Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Log 1

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

This log documents completed deletion requests.

June 2005


July 2005

  • Peerumboor. Discussion request over a week ago by Shenme. To me, delete since it seems like nothing more than an advertisement. Google shows less than 20 hits and that include a number from the English Wikipedia's speedy deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • deleteDejvid 7 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)


  • Justice another POV rant. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete if not simplified, wiki-linked, and made less of a rant. (I moved this from fast deletion, to discuss.) -- Netoholic @ 20:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It's been over two weeks now with no changes. While I admit the article is needed, just delete it and let it be rewritten better. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 4 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)
    • delete until someone writes a simple english pageDejvid 7 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)



  • WinFuture. I'm not sure if this is nothing more than just spam, since I don't think a lack of an English google presence means much. Perhaps one of our wikipedians who read German can either tell us what the article about it on German wikipedia says or simply if this magazine is important. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Vincent Ruello. Delete. I don't believe that he is really notable. Also, it seems to be a copyright violation from somewhere (the copyright tag is still on the page). There isn't really a big Google presense and for what it's worth, this article has already been deleted three times at regular English. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 5 July 2005 07:42 (UTC)
    • delete: not notable and not simple.Dejvid 7 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)



August 2005




















  • List of terrorist groups. List page appears to be copied from en. On that wikipedia it is contraversial and work has been done to make it more sensative to it's subject, however on simple that isn't the case and I don't know if it could be done. Furthermore it appears to be more or less an orphan, nothing links there and all the links are red. Finally it may be prone to vandalism as the list on en is, but on simple we don't have the users to keep it monitered (and up to date). --Sim 10:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


September 2005

October 2005


November 2005





December 2005



January 2006

  • MusicBrainz and related templates[1] Links to non-notable websites are essentially linkspam. Only 249 displayed hits[2] and alexa rank of 3,471,422. 24.17.48.241 19:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Simple English Wikipedia serves the globe, and most articles that would use these are for individual works by modern musicians based in the U.S.. Simple English should only have articles about the musicians themselves, at most. -- Netoholic @ 21:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: MusicBrainz is a notable web service, it houses information on musicians and albums from all over the world, not just english speaking contries. I have cleaned up the article some as well. CyberSkull 04:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: for reasons above.Vorash 07:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The article is almost exactly the same as the one on the English Wikipedia. That makes it look a lot like spam and not like an earnest contribution to the goals of this project. The language is not simple, it is full of legal and technical jargon: It was founded in response to the restrictions placed on the CDDB. MusicBrainz has expanded its goals to reach beyond a compact disc metadata storehouse. MusicBrainz uses Relatable's patented TRM for acoustic fingerprint matching. MusicBrainz uses RDF/XML for describing music metadata. This barely means anything to me and I am a native English speaker. Sounds barely notable at this stage. --Fastfission 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Exact copy of English Wikipedia article. -- King of Hearts 00:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The template seems like linkspam, especially given that it is not simple. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 2006

Wikipedia:Projects of Wikimedia

(Deleted. -- Netoholic @ 21:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Encyclopædia Dramatica

(Deleted. -- Netoholic @ 21:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. Whether it is a core article or not has nothing to do with whether it should be deleted. Having extra articles is not a bad thing. It isn't as if someone is going to get lost in the extra articles and not be able to find the information they want (the categories of which are prominently displayed on the main page). If someone wants to use their time on something that *you* think is a waste, let them, that's their right. I agree that this article is a very short stub, and a complicated (not simple) one. Neither one of those things is enough to make an article a candidate for deletion in my opinion (since each is something fixable), and whether or not this is a relevant article is immaterial. If it gets deleted, it won't bother me too much, but I don't think it deserves to be axed, just because it isn't one of the "top 1000." --Cromwellt|talk 20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I pretty much agree with everything Cromwellt said, except for saying such entries 'do no harm'. The most effective way to teach/lead is by example. If a newcomer to the site sees Category:websites and Category:Nintendo, versus Category:primates (which itself is only a day or two old, but now exists thanks to user:aflm) I think they will be very misinformed about what we're trying to do here. Thus I am fairly supportive of efforts to try and correct that imbalance and confusion. Also, community repudiation of entries like this would, for example, support my efforts to keep Something Awful Forums a redir to Something Awful, despite repeated attempts to create the SAF article. Freshstart 23:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree (certainly as far as categories are concerned) that having many very specific categories and very few general ones would give readers an unbalanced view. However, I think that as long as we have a good variety which includes many general categories (and this goes for articles, too; I'm talking about a much smaller ratio than 1000:1, like maybe 5:1 or 10:1), that websites and Nintendo are good and even useful categories to have, as long as we have content to go in them (which is always available from English Wikipedia for simplification). We're pretty much on the same page (so to speak) on this one, Freshstart. --Cromwellt|talk 23:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was using the cats out of laziness, which was probably a bad idea. My main point is that the articles gorilla, bonobo, orangutan, gibbon, marmoset, tamarin, lemur, ape, great ape, lesser ape, and even opposable thumb, for goodness' sake, etc. don't exist (and primate was created only '01:41, 8 February 2006', and chimpanzee is only about one day older--'03:51, 7 February 2006'), yet Game Boys, Game Boy, Game Boy Advance, Game Boy Advance SP, Game Boy Micro, and Nintendo DS, DO, and have for a long time. To me the balance of articles is WAY off. Freshstart 09:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no harm in it, someone might need it someday. I think we do need some sort of project to help improve our 'core' articles though. Archer7 17:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Simple English Dictionary

