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 Wikisux (talk | contribs) at 11:58, 10 June 2004 (→[[Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict]]: rewrote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
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


10th 9th 8th 6th 5th 4th 3rd


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.

June 3

Michael Swindells

Expand or delete. A British policeman killed in the line of duty. Not inherently encyclopedia-worthy on that basis, but there could be potential if someone knows something that is not in the (stub) article as it stands. -- Jmabel 20:27, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • merge with others, list of British policemen killed on duty? including WPC Yvonne Fletcher, and the two guys that were killed near me a while ago. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) - info source at [1] Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:52, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there was actually a list of police officers killed in the line of duty then move it their I guess. But I don't really think we need such a list and I know we don't need an article on every one of them. Non-notable. --Starx 04:50, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CrypTool

Open-source software, the author posted the work. Seems insignificant for Wikipedia, but I would suggest move to openfacts. Needs tidy anyway. [2] Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Note we can't move to openfacts unless the author releases it into the public domain. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:47, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The software, the tutorials and the scripts are all open source, build by many people all over the world, mainly now coming from universities. It's used in many courses to get students a practical experience on how cryptography and cryptanalysis works.

So the text I posted is released into the public domain. What does "moving to openfacts" mean? What else do you need from me? Thanks for your help to me as a Wikipedia beginner. Best regards, Bernhard (User BE in Wikipedia) Bernhard 12:12, 4 Jun 2004 (CET).



June 4

Zvitko Barkanovic

Faulty information all around. Danny 00:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Seems reasonably important if someoen can fix it. I have no knowledge of the subject, so I can't state anything about the factuality.siroxo 06:31, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this real? I tried searching on google for "Zvitko Barkanovic", "Ramzan Rovic" and "Jibril Pasha" and did not find anything about any of the three. I know google is not perfect but it looks suspicious if I can't find anything mentioned in the article. Could be misspelled, could be someone playing a joke on Wikipedia. Andris 19:45, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • "Mount Tadmus" also cannot be found. Andris 19:53, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Transporter accident

Not article-worthy on its own. Possible candidate for speedy deletion. EXTERMINATE! Philwelch 01:51, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Brian Alkire

Appears to be a vanity page. A couple of mentions in Google: 1 a duplicate of information here; the other an honor roll list. Joyous 01:57, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Non-notable and appears to be unverifiable. Looks like his writing career is about to have a setback. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. --Starx 04:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Though it's nice to read about a teen with some real depth, assuming all this is true, please delete anyway as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 07:29, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, probable vanity, and unencyclopedic in any case. Unfortunately by an anon. Hopefully he will perservere. Andrewa 10:44, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • He's been doing a little bit of vandalism on the side. contribs. Delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:10, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Noted. Hopefully... No, I won't say it. Andrewa 20:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Andris 19:37, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably vanity. --Woggly 11:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Transporter beam

Again, not article-worthy on its own. Philwelch 01:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

redirected to Transporter (Star Trek) which is much more comprehensive. dml 02:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect to Transporter (Star Trek). -- Cyrius|✎ 02:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as the redirect. --Starx 04:37, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect, unless it's not a beam, in which case delete. Anybody visited this universe lately? --Zigger 08:08, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

Communications in the Vatican City

  • Information doesnt merrit it's own page. Put into Vatican City page. Saopaulo1
    • You can do that. Merge the info and put #REDIRECT [[Vatican City]] into the above page and it will create a redirect. Ditto with one below. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:50, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Transportation in the Vatican City

Neutral Territory of Prevlaka

Per Talk:Neutral Territory of Prevlaka, this should go. --Shallot 12:33, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Patent nonsense. Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Appears to be nonsense. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds very suspect and no corroboration was provided. I tried googling, but found nothing. If this was reported in a (serious) newspaper, it should go (in a much shortened form) into the Prevlaka article. Zocky 22:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. Delete. -- ChrisO 11:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, etymology(ies)

Nonsense, unencyclopedic. User:Casta attacked my personal page in response to an attempted speedy delete, so what do you folks think? Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:30, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. I haven't studied the problem in depth, but the etymologies proposed there seemed about as plausible as any; sources are given for each. Some or all of them may be nonsense, but they're hardly patent nonsense. Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Don't bother, Wikipedia admins., I've removed it myself. I teach Spanish history and I added my piece in order to expand on an point that, as presented here, simply repeats a popular notion that is not supported by serious historical scholarship. I realize now that Wikipedia is not for me.
It would be perhaps more polite and less startling if you asked contributors to submit pieces for publishing consideration beforehand, perhaps - and that you organize some sort of peer review for these. That a young, lying, and unqualified punk such as Harris here is allowed to instantly "adjudge" a piece of writing on a subject he knows nothing about as "nonsense" does not do your site much credit.
Your loss.
  • Pre-publishing peer review was tried on Nupedia. It didn't work. That's why Wikipedia doesn't operate that way. Secondly, your personal attacks on a (possibly) mistaken user cast far greater doubt on your qualifications than anything Dunc_Harris has said. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:02, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Cyrius, I'm afraid you're preaching to the choir -- User:Casta is well out the door. He shouldn't have gotten so pissed off, true enough, and easy for me to say. However the larger context is that a person whose competence we have no reason to doubt has been driven off. Dare I say it, we must be able to keep people who know what they're doing. As always my opinion is worth what you paid for it. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, a person, no matter how intelligent and eloquent, isn't going to last long on this site if they cannot accept having their work questioned. MK 04:39, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • "Questioned" is not an accurate description of what happened. The article was immediately labeled patent nonsense [3]. Nobody raised questions of any kind. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:16, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment Article deletion is not really that different from any other edit. Deleted articles can be restored, as this one has. We do warn everyone that they shouldn't submit anything unless they are willing to have it be mercilessly edited. Deletion is just a particularly merciless form of editing. Inappropriate deletes can be restored, just as in appropriate edits can be reverted. No, we don't have pre-publishing peer review. What we do have is post-anything everyone-review. LIke a good GUI, we encourage people to be bold and make mistakes, and provide an undo function to be used afterwards. I don't say it works. I do say we have it. Watch it in action right here, right now. Dpbsmith 20:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


  • Note - article restored by Cyrius with VfD tag. - Tεxτurε 18:18, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Force of habit on blanked articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Unless it's a copyvio, keep. RickK 18:23, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, this is sad. I think what we have here is a classic case of a bitten newbie. We really could use another editor who knows something about history. It's too late for User:Casta but let's try to avoid reruns of this. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems like a good topic, can't imagine why anyone would think it a candidate for speedy deletion. Bad title, though, should be moved. Everyking 19:00, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's simply no way this is a speedy deletion candidate. When in doubt, use VfD. Meelar 21:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm new here, but in response to copyvio, at least on the Web, there are several similar pages in Spanish, but they do not have identical content (from my little knowledge of Spanish): a search for Al-Andalus Landahlauts Dozy shows them. --Jkeiser 05:27, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this is as good a place as any to point out that it's probably not such a great idea for any of us to label something "patent nonsense" just because we've never heard of it or we don't understand it. Marking this for speedy delete was definitely jumping the gun, and it appears to have alienated a knowledgeable, articulate individual who contributed in good faith. Keep, of course. Possibly rename to Etymologies of Al-Andalus. — Wikisux 06:59, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What happened to this person also reminds me of my experiences starting White cliffs of Dover. I started the article three times as a stub, but someone speedy deleted it each time. I chalked it up to database problems, which was aggravating enough—imagine how pissed I was when I learned someone was deliberately deleting my article, without even notifying me! So I think we should try, in general, to avoid such rude introductions as the ones Casta and I suffered. — Wikisux 06:59, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • 2 remarks here: (1) The original had clear citations. How could anyone propose it for speedy delete without any effort to verify the citations? (2) Conversely, the original was written very unencyclopedically: "I think this is an intriguing question, and not so easily answered! For starters - although the idea of it having something to do with those punk Vandals who supposedly trashed southern Spain so badly..." When you encounter this sort of thing, certainly edit out this kind of self-indulgent writing, but (especially when it comes from a newbie), don't presume it invalidates the substance of the article. -- Jmabel 07:21, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • This article about the etymology of Al-Andalus was actually longer than the article on Al-Andalus itself. I have therefore merged the former into the latter, and tidied it up a little. Casta's article was not fabulous, but it was a useful contribution that has now greatly improved the article on Al-Andalus, which is a key element of Spanish history (which I am interested in, since I live here). I vote that this badly-named article now be deleted as unnecessary, but not as nonsense. — Chameleon 23:04, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
By 'delete', I mean 'redirect to Al-Andalus'. — Chameleon 23:12, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. I really amazed on it's vfd. That is completly encycplodaedic and really credible, even the Atlantis thing. Should be move to Al-Andaluz etymologies.-Pedro 19:36, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rename. It makes me think of the Pixies and my recent trip to Spain. Acegikmo1 19:51, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Al-Andalus, etymology(ies)

