Wikipedia talk:Articles requested for more than a year/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sexology and wrestling

The very essence of mutual irrelevance. I will pitch this soon. --Mashford 15:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ring Gear

I did a Google Search, and all I came up with are ring gear and pinions, and starter ring gears. They're all the same, according to starter ring gear, so I'm going to add a redirect under "Ring Gear" to "starter ring gear." If this is incorrect, please don't hesitate to correct it. Just letting you all know before I go and be bold. :-) --Sirwilliam 03:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you ever get the funny feeling that some of these of this Sliver Topics are put up as a joke? Are all these ring gears due a topic page? Sounds like a piston engine part? Maybe should be folded over into Piston Engine? -I am Kiwi 22:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this guy worth it?

David Philipson.. 1 2 Deathdust 14:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Drop Dead Date

This seems to be a very short legal definition - should this go in the Wiktionary instead? Amanita

Last year somebody dumped several hundred legal terms onto the requests list. It would be useful if somebody could go through List of legal topics, and Wikipedia:Requested articles/list of missing legal terms and delink all of those that will result in nothing more than dict. defs. - SimonP 14:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
After a quick check of the law dictionary at, I've removed the following that in my estimation will never be more than dictionary definitions: Nulla bona, Practicable, Reasonable speed, Running with the land, Warrant of committal, Warrant of delivery, Warrant of possession, Shortening time, Personal effects, Hidden asset. I'll post a message over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law and see if we can get an expert opinion on the remainder. Bookgrrl 23:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm new, not sure what I'm doing yet, but I created Secured transaction, security agreement, and real party in interest. I created a link from UCC to secured transaction. All three could have significantly more than a definition, but for now they're just stubs.--Zilonis 06:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bunzl plc

Their website says they are "a focused international value added distribution and outsourcing Group" [1]. I have no idea what that means and can't find any reason they're important (other than that it's old, having started in Bratislava in 1854). Not sure we really need an article on this? Bookgrrl 01:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


  • From Xanga: "ProjectQED's site has been shut down for violation of Xanga's eligibility requirements..."
  • From "Server not found"

Deleted from the list as it apparently doesn't exist any more Bookgrrl 02:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for me to remove "Suppressionm of evidence" from the list after I created it? I'll do it now, undo me if i shouldn't.Dan 16:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Aids Research Advisory Committee

I made a stub for it, you aren't going to get much more because its really a subcommittee at that and it hasn't accomplished anything of note. If anyone has anything to add then go wild though. --Thenormalyears 04:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Highlight headroom

Highlight headroom is a particular term relating to the ratio of the luminance at which an image medium produces a "normal" white versus its maximum possible luminance. It dictates how much highlighting an image can have without being "blown out" and losing all detail. As such, it is an aspect of the nature of the film, sensor, or paper in question.

This seems like a highly specialized, but very minor, topic, and I would suggest that it be redirected to Sensitometry. -- Kaosfere 00:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Names

There appear to be some names of businesses in this list. Geosystems, Hypergain etc. Should these generally be removed? Ordinary Person 14:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There are notability guidelines for companies somewhere, but I don't remember the name of the page. Maurreen 03:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:CORP --Thanatosil 12:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Zero hits on Google

If something or someone gets exactly zero hits on Google, is it reasonable to infer from this that the subject is not sufficiently notable to get a Wikipedia article? Some of these topics are in that category. Ordinary Person 15:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would think so. There are probably exceptions, but I wouldn't worry about them. Maurreen 03:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Regarding this and the corporate entries, I might "be bold". Ordinary Person 00:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In the Computing section "identification by next value" has more hits than just wikipedia, as this line from google shows: "Results 11 - 20 of about 193,000,000 for identification by next value". This article should be possible Stwalkerster 20:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

But then again, what about the Transportation section's "driving down the highway"? 148,000 Google hits. And "sandwich fillings" 74,300 hits. even "deploy solar panels" under Space Exploration? 777 hits. Should these be articles too??  :D
Ignore me. I have no idea what "identification by next value" is besides a descriptive phrase of when a number is identified by means of knowing the next value? Like is done in intelligence testing with series where you must interpolate? -I am Kiwi 22:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I decided to find out what "identification by next value" meant, so I entered the entire phrase -in quotes- and found only 13 hits. And only 3 websites other than Wiki. :D Be advised, a phrase is no better than its inclusive quotation marks. -I am Kiwi 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Finding the links to the articles