(Kept. -- Netoholic @ 21:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Although no part of the Deletion Policy specifically applies, this article is obsolete. All the important information on it (such as dictionary entries) was migrated by the page creator to Simple English Wiktionary, as he says on the talk page. The only pages that link to it now are user pages, redirects, and talk pages of other articles, except for one reference at Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia which would be very easy to change. It is basically empty, and Simple English Wiktionary has taken over its function. Though there is a nomination to lock the SEWiktionary, it is active and see my user page there for my personal vision/reasons why I think it should continue. --Cromwell|Talk 14:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least from what I see at the moment at Simple Wiktionary--the entries don't indicate whether they're BE nnn, or VOA, or whatever, and I think having a merged list of all those type of lists, especially with definitions (many BE/VOA words have many different meanings, and it is not always obvious which meaning Ogden or whoever had in mind) would be a good thing, and not the purpose of Simple Wiktionary. I see Simple Wiktionary as a tool for readers to look up words, and Wikipedia:Simple English Dictionary as a very valuable resource for editors (at least potentially--right now it doesn't have enough entries to be very helpful, but all wikimedia-related projects started at zero at the beginning) here at Simple Wikipedia (after all it is in the Wikipedia: namespace). As for links, I have always been for as much interconnection between all the sister projects as possible, and would lean towards providing links to both EN Wiktionary AND Simple Wiktionary if they both have entries for the word, and let the reader pick which one they want to check; they might even like to see both. Freshstart 10:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see this also as (if really necessary) a future section on SEWikt or perhaps an identification on each entry there. That way we follow precedent and logic, avoiding the inclusion here of dictionary entries, part of what wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not last time I checked. As the talk page for that article shows, there is far from a concensus on changing the policy which excludes dictionary entries, so until there is it should stay that way. I admit there has been some support for the idea of including articles on words with simple explanations, but these comments did not take into account the existence of SEWikt as a useful entity because at the time of the comments it was not. --Cromwellt|talk 23:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When it is a viable alternative for Simple Wikipedia editors to use for as much info about BE, VOA-E, etc. exists, I will gladly reconsider my vote. I generally support avoiding duplication, but I am not big on avoiding 'future, potential' duplication. Freshstart 09:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sections, with a list of links to other pages of basic wordlists, is mostly good and should be kept as a useful index to such pages, being moved to a better page title; the actual "Word List" section itself is superfluous and should be deleted. --Blockinblox 16:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Funny you should mention that, Blockinblox. I thought the same way, so I created a page with just that information, even before I put it up for deletion. Unfortunately, I can't find it now, which means either it was deleted as worthless or I forgot to save before I got off the computer (sometimes my internet is unreliable). I hope that means that your vote changes to a plain old "delete" once one of us does that. --Cromwellt|talk 03:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besiktas JK

(Kept. -- Netoholic @ 21:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

March 2006

Babylonia
Why do you think it might be a copyvio? Blockinblox 17:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's an omitted comment in there. It's copied from the Catholic Bible or something. The text doesn't even make much sense. Archer7 21:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and start over. It does look like it was copy/pasted from another encyclopedia or Bible commentary. It is anything but wikified, with article references in all-caps and without links, with lists that are indented, causing those ugly boxes and text that spans to about five times the regular screen width, and without any references section at all. Plus the text is very complicated, not simple at all. I agree with Archer7: it might be a copyvio or even original research, but even if it's not, better to start over than try to fix what's there. --Cromwellt|talk 21:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Caterpillar Tractor Company

(Deleted. Archer7 16:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Jaws-Project

