Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Michael Snow (talk | contribs) at 05:45, 2 June 2004 (→‎[[Wikipolice]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

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

See also Guide to deletion | Alternative outlets | Undeletion policy | Deletion guidelines for admins | Deletion process
Archived delete debates | Speedy deletion policy | Category:Pages for discussion


2nd - 1st - 31st - 30th - 29th - 28th - 27th - 26th - 25th - 24th - 23rd - 22nd - 21st - 20th - 19th

Template:VfD frontmatter

VfD was archived on 28 May. If you need to look at old history please see the history of Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_May_2004.

Decisions in progress

Note that listings more than five days old should now be moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old.

May 27

Note: The entries for May 27 were inadvertently deleted, and remained so for almost 24 hours. As such, they should remain listed for an extra day and be delisted at the same time as the entries for May 28. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

They are getting an extra day by not being moved to /Old today. However, some editors may be monitoring it only every 5 days -- in fact, that practice was urged, on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion, in the past week, to users who find the loading time of the page onerous. 20% of such editors missed it due to its 1-day absence, and won't see it for another few days.
Therefore i urge that
  1. A copy of this discussion should be kept here even after the entries are moved to /Old.
  2. Another copy of it should move to /Old with the entries.
  3. Those who consider which entries are Dels and which Keeps should not make final decisions on 27th entries where the decision could be changed by a vote or two more, for about 5 days: i.e., hold open the vote on which it could make the difference, until the every-5-days people have had a fair chance to catch up. --Jerzy(t) 00:28, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)

Guánica Bay

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Guanica-Bay

Vollis

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Vollis

Disassociate

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Disassociate

Mr.Bits

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-MrBits

  • Delete; insignificant individual, whether real or imaginary. --Jeff 22:56, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

List of people who have not committed suicide

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-List of people who have not committed suicide

Kassandra Hiroshima and Kassandra HiroshimA

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-KassandraHiroshima

Digivolve

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Digivolve

Nothlit (Animorphs)

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Nothlit Animorphs

May 28

Mudgik

Mudgik was deleted from this page out of process and the discussion moved to Talk:Mudgik. I'm putting it back here until such time as the actual voting period is ended. RickK 20:44, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Never saw this, but vote to keep. Some cleanup in order, but obviously had some fair interest in its time. Denni 21:20, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Heck

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Heck

Advanet

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Advanet

MediaWiki:Top seeds for French Open 2004

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Top seeds for French Open 2004

Miscible

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-debate miscible


Iontophoresis

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Iontophoresis


Yu song

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Yu song


Cagone

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Cagone

Blimey

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Blimey


Polyface Farm

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Polyface Farm

David Carson

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-debate David Carson

KonsoleKalendar

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-KonsoleKalendar

Platonic epistemology

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-PlatonicEpistemology


More "Fifth World" nonsense

Long discussion moved to Talk:Jus_cerebri_electronici/Delete

James Holzier

Long discussion moved to Talk:James Holzier/Delete


DJ Petzi

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-DJ Petzi


Netivot Shalom and Union for Traditional Judaism

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-NetivotShalom

Debt-free, Tax-free, Indexed Fiat Money

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-debtfreetaxfree

Page in question has been edited and modified to conform to encyclopedia article content -- and it has been reformatted for clarity.

Johngelles 23:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the helpful comment from all the above more experienced Wikipediasts. All they say is true. But the story is more than what they say:

  • Wikipedia is an open system encyclopedia to capture understanding of the world we live in and disseminate it for free.
  • Wikipedia shuns self-interested promotion of the type that authors of many books on monetary reform may be accused of -- because they need book sales to support the authors of the reforms.
  • Wikipedia also shuns ego-trips that seek personal pleasure more than seriously trying to spread understanding of such complex subjects as the dilemmas of modern fiat money (incidentally, it is the only kind of money used today by nations who are members of the UN).
  • I argue, and I may be right, that my article is not an attempt to support me as a reformer nor an ego trip.

If my article is understood, it will be seen as an open system to refrom modern money so that such money can support open systems generally: we human beings suffer from monopolies that create the problem of increasing returns -- whereby the more an orthodoxy goes unchallenged the deeper it imbeds itself in the culture and slows the rate of reform everyone knows is necessary.

DFM is already established and up and running within the United Kingdom's Channel Islands.

  • My recognition of the need to add indexed savings to it, so that hyperinflation can be prevented, is a reasonable stretch -- we already do this in the United States with TIPS (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities).
  • The addition of the tax-free potential is also established in the literature of Functional Finance, pioneered by Abba Lerner as part of the Keynesian reforms associated with the 1940's and '50s.

After writing this, I will make another revision to try to meet as many of your well-founded objections as I can.

Rather than shutting off this attempt at understanding -- (remember Wikipedia in its current explanation of money says it is a topic that nobody understands!) -- why not join in and do some editing of the article?

Johngelles 00:24, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there is a difference between promoting a pet theory and attempting to understand better and explain better the money system that both serves and fails this audiience.

It may be that within a short time interested people who examine what Wikipedia has to say about money in general and Fiat money in particular will through discussion of this article find that it is not the way to improve a full treatment of money. But deletion is a drastic action to take when the current treatment is so incomplete.

In the end, globalization, war and peace, ride to a significant degree on money and its reform. What should or will be done can be considered a matter for op ed pages or for encyclopedia entries or for both.

I see no need to put the cart before the horse and decide the matter does not exist because the solution has not been adopted.

Reform by its very nature involves advocacy. Encyclopedias are not primarily vehicles for reform--they are sources of knowledge. But fear of their becoming only advocacy may defeat their primary purpose:

  • imagine that an encyclopedia excluded all discussion of incipient change until it was completed. And then imagine the opposite. Which serves the Wikipedia audience of readers and open authorship better?
  • Imagine that critical edits or changes to Debt-free, Tax-free, Indexed Fiat Money offered better insight into what, how or why the incipient change in money will mean. Would we all not want to read it?

Johngelles 04:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd Long Songs

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-PinkFloydLongSongs

List of Puerto Rican phrases, words and slangs

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-ListofPuertoRicanphraseswordsandslangs

Chocha

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Chocha

Trollgnaw

4 hits on Google, term idiosyncratic, apparently used by 1 person. Maximus Rex 20:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I remember correctly, this has gone through VfD and consensus then was to delete. It appears to have been re-created. RickK 22:58, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • precedent as in law does not apply to wikis IMHO; since apparently not all community members saw the former debate; there are multiple edits now; perhaps the article would have survived if renamed? -- Waveguy 03:32, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are seriously mistaken. Precedent in Wikipedia is that if a page has gone through the VfD process and consensus was to delete, if it is re-created, it is to be deleted on sight. RickK 19:10, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as idiosyncratic. Only known users of the term are User:Leo Trollstoy and a single anonymous Haligonian. —No-One Jones 03:51, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: idiosyncratic. No need for a redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:15, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need for a redirect unless people keep insisting on going against consensus and re-creating it, no. - Hephaestos|§ 19:17, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's seriously misleading for us to suggest that this is a term in actual use. - Nunh-huh 22:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slashdot-ism, delete. Wyllium 23:46, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no redirect. Neologism that nobody uses. -Sean 00:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not commonly used. Andris 22:50, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

Planetquake

Uncertain - I don't know enough about Quake, but it seems like this is not a major website. Burgundavia 22:09, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • It definitely needs work, but it's been a major webstie for several years now - turns up about a quarter of a million hits on Google, I vote keep. (203.217.26.143 02:54, 29 May 2004 (UTC))[reply]
  • It's a major website, but what use do those website-articles have anyway? Why not simply go to the actual website, instead of looking it up on Wik? Keep. Wyllium 05:52, 2004 May 29 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a big website that's been around for years, and has spawned all sorts of Planet* spinoffs like PlanetDreamcast. Definitely needs work as an article though. I moved it to PlanetQuake since that's the capitalization the site uses. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 00:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Government Warehouse

By removing redundancy I can reduce the entire introduction into no more than three sentences which are a very plain description of "secret government warehouse", which is nearly fully explained just by it's adjectives. Thus, that definition does not belong in an encyclopedia as it is simply a definition that is only sufficient for a dictionary. And, it shouldn't even be in a dictionary. The following lists (which at the very least would make this only suitable for a List article) are simply a list of fictional items which have ever been in a "secret government warehouse" in any fiction. As a list, this seems very pointless and, indeed, useless. They are categorized by the government that owns the warehouse, and don't even show what film, literature, etc. they were in. - Centrx 23:54, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is well-written, encyclopedic and actually kind of fun. We're dreadfully short of fun yet topical articles. - Lucky 6.9 00:52, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • The artifacts listed need to reference whatever fictional work or conspiracy theory says they're being stored. It's flawed, but keep. Possibly list on Wikipedia:Unusual articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:56, May 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the current version. RickK 19:18, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Acegikmo1 19:29, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; original research. Some (achem) enterprising soul has taken it upon themselves to copy the current contents (so to speak) from the two external links, both of which are lists of things that could be contained in a hypothetical fictional secret warehouse. This is basically a "list of neat stuff I think ought to be put together"; if it were listed as such, it would maybe be worth keeping, but as is it's not. Also, some of the things on this list seem to be competely made up (and by that I mean, created from the editor's imagination rather than drawn from any particular myth or work of fiction). If this article is for whatever goony reason kept, the list should be removed post-haste. -Sean 22:40, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is well-written and fun but not encyclopedic. If, as Cyrius|✎ hopes, someone were to "reference whatever fictional work or conspiracy theory says they're being stored," then it would be well-written, fun, and encyclopedic. However, I think this is very unlikely to happen. Currently only two of the items are so referenced. Dpbsmith 02:22, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the person that maintains the Warehouse page (the first one). I make none of it up as I research every item that is sent to me. I know what all of them are and am currently doing just what you were inquiring about, referencing each item (whether taken from fiction or fact). I am just wondering how I am going to accomplish it to look nice on the page. I still want to keep the "memo/manifest" look of the page. It makes no difference to me it is deleted or not as this comes up every six months and if kept, will be up for deletion again by December. Many folks wonder what was in that warehouse in Indiana Jones and it is a hoot to continue the project. I would vote keep, but then again I am bias. Death666 10:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Presently, only two items are referenced. The Ark of the Covenent , and the Martian war machine. If you can get about half of them referenced I think the article would be a solid keeper. As it is, I don't even know what some of the items are ("Water vial labelled 'fountain of youth'"). Dpbsmith 23:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wonder whether this would be better titled Government warehouses? Government warehouses in fiction and specualtion seems clumsy. Other suggestions? But I think the content is definitely human knowledge, and encyclopedic. Its being a bit offbeat is charming. I hope in time it might get some more dedicated editors, it's in risk of extinction with only one. More seriously, there is no mention of previous VfD votes in the talk page. Let's make sure this one gets properly archived. Andrewa 20:50, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added references but would re-work the entire page actually. I did not create the page nor have I done much in the past to alter/maintain it. I do maintain the Governement Warehouse v1.3.0 list on the first hyperlink reference (deathworld.org). I have been busy updating that with references and plan to expand it so each item has a full description. I suppose I could expand the refernences for the items listed. I have no idea why they were chosen. Should the list be kept? It seems redundant as it crosslinks many areas of the site. Death666 10:55, 01 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

