VfD Header section

If you want to nominate an article for deletion, please read this carefully first.

If the latest nominations appear to be missing from this page, please purge the cache.

Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait seven days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:

Kept
Deleted per the deletion policy
Sent to cleanup
Merged and/or redirected to an existing article
Transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, or Wiktionary)

More information.

Things to consider:

It is important to read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page.
Use the "what links here" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Wikipedia.
Please familiarize yourself with some frequently cited guidelines, in particular WP:BIO, WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC and WP:COI.

AfD etiquette:

Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment.
Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~.
If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.
Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.

You can add each AFD subpage day to your watchlist by clicking this link: Add today's AFD to watchlist

11^th 10^th 9^th 8^th 7^th 6^th 5^th 4^th 3^rd 1^st 31^st 30^th 29^th 28^th 26^th

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

Decisions in progress

August 1

Genital Integrity

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genital Integrity

August 6

Cockslap -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

"A cockslap or cockslapping is the act of slapping another person with one's own penis or a dildo." Neologism-y dicdef. And, really, isn't the meaning evident from the word? Tregoweth 06:52, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

del Salasks 08:25, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Delete Cutler 10:32, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, (i wrote it ). First i would like to say that your reason for listing it here is invalid, listing something at VFD simply because it states nothing more than the painfully obvious AND is labelled as a stub means it needs expantion, not deletion. Anyway it's about a valid article about a sub-cultural *ahem* phenomena. -- Ævar Arnfjör› Bjarmason 10:37, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
We tend to have very good sexology topics; but how can this be expanded? History of cockslapping? cockslapping in Iceland? User:Ævar Arnfjör› Bjarmason should clean this up if he wants to keep it; as it is now, my vote is to delete; it encourages kidi-wiki neologia Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- If there is more to say on this phenomenon, then say it. If nothing more has been said by the end of the deletion period, delete. DJ Clayworth 19:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Question: "Kidi-wiki"? Tregoweth 17:37, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
  - Contributions from younger users which despite the best of intentions, are a bit of a mess. Favourite topics include Pokemon and Harry Potter. The sinister side however is vandalism, usually homophobic attacks on schoolfriends, but which extends to slang dicdefs of sexual practices they'd like to do, but are too young and/or have no-one to do them with. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would say keep, if there was any evidence of notability in the article. But I don't think there is, and more to the point, I don't believe there could be. Is cockslapping really significant enough for an encyclopedia article? I don't think it is. Prove me wrong, or delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:38, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
Delete: I am pretty hardcore about breakouts of articles on individual sexual practices. To me, subtopics are unlikely to be searched, tie up names, and, yes, encourage kidi-wiki, and also increase the odds of getting blacklisted by filters, etc. The information is fine, but I feel it should be covered in an up-tree lemma. My argument is about granularity, not content, though, and whether we get blacklisted or not is the least of my concerns. Geogre 13:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: slang dicdef (ahem). Sorry, couldn't resist! Wile E. Heresiarch 14:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Although I'm sure it'd be a welcome contribution at UrbanDictionary.com Darksun 17:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Dickdef... sorry, should read dicdef. Andrewa 01:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Send to Wiktionary unless expanded beyond a dictionary definition. —No-One Jones 01:50, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, unless the author or someone can show that the word is in use to any significant degree. Google only shows 108 hits for this word on the Web, and only 19 in Google Groups. It is almost impossible to imagine that a word about a sexual practice could get so few hits. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 03:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) Redirect to Sexual slang as suggested below by others. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 09:53, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. One imagines that if the article were, ahem, expanded it would no longer be a simple "slap" per se... Fire Star 03:53, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Sexual slang. (I already merged the content.) As others have pointed out, the cockslap article will never grow to be anything more than a, er, stub. Don't delete, because I guarantee that it'll eventually get reincarnated and end up on VfD again. The way to stomp out kidi-wiki is not to delete, but to redirect to existing, in-depth, and [semi-]serious articles. --Benc 20:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Sexual slang. -- Stevietheman 06:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As Benc says, redirect only to keep it from reoccuring. Rossami 13:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Sexual slang.ScottyBoy900Q 20:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Sexual slang. It's not as if there's going to be a vital need for some other article by that name, and the redirect is slightly more useful than nothing even for the most trivial topics. Ian Maxwell 04:35, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
Redirect to Turkey Slap. They're the same thing, right? Couldn't the articles be combined?