(Deleted by Netoholic. Archer7 08:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Appears to be strictly intended as promotional (can't be certain if 'self' or just a fan), as the editor has no other contributions here or EN, and despite all the IW links, only EN and ES actually have articles, and they fit the same pattern--all edits by a user with no other contributions. Also, non-core vaporware--Wikipedia is not a fortune-teller. Freshstart 04:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if it's not self-promotion, it's copyvio[3][4]. Freshstart 04:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unibond Premier

(Deleted by Netoholic. Archer7 08:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

April 2006

World news
This page is rarely updated, and reflects a focus away from core articles and towards current events/pop culture. The main wikis handle this already, Simple English doesn't need to. -- Netoholic @ 20:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't, but we could link to EN Wikinews. Archer7 14:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone going to work on a Simple Wikinews, if no-one has ever shown any interest here? I've changed my mind about linking to Wikinews, I think it might actually be best just to delete. Archer7 13:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It seems useless, since the focus here is to make an encyclopedia which could be easily translated into different languages. --User:LBMixPro<talk|to|me> 21:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "World News" is needless in this wiki(because there are Original version and Original version Wikinews). so have to delete this page. -- Korean alpha for knowledge 13:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. I think a Simple English Wikinews is a good idea, and could be made by some of the same people that write English Wikinews. I've never understood why there is a "current events" or "world news" link in the sidebars of most wikis, but if there is a good reason, we can re-add it here later, particularly after we have someone who is dedicated to keeping it up-to-date. The fact that the page talks about current events and pop culture is not a reason to delete it, as I have said in past discussions. The fact that it cannot be kept up-to-date until we have someone dedicated to it is a reason to temporarily delete. Oh, and LBMixPro, a Wikipedia for translators is only one of the purposes of this wiki. There are about four (see Wikipedia:Simple talk#Project direction). --Cromwellt|talk 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Type I Degenrative Super AIDS
NN band--7 hits, no allmusic.com listing, Internet-only distribution. Doesn't meet EN's WP:MUSIC criteria. Freshstart 17:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:economy
Redundant with Category:economics Freshstart 00:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History of the United States
Changing to straight delete because US doesn't link to it, and US Hist appears sufficiently covered in the main article, with some room for growth there if it isn't. Freshstart 03:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, US covers it quite well. Any further votes or comments? Archer7 13:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the United States article already covers it, we can delete, and if that section grows, we can split it off to recreate this page. I'm with you on that. --Cromwellt|talk 21:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Centennial Senior Public School

(Speedily deleted - obvious testing. Archer7 15:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This school doesn't seem notable enough for this wiki. The article has not even stated where it is located and focuses on vanity-related aspects. It seems to me doubtful that it would have an article on the English Wikipedia, but I definitely don't think Simple English needs it. --Keitei 03:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody Loves Raymond