Sphere 41

Fictional object (Trek) that only appears in one episode. Yes, I know we cover fiction--I have no problem with that. Yes, WP is not paper--I have no real problem with that (as I have noted before, I believe the limiting resource is the ratio between the number of Wikipedians and the number of articles). The problem I have with this level of granularity is that, from a user perspective, having to click to an article that can never be more than a couple of lines, is a complete waste (especially given how sluggish WP currently is). Any relevant info should be merged into Zero Hour (ENT), and make Sphere 41 a redir to it. Niteowlneils 05:37, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, 'tis a much better place to put it. Niteowlneils 15:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Gonzalez

Graduate student writes guest column for his school newspaper. If anything, a vanity page would be more relevant. - Hephaestos|§ 18:42, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Pat Tillman and delete. RickK 19:16, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with RickK. There's already some mention of Gonzalez in the Pat Tillman article. Acegikmo1 20:07, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not the original poster, but it seems to me that this is vanity. Wyllium 01:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • This guy did recieve some media attention. Keep. Rhymeless 03:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be of some note. Deserves more info than would be appropriate in the Tillman article. Everyking 06:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gonzalez's article is not notable in the grander scheme of Pat Tillman's relevance. Delete. Coberly 23:44 30 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Andris 23:23, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not vanity, but neither is it encyclopedic. Delete. Rossami 04:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 17:01, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Peter Wagner

I don't see how the content relate to the title. A search for "Peter Wagner" "Modern Knowledge System" gives no hits. Thue 23:16, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't show up in IMDB. Delete. RickK 23:14, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would you think he was an actor? Or do you advocate deleting all articles that don't show up in IMDb? ;) Thue 00:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um. Either I'm posting to the wrong article or it's been changed. Nevermind. RickK 05:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Electric blues euphoria

Was flagged for VfD over a month ago, but has apparently neither been deleted nor discussed (nothing links to it, anyway). Not sure about this. University students' band and no albums released except the one on their website, but over 200 Google hits. Fredrik 22:00, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing on all music guide. delete Dunc Harris | Talk 22:22, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allmusic doesn't know em. Delete. Wyllium 23:11, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I forget how this vanity survived vfd but there ya have it. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Cooper

Vanity. RickK 21:29, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Run (cricket statistics)

This is an orphan page with very little information on a topic covered comprehensively elsewhere: Cricket (sport), Cricket statistics, Four (cricket), Six (cricket), Bye, Leg bye, No ball, Wide (cricket). dmmaus 23:14, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Clem

Buffy character substub. Wyllium 23:44, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, needs work but no reason to delete. RickK 23:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • True that, just coz it's a stub doesn't mean we should just whack it. It has potential. blankfaze | ♫ 03:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • So in this post are you a Mafioso or a gansta rapper? Oh, and keep. Meelar 05:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand or merge with something relevant. - Fennec (さばくのきつね) 03:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Street, Wollongong, Crown Street, Wollongong and Church Street, Wollongong

Unnotable streets. RickK 23:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a street. Delete. Wyllium 00:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fennec (さばくのきつね) 03:23, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crown Street in any case. It is the main street of a city of 181,000 and a major area of a centre of region of several hundred thousand. A google search on Crown Street Wollongong comes up with over 4,000 entries. [1] I can assure you it is very well known in the Illawarra region of NSW. The others might be merged into an article on the Wollongong as leading streets if they are to be deleted. Seaeagle04
  • Keep Crown Street, after Seaeagle's comment. As far as the others go, kill them, kill them now, before they breed. Ambivalenthysteria 12:29, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Crown Street and Church Street -- Popsracer 14:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crown Street, keep Church Street, both far more notable than (wait for it) King Street Wharf which we kept. No vote on Bank Street, I know of no significance but someone seems to think there is some. Andrewa 03:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all three. Perhaps upon seeing the Bank Street stub, someone who knows more than us will expand and fill with interesting facts. -- Wikisux 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Atomius 23:23 , ! june @004 (UTC) i believe if this is to be an encyclopaedia with all subjects, streets are items which should be included. if you wish to expand wikipedia, then why not include streets, or in any case make a "streets of wollongong" articel.

May 30

List of movies that have been considered the worst ever

Silly list. Inherently POV. Wyllium 01:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Valid topic only if started over as a properly referenced list of professional reviewers calling movies the worst ever. Fredrik 01:12, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Delete. -Sean 01:38, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree; delete or remove the parts that does not reference professional reviewers. Thue 13:19, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been around since August 2003 and there have been nearly 200 edits. It needs some work but it should not be removed. Acegikmo1 01:49, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • How could this article be ever encyclopedic or npov? It's a list of opinions for Pete's sake. Titanic is on the list as a "worst movie ever", but I know people that love it. Wyllium 01:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that by following Fredrik's suggestion, the list could become both. However, I also feel that it should be kept and edited into that state. Acegikmo1 03:16, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep. A movie's entertainment value is perhaps its most critical metric. We have other lists of subjects sorted by the metrics that are most important to those subjects. Why should we exclude the most important metric to movies simply because it's subjective? As long as each entry on the page is defended (some certainly need to be expanded), then the page serves its use. RADICALBENDER★ 02:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just the title uses weasel words and is POV. The entire article is based upon the opinions of its creators. Delete it before more of its ilk have time to sprout. Guanaco 02:22, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't like the title much myself, but there are many movies downright notorious for being bad, and it's nice to have a list of them. The article as stands has useful information, though perhaps it could be pruned a bit. VV 03:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an obvious content issue. All we need to do is state by whom the movies has been considered the worst, and voila, it is NPOV, and people will undoubtedly find the page interesting. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Pete; keep. James F. (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it's marginal, mostly because the research to reference who considers them "the worst ever" is unlikely ever to be done. But I have to say that the fact that the article has received so much attention and so many contributions and edits—and real edits, not reversion wars—weighs in the balance. If I had to give a rationalization, it would be that a page that receives that much ongoing attention is probably in the process of improvement. I'd add that "reasonable judgement based on personal expertise" is not the same as "biassed point of view." Dpbsmith 13:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (what, Lord Bob, making a keep vote? Incredible!). Pretty borderline, really, but a list like this belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. POV title, but the content is worthy of keeping. Lord Bob 17:00, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Abigail 00:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete But if you really want to keep it, record box office stats, dvd sales, and production/advertising budget and compile a biggest money-losing movies of all time, then it would be encyclopedic rather than POV. siroxo 00:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whilst it's not the most encyclopaedic article ever-written, and unashamedly POV, it is interesting and (dare I say) fun! Julianp 00:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Already been here once, several months ago, for mostly the same reasons. The title needs work, true, but that title was made weaselly because it was supposed to be "more NPOV" that way. There are of course too many moviegoers who have seen clinkers for every such opinion to have, or need, a reference. Perhaps move it to something like "List of notoriously bad movies." Smerdis of Tlön 03:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some movies are note worthy only because they are the worst. Tomatoes and Plan 9 for example. IMDB has its own list of 100 worst. Why shouldn't we? Most of these movies have good annotations, the rest should either be similarly annotated, or removed from the list. Note on Titanic being on the list--comments attached with it are well balanced, and I would have to agree with them, despite liking the movie myself. --ssd 04:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It has no chance to be neutral and well-grounded. Mikkalai 05:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - no chance to be NPOV. - Tεxτurε 17:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course it can be made NPOV. I can also imagine someone finding use in such a list. I second Ihcoyc's suggestion to rename it "List of notoriously bad movies." -- Wikisux 18:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List_of_movies_that_have_been_considered_the_greatest_ever