Nonsense, unencyclopedic. User:Casta attacked my personal page in response to an attempted speedy delete, so what do you folks think? Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:30, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. I haven't studied the problem in depth, but the etymologies proposed there seemed about as plausible as any; sources are given for each. Some or all of them may be nonsense, but they're hardly patent nonsense. Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Don't bother, Wikipedia admins., I've removed it myself. I teach Spanish history and I added my piece in order to expand on an point that, as presented here, simply repeats a popular notion that is not supported by serious historical scholarship. I realize now that Wikipedia is not for me.
It would be perhaps more polite and less startling if you asked contributors to submit pieces for publishing consideration beforehand, perhaps - and that you organize some sort of peer review for these. That a young, lying, and unqualified punk such as Harris here is allowed to instantly "adjudge" a piece of writing on a subject he knows nothing about as "nonsense" does not do your site much credit.
Your loss.
  • Pre-publishing peer review was tried on Nupedia. It didn't work. That's why Wikipedia doesn't operate that way. Secondly, your personal attacks on a (possibly) mistaken user cast far greater doubt on your qualifications than anything Dunc_Harris has said. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:02, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Cyrius, I'm afraid you're preaching to the choir -- User:Casta is well out the door. He shouldn't have gotten so pissed off, true enough, and easy for me to say. However the larger context is that a person whose competence we have no reason to doubt has been driven off. Dare I say it, we must be able to keep people who know what they're doing. As always my opinion is worth what you paid for it. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, a person, no matter how intelligent and eloquent, isn't going to last long on this site if they cannot accept having their work questioned. MK 04:39, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • "Questioned" is not an accurate description of what happened. The article was immediately labeled patent nonsense [4]. Nobody raised questions of any kind. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:16, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment Article deletion is not really that different from any other edit. Deleted articles can be restored, as this one has. We do warn everyone that they shouldn't submit anything unless they are willing to have it be mercilessly edited. Deletion is just a particularly merciless form of editing. Inappropriate deletes can be restored, just as in appropriate edits can be reverted. No, we don't have pre-publishing peer review. What we do have is post-anything everyone-review. LIke a good GUI, we encourage people to be bold and make mistakes, and provide an undo function to be used afterwards. I don't say it works. I do say we have it. Watch it in action right here, right now. Dpbsmith 20:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


  • Note - article restored by Cyrius with VfD tag. - Tεxτurε 18:18, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Force of habit on blanked articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:55, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Unless it's a copyvio, keep. RickK 18:23, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, this is sad. I think what we have here is a classic case of a bitten newbie. We really could use another editor who knows something about history. It's too late for User:Casta but let's try to avoid reruns of this. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems like a good topic, can't imagine why anyone would think it a candidate for speedy deletion. Bad title, though, should be moved. Everyking 19:00, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's simply no way this is a speedy deletion candidate. When in doubt, use VfD. Meelar 21:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm new here, but in response to copyvio, at least on the Web, there are several similar pages in Spanish, but they do not have identical content (from my little knowledge of Spanish): a search for Al-Andalus Landahlauts Dozy shows them. --Jkeiser 05:27, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this is as good a place as any to point out that it's probably not such a great idea for any of us to label something "patent nonsense" just because we've never heard of it or we don't understand it. Marking this for speedy delete was definitely jumping the gun, and it appears to have alienated a knowledgeable, articulate individual who contributed in good faith. Keep, of course. Possibly rename to Etymologies of Al-Andalus. — Wikisux 06:59, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What happened to this person also reminds me of my experiences starting White cliffs of Dover. I started the article three times as a stub, but someone speedy deleted it each time. I chalked it up to database problems, which was aggravating enough—imagine how pissed I was when I learned someone was deliberately deleting my article, without even notifying me! So I think we should try, in general, to avoid such rude introductions as the ones Casta and I suffered. — Wikisux 06:59, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • 2 remarks here: (1) The original had clear citations. How could anyone propose it for speedy delete without any effort to verify the citations? (2) Conversely, the original was written very unencyclopedically: "I think this is an intriguing question, and not so easily answered! For starters - although the idea of it having something to do with those punk Vandals who supposedly trashed southern Spain so badly..." When you encounter this sort of thing, certainly edit out this kind of self-indulgent writing, but (especially when it comes from a newbie), don't presume it invalidates the substance of the article. -- Jmabel 07:21, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • This article about the etymology of Al-Andalus was actually longer than the article on Al-Andalus itself. I have therefore merged the former into the latter, and tidied it up a little. Casta's article was not fabulous, but it was a useful contribution that has now greatly improved the article on Al-Andalus, which is a key element of Spanish history (which I am interested in, since I live here). I vote that this badly-named article now be deleted as unnecessary, but not as nonsense. — Chameleon 23:04, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
By 'delete', I mean 'redirect to Al-Andalus'. — Chameleon 23:12, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. I really amazed on it's vfd. That is completly encycplodaedic and really credible, even the Atlantis thing. Should be move to Al-Andaluz etymologies.-Pedro 19:36, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rename. It makes me think of the Pixies and my recent trip to Spain. Acegikmo1 19:51, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Al-Andalus and delete. I'm a bit sad to think I could have solved this, as when this article was VFDed, I was online and voted, trying to explain that the article was valid. Unfortunately I got an edit conflict and decided not to retype my vote, which probably had a hand in leading to this mess. Johnleemk | Talk 09:33, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Scary Sleepover

same as Ulrich Karger above. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:25, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - wiki is not paper. If this is an actual author with actual published works who are we non-germans to claim that it is not valid? - Tεxτurε 17:59, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Texture. Everyking 18:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Lean towards delete. The English translation has Amazon sales rank 1,760,778 which does not look significant. Andris 01:51, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless anyone can show some cultural significance somewhere (like in Germany: it could be encyclopedia-worthy even in the absence of an English translation). -- Jmabel 07:24, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, Texture is right. Meelar 20:29, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And I say so only because there is no mention of the books importance. I don't think wiki needs plot synopsis on books. If it has a synopsis along with a discussion of the books importance then great. But not just a synopsis. --Starx 00:29, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the book's worth translating into several languages it's worth an article. MK 06:53, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category:Dead people

Moved to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:25, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Anyone else think it's hilarious that the complete list of Dead People consists of the following: Fanny Blankers-Koen, Fred Davis, Joe Davis, Walter Donaldson (snooker player), Mary Dresselhuys, Max Euwe, Florence Griffith Joyner, Rashad Khalifa, Hannes Kolehmainen, Albert Mol, Jesse Owens, Shirley Strickland, and Leon Stukelj. MK 06:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Citrix MetaFrame

An obvious advertisement, and surprisingly, not even to Citrix MetaFrame! Yaron 16:06, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Clear advert. Andris 17:48, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but cleanup as an article about the actual citrix metaframe protocol, which is widely used, most notably as the backbone for Microsoft Windows XP's Remote Desktop Protocol. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:49, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've rewritten the article as a stub for the actual Citrix Metaframe protocol. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:13, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert. very much a candidate for deletion. Not a useful article about the protocol but just and advertisement. - Tεxτurε 17:57, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten article - Tεxτurε 18:17, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewritten article. Andris 19:25, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Thanks DDG. I am removing the VfD notice. Yaron 14:50, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)


Inferior

Dicdef. - Fredrik (talk) 18:05, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not sure why this would ever be considered needed. - Tεxτurε 18:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - aren't pure dicdefs speedy deletion candidates? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:25, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, no. Delete. RickK 18:49, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xevi 21:01, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


The Fish Brothers

Insignificant local Brighton band. All music guide doesn't know 'em, nothing at Amazon. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Sitting on the fence. Google search on the Fish Brothers [5] although that also includes a UK Mitshubishi dealership. I note that the Levellers website notes that they are that groups faourite support band. May be significant within genre and All Music Guide not as comprehensive outside the US.Capitalistroadster 23:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete for now. Slight vanity. --Quagga

Nap

Herefordshire (disambiguation)

Both disambiguated links redirect to the same page so it's not disambiguating anything. -- Graham  :) | Talk 20:06, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Ahaha, how silly. EXTERMINATE! Philwelch 23:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Someone needs to make an article for the traditional county. A good example would be Yorkshire. --Quagga
  • Delete. The areas covered are practically identical. Having seperate articles about the modern county and the traditional county (but none for the former admin. county?) is POV nonsense. Morwen 07:35, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • And further to that, if we were to split it as suggested, we would have no page to note that e.g. Hay-on-Wye was considered part of Herefordshire in the Domesday Book. Morwen 08:11, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arighi Bianchi

Furniture shop, but is a grade II listed building. Worthy? Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:19, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • It seems to have a claim to fame, and is called a local landmark, so keep. Everyking 23:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't find anything in the deletion policy that I'd feel comfortable deleting it under. Keep. blankfaze | •­• 23:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Need I say anymore? --The guy who Wik hates, Quagga
  • Keep (but did you really expect me to vote any other way?) :-) — Wikisux 07:30, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I love that shop. It is very prominent as you travel through Macclesfield Dmn 18:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Graham  :) | Talk 23:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Danny Davini

Does not seem to be an influential painter yet. --Zigger 22:24, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

  • Yeah, looks like vanity. Delete. blankfaze | •­• 23:58, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious vanity. --Quagga
  • Smells like vanity. Google hits appear to be self-promotion. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:22, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with reasoning. Andris 06:20, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Endar Spire

Name of the ship that the game Knights of the Old Republic starts on, which crashes shortly into the game. Don't think that it's article-worthy on it's own. --Andrew L 23:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 5

Building A Computer

a partial how-to guide, not an encyclopedia entry. Maximus Rex 03:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Kill it, DIY guides are not encyclopaedic. It might, however, be a good idea to link to sites offering such guides on the personal computer page or somewhere similar, or maybe even change it to a more encyclopaedic article on the phenomenon/hobby of building PCs and put links there. StuartH 04:42, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • DIE, DIE, DIE! blankfaze | •­• 05:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikibooks and delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:14, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Phoenix-Songstress

makes no sense, gets no google hits. Maximus Rex 03:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Ah, I dunno. It looks like it could possibly have the possibility to be encyclopedic. That is, if it's true, and if it gets a substantial amount of work. I'll abstain for now. blankfaze | •­• 05:12, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep...if someone gives a verifiable source. He gives the woman's true name as Souke Anyama, but I don't get any Google hits on that name (though I do get some for her alleged husband, Sanada Yukimura, but haven't found any info at all on his wife). Is this from fiction? Jsan 07:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:20, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Google turns up nothing. Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 05:45, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Kill it, kill it now. Ambivalenthysteria 08:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Policy conservatism