(Kept, no comments for over 1 month. Archer7 15:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well-covered on the main en: Wikipedia and others. Doesn't strike me as a core subject of global interest (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#What Simple English Wikipedia is not). -- Netoholic @ 21:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I think that Simple should keep articles that could be useful at some point. For example, if we targeted this project more towards schools and perhaps those with learning difficulties that article could be useful. However, if we are scrapping all the articles that aren't core subjects, delete Category:Television series. Archer7 22:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it interesting that we have articles about so many TV series, yet still do not have a Television series article. This is a prime example of the failure of this project to have clear direction. It has nothing linking to it and is readily covered on the main Wikipedias that cover the region it is important to. Does this article hold any value to someone in China? Is it taught about in any school? Simple does not need to cover all subjects, and we do not need to be held to the rules of the main Wikipedias. Let's make a high-quality encyclopedia geared towards students of English and as an aid to translators who are creating other Wikipedias in their native language. -- Netoholic @ 04:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I couldn't agree more about this project lacking direction, and I suppose you're right about that kind of article. I think if we continued to remove articles like this we would lose about 2000 articles, which perhaps wouldn't be such a bad thing. Maybe the community needs to discuss where this project is going, so everyone has a clear view. Articles wildly vary in simplification, so people don't know what to expect from an article here, we need more guidelines for articles. Archer7 10:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Same song, second verse. Deleting articles because they are not "core" articles is not useful. I have no great burden to have an "Everybody Loves Raymond" article on this wikipedia (nor will I feel lugubrious if/when it is deleted), but it should stay out of principle. Limiting what articles we allow is much too restrictive on the editors. Even using words like "allow" shows the overrestrictive nature of the idea. We are not a private club, no, not even here on Simple English Wikipedia. That is what "open-source" means. Whatever happened to assume good faith, etc.? If editors want to make an article and it isn't vandalism or propaganda, etc., it certainly does no harm. As far as the "television series" article, if there were one, it would not bother me, but if I were writing it, I would put it as a section under television until there was enough material to be worth a separate article (if that ever happened). That would also be following precedent. Giving a project direction is one thing. Things like "Collaboration of the Week" and "Translation of the Week" do that. Forcing people to do something (or not do something) is another. As a suggestion, editors who feel strongly about having core articles perhaps should spend more time writing core articles and less time requesting that valid "non-core" articles be deleted. Note: I do not intend this vote/comment as a personal attack nor am I trying to offend anyone. --Cromwellt|talk 16:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest, I'm not sure. I agree with Cromwellt, but I'd also like to see much more of a focus on the core articles, until we get going. We need a big discussion to see where we should go with this project. Archer7 17:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would love to be a part of such a discussion. And I have no problem with a focus on core articles. I even am interested in writing some of them myself. I feel that our preferences are not mutually exclusive if we are willing to be fair and act in good faith. As a preliminary proposition, how about we make notices in prominent places like the Community portal that say that as we are still starting or until we grow we encourage a focus on core articles. But it is important a)that this is stated as (and really is) temporary, b) that this is stated as (and really is) encouragement, not requirement, c) that people are not prohibited from working on/creating other valid but non-core articles, and d) that deletion of valid but non-core articles stops. If it is truly non-notable (not just "non-notable for SEWikipedia", because that is just another way of saying "non-core"), or almost any other reason except "non-core", deletion of articles is a valid and important process (which should generally be democratic as a reflection of consensus). As an expression of good faith, I volunteer to write the article on what a core article is, and I will include a statement of encouragement as above. I will also make a page on project direction where we can talk about all of this. How does that sound? Let's work out a compromise if at all possible. --Cromwellt|talk 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There are several of our TV series articles that are less notable than Raymond, but I don't think we want to spend the time to deliberate the various merits of articles within the set. In principle, it probably would have been better if none of them had been created, but the project seems more focused now, so as a practical matter I don't want us bogged down in mitigating past problems. I also think there are video/computer games we have that are even less notable than any of the TV series; then there's the pop-singer-du-jours, etc. If we do want such holistic discussions, I'd start lower. Freshstart 06:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- 200.159.32.26 18:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of modern weapons

(Deleted. Archer7 22:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Don't only registered users have the right to vote here? Archer7 17:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, unregistered users can comment and can nominate pages for deletion, but cannot vote (or their votes are not counted). Nominations by unregistered users are not counted as votes (and should not be considered when deciding consensus). --Cromwellt|talk 22:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neutral, per comments by Archer7. An explanation of a nomination is usually a good thing and increases the chances that the article will actually be deleted. I don't see the current harm (it is valuable information, even if it isn't a core article), and I see future usefulness. It is actually copied from List of modern weapons by type, rather than where it links. There are minor differences, but that could be because of an update to the English page or minor simplification. Either way, the article/list could still use some simplification/explanation, but that's not a reason for a delete, it's a reason for simplification. --Cromwellt|talk 21:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't everyone think I'm going deletionist, but the list is more or less no use without the links. By the time all those have been added, the list will be much longer on en:.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer7 (talk • contribs) on 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. That is a good point. I hadn't thought of that. I still think it is somewhat useful, but I'm changing my vote. Thanks, Archer7! --Cromwellt|talk 23:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What have you

(Deleted. Archer7 16:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as little used, unverifiable, and nonsensical neologism. Can't find anything on Wikipedia or even Google.--TBCΦtalk? 21:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, though if it doesn't merit an article in the regular Wikipedia, does it merit an article in Simple English Wikipedia? --TBCΦtalk? 22:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hannibal

(Kept. Archer7 16:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

This article seems to be an exact copy from the english wikipedia. --LBMixPro<talk|to|me> 19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May 2006

Tara Gilesbie (deleted by Netoholic @ 14
32, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
A whopping 2 hits, one a blog, the other a note on an EN User talk page notifying the user the article there has been deleted for lack of claims of notability. Freshstart 21:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely non-notable, per Freshstart. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 03:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. -- Blockinblox 15:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability--TBCΦtalk? 04:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zergeisterung (Deleted by User:Angela. Archer7 | talk 15
50, 14 May 2006 (UTC))
Sorry to be so direct, but the term does not exist in German. Its made of a prefix (zer- which usually means to take apart, or apart), a middle part geist (Geist has more or less the meaning of Ghost) and -ung which is used to make nouns. I cannot speak for other wps, but from the point of view of this allegedly being german, this is not the case. -- Eptalon 15:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Code (Deleted. Archer7 | talk 15
50, 14 May 2006 (UTC))
This article tries to deduce some hidden messages in the enlgish language version of the bible. This is basically done by assigning numerical values to different letters, then doing some calculation with that, and then again interpreting the result obtained. Apart form being pseudo-scientific at best, we might also run the risk that someone else has already done a similar thing (and can then sue us for copyvio). -- (Request by Eptalon)
Daniel Brandt