Same as above. Wyllium 01:44, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everything from "Films that are considered among the greatest in their particular genre" onwards is almost entirely POV. Delete unless fixed. -Sean 01:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless the article provides the famous movie critics (several per movie) who said it, when and where, this seems almost impossible to fix. Wyllium 02:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep. See above. RADICALBENDER★ 02:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one does contain some perfectly valid and well referenced facts. A lot of it is also arguably true, such as e.g. The Seventh Seal being considered, and note that it's about being considered, the greatest Swedish movie. Of course, it can be argued that what's "considered" is not encyclopedic material. Non-factual bits should be deleted. As with the worst-ever list, opinions attributed to notable people and publications are valid for inclusion. Fredrik 02:13, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, but this one is slightly better. However, such a list is inherently POV and should not be kept. Guanaco 02:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Similar reasons as above. There are simply widely-acknowledged "all time great" movies, and it's nice to have them collected like this. A title change might be nice, however. VV 03:05, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Acegikmo1 03:11, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the folks that argue that there are some movies that are simply widely-acknowledged as great or exceptional. However, who's to say what is and what isn't widely-acknowledged. This article and its sister above are both inherently POV. And that just simply cannot work on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopædia; we've no room for opinions in the articles. DELETE. blankfaze | ♫ 03:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. - what is with everyone lately? it's like all of the sudden everyone just stopped following VfD protocol. none of the articles listed on today or yesterday have MediaWiki messages for the debates. how odd.
      • See the footer. Wyllium 03:32, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh. Well that's a good reason. I wonder what the reason is for the change. blankfaze | ♫ 04:22, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
          • See list of changes in new Wiki version. Wyllium 04:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
            • To provide a less cryptic response: MediaWiki 1.3 handles edit conflicts much more gracefully than the older version did. Which means VfD won't grind to a halt even with everyone editing it directly (or at least it isn't supposed to). -- Cyrius|✎ 06:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fascinating article, encyclopedic and accurate. Much room for improvement, yes, especially who says? type info, but that's not a reason for deletion. Andrewa 11:46, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another obvious keep, see above listing. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Pete, again; keep. James F. (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Exploding Boy 12:15, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, as above. Lord Bob 17:01, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Abigail 00:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is much better done than its worst ever counterpart siroxo 00:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 17:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia: General complaints

This page is either a less structured repeat of village pump or wikipedia: replies to common objections without the replies. Bensaccount 03:24, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this will end up either like Village Pump or the MediaWiki page on the upgrade. Delete. Wyllium 03:31, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The MediaWiki upgrade page was at 140K and skyrocketing earlier today. It was the edit conflict blues all over. Something needs to take some of that load. Denni 05:43, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If Angela and Litefantastic see it as worthy of use, so too do I. 24.65.177.33 19:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless and obviously useful to some, see the edit history. We do need some more pages similar to the Pump to relieve some of its load, maybe this will do that, maybe not. Some links to other pages, and perhaps some warnings that this is a new and perhaps less often visited page than the Village Pump etc, right up top of it would be good IMO. But that's no reason to delete it. Just fix it if you think it's important. Andrewa 21:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Don't take the fact I've edited it to be a vote in support. I don't really mind either way. Angela. 06:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (but you all knew I'd say that). I think the GC page could be quite useful, if given enough attention. And, as it's been pointed out, it could take some strain off the Pump. -Litefantastic 11:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Seems like an extraneous page - Tεxτurε 17:06, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

3D program

I can't believe there is anything here that isn't better covered somewhere else. At most, we should find the right article to make this a redirect to, and in the unlikely event that anything here is not covered there, merge it. -- Jmabel 03:24, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Haylie Duff

User:MelisCSA85 questioned this one, so I put it up. Her sister Hilary Duff seems notable enough. I would suggest merge with that and/or Lizzie McGuire Dunc Harris | Talk 08:42, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She has an Allmusic.com entry although a rudimentary one [2], a Google Search on "Haylie Duff" comes up with over 6000 hits[3] and Google News[4] comes up with 21 stories including film roles and an MTV News a cover version of "Our Lips are Sealed" with Hilary Duff [5]. Haylie is currently working on her first album and while Hilary is currently the most famous Duff sister, I think Haylie is worth having an article about. Capitalistroadster
  • Agree with Capitalistroadster, definitely keep. Fredrik 13:40, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. Everyking 16:33, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mazengarb

Delete Vanity page, no google hitsBurgundavia 07:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...and has sold 0 copies. Fantastic. Delete! Rhymeless 07:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...pretty pov as well. Delete. Wyllium 07:36, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thue 09:24, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a vanity page, but "pretty POV" and "as of 2004 has sold 0 copies sounds more like someone is playing some kind of obscure prank. No google hits on "Kan bear ya". Dpbsmith 23:34, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gurgaon Business Services (India)

Delete - Right, about that vanity. Burgundavia 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just some company. Delete. (why these geniuses think it'll bring them bussiness I'll never know) Wyllium 09:33, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless somebody can say why it is notable. Remember to remove from List of Indian companies. Thue 11:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Thue Dpbsmith 23:29, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

David Frenk

Looks like vanity, few google results Kieff 10:00, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious vanity. (do you really need to google this once you've seen the article?) Delete. Wyllium 10:21, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really... Guess I was just curious about the junk I'd find. Anyway, is it better list on speedy deletions or what? --Kieff 10:33, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this is legitimate. Holiday In Hawaii are quite a big band down here - I'm a member of their fanclub. Their website is temporarily down while they find a new server because they were getting too many hits, and their webhosts couldn't handle the traffic, hence the lack of Google hits. Incidentally, if you search for his pen name 'David Cohen', you get a lot more hits. HIH Webmaster 12:00, 30th May 2004 (GMT)
    • (I think this is User:No logo, aka User:163.1.144.46, added at 11:02, 30 May 2004 UTC - the author of the page, though I can't see it easily in the edit history since this page has changed not to having boilerplate text. grrr! Dunc Harris | Talk 12:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC))[reply]
  • I can find no mention on google of the "famous" Insomnia Wunny, or his book Heaven is One Hell of a Concept. This search should have found his band if it was at all notable. I do indeed get 102,000 hits for "David Cohen", but I can't find any of them that is about him. Delete.
  • Actually, it's a vanity page. this image says it all really delete. Dunc Harris | Talk 12:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thoughts, its not a straight vanity page, but not worthy of inclusion. My cousin Simon is a drummer in a local Coventry band called The Swains, they've released the odd EP, been on the Ian Wright show with John Gregory, but done nothing to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Simons' on the left ;). still, delete. Dunc Harris | Talk 12:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity IMO. Note that unsigned votes don't count at all, votes from newly created users with no significant contributions don't count very much, and comments from users who choose to violate the normal protocols of this page (whether by ignorance or deliberately is often hard to tell) tend to count a little against whatever they propose. Andrewa 20:49, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Severe vanity. Also delete 'Descartes: Masturbations on First Philosophy' (see seperate Vfd listing) JFW | T@lk 21:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

-OK, delete it if you will. I thought it was fair game - David Frenk is a bit of a local hero here. Playing with Trieste and Holiday In Hawaii he's supported Radiohead twice, Carrina Round, Chesney Hawkes three times (OK, maybe that's not so impressive), China Drum, SMO and a whole pile of other really famous guys. He's done session gigs with some very big artists too, and although Insomnia Wunny is a bit of an in-joke (it ran in a local paper for a few weeks) the rest is legit. I'll post links to the books as soon as I have time. I really respect Wikipedia, and I wouldn't want to annoy any of the guys who are doing such a great job here. I didn't realise that this was only for 'real' superstars, like Keith Chegwin. User:No_logo 23:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A Google search for "David Frenk" [6] comes up with 12 entries 2 of which are about the person in question. In considering whether to keep musicians I use criteria such as charting albums or singles, famous members, critically recognised albums or singles (Grammies, Brit Awards, Juno Awards, ARIA Awards etc), verifiable work with notable artists and general buzz (Google, Google News hits). This person doesnt score anything against this criteria.Seaeagle04
  • Hi, David Frenk is a legend, he's guna be huge so whatever you computer geeks think about him you'll regret not letting wikipedia (a so called wicked encyclopedia I presume) not listing him early on. Imagine being the first encyclopedia to list Jimmi Hendrix? David Brent 10:44, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment added at 09:44, 31 May 2004 by User:163.1.144.53, and not as stated. Dunc Harris | Talk 11:37, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably this person meant Jimi Hendrix. However Hendrix had already established a strong reputation when he was signed by Chas Chandler. In any case we have no verifiable evidence other than this man's testimony that David Frenk is at this stage noteworthy let alone a legend.Capitalistroadster
      • ...and if he ever becomes a legend, we can add him then. Delete. Lord Bob 17:05, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - before I start the Texture vanity band - Tεxτurε 17:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Sounds like fun! Let me know if you have a horn section. Oh, and I'm "guna" vote delete on the next "Jimmi Hendrix." - Lucky 6.9 18:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Juls

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Juls

How to rehearse

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-How to rehearse

Aqua_Maria

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Aqua Maria

MENS

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-MENS

TENS

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-TENS

The_Bells

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-The Bells

Battling_companion

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Battling companion



Rhyanne

Is it really all that famous, and is it in the right place? I would have thought wiktionary would be the place for name meanings -- Graham  :) | Talk 18:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • I speedily deleted this a week or so ago. Meelar 00:23, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Cher (character)

Doesnt deserve its own page. Move info into Clueless page. Saopaulo1

  • Delete. Point the disambiguation page to the movie instead. No content to move, it's all on the movie's page already, so no history to protect. Andrewa 03:12, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria

I put this on yesterday (with its old name) and it got deleted from the VfD page. It has been moved to a more appropriate place now, and I would withdraw the objection. It still has the VfD header on the article, it should go through the appropriate waiting period before deleting from VfD, however; and why WAS it deleted from VfD? RickK 21:23, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I promise, I don't know why, but I'm going to look in the history and try to figure it out.--Ingoolemo 06:20, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
Okay. I checked out the history, and the only thing that I can find between when I added my comment to the original VfD request was a change made by PlatinumX. My scan of the article seems to suggest that the changes made by PlatinumX may have included deleting the article (and their edit summary also points to this. However, since my skills at analysing such things are quite deficient, and my 'investigation' incriminates PlatinumX, I think someone more experienced should go in and investigate further.--Ingoolemo 06:31, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
I have gone to some effor to repair the main things RickK objects to.--Ingoolemo 20:15, 2004 May 31 (UTC)

Capital offense

Dictdef. RickK 22:44, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Table Sort Algorithms