Seems to be a neologism created by a Washington Post article. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:08, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Seems worthless to me. Delete. blankfaze | •­• 05:08, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neologism, near-dicdef. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:20, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rag-chewing

Dicdef. No website I found had any information that could be used to develop an article. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:20, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If valid, put into a new page with other morse code terminology, which I'm sure there is other terms to add to. Dysprosia 04:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agree. blankfaze | •­• 05:07, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Gee, if it's not on the internet, then it musn't exist! Common sense, right?  : ) har har har! --64.231.158.220 13:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How is rag-chewing not on the internet? I've heard of it. Then again, I'm a ham, so... Basically, it's valid, but I don't hink it deserves it's own entry. Scott Burley 06:09, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
It seems the anon misunderstood my initial statement. I didn't say it wasn't on the net, just that there was insufficient information on the net to develop an article. SWAdair | Talk 04:55, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Northgate Shopping Centre

  • Extremely obscure and small, not a topic for an encyclopedia. There are 7 shopping centres within a 15 minute drive of my house that are bigger than this place. Vast majority of hits on Google are addresses. - Aaron Hill 04:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • This is one of the three biggest shopping centres in a city of 180,000. Chuq 07:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Haha. Who has time to create a page about a shopping center? Why not Wynonna Judd even? Delete. blankfaze | •­• 05:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC
    • Haha. Who has time to creat a page about Wynonna Judd? (Whoever she is) I created it because it took two minutes, and I had referenced it in another couple of articles. Chuq 07:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not even a unique shopping centre - there's a Northgate near where I grew up (Hornsby, northern suburbs of Sydney). p.s. I have added Wynonna Judd to Wikipedia:Requested articles/music for you, blankfaze. ;-) —Stormie 06:16, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • :-P haha blankfaze | ?­? 23:29, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Then disambig, not deletion, is the solution to that particular issue - if you wanted to create an article for the other Northgate, that is. Chuq 07:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Whew! At first I thought this was an article on the Northgate Shopping Center near me that is being demolished. Either way, not noteworthy. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 07:14, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I may be biased as the creator of the article. I've posted replies to specific comments above. Should every other articled linked at List of shopping malls be deleted as well? Chuq 07:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • What?! We actually have a List of shopping malls? Oh, no. Ohhhh, no. Ohhhhhh, no. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to mention everything, but everything of note. This general trend needs to be addressed before it becomes a massive cleanup project. SWAdair | Talk 07:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep 2 Questions: Is this article correct/verifible? I would answer yes. Does it really hurt to have it? Not really. [[6]] - who cares if we have a factually correct article about every mall in the world. Harddrive space and bandwidth are cheap. (of which this is consuming much of neither). Burgundavia 11:30, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Unless its a particularly notable shopping center, i'd say delete. I've personally been to "Northgate" malls in 3 different states in the US, unrelated to each other (I belive) none of which were significant. I guess this really decision depends on the direction people want Wikipedia to take in the long run. siroxo 11:42, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, factual, verifiable, and important to many. - SimonP 14:13, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not every fact is a significant fact. Indeed, it does hurt to have a solo entry on "Northgate Shopping Center," as there is not a single one. Disambig to every one? We're talking about thousands, not dozens, of verifiable places. If the shopping center has been mentioned in previous articles, then isn't it possible to fold appropriate information about it into those articles? Every town and city I have lived in has had one "Northgate," and some have had more than one. "Northgate Shopping Center, Melbourne" or "Nothgate Shopping Center, Springfield, Ohio" might be possible, if it's significant. Geogre 15:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insignificant wikicruft. WP is not a gazetteer. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment This is an example of what I'm calling a local interest article." For the time being, I'm declining to vote on these articles, on some not-yet-well-articulated point of principle. But I sure wish people would only write them if they know the place and could include a bit of local color, or a snapshot, or something. Can't we at least have consensus that inclusion of some local knowledge about this mall would make it a much better article? Dpbsmith 18:20, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's actually the largest shopping centre in the largest city in Tasmania. Should mention this in the article. --Gene_poole 22:16, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not noteworthy. If it is decided to keep, it has to become a disambiguation page. RickK 22:34, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I only have a problem with these local-interest articles when they don't have any context. This one's mentioned in the Glenorchy, Tasmania article, and even described as a "major indoor shopping centre". That's enough of a context and justification for inclusion for me. Certainly this shopping centre is also much more significant than many of the U.S. towns with 15 inhabitants we currently have data dumps about (and no, I don't mind those either). Fredrik (talk) 00:01, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Wasn't going to vote at first, but if Gene Poole speaks the truth when he says it's the largest shopping center in the largest city on Tasmania, that's good enough for me. Keep. Everyking 01:21, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I was unaware that this was the largest shopping centre in Tasmania and after discovering that it is I think the article should remain, but it must establish that it is a relatively significant shopping centre. - Aaron Hill 11:26, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. To update the discussion above, Northgate Shopping Centre is now a disambiguation page, where other Northgates can be listed. I changed the link in Glenorchy, Tasmania so that it now points to Northgate Shopping Centre, Tasmania. If there are so many other Northgates around, does maybe Wynonna Judd shop at one of them? JamesMLane 13:04, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm no inclusionist, but I can't see any reason to delete this. Could easily be of interest. Ambivalenthysteria 08:04, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I support keeping major shopping centers and malls, but strip malls are not worthy of inclusion. If this is a major shopping center, keep. Meelar 13:56, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

AT-PT

Fictional vehicle from some game or fictional universe. No idea which, though, the author doesn't say. Google shows it up as being a Star Wars thing, but that doesn't seem to match this article. —Stormie 05:21, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep but make it clear that it's fictional. Guanaco 05:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Starx 00:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I made some small changes placing it in the Star Wars universe. Besides, it's already being linked to. - Jsan 07:12, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the AT-PT is Expanded Universe only (i.e. it's not in any of the movies), but I'm not enough of a SW geek to know for sure. If it is, it should say so in the article. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 01:06, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You are correct, I've edited that point into the article. --Starx 03:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


List of internet emoticons and List of internet emotions

  • Isn't this the sort of stuff that can be found on hundreds of websites? Do we need it here? RickK 06:05, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, if there is anything there which can be added to Emoticon (which is a reasonably nice article on the topic), then someone may wish to do so. —Stormie 06:10, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need a list on this, there no standard definition of what emotions some of them stand for or how they are supposed to be represented (ie :) or :-)). The emoticon article (and wikipedia as a whole) is fine without this content. --Starx 00:08, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Emoticon is fine. Actually I find most such lists irritating because only a relative handful are actually used with any frequency; the rest appear only on lists of emoticons, need to be explained whenever used, and are used only in order to have the pleasure of explaining them. :P  :\ Dpbsmith 01:19, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Isn't that what encyclopedia entries are for? Voyager640 04:41, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • People not only say things should be deleted because they CAN'T be found on hundreds of websites, but also because they CAN? Seems kind of absurd. Keep. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:26, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Airport Parkway, Bank Street, Brookfield Road, Donnelly Road, Heron Road, Hunt Club Road, Laurier Avenue, Main Street (Ottawa), North Gower Road, Preston Street, Preston Street, Riverside Drive, Sussex Drive, and the rest of the linkage at List of Ottawa, Ontario roads

