can be classified on. In any case, I think the best solution is to keep this topic as two separate articles describing the opposite qualities of introversion and extroversion, and to not introduce a third article which will end up containing much pretty much the same information as the separate articles. Livajo 03:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe redirect to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator? Not sure anyone would look for this, though, among other problems with that solution. - RedWordSmith 04:25, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. introversion and extroversion already link to each other, if someone wanted info on myers-briggs i can't see then putting that term in the search. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 08:28, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Duplicate. --Viriditas 12:06, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep it - in psychology the scale is called Itroversion/extroversion. Keep it as a disambig or redirect. Mark Richards 19:35, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

September 23

Bloomfield Avenue

It's not particularly "encyclopedic," but more importantly it is a Mr. Treason creation. According to the rules (as I understand them) all his edits are to be reverted, regardless of content. So that means deleting this page. If I've misinterpreted those rules, I apologize (but not to him) --Feitclub 03:45, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

If Treason's edits do have such a sanction, then why can't this article be speedied? Delete, regardless. Fire Star 05:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, it does seem to be factual. I would agree, though, that in its present form it doesn't add much. Mackensen 05:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It seems factual, maybe even useful to me. I'm not sure I see what the problem is. Why not let this one slide and keep it?meagermango
Delete: If Mr. Treason is on hard ban, then he's on hard ban. However, this is just a usual kind of delete, IMO. The problem is that there are Bloomfield Avenues all over the place. What's said in this article is true. It's also of very local historical significance. The thing is that it's not of wider interest. Are the people in Orange going to have heard of the importance of Bloomfield Avenue, or are they going to have their very own street by that name? Geogre 13:09, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete if that's the custom. Banned user is banned user. --Improv 13:41, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The page is not a Mr. Treason creation, although an IP credited to him did edit it. Edit history: [28] That said, the road doesn't appear to be notable. No vote yet. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:50, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whiskey tango foxtrot

delete Just someone being crude, trying to illicit shock. KeyStroke 06:36, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)
Delete, maybe even speedy delete. Borderline patent nonsense. Andris 07:14, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It's nonsense. -- [[User:Bobdoe|Bob Doe]] 07:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Speedy delete candidate -- The Anome 07:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Binadot 12:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as a prank. Geogre 13:06, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This was probably was not a strict speedy candidate since the original article was technically correct - that is the NATO phonetics for "WTF" an abbreviation that is in popular use in Internet chats and in the military. It is, however, an obvious delete because it's poorly named and a dicdef at best. Leave it deleted. Rossami 13:15, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- In fact, the expression "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" is in use on some forums. I suggest that this be undeleted and its content merged to a more appropriate place. (Of course, I can't read the original article. Twinxor 17:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Casey Nissa Hedstrom

Vanity. Davodd 06:37, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

delete -- no google hitsWolfman 08:22, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can verify this. I've found no mention as yet. Average Earthman 09:31, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Abstain: The article is correct about Hedstrom being a major toy manufacturer, but there are no web entries at all for a film maker by this name, so the article's claim that she's a notable and influential activist and film maker seems wrong. Geogre 13:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
delete Dsmdgold 14:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Newton's fundamental ratio