  • No longer needed due to category system. I originally speedy-deleted it, but apparently some people don't like the category system as a replacement for these, so I'm putting this up here for discussion and vote. — Timwi 23:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I'm the some people). The table provides useful information that the category system doesn't. I'd like to see all MediaWiki hacks replaced with semantically proper alternatives eventually, but I oppose removing useful content until the category implementation is able to actually provide equal or superior presentation. Fredrik 01:36, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be NOW. I applaud the removing of those terribly ugly linkboxes once the catagory is made, and I hope more people are going to do this. Delete. Wyllium 02:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second consideration, I can live without knowing whether a sort algorithm is faster or slower than O(n2) and what other algorithms are as fast. Fredrik 13:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I already told you on my User talk page, you can split the category up into complexity classes yourself. This is no argument for keeping the box. — Timwi 22:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the grouping is sensible, I'd keep the list somewhere in article namespace, e.g. as List of sort algorithms. -- User:Docu
    • Wouldn't that be a redundant copy of the category page? — Timwi 22:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go with Docu's suggestion and then delete. --Jiang 20:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I just noticed there's a table at Talk:Sort algorithm. This should be in sort algorithm, and would solve the issue completely. Fredrik 22:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (see my comment below for List of programming languages) Dysprosia 02:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete once categories are created, references to it are deleted from all the articles, and something is done about moving the table back into the article. --ssd 01:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Judy Star

Porn actress, fails to explain why she is notable apart from HIV scare. Suspicious of motive. Dunc Harris | Talk 23:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we don't want articles for lots of porn stars, we need to do a lot of de-linkage at List of heterosexual erotic actresses (and any similar articles). I'd lean towards delete, but the list appears to have been around for over a month with no complaints. Niteowlneils 23:30, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't want articles for lots of porn stars - Why wouldn't we? Why is that different to lots of articles on musicians, or baseball players, or TV presenters? Andy Mabbett 11:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; I'd say she's marginally notable. Everyking 23:42, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she's notable. We have articles on other actors, no reason to exclude this one. Meelar 00:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose she's notable. Keep. Johnleemk 03:54, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDB lists 63 credits. Keep - TB 10:14, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
  • Keep. Squeamishness about porn stars is no reason to delete this - David Gerard 12:17, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pokémon Junior

The only record of Pokémon Junior being a TV series is at the always unreliable fuzzy.com. However, it is a series of books... Delete kelvSYC 17:56, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Created by the same person who created the fictional Hollywood Jam. Not listed on IMDB. Delete. RickK

  • Delete and ban user for repeated nonsense postings and lying about TV Tome entries existing. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. Misinformation like this is far worse than vandalism. - Lucky 6.9 22:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

May 31

Tan-Hauser Gate

Article gives no clue why they are notable. Doesn't exist on allmusic.com. A google search on the name of the band+head singer gives 1 hit. Thue 00:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not notable. Delete. Johnleemk 03:49, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name's from Blade Runner. The band's done little though, delete - TB 10:11, 2004 May 31 (UTC)

OnLine Gamers Anonymous

Blatent advertisement. PlatinumX 04:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. Delete. Johnleemk 05:12, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexa says .. minor web site. Delete - TB 10:07, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
  • I added this website to Addiction ages ago, and will add it to the 12 step article as well. IMO, it's no more "blatent" an advertisement than one for Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous, but I do agree it does not require its own article. 24.65.177.33 18:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Started as a blatant ad. Intresting concept, however. -Gamera2 20:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

David Elms

A critique of a high school teacher. Maximus Rex 05:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not notable. Google turns up one hit for '"david elms" "york mills"'. Delete. Johnleemk 05:37, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the article does say that he's now teaching at a college, which would seem notable, I think the article's total garbage. "Overall, Elms is a fine person with a very sick sense of humor." What a riot. Delete. blankfaze | ♫ 05:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely obvious. Delete. Wyllium 06:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, but remove name of subject. Dunc Harris | Talk 08:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a place for complaining about teachers. Andris 20:10, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Keith C. McCormic

Vanity -- Jmabel 06:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vanity indeed. Delete - TB 10:04, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
  • Yep, vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Interdependence

Dicdef -- Jmabel 06:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC) Same anon contributor as Keith C. McCormic -- Jmabel 06:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've expanded it into a (imho) reasonable stub. -- John Abbe 31 May 2004
  • The new stub has potential. Keep - TB 10:05, 2004 May 31 (UTC)

Munitions

Dicdef, and not even a good one. -- Jmabel 06:33, 31 May 2004 (UTC) Same anon contributor as Keith C. McCormic (User:24.218.52.116). Looks like there are yet more, but I don't have the patience to keep looking. They may not all be bad, but probably most are. -- Jmabel 06:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Army-navy stores

Dicdef. Maybe a topic worth an article; is there any reason to keep this as a stub? -- Jmabel 06:37, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (I think). I can imagine there being e.g. historical information about the origin/spread of the stores that could go here. Markalexander100 06:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep. I've made it into a slightly better stub, and this is an encyclopedic topic. Meelar 06:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the new stub. Keep - TB 10:04, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
  • Keep - dtto The Land 20:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't much like the new stub, sorry, Meelar but it's a start on potentially a good topic. I remember when Army-Navy stores really did carry war surplus. I have no idea what happens to "war surplus" these days, but it doesn't get into the Army-Navy stores any more. Or Edmund Scientific (ah, I remember the great days when it had only just changed its name from Edmund Salvage, and you could buy chipped lenses from them in coin envelopes...) Dpbsmith 00:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Hey, I wasn't shooting for a medal--I've visited one army surplus store once in my life (about 10 years ago), and have never heard anything more of the concept. No offense taken. Meelar 05:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yellow pages search indicates at least 30 companies called 'Army and Navy store' in the UK.
  • keep Exploding Boy 09:01, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Egalocracy, Egalocratic

Two more in what appear to be a series of tributes by one Keith C. McCormic to his own ego. -- Jmabel 06:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

delete: egalocracy is not a word. It is not even a plausible word. If such a political neologism were to be derived from the relevant stem, it would be 'egalitocracy', not 'egalocracy', and would not mean "equal power", as the article claims, but 'rule by those who are equal', which is something very, very different. There are strict conventions for this sort of coinage. "Equal power" is already described by the word "equipotence". User:No_logo11:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personal neologism. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedily deleted Egalocratic, since it basically just said it was the adjective form of "Egalocracy." Delete Egalocracy. Guanaco 21:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, original research, vanity. Egalocracy is not in AHD4. Does get a couple of Google hits, both to a forum by that name on LiveJournal; forum currently has four members. Dpbsmith 00:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The appropriate term is egalitarian democracy, which has some 900 variously sourced Google hits. A quick (and therefore possibly inaccurate) read of several of these hits leads me to suspect (especially since the term is used to describe this political entity more than once) that this is another label for totalitarian democracy. Denni 06:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Max Berg

This material might be relevant to salvage somewhere, but has no apparent connection to its title here. -- Jmabel 07:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

He's was a German architect [7]. Seemingly worthy, but need of cleanup. Entry in German Wikipedia doesn't exist though. 08:45, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Have cleaned up and written good stub User:Jiang has removed vfd notice. (page history) Dunc Harris | Talk 09:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Materiel

Another dicdef by anon User:24.218.52.116, redirect to material (material is materiel in French), or expand? Dunc Harris | Talk 09:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not happy about the redirect (which appears to have, uh, 'appeared'). "Materiel" is also consistently used in non-military dostribution companies too. The redirect now takes it to a page that (sfaict) doesn't include the term nor explain why it has been divererted there. Will undertake to create a proper entry. --VampWillow 12:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think materiel is suitable topic to have an article on. It has a much wider scope than material, so should not be redirected. -- Popsracer 05:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nephew

Dicdef, Any place to redirect to? siroxo 09:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Authors

This category is unnecessary as we already have Category:Writers which is a less problematic term to use. [[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|Contact Me!]] 10:56, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Did I do that right? I've never voted for deletion before. While I don't quite understand why "author" is a problematic term, certainly "writers" has gotten itself going faster and, as they say, "there can be only one." This is based on the assumption that, as I recall someone complaining about, I hope correctly, there aren't redirects for categories. On a related note, we really need redirects for categories. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
That's pretty much all you have to do to vote for deletion! 'Author' can be synonymous with 'writer' but many people would use it as a more specific term which would exclude the sub-group of 'poet'. This appears to be a redirected category: category:Essayist which is annoying me, as it's also a subcategory of the category it's referring to! [[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|Contact Me!]] 13:07, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Interesting. Unfortunately, while the link will redirect once you follow it, it won't display the proper category on the page. i.e., if you put category:essayist on a page, it will take you to category:essayists, but the page will still say "category:essayist". And you're right, that is annoying. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 13:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved: category:authors is now redirected to category:writers[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|Contact Me!]] 15:36, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

I've started merging category:writers and category:authors. Should the authors catagory be deleted, or left as a redirect? --ssd 15:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave the redirection. This sort of discussion should take place on the discussion page of the relevent category.[[User:HamYoyo| >HamYoyo|Contact Me!<]] 15:54, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
Now also listed on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion as it is orphaned and empty. I think the redirect should be deleted along with the category. --ssd 16:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
But people are bound to look for a category for authors, so a link to category:Writers would be useful.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo|Contact Me!]] 17:28, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
Not relevant to the deletion, but if Category:authors redirected to Category:writers wouldn't people start adding Category:authors to articles? How would that be handled? DJ Clayworth 17:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No they wouldn't. People can see that they've been redirected. It's technically not a redirection anyway; there's just an empty page and a link, as redirecting categories is problematic.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:42, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Oh Yeah! Cartoons & Comics