Is it possible to do a search to find out what articles have links to the requested articles? Ordinary Person 15:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Click on the red link, which will take you to a blank box where you could create the page. Then click on "What links here" on the left side of the screen. Maurreen 16:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Maurreen, you're a gem. Ordinary Person 00:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! How kind of you. Maurreen 00:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some of these shouldn't be articles

I checked the "What links here" for maybe five or 10 of these requests in the past few days. All or almost all had negligible links -- not just the number, but the type -- such as being linked from a page "Foobar topics."

I am thinking about making comments in the list, such as about the number of "What links here" or Google hits, etc. And then maybe we could sort out items that probably aren't worth the time. Thoughts? Maurreen 16:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a useful distinction. If we don't want obscure articles, we should simply remove them from Wikipedia:requested articles and this list. Leaving them on this list, but marking them as of questionable or unknown value, will simply discourage people from writing them and increase the length of time they sit as red links. Discouraging the creation of these articles is exactly counter to why this page exist. As a rule, any page that has not been created for so long is an obscure topic of little interest to anyone. However, we still get articles like William Johnson (artist), Breaking wave, and Dabney Oil Syndicate written on a regular basis. - SimonP 13:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at a few articles lately. Sometimes, like with a persons name, it's hard to tell which person was requested. Sometimes, it doubious wheter we should spend time on them. Could a rating system help? meatclerk 21:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if all the requests are worth someone creating, having some notes or some other system could help people determine which of the requests are the best use of their time, for people who might create the articles. Maurreen 21:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but as you say virtually none of these requests have incoming links, so we will end up lumping almost every request into the questionable or unknown categories. This will won't really make for a useful rating system. - SimonP 01:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to try an idea with the people section. Basically, these requests should have a link to the dead-ended request. Let's see, if theory fits pratice. meatclerk 06:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Rabbit Hole Dangers

Recently, I was working on an article on this page, namely Jay Ryan. As it goes, I got a number of Speedy Deletes before an admin, or friendly person broke in. I cried FUD and went to lunch. When I came back someone was nice enough to fix up all the issues. None the less, some of these articles we might create are in danger of the same action, or similar, when we are not looking. Is there a "we just filled this hole" tag? meatclerk 08:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Maurreen 08:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Experiment in Resolving Requests

Okay, I've made a change to the section People. Let me know what you think. meatclerk 07:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That is much better. I have always thought that it would be useful to say which requests page a link has come from. My only concern is that it will be far more work to update this page. - SimonP 12:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. But I don't understand this: "Ricardo Granda - Nothing links -> Social Sciences and Philosophy". Maurreen 14:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


I should have made a link to the last field, but got lazy. In any case, the middle field, "what would link" if the article is created is the most important.

How you do this

  1. Click on the link Ricardo Granda
  2. On the new editpage on the lower left, below the search box, is the the link What links here
  3. That's a special page, we can't get the source. So copy and paste the links to our request page.

Is that clear? meatclerk 02:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Maurreen 02:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it be too bold for me to remove everything that has no actual Wikipedia article links AND zero hits on Google?Ordinary Person 02:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Ordinary Person

Makes sense to me. Maurreen 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Those criteria constitute strong evidence, but are not sufficient alone to warrant deletion, you would need to judge wether there might be a good reason the Google test fails. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias,Wikipedia:Google Test#Google Bias and Wikipedia:Notability (people)) Bfg 14:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If it gets zero Google hits, do you realistically expect anyone working on this page to find any information to write the article? Maurreen 14:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
With some topics this does happen. For instance, many of the obscure math topics get no or virtually no Google hits, but a search of mathematics journals will usually find something. - SimonP 14:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
That is putting words into my mouth. There is not an equivalence between people working on this page being realistically able to resolve a request, and an article being worthy of inclusion. I am not arguing that such requests should not be denied, but we should take care and make judgements as to why a search term does not appear on Google. Let for instance a name sound very African, remember there are large parts of Africa who never have seen a computer, for this reason the name might not appear on the internet but still be notable. Had the name sounded English, there is a far greater chance the name is not notable. Bfg 09:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Intramolecular Forces