I think all salient points can be covered in a single article (either the main 'Ottawa streets' article, or possible a 'description of Ottawa streets' article. Other than the 'Ottawa streets' article, many are orphans. Neither Alphabetical List of Hoboken streets, nor Alphabetical list of Santa Clara, California streets have links to the individual streets. Possible exceptions: Bank Street,Rideau Street. Many also hog very generic names for commonly used street names around the world. Niteowlneils 06:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • keep As I mentioned in the above debate about shopping malls, this a verifiable fact. In fact, where I live, there are 3 books of about 200 pages about why each and every street in Victoria, British Columbia is named that way. And when we need to disambiguate, we can. Burgundavia 11:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Sitting on the fence but tending towards keep. As a general rule I don't believe we should have articles on streets, roads, avenues etc unless:
    • the street is of historical, economic or cultural interest eg Wall Street, Fleet Street, Beale Street Memphis (birthplace of the blues)
    • the street is the main street of a reasonably significant centre or regional area or at least a significant street;
    • a famous person real or fictional lived there - ie Sherlock Holmes at 221B Baker Street, London
    • the street contains buildings of national significance to the relevant nation ie White House at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
  • Which leads to my concern as Ottawa is the Capital City of Canada we might delete streets containing the Canadian Parliament - I would suggest that we keep the streets in Ottawa that meet the above criteria and that we merge the others into the Ottawa article if appropriate. I would urge caution in case we throw the babies out with the bathwater. Capitalistroadster 13:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, as a former Ottawa resident a number of these streets are of national reknown and the others are major commerical centres. - SimonP 14:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. In Wikipedia:Your first article—under construction and in need of community editing and input—I define "local interest articles" as "articles about places like schools, or streets that are of interest to a relatively small number of people such as alumni or people who live nearby. There is no consensus about such articles, but some will challenge them if they include nothing that shows how the place is special and different from tens of thousands of similar places. Photographs add interest. Try to give local-interest articles local color." Dpbsmith 17:33, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please note that I am NOT suggesting that Wikipedia shouldn't have information/facts about these streets. My concern is whether it is necessary to have 146 separate articles, often using names used by streets in many other cities. Why not a single notable streets of Ontario (or whatever title people think is best) article? I basically agree with the guidelines above by capitalistroadster--there are probably a few streets in every country that deserve separate articles; I just don't believe there are dozens in every city. Also, since many Wikipedians mark anything that doesn't fill the screen as a "stub", I don't think it is in Wikipedia's best interest to create large numbers of articles that will probably be forever marked Stub. Finally, from an end-user perspective, I believe it is FAR more convenient to scroll thru a single article about all notable streets in a given city, than it is to click a street name, hit the Back button, click a street name, hit the Back button, click a street name, hit the Back button, ad nauseum. PS I have no problem keeping all the street names as redirs, at least until they need to become disambiguation pages. Niteowlneils 18:02, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • These are not encyclopedia articles, they are the geographic equivalent of dicdefs. Bank Street and Main Street (Ottawa) have the hints of real articles peeking through. Either delete or merge into one article. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:00, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all except Bank Street, Laurier Street, and Main Street (Ottawa). I agree on the whole w/ Cyrius and Niteowlneils. Some small number of streets deserve mention; for the rest, look in the phone book. WP is not a gazetteer. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:30, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Note: none of these entries have a vfd messsage. They should be added and the vote moved to the date they were inserted. - SimonP 22:16, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Ottawa, Ontario and delete. RickK 22:27, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Rick as you know and have been told many times, merge and delete is not a valid option. Please stop irritating people by continuing to suggest it. Pcb21| Pete 22:49, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I'm at a loss. I don't recall having ever been told this, and I completely have no idea why it is not a valid option. Please explain? RickK 06:08, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 00:00, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • merge into one or delete. --Jiang 00:28, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- The reason why I created these articles is because I saw that there was a list of streets in London. These pages took a lot of time to write up, and I'd appreciate if my hard work does not go to waste. Earl Andrew 01:32, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - as long as it is (becomes) properly disambiguated, is factually correct, and affects a significant number of people (and I suspect tens of thousands of people per day use these roads, which is far more than see a number of operas and art pieces described here), it should not be deleted. I wouldn't encourage people to create them, but if the alternative is to have or not have, having is better. dml 03:12, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - more people live, work and travel along each of these roads than in most of the thousands of small towns and villages which have articles to themselves. They may also be useful as stubs, since there is far more that could be and hopefully will be written about them. I do agree about the name-hogging problem. Subsequent disambiguation mitigates the problem, but if articles about streets are to be widespread then perhaps there needs to be an agreed convention for naming them. This might also facilitate robot-assisted maintaining of the disambig pages. Cambyses 03:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Capital Boulevard) (in Raleigh, North Carolina)

True orphan--doesn't even link from the related Interstate article the original contributor has worked on. I don't want to "bite the newcomer", but seriously, do we want tens of thousand of street name articles? I realize "WP is not paper", but I go back to my 'ratio of articles/Wikipedians argument', an addition of which would be that all the time spent by new WPers on 'killing street name red-links', would be better spent on articles with more broad interest. Niteowlneils 06:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I live in Raleigh, NC. Capital Boulevard is a major road in Raleigh, but it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, worthy of an article in the Wikipedia. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 07:10, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Lean towards keep. It is a major street in a major regional centre in North Carolina. In response to Niteowlneils comments, presumably the reason that newbies spend time writing articles on streets or shopping malls because these things are of significance to them. I remember reading an article in the Melbourne Age is that one of the strengths of the Wikipedia is its greater coverage of local features. We have thousands of articles on Star Trek characters, Pokemon characters, etc or indeed music articles which I tend to work on. Why is is it considered that shopping malls where thousands of people shop daily or major streets in our cities are of less interest than these other interests? One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it is written by ordinary people about things that are important to them. I am tending towards the view that important streets in cities should be kept. If it doesn't interest you, you don't have to read them. Capitalistroadster 13:46, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • PS. A Google search of "Capital Boulevard" North Carolina [7] comes up with over 7000 results.Capitalistroadster 13:55, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, with care: As the author of "Peachtree Street," I've been on the fence about this. If a street is historically important, known outside of its own town, or really the main street of a town (e.g. if you go to visit there, every direction you get from someone will start, "Well, you go down to X street, and then you..."), it seems significant. In this particular case, Capitol Blvd. is the main street of Raleigh in a peculiarly apt way. The article can explain the importance of the street. Geogre 17:25, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, every set of directions in Raleigh begins with the Beltline. Capital Blvd. is a very lucrative street as far as city taxes go -- lots of fast food restaurants, new and used car lots, etc. In other words, it is like tens of thousands of other streets -- not noteworthy of its own article. Either merge or delete. SWAdair | Talk 03:09, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. As above, I am NOT saying the street is not notable, nor that Wikipedia shouldn't mention it. I am simply questioning why it needs to be a separate article, instead of being part of the city's article? "Aurora Avenue" Seattle (THE main street in the north half of Seattle (where I lived 39 years, and still spend time); major commute route and commercial center) gets 26,000 hits, but I don't think it needs an article by itself. (BTW I only get ~5,700 hits for "Capital Boulevard" North Carolina--OIC 7,000 for '"Capital Boulevard" raleigh) Oh, and, while I appreciate having some LotR, Trek, etc. info, I think we have excessive granularity there, too. Niteowlneils 18:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the article is expanded to explain why it is notable. Being a long city road with limited access portions does not make a road notable. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:48, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Raleigh, North Carolina and delete. It can't stand at this title, as there are other Capital Boulevards around the world, I'm sure. RickK 22:32, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)


Techniques and resources for natural language processing

Currently just a list of links (with a bizzare wikilink to the irrelavent Introduction page. The links are relavent and useful for people interested in NLP, but the article is not really about anything. I see no need to have this as a page separate from Natural Language Processing. Cadr 20:37, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User silvermane

Mangled mess that has been awaiting translation for almost a month. - SimonP 21:51, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. RickK 22:30, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What, so you write garbage in a foreign language as opposed to English and it hangs around for longer? That makes no sense.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:54, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:50, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dpbsmith 01:28, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of assets owned by Clear Channel Communications

Substub, and all information is in Clear Channel Communications anyway. --Etaoin 22:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • It's not even a list. Delete. RickK 22:28, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • True or false: there is an advantage of deleting as opposed to keeping as a re-direct to Clear Channel Communications. 66.32.138.16 23:35, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And ^true. The current title serves no purpose, knowones ever going to search for that and not search for Clear Channel. --Starx 23:57, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete I really can't see an opulent future of expansion for this stub.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:52, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for good reasons noted by others. Dpbsmith 01:25, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Duncan Sheik

Article tagged for speedy delete by User:Duncharris. Not a speedy candidate, so I moved it here. Meelar 22:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • VERY MUCH a speedy delete candidate. I would have deleted it had you not moved it here. Delete. RickK
    • Vanity pages, even poorly written ones, are NOT candidates for speedy deletion. They have to go through VfD, because of things like this. A grammy nominee is certainly worthy of an article. Meelar 05:11, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • A great guy who spends his time writing music. He was born on November 18, 1969 in Montclair, New Jersey. He is married and loves to play the guitar. He's even won some awards and money for his music. is definitely worthy of speedy deletion. RickK 06:11, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
        • It does no harm to put these through vfd instead--and thus give them wider exposure, to see if an article is worth saving. Meelar 13:33, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete no comment--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:51, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, has an entry on All Music Guide. Subject for cleanup. Fredrik (talk) 23:54, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. It's been stubbified, not great but much much better. --Starx 23:55, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, new stubby version is fine, certainly notable. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Original version was garbage. New version needs help, but is a stub. Keep. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:00, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've certainly never heard of him, but if got a Grammy nomination, I think he's notable enough to have an article. —Stormie 00:10, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Depressingly, I knew who he was from name alone. Keep. Snowspinner 00:22, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Stormie's reasoning. Andris 01:02, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Google Search for "Duncan Sheik" gets over 37,000 hits [8]. I think that we need a new procedure where people should look at listing concerns about articles on the talk page/ and or the user page and wait for a response say for 24 hours before listing them here or on votes for speedy deletion unless it is obviously patent nonsense. I think that this would help sort out a lot of issues before they reach here.Capitalistroadster 12:39, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's pretty well-known for that song "Barely Breathing." For a while, you couldn't get away from it on radio. He's at least as well known as many obscure bands that are still here. Joyous 04:38, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
    This wasn't actually an unreasonable listing - look at the article history. It was patent nonsense when it first appeared, and gave every indication of being a vanity article - especially as the article was created by "Duncan Sheik." It just happened to be about a real person. Snowspinner 05:59, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree that the original listing was utter garbashky and deserved a speedy. Looking great now. - Lucky 6.9 08:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (of course). Another example of the danger of marking things for speedy delete when one has no knowledge of the subject matter. Don't bite the newbies. Wikisux 09:03, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. There are a lot of poorly written articles on legitimate topics. The policy should just be to stub these. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 12:26, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • It deserved vfd, but had it been speedied we would have lost an article. Meelar 13:30, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Not really. We didn't have an article on Duncan Sheik before the rewrite. We had an article titled Duncan Sheik, but it didn't really have any use as an article about him. If it had been deleted, we would have simply not had an article about him or using his name. No big. Snowspinner 20:05, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
          • And indeed, while it's obviously better to rewrite a worthless article than to delete it, I think it's better to delete it than to do nothing. Better to have a red link inviting people to write an article, than a blue one inviting them to click on it and find nothing but crap. —Stormie 05:36, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)