A spoof. Pseudo-mathematical patent nonsense. Speedy delete candidate -- The Anome 07:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
delete -- nonsense Wolfman 08:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, ~~preferably speedily~~. Patent nonsense that looks more intelligent than your average crackpot article because it uses <math> tags. A classy bit of vandalism. • Benc • 08:43, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice. --Phil | Talk 09:46, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Bad math, bad science - must be a spoof, surely? Delete - TB 10:45, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Hoaxes are not speedy deletes according to the specific cases. Regular delete. Rossami 13:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Excellent troll. Probably very convincing to non-mathematicians. Surely we should be able to speedy a hoax? If not, that policy needs to change. Delete. anyway, even if we have to wait. —Rory ☺ 16:44, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Looks like a savvy hoax. Might be someone testing Wikipedia's ability to root out plausible-sounding nonsense. Really ought to be speedy-deleted as complete misinformation. Isomorphic 17:49, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Too many articles that were initially thought to be a hoax have turned out to be valid topics but poorly written. (See Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia above for a recent example that caught me.) The VfD notice is usually sufficient to alert readers that the article is suspect but you could also edit the article or comment on the Talk page to make your concerns more visible. Rossami
- Comment: you're right, this probably isn't speedy material. I initially voted for speed myself because hoaxes have a way of appearing to fit one of the official defintions for patent nonsense: Stuff that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irremediably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head or tail of it. As you've pointed out, to avoid deleting real topics, hoaxes need to be properly examined by a group of editors, not a single admin on speedy. Perhaps we should add hoaxes to the "Not to be confused with..." section on Wikipedia:Patent nonsense? • Benc • 19:53, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Inspected by professional applied mathematician and speedily deleted as patent nonsense:"text that has no assignable meaning at all". The beginning was: In a branch of applied mathematics known as operations research, Newton's fundamental ratio as written in the Principia Combinatorica VI volume expresses the relationship between the positive and negative objects in the subjective perception of a single sentient entity.. This is not a "Prince Alexander" case. We are dealing with exact science here. Mikkalai 21:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Disagree. We've been wrong before on all topics. And as the holder of an advanced degree in operations research, I would disagree with the allegation that an "exact science" is somehow different. No one person can be current on every theory, development or change in the field. It was a hoax but it was not patent nonsense. Rossami 21:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - This isn't a matter of "I'm well-read in the area and have never heard of this, so it must be nonsense". It's a matter of "being qualified in the area I can recognise that this lacks meaning." It is nonsense in a form such that some readers would not know it, but it is still nonsense. Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" was nonsense whether the publishers could tell or not. —Rory ☺ 23:20, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. But it is not patent nonsense which, by our definition, is recognizable by everyone. I'm sorry to be such a stickler on this one but it's an important distinction to me. Rossami
  - Okay, I can see that. But it's not a good idea to have an article that we know is a total lie but that doesn't look like one to many people. Would anyone object to putting a big red box at the top saying "Nothing in this article is true (except this)"?
  - Okay. I added the mentioning that it is listed as hoax. Let readers have some fun, after all. BTW, your point is good, but this is not the "patent nosence" policy says: ...that no intelligent person can be expected to try to make head or tail of it. Mikkalai 06:13, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Beginning already gives it away as lacking any meaning. Nice spoof, though Awolf002 23:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Patent nonsense / spoof / hoax / BJAODN candidate. The sanity of the article's creator is disputed. -- Mike Rosoft 16:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. No non-Wiki Google hits. Someone trying to pull a Sokal. --zenohockey 19:50, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Meach

not notable Wolfman 07:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete not-notable. - [[User:Cohesion|cohesion ☎]] 08:25, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Those :15 are ticking down. Even though Warhol said that "In the 70's, everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes" as a joke in 1969, it seems like the noughties are when all absurd jokes come true. Geogre 12:58, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just a comment - we have articles for most of the other contestants. This one is not particularly useful, and in fact they are all subject to vandalism from overzealous fans, so I'm not sure what to do. (In my opinion the only ones involved in the whole Canadian Idol thing who are article-worthy are Ben Mulroney and Sass Jordan.) Adam Bishop 15:22, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The problem, it seems to me, is that we're going to have to work with rough consensus rather than official policy, and the rough consensus emerges unofficially, and undocumented, by debates like this. We have now had about seven XX Idol contestant entries on VfD. My impression of consensus (and it may be wrong because it's what I believe and I may be swayed by seeing agreement) is that winners stay, possibly top 2 finalists stay, but "contestants" in general do not. In a sense, it's rational. The winner gets a record contract (and some inane film, possibly) and airplay. Sometimes the #2 person gets the same (that Reuben guy in the US), so each of these people will achieve notability other than being a flavor of the month -- even if their careers are briefer than The Left Bank's ("Walk Away Renee"). However, the nature of reality shows is to shove forward numerous undistinguished persons to hype, and the "XX Idol" thing is a franchise with a store in every nation. If each has 12 finalists, and each exists in only, oh, 11 nations, we're at 133 entries a year -- all of whom will be forgotten the next year. Geogre 16:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you don't know Meahc you don't matter.. so stopping voting for deletion!