I notice that an empty article has been created on this topic. Is someone working on this or was this a mistake? Ordinary Person 06:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted entries

  • "Ryukoko", was not linked by any Wikipedia article. The only Google hits it received were misspellings of Ryukoku (the Japanese University). I deleted this entry. Ordinary Person 07:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Wrestling (sexology)" I deleted on the basis that it is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Ordinary Person 07:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Damn, I wanted to delete that one.. Oh well too slow. --Mashford 11:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Shaharah-e-Islamabad, gone, and removed it from the linking page. Ordinary Person 02:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Bunzl Plc. Not a very notable company. Ordinary Person 06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "1994 Ann Arbor City-Township Boundary Policy Statement". With heavy heart, I have decided that this is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Ordinary Person 06:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Victorian Lace. Why was this Lace linked to from the Medical page? Anyway, gone now. Ordinary Person 07:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Dipole Might. It seems to pertain to a conspiracy theory concerning the ATF. Ordinary Person 09:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Studies Management. Too broad, that could mean anything, and not being called by a prose page. Ordinary Person 10:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Mediaglyph. This was an article that had already been created and deleted last year. Ordinary Person 13:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Elliot Winslow. No links. Roughly the 1000th best chess player in the USA.
  • David Mooney. No links. No idea which David Mooney this was. There are heaps of them.
  • Charles Louis Eloi Pernet. No links. Arguably one of the most famous French cutlers of the early twentieth century. Ordinary Person 14:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Charles Wheeler (Britain). There are a few British Charles Wheelers, and there is already a Charles Wheeler disambiguation page. I don't think it would be helpful to either create a Charles Wheeler (Britain) page and link it to the disambig, or to any of the particular British Charles Wheeler pages. Ordinary Person 07:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope no one minds me having these chunks where I describe several different deletions etc. I am relatively new to Wikipedia so I'm describing what I do here in the hope that someone will pull me up if I go over the line. Ordinary Person 06:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This list is definitely useful. The only one I have some qualms about is Charles Louis Eloi Pernet, who does seem to have some fame. - SimonP 01:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I did a stub for Charles Louis Eloi Pernet. Ordinary Person 02:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirected entries

Sent Co(salen) to Salen_ligands. Co(salen) is just a Salen ligand based on cobalt. It doesn't deserve its own article. Ordinary Person 02:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirected Nonergodic to Ergodic. I think most people know what the prefix non- means. I tried to redirect it to Ergodic_(adjective) but it wouldn't "take", as the edit log will show. Ah well. Ordinary Person 02:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Actually, I've got it going to Ergodic_(adjective) now... Ordinary Person 02:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirected Shereshevski to Solomon Shereshevskii. Ordinary Person 07:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirected Occupational hazard to Occupational safety and health. The latter seemed to cover things. Ordinary Person 10:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Ordinary Person

Turn states' evidence

I don't see any way this could ever be more than a vote would be to delete it --Thanatosil 16:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Closely related topics

I'm going to group some of the ungrouped articles together. For instance, Amenable Set is very closely related to the topic Jensen hierarchy. (Indeed, I would suggest a topic on Jensen hierarchy would cover the topic Amenable Set fully. Ordinary Person 06:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Biology articles

A lot of the biology articles are linked only from the /biology scratch page of User:Rikurzhen. I left a "hello" and a "little help?" message on his or her user page.Ordinary Person 23:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually this seems now to have been altered. :-/ 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese names

Even among respectable sources, there seems to be discrepancy about the order of Chinese names. e.g. Some will say Yu Yang, others will say Yang Yu (clearly the same person: same birthdate and awards etc). Not sure whether to create redirects for those. Ordinary Person 11:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, and when in doubt it is usually a good idea to create them. - SimonP 01:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bot operation

Have our changes to the format of the project page interfered with the operation of the Bot (referred to on the page) whose job it is to remove the blue links?

I have to say, it has been very satisfying to see the blue replace the red, like an invading army, but I know that's not how it is meant to be. Ordinary Person 01:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the blue links. Sad to see them go. Ordinary Person 07:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)