Lifnei iver

An unencyclopedic priciple of Jewish law. Delete. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Given the support below, I'd like to add the following. Clearly, any principle from the Talmud will then gain its own article... There are literally hundreds of them. Are we waiting for ha-motzi me-chavero alav ha-ra'aya, teiku (tishbi yiftor kushiot u-ba'ayot), or the very parallel lo ta'amod al dam rei'echa? JFW | T@lk 07:09, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, bring 'em on. A subject that is large requires more space. Everyking 07:50, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it has info that isn't contained in 613 mitzvot. --Starx 23:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If it wasn't for the fact that there's 613 of the things, I'd say merge and redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:30, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Interesting and important concept (to me). This also appears in Cherem, but not by name. Are there any modern laws who's origin is this? Entrapment? There Might be a better place to put this, but I wouldn't like to see it deleted. Pud
    • Merge with a term from general law might be a good move. JFW | T@lk 07:09, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify (possibly merge with 613 mitzvot) -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could use some work, but being a principle of Jewish law makes it automatically encyclopedic. Everyking 02:40, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, along with any other of the 613 mitzvot, and similar components of other religious laws. Now wikified. --Zigger 03:05, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can't really judge accuracy but reads like a fine short article to me. Are jdfwolff's objections to the quality of the article or just to the subject? He needs to articulate this more clearly. Re "there are 613 of the things:" the article is about 1200 bytes long. Hypothetically, if each of the 613 mitzvot were to receive an article of similar length that would be less than a megabyte total. If that were to happen I would think it would be a great addition to Wikipedia. Note, too, that 613 articles would constitute 613/279454 = 0.2% of Wikipedia, which is a lot but hardly excessive. It's not as if that would crowd out other religions. Conversely, if this much information were moved into 613 mitzvot it would become a 700K article, which, interestingly enough, is much shorter than the article on "Bible" in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, but much too long for Wikipedia. Dpbsmith 10:41, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. An informative and interesting expansion of its one-line entry on 613 mitzvot. IMO, definitely encyclopedic and worthy of its own page. --Diberri | Talk 03:36, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. So what if there's 613 other possible similar articles? They'll be individually judged as they're written. Should we delete the article on Abraham Lincoln because there are several million other people born in Kentucky? MK 07:07, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. interesting enough. --Woggly 11:21, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 6

Pow Sows

It's accurate enough but is it really necessary in its own article? I don't really see this expanding further than the current sub stub foreign language dicdef. -- Graham  :) | Talk 00:19, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete unless expanded significantly -- user:chris 73
    • Agree. blankfaze | ?­? 00:54, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Make sense to redirect, and define within the England? Its not just a standard dicdef. - siroxo 13:34, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. If this, why not Angleterre, Inglaterra etc etc? We can't possibly include all non-English-language names for everything on the English Wiki. If this belongs anywhere it is on a Cornish language Wikipedia (is there one?). Cambyses 13:59, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • O.K. I have now expanded it and translated it into Greek. I will add more information and translate it into French, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic and Romanian shortly. I added it in the first place because it was not obvious what it meant and I had noticed that Alba the Scottish Gaelic name for Scotland is also an article.

James Hoare

His band was deleted for being unknowns, and the only other thing he seems to be known for is a few bit parts in TV movies. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:45, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. blankfaze | ?­? 04:33, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a vanity press. - Aaron Hill 12:13, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • We just have to get this guy together with the idiot who keeps posting the TV and movie substubs I've been screaming about! Delete. - Lucky 6.9 06:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Patimokkha

This should really be at Wikisource Theon 04:35, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Tmxxine, ProjeX, CurlChat, Quantum perception creation

I'm sure Tmxxine's bizarre contributions have been voted for deletion and deleted in the past, which I guess would make them candidates for speedy deletion, but I can't find the record of them. Anyway, looks like patent nonsense to me, from a user with a history of creating such stuff. —Stormie 11:20, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree completely with Stormie. Delete. JamesMLane 12:29, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Quantum-perception-creation (with hyphens) was deleted by VfD three weeks ago VfD Debate. Within that debate, someone mentioned that Tmxxine had been deleted before. Delete all. SWAdair | Talk 02:52, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Starx 03:41, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Tmxxine has definitely been deleted before. Delete all. RickK
  • Delete - More a link factory than an article - Any that have been deleted before are eligible for speedy deletion - Tεxτurε 19:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • As if by some time-flux discontinuity, these articles have appeared exactly as they were/will be/are at the time of their deletion. Are we messing with forces we don't understand? I propose an experiment: let's DELETE them again and see what happens. Denni 02:50, 2004 Jun 9 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejudice. These have has been speedily deleted twice that I know of, and VfD'd at least once. Can we delete the author too please? - TB 13:22, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • We voted to delete them and now they're back. Delete and block user. - Lucky 6.9 16:07, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 8

List of bohemians

This list is highly subjective. The only article that links to it is Bohemianism, which states "...many of the most talented European and American literary figures of the last century and a half have had a bohemian cast, so that a list of bohemians would be tediously long." If it can be expanded it may have some merit, but I don't see how this could happen. Scott Burley 04:02, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Subjective, and indeed, going to be quite tediously long. Johnleemk | Talk 15:11, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 18:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

obstetrics and gynaecology

This has been expanded into obstetrics and gynaecology. If we have the 2 articles, do we still need this one? Joyous 05:24, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. There's info here that doesn't fit neatly into either obstetrics or gynecology; it makes sense to me as a separate article. I'd link back to this one from the other two, though. (Incidentally, since when were we using the British spellings of anything?) :-) Wikisux 09:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Our policy is to use whichever comes up first, unless we have a reason not to. For example, since swing state is a uniquely American-related concept, we use U.S. spelling; similarly, British spelling goes on London. Meelar 13:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Deep. Yes, this is hard. You can't redirect to two different pages, can your? Keep but trim the article so the reader will move quickly to either element. JFW | T@lk 15:27, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Satheesh

Vanity page created by an anon. →Raul654 05:53, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • For such a well-educated person, he's a bit unclear on the concept, eh? Delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:59, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think we can delete this one. —Stormie 06:04, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • but ... he created a MOSQUITO REPELLENT -- DELETE -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:14, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of CVs. Andris 06:18, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete resume/CV/vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I accept u friends.u may delete that page.But in future wikipedia can make a section for the presentation of CVs - satheesh.

Template:TaipeiSC

It's not relevant at the Houston article that San Salvador is also a sister city of Taipei. --Jiang 05:56, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Do we really need something like this? I don't think so. Delete. blankfaze | •­• 21:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It no longer links to any article other than Taipei, which is relevant, and could also be useful to a holistic list of sister and twined cities. I created the message boxes after a week in which I had a total of 9 hours sleep due to prolonged severe weather. Linking them to all of the cities was not a good idea but after less than three hours of sleep each day for a week, bad ideas are bound to happen. JCarriker 20:25, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)


Terence Finnegan

Blanked by 129.215.16.12 who is the only author of the page, which is presumably a request for deletion. Also, appears to be non-famous, so delete. Angela. 09:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I say delete too.. I am highly suspicious of the claim that this guy "published algorithm rendering the RSA computer encryption algorithm insecure".. without there being a single google hit for "Terence Finnegan" and "RSA". —Stormie 11:33, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am very suspicious too. Andris 14:08, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 18:51, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Someone's blanked the page. That's good enough for me to vote delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ObjectWeb

From Cleanup: ObjectWeb - unwikfied ad (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

Boiler Efficiency and Caliculation Routines

From Cleanup: Boiler Efficiency and Caliculation Routines technical manual for some boiler. (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

  • Caliculation Routines is a general prescription for assessing boiler efficiency. It turns out that this is a topic of substantial practical importance as many large buildings have one. However the article as it stands doesn't make an encyclopedia article -- move to Wikibooks but do not delete. Boiler Efficiency is copied in part from [9] and I suspect the remainder is copied from elsewhere as well (it says "Author: DSCL Energy Services" at the top of the article). I'm guessing that User:Kaupp who contributed these is an engineering student in India. That's awesome, we just need to focus his/her efforts. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bigfiber

From Cleanup: Bigfiber - ad (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 18:46, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert. —Stormie 00:15, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Box Battling

From Cleanup: Box Battling - "Box Battling is an underground sport which was developed in Berkeley, California in November, 2003" not notable. (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

  • 95 google hits for neologism [10]. Delete. Meelar 13:20, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't get the external link to work either. Rmhermen 13:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • It just worked for me, and their hit counter read 1350. Meelar 13:55, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not what you'd see in the averge encyclopedia, but... - Tεxτurε 18:45, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I guess. Now I want to actually try this... Rhymeless 19:16, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep?! They have no relevant google hits, and one website which has about 1,000 hits! There's no way this is notable. Meelar 20:43, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable newly invented sport. Andris 21:29, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I seem to remember we deleted an article for some other recently created sport awhile back. I'm gonna go with that precedent. blankfaze | •­• 22:01, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. →Raul654 02:54, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:10, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Less elegant than rhythmic gymnastics, but more of a sport. Delete until it makes it as a demo Olympic sport or Fox picks it up. Denni 02:56, 2004 Jun 9 (UTC)
  • Delete, idiosyncratic, vanity, nonnotable. When Fox picks it up we'll have an article. Sounds like a lot of fun! Wile E. Heresiarch 03:11, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • LOL! It does sound like a lot of fun. Still, delete. SWAdair | Talk 03:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Boynton v. Virginia

From Cleanup: Boynton v. Virginia - source text (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

  • Keep. I added a short stub describing the import of the decision as I understand it. Wikisource the rest of the text. Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep stub - Tεxτurε 18:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Brian Hickey

From Cleanup: Brian Hickey - 9/11 victim (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