Appears to be fictional (and talks about future events in the past tense). By same user as Hollywood Jam. Probably everything they have contributed or will contribute is nonsense. Morwen 12:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Confusing one, The Fairly Oddparents (Legit via IMDB) contains a reference to it, the reference was added by 64.165.10.131 who appears to have also edited Oh Yeah! Cartoons & Comics Tracking this guy, and some of the other guys histories, they really seem to be screwing around a lot. I'm betting this one should be deleted since google really doesn't return any legit results. siroxo 13:13, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ban user for persistently posting nonsense after being warned. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually fairly legit; I know that this was a show on Nick; as a bit of a platform for short cartoons by unknown artists. The show presented itself as being something of a real-time comic book, with cartoon host characters that jumped out of the pages, and introduced the next feature (some of which were cartoons, others which were manipulated action figures). No idea if an actual quicktime feature was ever developed, although I remember hearing rumours that such a thing might happen in the future (this was a few years ago). Rhymeless 04:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Noted the weird future tense nonsense. Will try to fix/add/etc. Rhymeless 05:17, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I'd confused some portions of the show with Kablam, another Nickelodeon show, both similar and superior to Oh Yeah!. Tried to clear things up on the entry as best as possible, removed the future/book mess. Rhymeless 06:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • There is such a show on Nickelodeon. Keep but this may need a rewrite. WhisperToMe 05:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Wait a minute, there's already Oh Yeah! Cartoons. I'm thinking that's the actual name of the show. Everyking 15:58, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • It is. Transferred all meaningful content to the correct page. Rhymeless 18:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Many Adventures of Tintin

As above. Morwen 12:08, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again looks like junk. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Toon Adventures: The Baby-Sitters Club

As above. Does this count as 'patent nonsense'? Morwen 12:14, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google doesn't think so. keep. Dunc Harris | Talk 15:21, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't put quotes around the phrase, so it turned up a lot of fanfiction sites; with quotes, all you get are Wikipedia and mirrors. IMDB has never heard of this, I'd say it's nonsense and delete. Meelar 17:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • My own search agrees with Meelar. More nonsense from a user with a history of posting nonsense. Delete article, ban user as he has been previously warned. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:37, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, almost certainly nonsense. Whoever writes this stuff has a very active imagination. He should be writing for Tiny Toons himself. Everyking 21:47, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Solar System

This is about a concept which were created on April 16th, 2004. Google shows no hits for Flag of the Solar System, not even their home page (guess it has not been crawled yet). The text it copied from the linked page. Wikipedia is not the place to introduce new ideas, wikipedia is for things that is already established. Thue 13:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, Wik is no place for nonsense. Delete. Wyllium 14:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sympathetic, but the Long Future Research Group gets only 3 google hits, whereas by comparison The Long Now Foundation [8] gets 16,000. The flag currently has no recognition and the Long Future Research Group is not currently notable. Dpbsmith 15:19, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Silly stuff, vanity page, not 'pedia material. Delete. --VampWillow 15:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Looks copied. Delete either way. DJ Clayworth 19:29, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User (an IP) has blanked the page and has removed the link they put in list of flags. Andrewa 20:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Long Future

As above this does not seem like an established concept. While their Long Future Research Group may deserve an article in wikipedia, the concepts they are trying to promote seems not to be well established, and it would be false to present them in wikipedia as established concepts. Like Flag of Solar System some of the text on the page is a cut'n'paste from their web page. Thue 14:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Not an established concept. As noted before, Long Future Research Group gets only four Google hits, they are not yet notable enough to be encyclopedic either. Dpbsmith 18:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The creator has blanket the page and removed all the references he had inserted in other articles. Thue 23:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Lynsey De Paul and Mike Moran

Content moved to separate pages on each individual instead of this joint page. All links to page changed to new locations as appropriate. --VampWillow 14:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Dunc Harris | Talk 15:40, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's a weird title for an article. Delete, it's not even linked to (any more?). -- Cyrius|✎ 17:22, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've copied the significant history to the talk pages. A simple one for a change. Andrewa 18:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Two Eighty (web comic)

Text of article is "Two Eighty is the new webcomic created by Josh Phillips who worked at Avalon, another webcomic" and an external link. No evidence that it's significant or has any story to write up. Advertisment.

  • Delete - TB 15:02, 2004 May 31 (UTC) - the current redirect to the artist and brief mention on his article works well for me. TB 11:59, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • The proposed web comics guidelines include an exception for new comics by established web comic authors (and Phillips's Avalon was quite popular before he developed a pathological inability to update). On the other hand, it only has three comics up, which isn't enough of a material to base an article on. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A little short as-is, but has potential, and disk space is cheap. In fact, I'm going to edit the article right now. -- Wikisux 18:54, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It doesn't seem to be worth keeping right now, but should we perhaps have an article on Josh Phillips and move the content there? And perhaps redirect? Andrewa 19:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. I'll take care of it, if that's all right. -- Wikisux 19:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I moved it to Josh Phillips and refactored, but it still kind of sucks. Thoughts? -- Wikisux 20:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bah. with only 2k hits, most probably about his dead site, I was going to say delete, but then I found a third (dead) site of his, plus an award Avalon won, so now I guess I'm at a weak keep (I added the new info to the two articles). Niteowlneils 23:36, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Weak, son, weak! blankfaze | •­• 00:47, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy Tseng

Where to begin? He is widely regarded as the most important mathematicians of the 21st century, but "Jimmy Tseng" mathematician gets 4 hits. The article is written by himself, and referred from his user page User:Drjt87. A leader in Neurological research, but "Jimmy Tseng" Neurology gets 1 google hit. Thue 17:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, for the reasons you've stated. Vanity, non-notable. I believe it is possible to say, with a fully neutral point of view, that as of 2004 he is not widely regarded as the most important mathematician of the 21st century. I wonder whether he and Shawn Mikula have ever met? Dpbsmith 18:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Joke, vanity or possibly both. Andrewa 18:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete his other vanity page Quadranomial expansion as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, page does not look credible and google does not find any evidence. Andris 22:58, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite the claims of the article, other similar claims found by Google suggest that the kid is in reality about 17, and therefore won't even have got to Melbourne, let alone his other claims. This is a vain attempt to write their history in advance. Average Earthman 10:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I am really at University of Melbourne, (I do not try to bring a bad reputation to the Univeristy though) this page was a crude attempt at a joke, and possibly a desire for Harvard University in the future... The quadrinomial expansion article (see below) however, is true to my knowledge. By the way, University of Melbourne does not have a medicine/law course. The only University in Australia to have that course in Monash University. Jimmy Tseng

Quadranomial expansion

This is an odd one which certainly needs discussion, but I think it should be deleted. It should definitely be moved to quadrinomial expansion (that being the correct spelling). What's odd is I think the article is perfectly correct and reasonably clear, but I don't think it says anything encyclopedic. In the words of the article itself: "Quadranomial expansion is very rarely used, to the extent it is nearly rendered useless." The phrase may itself be a neologism; both "quadranomial expansion" and "quadrinomial expansion" get zero Google hits (and, yes, it was Google that clued me in on the spelling). I think the article should be deleted unless it can be expanded to show some useful application of this piece of algebra. (But what do I know? I don't even understand quaternions). Dpbsmith 18:18, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Uncertain. Original research, possibly by Jimmy Tseng, whose article by the same newbie is also up for deletion. Very interesting thought, though. Be good to transwiki it but I don't know where. Or maybe redirect to Trinomial expansion, also by the same author, which has some similar thoughts? (Quaternions are brilliant, Hamilton inadvertantly invented both cross and dot products when he suddenly had the courage to abandon the commutative law, and deserves far more credit than he generally gets. His discoveries were unfairly tainted when Tait and others championed quaternion notation against vector notation, rather chauvinistically IMO.) Andrewa 19:00, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename, assuming it's factually accurate, and it seems to be. If someone went to the trouble to write it up, why bother deleting? I would also add links back to trinomial and binomial expansion (but not necessarily in the reverse direction). -- Wikisux 20:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And combine Quadrinomial and Trinomial expansion, perhaps even move the info and redirect to Binomial expansion. There is no misinformation (besides spelling) and maybe it will be useful to someone, especially if they're browsing binomial expansion and come upon these expansions. siroxo 00:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this and trinomial expansion. There is no such thing as a "quadranomial expansion" - or, perhaps, this is like having an article on Blue car. VV 02:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to multinomial formula where it is handled properly in the general case. The page reads very strangely. Dysprosia 02:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep The article on quadrinomial expansion refers to the method of expanding by the quadrinomial theorem. This is different to the method of the multinomial formula, and thus should not be solely based upon the multinomial formula. The trinomial theorem page has information on the trinomial theorem, but the quadrinomial theorem has not been published much, due to the fact that it has not been proved rigorously yet. Therefore it should not be merely a page from the multinomial formula, but a separate article on its own. Jimmy Tseng
Why should Wikipedia include an article on an unpublished and unproven theorem? Or a not-much-published not-proved-rigorously theorem? Why wouldn't such an article qualify as "original research," which we have a policy against? Dpbsmith 18:48, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Many theorems are not proved rigously, yet they are used often in mathematics. Such examples include multiplication, where it has not been proved that 1*1=1. For examples of unpublished theorems, try look for the proof of 1+1=2. It does exist, yet it is very hard to find. By the way, this is not original research. Jimmy Tseng

MediaWiki:NAMm, MediaWiki:APECm

Pointless and ugly decorations. If a country is a member, just say so in the relevant section. there's no need for us to give it a ribbon. --Jiang 20:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, right, Avala's other boxes. Yes, these are even worse than the original boxes. Delete. Snowspinner 20:56, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually i think they are pretty ribbons. But if we put one for every association a country belongs, the articles are going to start looking like Idi-Amin's general coat. So delete. Muriel G 15:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete MediaWiki:PeaceLaureates, MediaWiki:EUc, MediaWiki:NATOm too. --Jiang

Car Crashing Channel

Doesn't appear to be a notable website. Tom- 20:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Tuna