Not notable enough for Simple Wikipedia; backstory involved of politics on the main English Wikipedia; and as written it is an attack article or intended mainly to annoy or harass the subject of the article. Let's nip this in the bud right now before the politics on English Wikipedia spill over here. Delete. Dragomiloff 19:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normanhurst Boys High School

Wikipedia (at least the SE Wikipedia) should not become a general purpose information directory. -- Netoholic @ 14:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia review and Wikitruth
These pages are on en.wiki as a result of admins not following policy there. There is no need for the politics of one project to spill over onto this project. Naconkantari 14:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. Newb 20:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Please note that this user has only made three edits, one of which was on this AfD--TBCΦtalk? 14:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to both. Both of these are important web sites. They are not on the English Wikipedia because a few administrators did the wrong thing. They are on the English Wikipedia because they are important. Wikitruth thinks that Wikipedia should not delete articles using the "Office Actions" policy. Wikipedia Review thinks that there are many things that are wrong with Wikipedia. It is wrong to think that they are just talking about some bad administrators. However, Wikitruth has mentioned at least 2 administrators who they think have been bad. And Wikipedia Review has mentioned 4 or 5 different administrators. These people try to delete these sites for politics. Deleting them is politics. Keeping them is not. 203.122.215.44 16:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to both. There is no reason why these pages warrant a delete. The only politics that seem to be spilling over is from Naconkantari whos also is a admin on en.wiki and no one else here sems to have a issue with them but him. --71.32.15.193 03:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user (Sgrayban) is also blocked indefinately on the English Wikipedia. Naconkantari 13:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I am concerned about the possible vandals from the Wikipedia above, Wikitruth is a notable website and critic of Wikipedia that should be kept. The Wikipedia Review, on the other hand, is not notable and was created by users previously banned for misconduct on Wikipedia, thus it should be deleted --TBCΦtalk? 15:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the last bit I added. It has been talked about in a major news paper just this week, and has had over 10,000 hits per day for the past week, and is being talked about all over the internet. Bigger than Wikitruth. I also strongly disagree with calling a web site run by the Wikipedia cabal as a "critic of Wikipedia". Wikitruth is not a critic of Wikipedia. Wikipedia Review, however, is. 203.122.203.145 12:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I admit that I don't really understand the issues involved, but I don't think we want to play politics on either side right now. It sounds like those pages are pretty much entirely about English Wikipedia, so whether they are notable or not, I don't think they belong here right now. Maybe that's not very logical, but that's my vote. Feel free to try to change my mind, or to vote the other way: that's your right. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 03:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the nomination. Don't let the politics of English Wikipedia spill over to this project. Dragomiloff 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 2006