end moved discussion

Forbidden knowledge - add to this discussion

Relisting since the article was completely rewritten by User:Roeschter after all the below votes were cast —Stormie 06:54, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

This is more of a personal essay; even if this is an encyclopedia topic, which I don't think it is, this isn't the article for it. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:47, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

Delete: "Secrecy" and "Classified information" might be topics, but "forbidden knowledge" is a duplicate. Also, this is really just an expanded dictdef. Geogre 18:59, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say that I still cannot change my vote. It's not because the rewrite lacks value, but because I still think this is a duplication. I might move to abstain, after I look around to see if I can name some specific lemmae that duplicate this material. Geogre 13:25, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete strange essay. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Retain: The essay is balanced, neutral and useful. It is not personal. If it is short it should be expanded. The topic is useful. Me thinks the votes for deletion don't want this topic exposed. Moshiah
Fake sockpuppet. User:Moshiah is not even registered. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Well, sure. True knowledge of the user is forbidden. This is all a conspiracy to keep forbidden knowledge forbidden. Geogre 19:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  - So perhaps VfD should be on the list of methods used to keep "forbidden knowledge" forbidden? I think perhaps the people who forbade some such knowledge actually had a good reason. Please see my vote below, if it isn't forbidden.Fire Star 01:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I don't even know if "Forbidden Knowledge" is the best way to name this abstract concept. I think the concept is worthy of an entry, but it should use a standard term and better explain it. Tslag 19:19, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
~~I forbid you to keep this article in its present form! Delete.~~ Fire Star 01:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I completely replaced the original text with an expanded form (wasn't my origical article). Forbidden knowledge is indeed very diffrent from secret knowledge. While there is any number of good reasons to keep certain things secret, very specific political and sociological mechanisms are at work for forbidden knowledge. User:roeschter 00:00, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please place new votes below here

Keep: rewrite needs grammatical fixes and better wikification, but not deletion. -Sean Curtin 08:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I like the new edit. Keep. Rhymeless 16:54, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Alright. I have done some copy editing, and it needs more to be sure, but I can see there is enough potential to keep it around for now, at least. Fire Star 03:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Could be better written, maybe could be better named, but as it is at least a weak keep.
Despite the history and the editor, the article looks valid. Test is, can content be merged and article redirected? If not, weak keep Cutler 13:52, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Pjacobi 14:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Redundant - Centrx 17:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Animo -- Add to this discussion

No potential to become encyclopedic. This is a dictionary definition article on a very minor topic. I'm moving it as a note in the main article De La Salle University. --Ronaldo Guevara 09:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete - not encyclopedic Cutler 09:57, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: not notable. Geogre 13:45, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. This is not just a warcry of one team as the article says, but seems to feature in many others as well. 2850 Google hits for Animo la Salle, 627,000 for Animo on its own. See the talk page. Andrewa 01:18, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Almost all of the hits on Animo La Salle are on websites of students or alumni of the university. 'Animo' is a latin word for 'soul' or to give life to or to animate and can be used by any number of entities to name themselves. As a Lasallian myself, I think it would be best if I move this information to the main article on the university itself, where its context can best be seen. --Ronaldo Guevara 07:42, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - not encyclopedic Ian Maxwell 04:37, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
Delete. If this information is appropriate to an encyclopedia, it belongs in the article about the university. - Centrx 17:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rebecca Loos -- Add to this discussion

Rebecca Loos was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep - no consensus to delete - sent to cleanup

If this article told me something about Loos and why she did what she did, I might feel it worth having. As it is, it adds nothing that is not in David Beckham. The nature of celebrity is such that I suspect nobody will expand this in the future Cutler 09:48, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I suspect she will be publishing a book soon, perhaps offer to cleanup? Alternatively redirect to David Beckham Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: What should we offer to cleanup, the book, the affair or the article? They all seem worthy but thankless tasks... (;-> No vote, no real damage either way IMO. Andrewa 22:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Send to clean up. She's famous. It won't last, but we have to decide based on the present, I guess. Geogre 13:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Either clean up or add a section about her on the David Beckham article. Darksun 17:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Making international headlines, even if for being a twerp, makes you notable. Cleanup if necessary. Ambi 13:25, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Nothing I see that's worth cleaning up. If she publishes the book and if it becomes notable, then she might deserve more than the one line in David Beckham. Rossami 13:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with Rossami; making int'l headlines on someone else's coattails entitles you to a mention in their article, not necessarily your own. And there's not much more to say about her. +sj + 16:15, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Rossami and Sj. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Sufficiently notable that people might come by having heard the name and not knowing who she is. Ian Maxwell 04:44, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
Redir to the Beckham article--it already mentions the allegation, and the fact he denied it. She warrants no more coverage than that (unless/until she publishes a book or whatever). Niteowlneils 14:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