  • Move to Memorial and delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:10, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to memorial, possibly an interwiki-redirect. JFW | T@lk 15:20, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Memorial and delete. Jeversol 18:41, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move and delete - Tεxτurε 18:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Burkay

From Cleanup: Burkay - we don't include last names (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

Gadget

From Cleanup: Gadget - dict. def. (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)

Predator (Mike Carlton)

A google search shows hits for a Mike Carlton who's a radio host and newspaper columnist in Sydney, but I'm not sure if this is the same guy. Meelar 13:46, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I put this page up. He's not the same guy.--XmarkX 13:53, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure he's notable enough; no offense meant, though--I hope you continue your work. You seem to have been quite productive here since you arrived. Best, Meelar 14:07, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, you are completely right, I guess. Looking at it objectively, and looking at some other vfd entries, he's not an encyclopedic candidate. So I vote to delete my own creation! Ironically enough, the real guy is being buried tomorrow morning.--XmarkX 14:11, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • How mature of you. I wish that most vfd discussions were this civil! - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:25, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Free drinks

Just a dicdef of something that's pretty self-explanatory. The last sentence is already at BJAODN. Meelar 14:12, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Hmmm... I wanted to capture the essence of what it is to experience free drinks as a societal human being living in the 21st centry. I think this concept is dificult to grasp, and this is reflected in the poor quality of the article, but I am working on it :) --Dan 14:33, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete quickly - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:18, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete cbraga 14:31, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete! Now! JFW | T@lk 15:34, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • One of the best arguments for abstinence I've seen. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:15, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps merge with Drinking culture? --Dan 21:28, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I suppose a good article could be written about free drinks, but after the first paragraph or two this one gets just a little too weird. Delete if not significantly improved over the next few days. Everyking 22:32, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • How am I going to significantly improve this article in a couple of days? You guys are going to have to give me the weekend to make this happen, yes, the weekend and plenty of booze... (don't worry, I will supply the booze) --Dan 21:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or merge with Drinking culture. Probably just delete though. Russco 12:14, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Idiotic. --Woggly 11:24, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Scientific romance

Just another name for science fiction and would do better at that page, IMO. The name is hardly ever used now. Mandel 16:00, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect. Rhymeless 19:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe the term science fiction or possibly scientifiction wasn't coined until the thirties or thereabouts at the time when the great SF pulp were launched. That leaves quite a long period of time before that when people were writing the stuff and had to call it something else. That includes Jules Verne, H. G. Wells, Arthur Conan Doyle (Professor Challenger, etc.), a good dozen stories by Jack London, and many others. It's true that the name is hardly ever used now, but the page says it's archaic, and it seems to me that it would be a fine jumping-off place for an article on SF pre-Gernsback and pre-Campbell. Dpbsmith 19:20, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it be strange if, when reading on science fiction, one has to jump over to scientific romance for the pre-30s history? Why not just make a note of this name and usage in the sci-fi article? Is there a distinction between the two? Mandel 23:38, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't redirect be better than deletion? DJ Clayworth 19:37, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect unless seriously expanded. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:04, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep where it is. There is plenty of time for this to expand. Rossami
  • Merge and redirect. SWAdair | Talk 03:40, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's a wealth of detail to cover. Rossumcapek 21:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Comprehensive Corporate Power

This section disappeared at 19:35, apparently due to software mistake and has been just restored. Andris 21:48, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic. There are no google references for the concept, and it is not used in any large degree by anyone I know. Roadrunner 16:49, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • When I look at this page, not only is it deleted, but there's no "view or restore X deleted edits". What happened? Meelar 16:52, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote. Request posted to the original author's page asking for verification of usage. Rossami 22:42, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Vocabulary builder

Advertisement, delete. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:59, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - Tεxτurε 18:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but remove spam, or add competing links. Meelar 18:39, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks very non-notable. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:45, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What would it take to keep? Replace the word "software" with "method," remove spam, rename the article, make sections expounding on each method... and it would still be not much more than a "how-to" article. All because someone wanted to advertise. Nope. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 03:47, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You're right, somebody can start from scratch if they start an article. Meelar 13:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PhpAdsNew

  • Delete - advert for advert software - Tεxτurε 18:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. DJ Clayworth 21:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:45, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to cleanup. It's a well-known piece of software, with Google returning nearly 35000 hits. We had an article on a Linux user group which got 6000 hits and thus stayed. I don't see why this is any different except somebody wrote a piece of advertising for the article instead of encyclopedic material. 09:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of Spanish Verbs

  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fredrik (talk) 19:00, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - No little squiggly required. - Tεxτurε 19:44, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. WINA(S)D. DJ Clayworth 21:01, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Limehead

Band vanity page (zero google hits for it) mixed with patent nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:41, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I wish we could speedy delete these things. Delete ASAP. blankfaze | •­• 22:17, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Really bad vanity page. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 05:04, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as both non-notable and as patent nonsense. Not funny enough for BJAODN, IMO. - Lucky 6.9 05:27, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kyle Goslin

Some kid who says he's in a band. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:41, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • According to the extenal link, the band Dropout has had 7 small gigs, 1 cancelled gig, no recordings. The other external, for the band 88 Precautions, has no content other than "Site under construction." The only Google hit for "Kyle Goslin" is a post he wrote to a message board. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:14, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unpublished bands with few gigs aren't notable. Meelar 13:41, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Ronald L. Iman

Doesn't seem to pass the "random professor" test. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:41, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - I was thinking about this one too. - Tεxτurε 22:07, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Undecided Delete, apparently not notable. Amazon lookup on "Modern business statistics" shows that it's out of print, NO reader reviews, NO other reviews. "A Data-based Approach to Statistics" is also out of print, has a "book description" but again NO reader reviews and NO other reviews. Unclear why [User:Rossumcapek] inserted the article. Dpbsmith 00:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What's the "random professor" test? If this person has published a couple of scholarly books, then someone might want biographical information on him. For books of this type, I don't see Amazon as an important resource. Keep but I'm willing to be persuaded if there's some established policy that calls for deletion. JamesMLane 11:13, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I threw this together based on spotting a requested article for Latin hypercube sampling. Admittedly, there's not much here. Seems as though since someone requested the original article, a bit more biographical data on its creator might be welcome. I vote to keep this, but I have no real attachment to the article or the subject matter. Rossumcapek 20:42, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It probably should include a--I've just put a--link back to the Latin hypercube sampling article; that at least makes it clear why this article was included. Dpbsmith 00:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
An oversight; thanks, Dpbsmith. This maybe a poor forum to ask, but is there a good way to contact the original Latin hypercube sampling] article requester for their opinion/contribution? Rossumcapek 05:24, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

List of American recipes

Not a list of recipes but a list of food items. A list of recipies links to wikibooks (And therefore does not belong here). short and orphaned --Jiang 00:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • They aren't even all distinctly American. At least one (Mincemeat tart) is something I've never even heard in US usage. Articles on food topics should link directly to wikibooks recipes as appropriate, which leaves the list as a simple incomplete categorization. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What in the name of all that's sane is "pickle pie?" Delete. - Lucky 6.9 06:48, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 9

CyberX

From what little I and the BabelFish can discern, this is about an administrator from a German game. This game is so unremarkable that it doesn't have an article, and produces exactly no hits on Google. So why do we have an article on one of the admins? PMC 00:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - there's a lot of games out there and a lot of admins... - Tεxτurε 01:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Aren't foreign-language articles candidates for speedy deletion? blankfaze | •­• 01:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Depends on the article. If it's a worthwhile article, it should be listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English in the hope that someone will translate it. That page says "if someone speaks the language the article is written in and can state that it is not worth translating, the item should be moved to VfD", which I guess is the case hhere. The only case listed as a speedy deletion candidate is if someone copies an article from a foreign-language Wikipedia to the English one. —Stormie 01:55, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
      • Ohhh. Thanks for clarifying. I vote delete, btw. blankfaze | •­• 03:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Having read the Google-translation, and noted that the website mentioned in the article doesn't even exist, I think this should certainly be deleted. —Stormie 03:16, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as is. I thought this was going to be about the Japanese trance band Cyber X. RADICALBENDER★ 13:44, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Christine Lee Hanson, Chris Mello, Carol Flyzik, Christine Snyder, Brady Howell

These individuals did nothing of note to warrant inclusion on wikipedia. --Jiang 00:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Move to memorial and Delete - Tεxτurε 00:51, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Memorial and delete. All otherwise non-notable. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Memorial and delete. PMC 02:17, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Added VfD header to these. Add Sue Kim Hanson and Peter Burton Hanson to the list. All are old entries and pre-date the creation of Wikimemorial. Move all to Wikimemorial and delete. Rossami 02:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Sokol - Glee club part 1

  • Delete - vanity - local professor at Cornell - from the gleeclub website - Tεxτurε 00:50, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cornell University Hangovers - Glee club part 2

  • Delete - vanity - more from the gleeclub at cornell university - Tεxτurε 01:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Space Madness

  • Entertaining nonsense. A candidate for BJAODN. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:36, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Amusing, but delete. (The suggested article on Hollywood distortions of diseases might be encyclopedic, though.) Rossami 02:12, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Haha, BJAODN and delete. "Some fine text book examples..." I love that part. blankfaze | •­• 03:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Definite BJAODN, and I'm a total fiend for the original "Ren and Stimpy." Delete and redirect there. - Lucky 6.9 05:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Glad to have amused you guys... I guess I should calm down and stop making posts like this, however, looks like it had some merit. Hears to free drinks! P.S. Is this where I vote to not delete? Or did I just do the opposite? --Dan 20:58, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template:Aotd