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Created by User:Foursrtings, but I can't understand a word of it. I've asked the user to please summarise what he would like us to do for him, but his message claims that he had his head crushed in a plane crash and now only sleeps once every 4-5 days, so I do hold some suspicion that it may be rubbish... Archer7 | talk 12:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel Sutherland - deleted by me, User:Archer7.
Non-notable, other than having notable relatives--IMDb has just three minor credits, and almost all google hits are for family members where she is mentioned as an aside. Notability is not inherited--I'm a descendant of the Pulitzer and Newbery prize-winning author en:Esther Forbes, but that doesn't mean I am notable. Freshstart 21:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good point, non-notable Freshstart. :D Just kidding. Whether or not you're notable enough for an article here, you're a notable user and admin, Freshstart! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Archer7 | talk 20:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Psy guy 02:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas Prata - deleted by me, User:Archer7.
From Freshstart's comment, he argues "has only released one album/isn't on EN and goodness knows if a singer isn't even notable enuf for EN...." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While we don't have to eliminate everything that English Wikipedia eliminates, the notability of this person is very limited. Might be worth bringing back if he became very popular, released another album, was mentioned by someone famous, etc., etc. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found this page in English wikipedia: Lucas Prata. They deleted this page at least 5 times. I think we may also delete this page. --Bhadani 16:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Archer7 | talk 20:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Psy guy 02:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka Dunin -- Kept. Archer7 | talk
This is a vanity page, written by the subject of the page. --Cromwellt|talk 03:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concer [(unsigned from User:Zginder) Freshstart 17:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep, as she is a notable "American game developer, writer, and amateur cryptographer who is an expert on the Kryptos sculpture/cipher at the CIA's headquarters." See her English Wikipedia article [6], which seems to be more detailed than the Simple article--TBCΦtalk? 02:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep. I had a similar 'ugh' reaction when it was created, as I am strongly opposed to people creating articles about themselves. However, that position was rejected on EN. Since I also consider an author with books available thru standard retail channels[7] FAR more encyclopedic than minor fictional characters1 and random, non-groundbreaking, computer games2 (and don't get me started on articles with more text in the external links section than the article), to stay true to my principles I have to say Keep. Freshstart 17:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 08:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Archer7 19:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We don't have to accept an article just because English Wikipedia does. While she may be more notable than other articles we've kept, a self-promoting vanity article is still a self-promoting vanity article. If it does get deleted (we seem to be somewhat divided on this at the moment), and someone else rewrites the article (not she herself), I will not try to delete it again. But when it is written by the subject, that's vanity, period. See: vanity. Even important Wikipedians have had their articles deleted because they wrote it themselves. --Cromwellt|talk 04:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useless Comment. Angela couldn't get her article deleted when she tried, apparently. I'd still keep this one though. Archer7 | talk 15:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (by subject). For what it's worth, I generally agree with the Wikipedia guidelines on vanity pages and autobiographical edits. I've written dozens of articles and accomplished thousands of Wikipedia edits, and I've reverted plenty of vandalism and pounced on plenty of bonafide vanity pages. In this case though, my intent was not to have a vanity page, but to translate a page that already existed on the English wikipedia. I have helped out with other "Simple English" pages, at least one of which linked to an "Elonka Dunin" page, so I created a minimal stub page here in as neutral a manner as I could manage. If anyone feels the information is not neutral, then by all means, feel free to change it, or challenge anything you want on the talk page, and I'll back up anything there. For further data on whether or not I'm "notable", I have plenty of references at my personal site, you're welcome to check them yourselves:[8]. --Elonka 07:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. ...Aurora... 08:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So far it looks like this will be a keep. I would like to mention that I have nothing against User:Elonka except that she wrote the page about herself. Nothing personal. If the had asked me on my talk page to write a page for her (particularly if she mentioned that she had a page on English Wikipedia which was kept after a delete nomination), I probably would have done it, and I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion if someone else had done it, either. I'd also like to thank her for being willing to talk about it, provide references, and not take the delete nomination personally. Oh, and if the page stays, I won't be upset. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 03:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 2006

Methodical society

I came across this and it seems like it's an excerpt of an interview! Besides, it's unencyclopedic and 100kb long. This should go...-- Tdxiang 09:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly looked at it. We better remove it, might even be a copyvio of sorts. -- Eptalon 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Down's syndrome

Article is a straight copy from en (50k text). Various missing templates, and images. In my opinion, recreating from scratch would be faster than simplifying. Therefore I think the current copy should go -- Eptalon 20:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut out a great deal. That article needs more simplifying and extending now. not deletion. -- Eptalon 21:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We just need expansion. Keep.-- Tdxiang 09:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick resolution - move to transwiki space and work from there, as I should have done to begin with, as in effect, this is a translation. Triona 10:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forever

Transwiki to SEWikitionary as it is dictionary style.-- Tdxiang 10:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Receipt

Speedy delete as it is unencyclopedic and is dictionary-style.-- Tdxiang 08:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Measure

Speedy delete as it is unencyclopedic and is dictionary-style.-- Tdxiang 08:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Javelin throw

Speedy delete. Unencyclopedic and nonsense. Example:If you hit a lion or a velociraptor with a javelin and didn't kill it, it would probably eat you and your family.-- Tdxiang 07:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan-Afghan Relations

This article, also created by User:82.0.159.73, is non-encyclopedic and appears to present a biased viewpoint. The last section, "THE FOUNDER OF PAKISTAN ON ABOUT PAK-AFGHAN-ISTAN", appears to be an entire quote and seems to be more suited for Wikisource Wikiquote. - Tangotango 16:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is original research. I find many such exotic pages being created in the Simple English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia with more than one million pages does not have a page like this as they will immediately delete such nonsense. Perhpas we require more administrators here to look after such things. Immediate deletion is requested. --Bhadani 17:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan-Afghanistan Border is a Settled Issue

Non-encyclopedic, non-NPOV. - Tangotango 16:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is original research. I find many such exotic pages being created in the Simple English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia with more than one million pages does not have a page like this as they will immediately delete such nonsense. Perhpas we require more administrators here to look after such things. Immediate deletion is requested. --Bhadani 17:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bears

Non-notable band, possible vanity. I vote delete.-- Tdxiang 08:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual property