No idea what this is about. Doesn't look notable to me. Tom- 20:46, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a minor bit of pop-cultural ephemera. I might have to say delete, but I really don't care that much. Meelar 21:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Newlyweds. Brilliant content. Andrewa 21:04, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pop culture ephemera, as I've argued in other deletion debates, takes up little space, and if, God willing, Wikipedia is around in 20 years, will be really useful to anyone reading texts that are currently contemporary. I wholly support having articles long after one's fifteen minutes have elapsed. Snowspinner 21:18, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Newlyweds, which needs expansion; it's already in Jessica Simpson's article in abbreviated form. I don't think they got the quote quite right, though. Everyking 21:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge content. --Jiang 21:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged content, now a redir. Meelar 05:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Where the Magic Begins

  • Another fictional thing. (as in, made up by the user) Morwen 21:55, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like more disinformation from our friends at http://voices.fuzzy.com Delete and ban the user, it's the same IP addresses as the others. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I only found this referencing http://voices.fuzzy.com . Whats the deal with the edit history? It looks like he was trying to get attention by making the article show up on RC? Thue 23:07, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the creator of these articles doesn't show up with a good explanation for all this, I agree that his IP addresses should be banned. Deliberately adding false content is worse than vandalism, because it's harder to detect. Everyking 23:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. imdb knows of no such movie with that title, by any studio at any year. Dpbsmith 00:01, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete is right. The date given is the opening of Disneyland, not the creation of a non-existent presentation. - Lucky 6.9 18:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki:List of programming languages

  • Again, no longer needed because replaced with categorisation system. — Timwi 22:16, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fredrik 22:22, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Delete, redundant (and cluttering). -- Cyrius|✎ 22:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but there are quite a lot of pages still linking to this that will need to be dealt with first. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 23:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Message boxes are not redundant because of categories, but are a way of navigating to other programming languages within the document. The user should perhaps not become reliant on categories to navigate to related topics Dysprosia 02:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • This is the fundametal issue. Some users want "all link to all" model as provided by the msg boxes. Other users want a "hub and spoke" model provided by categories. Others (including me) don't mind too much which, but would loathe the obvious compromise which would mean having both. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I know this is not the right place, but this is one case wherte I'd like to see a tree diagram. (Another is human languages). Many of them (were) developed from previous ones. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you don't want to use categories, wouldn't it be much simpler to say "see also: list of programming languages? -Sean Curtin 18:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete once everything is entered into the categories and the references removed from the pages. It's just a list of stuff. Categories are better. I like the idea of adding a tree to replace it, though. It's been done before, I might have notes on it. --ssd 01:20, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Murder Contest

All three speedily deleted. Guanaco 01:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A.'.A.'.

More Hollywood Jam nonsense, but is this real? Dunc Harris | Talk 23:34, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • May or may not be for real, but it is historical; it's one of Uncle Al's magickal clubhouses. Keep. Smerdis of Tlön 03:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) - PS. There's also a minimal stub at Argentinum Astrum, and one of the other should be merged. This one is actually better. Argenteum Astrum is the spelling used at least in the index of Crowley's autobiography, and strikes me as the best Latin. All three spellings are "out there," with argenteum probably commonest, and the A.'.A.'. with the three dots in a pyramid shape, or an ASCII art approximation, is actually the most common of them all. Smerdis of Tlön 03:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a historical society. Do not delete. Nixdorf 10:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The_Book_of_Lies

  • Vote to nix page. Let someone come along and actually provide some real content in place of the two one-liners and an advertisement. Compare with The_Holy_Books_of_Thelema, which is a WONDERFUL article about a book by Aleister Crowley.Yeago 23:56, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Now It's seven one-and-a-half liners, and no ad. (I hates Wikispam, I hates it, I does!) Probably should still be deleted. Dpbsmith 00:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Looks like just a poorly constructed disambiguation page to me. Leaning toward keep. blankfaze | •­• 00:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agree with above, also, the book of lies is well known - a classic. If there's an article for britney spears there should definitely be an article on something more intellectual such as the book of lies. Leaning towards keep, but reluctant to vote as I'm not particlarly versed on the topic. Kevin Baas 01:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, The Book of Lies is legit, according to google, An article about Aleister Crowley's version should probably be created and expanded by someone with more expertise. The disambiguation page seems reasonable, since it is a common title. siroxo 01:40, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. At least half of these are legitimate works which would be eminently deserving of articles themselves, and I have no reason to believe the others aren't. - David Gerard 22:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeago 03:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) Agree that this book is pertinent. Perhaps 'stub' it?

Bhak Jonghwa

Only 51 Google results, most of which seem to be Wikipedia copies or things posted by this person elsewhere. Eurleif 03:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I can't anything on google indicating he is notable. Delete. Thue 14:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Jong Park is about the same person. This one doesn't look notable either. Thue 14:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • .mpfa is a format that is used in his lab, also doesn't seem notable. I will just list Jong Park and .mpfa seperatly. Thue 14:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It says UN is helpless and controlled by superpowers.
  • Delete. Not notable. Andris 01:54, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC) 01:47, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 1

Full Nice Handbag Co

Company, not sufficiently known to be in Wikipedia. 4 google hits. Andris 06:09, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

"Not sufficiently known" is an awkward reason to not have something in Wikipedia. Most of us are probably only familiar with a tiny fraction of the topics covered. 4 google hits probably doesn't mean very much... firstly the website is very new (updated 15th May) and secondly b2b businesses specializing in physical products tend not to have much of a web presence. Keep, unless verified to be an insignificant company by some other means. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Um, I would say that 4 hits on Google "verifies it to be an insignificant company." Delete. blankfaze | •­• 14:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC
Um, did I not just explain in the very comment you are supposedly replying to why 4 Google hits is irrelevant??? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not having a significant presense in Google doesn't mean anything. I'm sure there are a huge number of significant businesses that have no Internent presense, and even then might not come up in Google. Google is not the Internet, the Internet is not the world. I would recommend keeping this article unless it in someway conflicts with Wikipedia operations. --Jeff 23:07, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This is not an ad repository and no one is going to come to an encyclopedia looking for information on a company such as this. - Lucky 6.9 18:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Who are you to judge what people will come to an encyclopedia for? What is particularly ad-dy about this entry, compared with the hundreds (probably thousands) of articles we have about companies? I think you are rejecting something because it is outside your sphere of interest and experience. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I daresay that there are a lot of articles on this site well outside my spheres of interest and experience. There are thousands of articles about companies and their products, but they are companies and products of note, notoriety, infamy, etc. If I was looking for information on a Hong Kong handbag manufacturer, I'd go to Google and find a website. The burden of proof of notoriety in this case should be on the author.
        • It is a leading manufacturer of handbags in Hong Kong (and if you've been shopping in HK, you know they sell a lot of handbags). That is sufficient proof of notoriety. Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I should also mention that many similar articles have been deleted in the past. Let's be honest: Who really would come to a site like this and enter this name? - Lucky 6.9 21:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • If the circumstances are the same as this case, then those deletions were mistaken. People may not come to Wikipedia specifically for this company, but they may come to Google, like most of our traffic. Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Although significantly leaning towards delete, might it have more Google hits in a non-English name? The name sounds like a weird translation, something that only non-English speakers would come up with. -- user:zanimum
  • Keep. Probably reasonably notable in Hong Kong; naturally Google is biased towards companies in English speaking countries. Everyking 20:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless someone can provide results from google.com.hk that this is notable, then it just looks like unnecessary self-promotion to me. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:11, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • I fail to see how this would be considered self-promotion. The article will only be found if someone is ooking for information about this company, or if another article links to it. Another article will only link to it if the conpany has any significance; if not there is nothing to worry about it. --Jeff 23:07, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • For the third time, since when is Google the final arbitrator of anything? A significant proportion of the information I add to Wikipedia comes from books, and can not be found through Google (well it couldn't, until I added it to Wikipedia and hence to Google :-). It is not immediately obvious that this is self-promotion (the IP in question has lots of HK-related edits). Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, strong keep. The article is reasonably NPOV and doesn't sound at all like an advertisement, just a sober statement of its business. I feel Google means little, because many significant companies (for example, established manufacturers in "old-economy" industries) tend not to get mentioned much online. Also, I agree with Pcb21--who are we to judge what people will come to an encyclopedia for? And finally, in any case, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. I can imagine people coming here to learn about the companies they work for, much as they might come to learn about the history of the streets they live on or schools they attended. Who are we to thwart that sort of curiosity? -- Wikisux 23:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: wikispam. Demonstration of notability is the responsibility of the author. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't help but start to see this article as a bit of a litmus test of how deletionist has become in the last X months. I ask those in favour of deletion, which part of the deletion policy are you wanting to kill this under? And why do you see the article's existence as detrimental to Wikipedia? Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • "List pages that you believe have no potential to become encyclopedia articles." blankfaze | •­•
      • The article is already longer than many articles in various printed encyclopedia I've seen in my day (Britannica, New York City, Encarta). -- Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • "List articles that contain no verifiable information." blankfaze | •­•
      • The information presented in this article is verifiable and true, as some cursory internet research will show. --Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete This company has no political, cultural, historical significance. This isn't a accessories catalogue. Who would use this information? It does't have the history required by a commercial company to deserve an encyclopaedia entry. Where is the potential for it to grow beyond a stub? Employee of the month lists? Product ranges? We have to remember that Wikipedia isn't an infinite space where we have space for this stuff. Ask the creator to justify the page at least (if he/she hasn't).--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:37, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • It is an ad, people. Delete it. RickK 23:40, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've got a few friends from Hong Kong. I'll ask them if they've heard of the company--not that it matters--but in the meantime, I'd say don't do anything rash. --Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Misunderestimated