Also the redirect MediaWiki:Aotd. Not updated and used only on Sennheiser's user page. Likely to confuse people who come across it thinking it really the article of the day when it isn't. Not updated since February. Angela. 01:53, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:16, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Minnie Gertrude Matthews and R. G. Edwards

These two people don't seem to have done anything noteworthy, but for living for a long time in the same place. Neither of them lived for an exceptionally long time or in an exceptional place (I've never been to Brampton, Ontario, so I'm guessing its not exceptional). I know they have been created seriously, but I don't think they have any encyclopedic worth. Joseph Philipsson 02:50, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Marginal keep on MG Matthews, since it seems like she may have some significance to the local history. It would be great for Wikipedia to have well-done articles on interesting bits of local history like this. No vote on RG Edwards, though. Everyking 04:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Frank Holwell

Australian primary school teacher. College professors get articles, but certaintly not primary school teachers! blankfaze | •­• 03:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Non-notable, mostly unverifiable, probably vanity. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:14, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • 5 google hits for "Frank Holwell" Sorrento , delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, positively delete. This would be the start of an exceptionally ugly trend if allowed to stay. - Lucky 6.9 05:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 12:54, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough, sorry. Meelar 13:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Synthesis (newspaper)

someone is trying to find investors to expand a newspaper they started in high school. The article is full of potential possible future plans. 'Synthesis + "Aaron Kao"' (the founder of the newspaper) gets 2 google hits. Maximus Rex 03:28, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Borders on self-confessed vanity. Non-noteable. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Personal promotion. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:11, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Biomatics and Bioinfotronics

  • Idiosyncratic neologisms coined by Jong Park whose vanity page was recently deleted. Google hits are WP, mirrors, and Jong Park's web sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:44, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I could have tolerated it a little bit, but then I realised it was an acronym. Delete! Rhymeless 03:54, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Biomatics was coined eight years ago and still not in use by anyone but Jong. What do you call a neologism that isn't new? SWAdair | Talk 03:59, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • DELET (Disappear Entirely, Leaving Ephemeral Talk), for good reasons given by others. Dpbsmith 14:32, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

John Nebthos

reads like nonsense (i.e. "opium laced cheese"). Can't verify via google. Maximus Rex 04:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree. Sounds like nonsense, 8 google hits for "John Nebthos", the link provided is highly suspect, etc. Delete unless someone can verify this in more detail. -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's a cleverly disguised advert. At the external link we learn that Josh H. Betonn (anagram of John Nebthos) is the creator of the site. On a subpage [11] we learn that this is a riddle that is supposed to be solved, and looks like pre-release hype for something. Delete advert. SWAdair | Talk 06:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Interestingly, the article content doesn't match the history given at the external site. I was able to find a few people, and one ship, named Ivan Nesterov, but none match the article content. SWAdair | Talk 07:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • And for the finale: the article states that Nebthos submitted the copyright symbol in a US-government sponsored contest around the year 1841. Actually, UNESCO introduced the symbol in 1952 at the Universal Copyright Convention [12]. The symbol was later adopted by the US when the US codified its own copyright laws. This article is complete nonsense. SWAdair | Talk 07:35, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I live in the Louisville area, and I suspect that if there was a local historic brothel keeper who invented the copyright symbol, I'd have heard of it by now. Smerdis of Tlön 14:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like fabrication. Delete and BJAODN unless someone confirms this. Andris 00:16, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

List of non-Puerto Rican residents of Puerto Rico

Please. What's next? List of non-American residents of the United States? RickK 04:23, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Extensive farming

Dictdef RickK 04:31, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. SWAdair | Talk 05:03, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • A very easy delete TPK 11:45, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 12:49, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that this article can be expanded to be very worthy of being on Wikipedia. Extensive farming is actually a very extensive subject. (Anon user)
  • Delete - very not encyclopedic - the article contains no reason for its existense - Tεxτurε 23:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • A good article on this subject would be worthwhile. But it's hard to say that this stub as it now exists would grow into that article. MK 07:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Paradoxism

  • Vanity article promoting Florentin Smarandache. Every now and then an anonymous editor comes around to add more Smarandache promo material. Smarandache has a long, obnoxious history of promoting himself in various Internet forums and Wikipedia in particular, both in person and through sock puppets. This is just more of the same, and we can expect him to persist indefinitely. Away with it. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, just how notable is he? I think if he's notable enough to be included, his theories probably are, too, assuming they are something he is known for. Everyking 07:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • You'll find Smarandache all over the web, where he has placed advertisements in the mouths of sock puppets far and wide. He's exploited several means of free self promotion -- Usenet, Yahoo groups, mailing lists, Sloane's catalog of integer sequences, and, of course, Wikipedia. See User:Smarandache fan for starters, and then see the two VfD discussions at talk:Florentin Smarandache. In addition to the endless promo material, Smarandache might have a couple of peer reviewed publications; be that as it may, it's not enough for a notable reputation. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neutrosophy

Dressed to Kill (television)

  • Google doesn't recognize this as existing; neither does IMDB. Almost certainly made up. -Sean Curtin 07:00, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I hope that wasn't a real storyline. Sounds like a boy and girl passing a script back-and-forth, each taking a turn developing a story. And a bad effort at that. It's listed as an episode of My Life as a Teenage Robot, but it is strange that this one, well down the list, is the ONLY one to be developed. Unless someone can verify the article, I tend to agree with Sean. SWAdair | Talk 10:32, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Kiddie-wiki and nonsense. Pull the plug. - Lucky 6.9 16:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Should have been speedy deleted. Delete now. RickK 21:08, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Kiwi

I want this page deleted and rename Kiwi (disambiguation) to Kiwi. A disambiguation page should be the word that is in need of disambiguation. GerardM 10:22, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I made Kiwi into the disambiguation page by copying the text from Kiwi (disambiguation). Now the latter is a redundant page that can be removed. SWAdair | Talk 10:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Honestly why didn't you just leave things the way they were. This has been discussed several times over the years (see Talk:Culture_of_New_Zealand and Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 3) the consensus was the article Kiwi should be about the bird and have a link to a disambiguation page. There are over 50 articles currently linking to Kiwi and the vast majority are for the bird. -- Popsracer 11:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. IMO Kiwi should be the bird, other meanings are derivative, as at the date of writing. But more to the point, the idea that all (disambiguation) pages should be removed would represent a major change of policy, and should be discussed in the appropriate places. Andrewa 13:29, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Kiwi as the bird. Rmhermen 14:50, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Kiwi should link directly to the page about the bird. Average Earthman 16:24, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it as it is, when one use of the word is so much the most significant (as in this case, where all the other uses are derived from the kiwi bird), it deserves the main page - the main page should only be a disambiguation when dealing with topics of similar significance. —Stormie 23:34, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oops. My bad. I wasn't aware of the previous discussions. SWAdair | Talk 04:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dossier

Patrick van Katwijk

  • Delete. non-notable, un-googlable. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:46, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • He does seem to have been a photographer, and Google did return his website, but it's in Dutch. I'm not sure how notable he is/was. Not many hits other than his own site. Joyous 15:01, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Paul Gentle and Daisy Mctavish

Hancock Place

Redundant (with John Hancock Tower), and exceedingly editorialistic. What NPOV material there is has been merged into the other article. Furthermore the text already exists on an external site (a link to which has been added to the merged-into article). KeithTyler 04:36, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC) Oh, and maybe I should mention that the name is not an accurate one for the subject matter. KeithTyler 04:56, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC) (somehow this vfd entry got erased)

  • Now redirected. Keep harmless redirect. Rossami 23:38, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Morsels

Dicdef, cannot see any potential here... - Lady Lysine Ikinsile 17:01, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Pointless, delete. Wyllium 20:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Aggemam

Obscure Danish slang term. --Smack 17:33, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Fixed the vfd header which wasn't inserted properly. for future reference, it's just {{vfd}}. Delete, I guess. blankfaze | •­• 17:55, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Niteowlneils 18:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lecnac

  • Almost a speedy candidate. m-w.com doesn't know the word, and no relevant hits--there are 2000, but they all seem to refer to a userID, or the fact that it is "cancel" backwards. Niteowlneils 18:30, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but searches on lecnacing, lecnac fraction, and lecnac fractions return a few mathematical papers from Mathsphere KeithTyler 19:54, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • There's a related subsub about Lecnacing that I posted as a speedy. - Lucky 6.9 22:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Andris 00:14, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)


Please keep this entry. Granted it is a new word in the language, but these should be allowed when they describe a new concept or make an old concept clearer, surely. It is extremely frustrating when teaching fractions not to have a word to describe this process. We use the word 'cancel' to avoid, as far as possible, saying 'divide the top number and the bottom number of the fraction by 2 etc' as this can easily be confused in the mind of a child with dividing the actual fraction by 2 etc which is, of course, a completely different process. The same needs to be done for the reverse operation so that multiplying the numerator and denominator by the same number is not confused with multiplying the fraction by that number which again is a different operation completely. Any analysis of the processes involved in fractions will soon reveal that an understanding of equivalent fractions is essential to all operations. Lecnacing (although it has never had a name before) is the very process used to produce equivalent fractions. Children are most receptive to the idea as they feel comfortable having a name to describe a process.

I am familiar with the work of Mathsphere and they claim that their worksheets are being used in over 10,000 schools. This is proving to be an excellent vehicle for the transmission of this new idea in the teaching of mathematics.

The fact that lecnac is the reverse spelling of cancel is to be applauded as children love to see connections between ideas.

P.S. I have just registered. The above comment was written by me -Andrewcairnes. I have not yet created a user page.