St.John's School Marhauli -- Add to this discussion

St.John's School Marhauli was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Non-notable Indian school. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:41, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete - only 12 Google hits. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 14:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Linkholder substub. If there is some notability to this non-US school (incidentally, the only rationale ever offered that I'm aware of for inclusion of every HS in America is that a List of Schools article hit VfD over whether or not we could really have them an the resolution was no real resolution; no such debate has taken place over non-US schools), it's surely not present in the single line on the school that takes us to its link. Geogre 17:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. - Centrx 17:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Death by a thousand cats -- Add to this discussion

Death by a thousand cats was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

An attempt at humor. Zero Google hits. Perhaps this might be a candidate for speedy deletion? -- The Anome 11:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This doesn't sound very funny. And since when has Zero Google hits disqualified something from existing? Auric The Rad 12:04, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, it's not funny: hence "attempt". Zero Google hits doesn't disqualify anything from existing, but it one of several rules of thumb for placing the onus of proof on the submitter. See Wikipedia:Google test -- The Anome 12:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
delete as unverifiable/likely joke. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:22, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, unless someone convinces us that it's not a joke. Title looks like a pun on Death by a thousand cuts. Andris 12:24, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
- And/Or A Dream of a Thousand Cats (Neil Gaiman story). This is just silly. (Admittedly, people have done some very silly things in the name of justice, so if someone can come up with a reference, I'll change my vote; but I'm not counting on it.)-FZ 17:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: joke, not up to the lofty standards of nonsense found on BJAODN. Geogre 13:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not funny, not true. Average Earthman 14:55, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, for good reasons given by others, unless author or someone else supplies a good, high-credibility verifiable reference before expiration of VfD discussion period. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Joke by anon, part of a spree of edits all of which look like being reverted or deleted. Andrewa 22:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I've studied much history and have never heard of this before. Couldn't find any references to it either on any web searches. If more info could be found, maybe it would make more sense to keep it. ScottyBoy900Q 20:56, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
'Delete' --Vik-Thor 03:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This would be less annoying if it were at least funny. Ian Maxwell 04:50, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
Delete. But it WAS funny, in my opinion. The title anyway. A thousand cats...hahaha. Oh boy. --Tothebarricades.tk 17:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Alice Cleaver -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia is not a geaneological dictionary. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, the article isn't talking about somebody who had no effect at all - this is related to the only first class child to die in the sinking of the Titanic. However, it appears it is incorrect - a quick search on the internet reveals that [articles that actually give references] state the Titanic survivor was one Alice Catherine Cleaver, not Alice Mary Cleaver (alleged child killer), and that Alice Catherine Cleaver returned to England where she married and had two children, while Alice Mary Cleaver died in prison. Therefore, the article as it stands should be factually disputed. Average Earthman 15:14, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I've added an accuracy dispute flag and cleaned up the formatting a bit (but not the spelling and grammar), and I'm wondering exactly what message to send the creator, who is an anon and whose only edits so far are to this article. The poor grammar, spelling and wikiformatting, plus the doubtful status of the information, and the topic, all remind me strongly of the schoolwork of some of my relatives... I'm talking about bright primary age schoolchildren here. Food for thought? If that's the case, we need to be welcoming but not distracted. Andrewa 22:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The original author is obviously following this, as they keep returning with extra un-formatted information. Perhaps if they named the title and publisher of the mentioned biography this would solve the problem. The story seems to have changed since I first edited it, she now no longer seems to have murdered her own child. Which suggests the original subject was a confused identity. Name the biography or delete.Giano 07:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. - Centrx 17:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The incomplete book title has now been put on. Having read the discussion page- this all seems a bit creepy, why doesn't the author just justify it here, as they are obviously reading it. Something odd going on. again say delete Giano 17:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Template:Adminship quiz -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