Above comment made by User:70.64.1.125

Diö Hockey

not notable, no info really, just an external link

Delete: Complete advertising of a useless thing. Geogre 12:56, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Most definitely of no value to Wikipedia. •→Iñgólemo ←• 02:55, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Belinda Thorpe 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

Australian Big Brother contestant. not notable Wolfman 08:32, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete this, and all big brother contestant articles. Lacrimosus 08:36, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The saga got a heck of a lot of publicity. I'm not an inclusionist and I can't stand Big Brother, but I still remember the media attention this one case got. Ambi 08:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Difficult call - not notable, but there's a benefit to wikipedia in accepting a small anmount of whoring for propularity. No vote - TB 10:47, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I think we've gotten very popular already, and putting everyone in their :15 on Wikipedia really bugs me. Thousands of people a day appear on TV. Geogre 12:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - if it was national news. - SimonP 14:50, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Mikkalai 21:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It was major news here. Although I may be biased as I'm a (whats the opposite of a deletionist?) -- Chuq 03:59, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment:Opposite of a deletionist is an inclusionist, FWIW. Lacrimosus 21:25, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Click on 'discussion' tab above for long explanation. -- Beechmere 14:07, 24 Sep 2004 EAST. (UTC+10)
I've moved Beechmere's comments moved off the discussion page and back into this thread. Splitting the discussion makes the maintenance and documentation of decisions very difficult. Rossami 15:19, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I created the entry for Belinda Thorpe, and my justification follows: The Big Brother series is, after all, a money-making exercise for the TV stations, the producers, the promoters, the sponsors, etc, etc. It masquarades as entertainment, and it suceeds very well at that in most instances.

Belinda Thorpe caught the producers flat-footed. Her family criminal history slipped through the screening processes, and it was highly amusing to see the efforts of all the TV executives keep the show running, while trying to protect themselves legally and financially from the effects of the bombshell revelation (which was not actually screened on live-to-air TV, but over the internet live-feeds late at night).

The media blackout and denials that followed the incident were newsworthy in and of themselves - the source of viewer entertainment shifted from the contestants to the producers! Eventually, when Belinda volunteered to leave the show, rumours circulated that had she remained, the TV station could have lost its license by breaching Queensland state laws on juvenile privacy.

The entry should remain, because it serves to remind us Wikipedians of the cynicism of popular media and manipulation exercised by media corporations in the protection of their interests.
Delete: wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The attention of the national media is a poor heuristic for notability. -- WOT 20:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete:This is anecdotal now isn't it? Or has she done anything else since? Does she not deserve some privacy now? From an antipodean point of view this sounds a bit non-encyclopedic. And if this is to serve to show up the cynicism of popular media and manipulation, etc., wouldn't it be better to create a separate article for just that purpose? Dieter Simon 23:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. anthony (see warning) 19:09, 30 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 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}} ~~~~

VfD history is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion history archive 2004-09-20. Jamesday 00:09, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) [[fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer]]

[1] "Fancy snuggling up to twenty strangers for FOUR hours? Join the 'cuddle club' where you'll pay £29 for 'therapeutic touching' sessions". MailOnline. Retrieved 27 April 2015.

[2] "Professional Cuddlers Embrace More Clients". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 27 April 2015.

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hug&diff=1061598829&oldid=1061439915

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hug&diff=1061599138&oldid=1061598829

[5] "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BenAriAtMicrosoft/Archive". March 12, 2022 – via Wikipedia.

[6] "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of BenAriAtMicrosoft". March 12, 2022 – via Wikipedia.

[auto-7] "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erez Ben–Ari". March 19, 2022 – via Wikipedia.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]