This article was copied from English Wikipedia and my vote here is delete for this non-core article.-- Tdxiang 07:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are WAY too small for this sort of thing to have any real value. I doubt very much that it we will be committed to keeping it updated at all. Even Wikipedia:Announcements hasn't been updated in months. -- Netoholic @ 16:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instrument of Surrender

To me this looks like the final text that led to the split of east and west pakistan into Pakistan and Bangladesh. The text may have its merit here, though I consider it ill classified (most people would not look for it there). Move (perhaps to 'history of Pakistan/Bangladesh?). And finally, i think it classifies as unsimple. -- Eptalon 09:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a place to be determined -- Eptalon 09:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikisource. The top section looks like a copyvio, but the text could be a good source text. Delete, unverifiable so cannot be moved (see Freshstart's comments) Archer7 - talk 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikisource per above.-- Tdxiang 11:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored it per request, but still think it should be simply deleted. The first half is an unsimplified text dump from EN with some POV inserted, and the second half is (alleged) source text that doesn't belong here. I am reluctant to pass it on to Wikisource without being fairly confident it is accurate, but given that it was submitted by a frequent POV warrior, and that exact text searches only find 6-8 hits EG, doesn't give me much confidence of its accuracy. Freshstart 17:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed

Mixed seems unencyclopedic. More like a dictionary article. I vote delete.-- Tdxiang 10:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peugeot 605

Is it useful? -- aflm (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fairly non-notable, would take a lot of work to make useful. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At time to short. Expand or delete. --Nrainer 19:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to exapnd a little. I also added a picture. More should be done. --Bhadani 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

I think it was a test. -- aflm (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -- I think it was a test too. 62.56.116.90 22:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, that was me. I got logged out. Billz 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. This is about a recent movie which people may be interested in. Gives some info, using fairly simple English. Can be improved/extended, but that goes for 90% of our content. Also, I don't have the aversion to modern pop references that Freshstart has. I think this deserves to stay. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Simple English Dictionary

This is the second time I am placing this renomination here, because it was previously deleted out-of-process by Netoholic. This page was kept amid a mixed reaction four months ago when I nominated it for deletion the first time. I am now renominating it for these five reasons: 1) I have copied all relevant information (including abbreviations, sources, and external links) to Wikipedia:Word list abbreviations, so there is nothing there of value which is not somewhere else more appropriate; 2) it has been four months since the previous nomination for deletion (plenty of time for things to change); 3) the Simple English Wiktionary is well on its way and has taken over the functions of that page; 4) consensus states (see Wikipedia:Simple talk#Project direction and Wikipedia talk:Simple English Wikipedia) that we should link to the Simple English Wiktionary, which basically makes this list obsolete; and 5) the list has not grown or even been modified since 04:29, 23 December 2005 (not counting vandalism or the deletion tag addition and removal), not even during or after the previous discussion here on RfD. If someone who voted keep had started adding to the list, I could understand keeping it in the hopes that it might become useful someday, but since no one has, this shows that the page is not going anywhere, and it is useless in its current form. As mentioned earlier, it has also been superseded by Simple English Wiktionary. It was an idea that was started but never got very far, and then another idea took its place. I think we should put it out of its misery. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 00:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This nomination must go through due process and discussion before a final decision is made. It is inappropriate to delete this nomination request without said due process. Additionally, since Netoholic seems to have a vested interest in keeping this page, I request that another administrator make the final decision on this request, on grounds of a possible conflict of interest. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 00:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, redirect.-- Tdxiang 11:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are at least two problems with redirecting: First, the name has absolutely nothing to do with the abbreviations, so a redirect would be misguided in that sense, and would confuse any reader who ran across it. Besides, whether the abbreviations came from there or not, they are not in any way related to that page. Second, the page title is very easily confused with SEWikt. That is a reason not to leave it as it is, but it is also a reason not to redirect to the page on abbreviations, since that will only add to the confusion. If we keep the page at all, it should only be a direct reference to the Simple English Wiktionary (over 700 entries and counting!), with perhaps a note on the talk page regarding the page's short and abortive history as a sub-project here. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind tagging it for historical interest so long as there was a link to the new page. Archer7 - talk 12:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Living people