Neologism. Timc placed msg:delete, which was removed by article author. Doesn't meet criteria for speedy delete, so I'm listing it here. This term is given as an example at Bushism. Google gives 26,600 hits but it is still a neologism / Bushism. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 06:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Vote to keep as a redirect to Bushism. Not sure what info should be copied to Bushism, though. Ideas? siroxo 08:12, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm... redirect sounds good, but I don't think anything can be salvaged from the article. SWAdair | Talk 09:53, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Bushism. Chameleon 13:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Bushism. Misunderestimated is one of the canonical examples, perhaps the canonical example of a Bushism so we can allowing it to be an entry, while not allowing it for every Bushism. Dpbsmith 14:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stub linking to Bushism. Much like a redirect, only with a nice quick information filter so that any information one might be searching for on "Misunderestimated" is still presented first. Snowspinner 15:47, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • redirect or delete. not worthy of own article --Jiang 21:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. It's a particularly notable Bushism. - David Gerard 22:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dvd to wmv9

Is there a place we can redirect this? Burgundavia 08:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, it could redirect to Ripping, but with a complete loss of the information in this advertisement article. SWAdair | Talk 10:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. All content in article is advertising. Thue 16:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; not encyclopedic. --Jeff 02:40, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

To_His_Coy_Mistress

This is utter trite nonsense. An encyclopaedic amateur summary of a canonical poem? I think not.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 10:04, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's a very famous poem, quite worth of an article of its own. What's there is an OK start, certainly not "nonsense." I like the fact that the article references allusions in other poems. The fact that other works allude to this poem is a very nice NPOV bit of evidence that this poem is notable enough to deserve an article. Yes, the article could certainly be improved. The paraphrases/translations/whatever should be buttressed by quoting the relevant parts of the poem to which they refer. I don't like the way in which, after "stripping the poem of all poetry" they then reclothe it in somethat tacky garb, i.e. the restatement is too creative. "So let's go fast for as long as we are still alive" is both evasive and clumsy, Marvell is talking about amour lovemaking coitus, not track-and-field. The references to those other poems need to be explained (what the heck is The Garden?). (BTW Archibald MacLeish wrote a poem entitled You, Andrew Marvell, another reference to the poem, which could also be included, and there are probably many more.) Might throw in some stuff about similar sentiments expressed in other famous writings, e.g Ecclesiastes and the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. and The article should document the very important fact that quoting this poem is seldom, if ever effective as a seduction strategy—at least, it never was for me.. Dpbsmith 12:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps its style could be more encyclopedic, but I thought it was quite informative. I can't judge how important this poem is in English lit. circles, but it seems to have been influential. -- Solipsist 13:32, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. You yourself say its "a canonical poem". The answer is to FIX (as in edit, add to, expand) the "amateur trite nonsense", not delete it. Thesteve 13:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Edit, but keep. The poem is a cornerstone, and there are monographs upon monographs written on it. It's pretty much the most important poem of the Interregnum that John Milton didn't write. It absolutely demands a first class article, though. Geogre 18:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) (an 18th c. Brit Lit person)
  • It's a very important poem. Perhaps someone could just edit the page, but it certainly should not be deleted. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Radiohead Messageboard

Can this not be merged into Radiohead. Burgundavia 10:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete. This has no cultural significance. Does the messageboard have any notoriety or fame? If it plays a role in the story of Radiohead it can get a mention in that article, but hardly its own one.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 10:50, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree; merge or delete. Thue 11:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok, sorry. I've mergred it with Radiohead, so it can be deleted now. :-)
    • Thanks very much. Just a note, it's considered polite to sign your posts on pages such as this. You can do it by typing 4 tildes, like this:~~~~. Yours, Meelar 18:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nm (UNIX)

Merely the output of "man nm". --Stormie 12:39, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
OK, Keep, I like Finlay's rewrite. --Stormie 21:26, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, unless copying the manpage violates someone's copyright. Informative entry. Fredrik 13:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've replaced man page with stubby explanation of what it actually does. Stormie was quite correct, however, in listing the original, as stuff like manpages should be at wikisource (at best). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You had apparently edited it when I checked it. I agree that the original was subject for deletion. Fredrik (talk) 14:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful. Abigail 14:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Free game

This attempt at a dicdef for a possible regional slang term didn't make any sense when it was created and hasn't gotten any more useful as folks have tried to fix it. The current useful content is duplicated at pinball. Jgm 13:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jong Park

This looks like vanity. The article talks about his contributions to biosophy, but "Jong Park" biosophy gives few hits, mostly pages written by himself. He also have another article about himself in wikipedia under Bhak Jonghwa, an alternative transliteration of his name. The other article is also listed on vfd. Thue 15:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • We probably also want to remove the note he left on Biosophy. Biosophy looks fishy in itself too, searching for fx Biosophy "Peter Wessel Zapffe" returns almost exclusively wikipedia hits. Not listing biosophy on vfd for now. Thue 16:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all the related pages as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 16:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google shows the person exists and has written some real papers. But this page is bizarre and does not give a reason why he's notable. Andris 20:26, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

.mpfa

File extension used by Jong Park mentioned above. Searching Google for .mpfa "file format" FASTA gives few hits, mostly irrelevant. Compare with the number of relevant google hits for .fa and .pfamentioned at FASTA format. Remember to remove .mpfa from the FASTA format list if/when deleting. Thue 15:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Brook

A dictionary entry. Originally, it was POV, too ("best known use of the word in 'Stairway to Heaven'"). Stripped down to a dictionary entry, it surely doesn't need to be in the encyclopedia. Geogre 16:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I guess the only suggestion I have is wiktionary, then delete. blankfaze | •­• 17:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • As above. DJ Clayworth 17:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I have reworked the article for stream to include the definition of a brook. With this change, please see if a redirect is now appropriate. Rossami 19:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Splendid Isolation

There might be something here worth merging elsewhere, but I believe this has no article potential in its own right. -- Jmabel 17:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Well... I think this article might have some potential... might. But it's so ugly right now and so uniformative that I really wouldn't miss it if it was to be deleted. blankfaze | •­• 17:40, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an important historical approach and I think it does deserve its own article, though it needs to be Wikified and linked to other relevant articles. -- Wikisux 18:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Splendid Isolation" +Britain returns 7000 hits on google, including books and major universities. It also appears to be used in current British media (e.g. BBC[9]) as an analogy to current British foreign policy. Andris 20:38, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to cleanup, if it passes the copyvio test. It's a real phrase for a real thing - David Gerard 22:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Krazyletter

  • Unofficial school newspaper, which competes against another unofficial paper, and an official paper. While I've advocated schools related stuff in the past, this is too much. -- user:zanimum
  • Delete. I tried for a speedy delete, but the author reverted the edit. Thanks to Zanimum for re-nominating this. - Lucky 6.9 19:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with above. Andris 20:40, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. My low faith in its value was lessened by the author spamming wikilinks to it all over unrelated articles. - David Gerard 22:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not agree. This article should be kept. If articles on a simple school newspaper can not be kept, then articles about Microsoft or Invision Power Board should be not, too. - 198.104.63.141
    • The above is, of course, by the author of the article in question, who has been spamming links to it - David Gerard 22:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the article itself wasn't bad enough, the attempt to delete everybody else's votes on it makes me want it gone anyway. RickK 23:49, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • There's a big fuzzy line dividing encyclopedic from unencyclopedic, and non-noteworthy unofficial school newspapers are squarely on the side of deletion. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cybofree

9 google hits. Entry written by User:VRmanoj, which claims the term was coined by "V.R.Manoj". Maximus Rex 19:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Umm, it says it was written about in some journal, so perhaps it's worth keeping. The page needs rewriting, though. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not everything written in some journal merits Wikipedia entry. Andris 20:28, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • If anyone knows if that journal is reasonably respectable, its probably worth keeping. If its a minor journal, might want to wait for a second occurence before actually wiki-ing it. siroxo 22:32, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Vote to keep; while the term is certainly ridiculous (in my opinion), we shouldn't use that as a basis for removing the article. This article provides valid information about this term, and would be useful to people looking up 'cybofree'. Anyone else would not even know it existed, and would thus not be bothered by it in any way. --Jeff 22:47, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • This completely ignores the real argument: the article should be deleted because the term has no currency whatsoever beyond the two people who wrote a paper about it. WP does not exist for the promotion of their invention. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • It's not promotion if nobody reads it; but if people want to read it, then they should have that option open.
  • Delete. A term a couple of academics made up in hopes that other people would adopt it. Google returns 17 hits for "cybofree", every last one of them associated with the Manoj and Azariah. -- Let me explain that invention of neologisms is very common in some fields. It is a form of advertising: every time someone mentions the neologism, it reflects well on the authors. There are hundreds of academic journals, and they generate many neologisms every year, the vast majority of which do not enter common use. Until someone comes up with some evidence, we should consider "cybofree" an idiosyncratic neologism. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Changsha (1942), Battle of Changsha (1941), Battle of Changsha (1939)

All in Simplified Chinese, all listed since April 23, 2004 at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, but no one has translated any of them. Someone did translate Battle of Changsha (1944), which we should keep. -- Jmabel 19:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Phytophagy

Could be put in Wiktionary. (User:Tothebarricades.tk added vfd notice.)