Studley

What is this? I thought London was the largest. --Merovingian ↕ T@Lk 18:28, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • It might be a question of legal distinctions--London might be classified as a city while this is the largest legal village, or something of that sort. No vote. Meelar 18:40, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, list on Cleanup. RickK 21:13, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Alcopunk

This looks like a neologism (see google), and therefore not something that should be in an encyclopedia. Thue 20:29, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment: Unsure. I have heard this term used elswhere, despite its poor Google showing. But this isn't a good stub IMO. It seems to be part of a network of edits by user:Pepus, who seems to be a fan, manager or member of Destyl, allegedly an alcopunk band. The punk rock articles in general seem to be a hotbed of advertising and autobiography in fact. Andrewa 21:04, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I tried googling for Destyl punk, and found enough hits (in Czech, so I am not sure how relevant they are) not to list them on vfd. Thue 21:16, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I listen to a fair amount of punk, and have never heard this term before. Frankly, it sounds like Destyl coined a term for their music, then claimed a well-known band as a fellow member of the genre. A google search for "The Casualties" + alcopunk gets zero hits. Isomorphic 02:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cingoz the Saint Cat

No idea what this is. No google hits. Thue 20:49, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Should have been speedly deleted. Delete now. RickK 21:17, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • I voted delete as well, but my original vote seems to have vanished. Second time's a charm. - Lucky 6.9 22:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • And my vote to delete disappeared, too. Joyous 22:20, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • I had to revert to an earlier version of VfD because the page was duplicated. See the Talk page. RickK 22:23, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • For once, I agree--this was speed worthy. Meelar 05:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Squee

Dictdef of a made up non-word. RickK 22:09, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Also the name of a comic book, which I've added a stub for. -Sean Curtin 23:10, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep new stub.--Gene_poole 06:49, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

  • A blatant editorial. For shame. Viajero 22:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The last failed attempt to VFD it was in May 2004. Note, the argument doesn't go further than accusations in POV or that the article simply "stinks". The facts must be analyzed in an encyclopedic manner. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I have removed the table of myths that caused the controversy. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • No way to be NPOV on this one. Delete. Danny 23:39, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • In my opinion there are a few traces of an NPOV article in here, sandwiched between huge globs of irredeemable POV. I vote delete, because otherwise I'll feel compelled to try trimming out the POV and no doubt get embroiled in endless argument over the drastic cuts I feel that would require. Bryan 00:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bryan that the article has a few salvagable pieces of useful content; however most of it is unworthy trash, especially the "Myths/Examined" table, which is just laughable (it reminds me of the old Myths over the GDR article, only with better formatting). has been removed, thank you Humus Sapiens. Delete or rewrite top-to-bottom. (Any volunteers for the latter action? Being on summer vacation, I'm sharing a dial-up connection with seven others and can't reach my university's library at all.) —No-One Jones 00:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd like to see this become a real article about news coverage of the conflict. I'm not ready to abandon the baby with the bath water. We don't normally delete articles because of conflict. - Tεxτurε 03:33, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everyking 06:18, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wildly, irredeemably POV. The few residual facts to be found belong within whatever article we have on the Palestine-Israel conflict itself.--Gene_poole 06:49, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It must be one of the worst articles in the encyclopedia, with not even a whiff of NPOV. Yes, the topic could in principle be the subject of a good article but it wouldn't have a single sentence in common with this one and could be created afresh if someone came along willing to put in the work. --Zero 07:33, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oh, dear. Judging from the title, I thought at first the article would be an irredeemable flamefest. However, a closer inspection reveals salvageable nuggets of information (e.g. media outlets conflicted on what terminologies to use—this is a significant enough phenomenon to have been covered by the Economist and the Washington Post). I agree that it needs either a major rewrite or trimming with extreme prejudice, however. I would trim everything except the sections "Agencies and News Outlets" and "Terminology." The rest is better left to external links. Wikisux 07:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and...well, I certainly think this article needs a lot of improvement. It's quite POV indeed, but I think it's a valid subject. As Texture said, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Oh, and for the record, I started this article. It's not the stub it was when I last saw it, but this isn't exactly the direction I expected the article to take. There are nuggets of useful info, though - as Wikisux says, the terminologies alone are quite interesting and valid. So, again, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:26, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The phenomenon and the role of the press are well recognised. Add Palestinean POV, smooth out Israeli Media Watchdog POV. Lots of TLC, in other words. JFW | T@lk 10:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't sleep, so I rewrote the whole article. I think it has a future as a decent NPOV reference, provided someone can add some more info from a Palestinian perspective. Wikisux 11:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Peter Atkins

A one-sentence "bio"? Is this person encyclopedic? RickK 22:41, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Not in my book, at least not like this. - Lucky 6.9 23:04, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Google turns up 3000 hits for ""peter atkins" chemistry". Keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Atkins has become fantastically wealthy by publishing the UK's widest-used chemistry textbooks. I think he also has a famous wife, but I can't remember who. The article clearly needs expansion, but he's definitely article-worthy.Harry R 11:37, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Joshua Bryant

  • A {presumed} crime victim of no other apparent notoriety. RickK 22:45, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • The story has had massive media coverage (particularly in the south eastern US) since 2001 Zerbey 22:51, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Well-publicized crime victims are certainly encyclopedic. Keep. Everyking 03:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hatem Elmohandis

  • Vanity, pure and simple. - Lucky 6.9 23:01, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - possibly a joke - Tεxτurε 03:29, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - can't find any solid references to this person — Braaropolis | Talk 07:29, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Birmingham Motor History

New, then re-directed. Not sure how to VFD a redirect page, so I've only listed it here. Andy Mabbett 23:12, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Birmingham Motor History & Economy

New, then re-directed. Not sure how to VFD a redirect page, so I've only listed it here. Andy Mabbett 23:12, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bergger

Can only be an Ad, even when fully cleaned up. Company has no obvious claim to fame. Awolf002 23:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep and move to cleanup. The company's notable as a manufacturer of photographic papers but the current article is awful. - Lucky 6.9 23:28, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to cleanup. 6000 hits on Google. Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 10

Wa (Japanese)

  • Sub-stub near-orphan dicdef for a foriegn word. --Robert Merkel 01:08, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - there have been good articles on foreign words but this is just a dicdef. - Tεxτurε 03:27, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Lord knows why a Chinese word is given an article title "Wa (Japanese)". The concept is actually culturally important enough that an article is imaginable, but as it stands this is a badly titled sub-stub. Just delete. -- Jmabel 06:20, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Terry Hart/Temp

Terry Hart has everything mentioned here. Was orphaned from the start. --Jiang 01:28, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - It appears that the article was tagged as a copyvio and someone began to create an alternate. Then the copyvio was removed but the temp was not incorporated. - Tεxτurε 03:19, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Elizabeth_Mytton_Wilbraham

This was listed on cleanup. I tidied it a bit, but it seems to me User:209.96.179.6 might be having a a little laugh, especialy as it says "she is not even listed in any architectural, art or biographical dictionary". On his talkpage I have invited him to comment on this page. Moriori 02:38, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Google returns one hit for ""Elizabeth Mytton Wilbraham"" and 136 hits for ""Elizabeth Wilbraham"". Johnleemk | Talk 09:38, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anti-hygieneism

As I said on the talk page, I don't see any evidence that this term is used by reputable critics. I suspect it to be a made up term. --Camembert 02:34, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Neologism. A total of 3 hits on Google (and you don't want to know what they are for). Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Revolt of the Three Feudatories

Sub-stub. (This listing was submitted by User:Jredmond. SWAdair | Talk 03:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC))

  • Keep. Checking the linked-to article indicates this one has definite potential. SWAdair | Talk 03:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Venezart

Creed of Transcendentalism Today

  • Delete - The creed of a new religion (founded 2002). Technically POV, I suppose. Jorge Stolfi 03:31, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Inherently POV. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to make a definite call, but it looks like one person's viewpoint, probably not properly representative of the subject. Oh, and kill it before those red-links multiply. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Doubly-special relativity

Original research. Article even states it is not accepted in the scientific community. Google returns 869 hits, including Wikipedia mirrors. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 03:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Haha. Delete. Maybe BJAODN? Johnleemk | Talk 09:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Surviving

Deletion Tools

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Surviving

List of Federalist Papers

This seems like just a TOC of the Federalist Papers. All of this information is already at http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm, which is linked to from our article Federalist Papers. Since this is basically a (partial) source document, why put it inside the Wikipedia? -- Jmabel 06:06, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Hmm... The page was just created and may be a precursor to an article on each Paper. Let's wait and see if it becomes more than a link to source material. Tentative keep. SWAdair | Talk 08:34, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tenebrous

Dicdef -- Jmabel 06:16, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Bulgher burger

Recipe with no other redeming value. has been transwikied to wikibooks. Gentgeen 06:22, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I see no article there, and no record of an article being deleted. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:02, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Manbaby Fiestabadger 5

Hacker escapade. Looks non-encyclopedic to me. -- Jmabel 06:41, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 08:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Funny. Delete and BJAODN? Johnleemk | Talk 09:42, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I barely even understand what this is about, and I'm not sure I think it funny at all; nor is this useful information outside of a particular clique. --Woggly 11:30, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not funny either. Average Earthman 11:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hb0da

Non-notable IRC channel. Is there an appropriate place to merge or should this simply be deleted? SWAdair | Talk 07:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, probably. Looks non-notable. --Woggly 11:27, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Large-scale

Dicdef sub stub -- Graham  :) | Talk 10:43, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Could possibly be interesting if content were added, but not as it stands.--Woggly 11:25, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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}} ~~~~

====Hb0da====

Non-notable IRC channel. Is there an appropriate place to merge or should this simply be deleted? SWAdair | Talk 07:57, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_September_2004&oldid=4016413"