Do we need it? -- aflm (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At our current volume, all edits should be able to be checked by at least two people, and I think it is important to keep all articles patrolled, not just a subset. Freshstart
  • Keep, see Jimbo's (guy who created Wikimedia) explanation for the pros of having a living people category [10]. I understand the announcement was for the regular wikipedia, but some of what he says applies to simple wikipedia as well--TBCΦtalk? 03:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it is a worthwhile category, and if it isn't now, it will be later. No reason to delete. Don't know what Freshstart is referring to in his "all articles patrolled" comment, but yeah. --Cromwellt|talk 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The main justification for it from Jimbo was to add extra RC/NP 'patrolling' to living people (IE those who can sue)--"With our ever-increasing prominence, it is becoming more and more likely that questionable, unsourced information may sneak into articles, despite all of our goodwill and vigilance. Flagging all articles pertaining to living people will mean that our editors can keep a closer watch on these articles, check new articles more closely as they are created, and help to avoid potential problems.". I don't think any subset of articles here should merit 'extra' attention. Freshstart 17:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, Freshstart. Now your comment makes perfect sense. I agree with you that for now all edits should be patrolled (have we thought about implementing RC Patrolled edits?), but I think this category is worthwhile anyway. --Cromwellt|talk 20:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use patrolled edits, RC patrollers can miss things, it's best if edits are checked several times. Archer7 | talk 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the contrary, on Wikipedia, Jimbo is in a similar position to God, and we do have to do everything he says. He is our benevolent dictator, and his word is law. However, since his comment applied to the English Wikipedia as far as I can tell, it doesn't apply here necessarily. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe we have just as much right to disagree with him unless he is in God mode.
  • Keep per Jimbo. We can disagree with Jimbo when he is in the persona of a user, admin, steward, or developer, but as founder his word is law. This category helps/should help editors be aware of possible liability issues when editing articles on living people. -- Psy guy 02:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jimbo is the webmaster of all Wikimedia, every language included. If a person is willing to put legal action against WM for something said about them on the English Wikipedia, what will stop them from doing it here? I concur with all above keep votes. --LBMixPro<talk|to|me> 09:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim women

Of course, the perception of gender roles in Islamic states is different than the one in non-Islamic states. The perception of what behaviour a women should have insuch societies is certainly interesting. However, as it is now, it does not at all fit this article. Therefore I would opt for a deletion or a moving of the article content elsewhere. Eptalon 19:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Football clubs

  • There have been many complaints lately about what Simple:'s mission is. I don't think it is to be a roster of sports teams. These are all really short stubs, and I don't see them as having a major historical, scientific, or cultural importance. I have to ask... is there any reason a learner of English or someone translating articles for another Wikipedia would need this information? The main English Wikipedia handles them better. Let's get some focus back into this project. -- Netoholic @ 20:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about all. The small ones certainly can go but the big ones... (of course big is subjective). Aurora 05:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wouldn't be fair to simply look at the category and delete them. You should put notices on the pages you wish to delete (so that the writers know what's going on) and then vote on them as a group. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep though I aggree with Ricky81682 about the proceadure England is connected with football across the world and so people may well come to simple english wikipedia to learn about it, might be an idea to categorise them by country though --Sim 16:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC) (whch I have now done, as well as making better stubs out of a few of them.)[reply]
    • Also agree with Ricky, anything wanting to be deleted should go through procedure and let people have their say, not just delete them with no warning. (From the looks of things we have already had a spate of things deleted without warning). BallSack 23:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For any article that is a substub, don't delete them but turn them into redirects to "List of XYZ football teams" (e.g. List of English football teams). If there are any articles that are large stubs (>6 sentences) or are no longer stubs, then keep and no redirect. BlankVerse 04:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is a way to solve this problem: for the small/unknown teams, do just a list by country; for the big ones (Real Madrid, Arsenal, Santos, etc), do a normal article. (I remember you: some teams like Manchester (UK) and Corinthians (BR)have historical and cultural importance. -- aflm 01:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, so what's happening here? Aurora 15:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is obvious from this vote (which has been here since last July) that most people think the longer stubs should be kept and that sub-stubs should be redirected to a list (as long as the teams are not of historical or other importance). Once someone implements most or all of this, let's get this vote off this page and into the log, shall we? --Cromwellt|talk 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move, if it is a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdxiang (talk • contribs) 08:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, I admittedly know nothing about Association Football, but I guess I'll try to see what I can do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 2006

Eleanor of Aquitaine

Removed the section which advertised a book for sale. Billz (Talk) 21:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dude

Spam and nonsense, talks about birth of SpongeBob. Delete.-- Tdxiang@ 10:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

426px-DSC 4563mod.jpg

Empty page, with self link. Makes no sense in keeping it, though.-- Tdxiang@ 10:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabo Catoom

A series of hoax articles created by anon ip. Obviously nonsense as evidenced by lines such as "Fabo was voted the world's greatest musician at the age of one". Also nominating:

--TBCΦtalk? 20:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Log_1&oldid=7307690"