  • Have moved from adjective phytophagous to phytophagy, (please use nouns folks!) but I think this just needs cleaning up - its the kind of technical dicdef that we need. Put in Wiktionary too of course ;) Dunc Harris | Talk 20:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • probably be best to merge content with an article on phagy, which can discuss polyphagy and other types of phagy. Dunc Harris | Talk 21:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • agh! what a mess. Right first there's eating, which is essentially duplicated by nutrition which is extremely POV towards nutrition in H. sapiens, and not well written. Dunc Harris | Talk 22:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mind-Brain Society

Shawn Mikula again, in between his ego explosion he did post some useful stuff on some mind-brain stuff, been away for a while, better to work with than against. I still suggest delete though; if it's notable enough someone else will post. The following was snipped from copyright problems: (Dunc Harris | Talk 20:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC))

The author has now posted on the discussion page, and claims to have permission for this material. I have no reason to doubt that the permission is genuine. I still think the page is simply an advert, perhaps it should be changed to a VfD? --gadfium 01:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm supporting VfD. Note that this page is a Shawn Mikula vehicle; see the talk page of that article to get a link to what I mean. VfD may spawn a truly enormous discussion again (between anonymous supporters and everybody else) but I'm all for it. Martijn faassen 19:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agreed w/ Martijn, VfD is the place to list it. Probably someone should check for additional Shawn Mikula promo articles. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I see my comment is copied over already. I was actually starting this procedure myself but it looks like

I don't need to do a thing. Martijn faassen 20:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Likely an advert for website. Andris 20:30, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  1. Speedy Delete. The Mind-Brain article has already been VfD'd once. --Starx 20:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, of course, for reasons given above. I'm afraid I see it as almost but not quite eligible for speedy delete, because: I can't find a separate VfD debate on Mind-Brain.com; the discussions on Shawn Mikula and Mind-Brain.com were sufficiently mixed up that reviewing MediaWiki:VfD-Shawn_Mikula it's not 100.00000% clear that there was consensus on Mind-Brain.com; and the titles and content of the two articles are very similar but not absolutely identical. Title and text are close enough for speedy delete had there really been a well-articulated consensus on Mind-Brain.com, as opposed to "throw 'em both out." Text of old Mind-Brain.com article was (reformatted for compactness, external link omitted)
Mind-Brain.com is a brainchild of Shawn Mikula which was established in 2002 to develop, implement and support a wide range of neuroinformatics tools, services, databases, and information, and to foster communication and collaboration between neuroscientists, scientists from other fields, technicians, and engineers for the purposes of facilitating and accelerating the development of neuroscience and neurotechnologies. Objectives: Core Objective: To develop neuroscience and neurotechnologies with the intent of using them as tools for the enhancement and expansion of normal healthy human consciousness. Tangential Objectives: 1) To increase public awareness of the potentials offered by neuroscience and to educate the lay public in neuroscience matters; 2) To bring together highly motivated and competent scientists and other individuals for the purpose of achieving our core objective. 3) To provide useful neuroscience services, tools, databases, and information for the facilitation of neuroscience research.
  • Personally, I think ANY article that is recognised as being the work of Mikula should be speedily deleted. I guess that's kind-of fascist, but we don't have room for his BS in the Wikipedia. blankfaze | •­• 23:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

KaoSatyr

Vanity, and not even his real name. Non-notable by his own admission. DJ Clayworth 21:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • How does this nimrod sleep at night? Delete. Speedy would be nice. - Lucky 6.9 21:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Play nice, Lucky--probably easier for all concerned (I know, shouldn't be lecturing, but...). Delete. Meelar 21:53, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • LOL! You're right. I seem to have slipped up again... - Lucky 6.9 22:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete my article. Thank you.
    • I've put in a speedy delete notice. This was a newbie test. Dunc Harris | Talk 21:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I've deleted it. Something that should have been carried out in the sandbox. No harm done. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:11, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Poor design

Over-the-top POV and/or non-encyclopedic. - Lucky 6.9 21:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep; real argument, against intelligent design. POV-neutralize and wikify. Fredrik (talk) 21:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: incoherent babble at the moment. The topic might work in some other context but way too wooly and undirected at the moment. --VampWillow 21:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Or merge into intelligent design. It's not a very good article but I don't see anything wrong with it. Googling on "poor design" evolution turns up thousands of hits, and quite a lot are relevant, suggesting that this phrase is really in use. The article is an adequate description and explanation of the way in which the phrase is used. The article characterizes "poor design" as an "argument," labelling it as a point of view, and notes that it "opposes intelligent design," so other points of view are acknowledged. The main reason for merging it into intelligent design would be to unify the range of points of view in a single place. And it's a legitimate argument. Opponents of evolution state—correctly, I think—that it is hard to understand how the human eye could have evolved through a process of small continuous modifications. But it is just as hard to understand how any sort of "intelligent" designer could have gotten the retina of the eye the wrong way around, with the blood vessels in front of the receptors—as if a digital camera ran wires across the camera's field of view—when the cephalopods get them the right away around, showing that getting it right is not biologically impossible. I don't want to discuss which argument is stronger. I'm saying a) based on Googling, "poor design" or "the poor design argument" is a real phrase in actual use; b) that it is a serious argument (having been made in various forms since the time of Darwin) with at least a trace of merit to it; c) that the article does not assert "poor design" as truth but identifies it as a point of view, and d) identifies and links to the opposing point of view. C and D make it acceptably NPOV, I think. Dpbsmith 22:43, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It looks great the way it's been rewritten. Keep new stub. - Lucky 6.9 22:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has the potential to become a good article and doesn't seem to merely be an invention of the article's author. (See this) Acegikmo1 02:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This one could be fun - something to bite into once the interface settles down. Denni 03:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks encyclopedic. →Raul654 03:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

The South End

Unremarkable student newspaper. Dunc Harris | Talk 22:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, but clean up POV (e.g. opinionatedly racist conservative slant, etc.). The history and development of this paper is probably relevant and interesting to thousands of people. I'd like to think Wikipedia could be the source for such information. -- Matty j 22:52, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't really care for these kind-of articles, but it seems to be a fairly well-written NPOV article about something that has a modicum of significance. Keep, I guess. blankfaze | •­• 23:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipolice

now Wikipedia:Wikipolice --Jerzy(t) 01:47, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)

Vandalism? Move to Wikipedia:Wikipolice. Delete to BJAODN? Dunc Harris | Talk 22:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

by User:Irismeister, oh golly, here we go... Dunc Harris | Talk 22:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Almost an interesting concept, but its a very subjectively written page, and has no real basis yet. It also fails to clearly state what Wikipolice are, just alludes to thier necissity and formation. Definately at least move, perhaps delete. siroxo 22:42, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • So gentlemen, I work and you just vote for deletion! Moreover, you are using gobbledygook like vandalism (an editor who initiated hundreds of enclycopedic articles is, by definition not a vandal) and oh golly. What is the purpose of Wikipedia if contributors write, and Wikipolice deletes. You see the point? This proves that the page is badly needed. So, gentlemen, just thhhinkkkk again, before you offer VfD, with a stress on thinking not on your POV :O)!
    • It sound like you would be more at home with the editorial policies at Wikinfo, so if you don't think the people here will give you the chance to write the article as you want it, why not just go there? This certainly doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything with your time. Thue 23:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • No thank you, Thue! Redirection is not a good, constructive, genuine authoring policy. Have gone through months of research only to see my criticism of Conventional Medicine dismissed in a second by an imbecile, and put beyond Wiki traffic. If Wiki has articles on tampons and fists, which do nothing to improve the Wikipedian image, Wikipolice is here to stay, for it certainly improves it - and they need their own police :O) Besides, I'd rather lose a bit to earn a lot of my time, in the "tolerance with the wolves is cruelty to the lambs" line of thought :O) - irismeister 23:36, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
        • Couldn't redirection be good? If there we a positive and a negative article for a topic then the reader would be forced to consider both and make up his own mind. Articles could still have review, and be improved, but the problem of wikipolice with a totally different worldview would not exist. Thue 23:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • siroxo thank you for constructive criticism, this is only a first proposal, not even a stub yet. So thanks for your SPEED :::::O)- irismeister 22:47, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • This is part of Irismeister's ongoing attacks on User:Theresa Knott. Speedy delete. Consumerium might want it, though - David Gerard 23:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Nope, David, don't Wikicacadevaca me :O) It's a genuine legitimate NEW article, on policing the police, you bent mind over contorted ratiocinations :O) - irismeister 23:06, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • Whatever its merits, it doesn't belong in the namespace. Move it to Meta or delete it, it's that simple. There are no alternatives. RickK 23:53, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Does 'move' work across namespaces? If so, do that promptly - David Gerard 00:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not move. Not funny, so no BJAODN. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:22, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia.org is an anarchy. We don't need police. Mob rules.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 00:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote yet. I moved it to Wikipedia:Wikipolice, on the grounds that it is not encyclopedic but may deserve more than 5 minutes consideration on meta. Even if the editor deserves sactions for vandalism, for pretending not to understand the difference between meta and articles. --Jerzy(t) 01:47, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Not sure what to do with this but it doesn't belong in namespace. Certainly not vandalism.It is POV and original research, but Irismeister does make a few good points. Personally, I'd park this at Village Pump, or create a Wikipedia:Op-Ed (oh, be honest. Wikipedia:Rant) in Meta. We need something like that anyway. Denni 03:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme predjudice. Snowspinner 05:34, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only long enough to be considered as part of Irismeister's arbitration case. Then delete. Content like this belongs on Meta, so if Irismeister wants it, he can recreate it there. --Michael Snow 05:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dept of Botany, University of Guelph

Article is a stub about a department of a University. Do individual departments really derseve their own articles? Krik 23:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Beatrice Portinari,

The main article is Beatrice Portinari, while this article has an extra comma in the name. The text of Beatrice Portinari, has been copied to Talk:Beatrice Portinari. -- Micha 23:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 2

International Community School

  • The kids of Krazyletter are back. - Lucky 6.9 00:26, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lord Bob 03:37, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a legitimate topic for which Wikipedia should have an article. Acegikmo1 03:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming it's accurate. Everyking 05:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gadfly (social)

Dictionary defininition. Move to Wiktionary. - Hephaestos|§ 00:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Karen Davis

Article contains only one fact which links to the slightly more informative article, United Poultry Concerns. Change to Redirect? - siroxo 03:03, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

Fossil Monotremes

This was an article I personally created some time ago because I wanted to have a directory to all articles on the fossilised forms of monotremes. It now has a redirect to the article Monotreme, whre there is a section devoted to the same subject (added by me). It now has no pages linking to it, and serves no logical purpose anymore. Seeing this, it should no longer be in the article namespace.--Ingoolemo 04:48, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)

  • Keep, it's a valid redirect. RickK 04:59, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

VfD Footer section

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.

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}} ~~~~
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_September_2004&oldid=3836615"