I thought it would be nice to create this template for the questionnaire usually given on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. However, about 30 seconds after I created it, it occurred to me that the nominee wouldn't be able to answer the questionnaire without editing the template! Whoops! [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 15:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was such a quiz. Regardless, this template still seems useful if you use subst:. Rossami 18:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think delete is the right call. A template used only on one page doesn't seem useful, even with subst:, since it can just as easily be copy'n'pasted. -- Netoholic 04:06, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- er... this is exactly what subst: is good for -- helping you avoid copy'n'pasting, particularly if you can't remember where you put that block of text to paste. Keep and subst:. +sj+ 16:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - um... but its used one one page only. The block of text would be on that page as well. At the very least, it should me moved to a sub-page of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (maybe Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Quiz, where subst: could still be used to insert it. It just isn't "Template:" worthy because of its limited usefulness outside of one page. -- Netoholic 22:54, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
subst. Niteowlneils 18:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep as a subpage of RfA, not as a template. Do not call it a quiz. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Candidate questions might be better. Angela . 06:55, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

end moved dicussion

I've added a fourth question in line with my personal admin promotion criterion on User:Jguk/admin criterion. It just saves me asking it in the comment section every time, jguk 14:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The question makes it sound as if it's a requirement for adminship, and the questions overall were previously cut back to counteract this kind of question creep where everybody packs in their own personal "interview question". Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", and RfA is not a job interview. If you want to know whether someone has satisfied a pet criterion, contribution histories are readily available. One of the great things about this process is that everyone can investigate people as much as they want without troubling others, including the candidate. --Michael Snow 04:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I share Michael's concerns above, but I would take it a step further and advocate the elimination of the Rfa questionnaire completely. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 17:44, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Subheads

I reverted Func's 05:23, 21 Jun 2005 addition of using subheads on this template based on Cecropia's similar revert on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eequor (2nd). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ordering & Headings

If we are going to keep these generic questions, then I have a couple of proposals:

Put the questions above the opinions

In my head, people giving an opinion on RfA ought to be able to read up what kind of person they're commenting on prior to seeing the comments of others. This will discourage sheep voting and help to reduce the nature of the popularity contest that RfA has become. It seems madness to me to suppport/oppose someone you haven't read all the details about.

Use proper headings

We ought to use proper page headings for the support, oppose, neutral and comments sections, as well as for the questions for the candidate section. This will make the page far easier to navigate using the table of contents.

Feedback on these ideas would be appreciated. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 10:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jealous Guy - Add to this discussion

From VfD:

After deleting the copyrighted lyrics, there's nothing there and not much potential for exapnsion. Rick K 19:36, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Agree. I don't see how this could possibly serve as a valid article with encyclopedic content. My vote: Delete Skyler 19:57, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. A bit obscure perhaps, but known to many millions of people. It's a good stub, and could be expanded in many ways. It could include, for example, which John Lennon album it originally appeared on, and also the details of the two covers already described. A classic Wikipedia is not paper case IMO. Andrewa 21:24, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can see it as having some potential benefit as a section of an article related to the particular John Lennon album, but not as a separate article unto itself. I can see the Wikipedia is not paper argument, but I am more concerned with the need for it to meet criteria of encyclopedic content, which unless it has some social significance behind it (i.e. caused a riot, stopped a war, was written during or about a significant piece of history, etc.) I don't see how it could meet the aforementioned criteria. Though it wouldn't be the first time I've been on the wrong side of an argument, ~~I still vote Delete.~~ Skyler 22:03, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well...It's supposed to be autobiographical, about Lennon's relationship with Yoko. And it was Roxy Music's only no 1 and the only Lennon tribute record that made no 1. Maybe those things are of interest....? On balance, I think I'd keep it. Deb 22:26, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep If an analysis of the lyrics and a background to the song are added, this article can imho be a very valuable contribution to wikipedia Aecis 22:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where would you draw the line? If I created an article for each Pearl Jam, Eminem, Aerosmith, Snoop Dogg, or Britney Spears (all of whom have had number 1 hits on some list; three of them on Billboard) song and gave my personal analysis (btw, wouldn't analysis conflict with NPOV?) and background of each of these songs, would they be considered appropriate encyclopedic content? Pearl Jam's Black, Alive, and Jeremy told the story of a very troubled boy in three parts, which I think is noteworthy, but more appropriate for a fan site than an encyclopedia. It's disheartening that I am the only one on the side of this argument, but I think it is an important enough issue for Wikipedians to address with vigour. Skyler 00:04, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

In my view, those would be considered appropriate encyclopedic content, yes. There are also several articles about paintings (for instance one about Munch's The Scream). Should they be deleted as well? Songs are (or ought to be) art expressions, and an analysis of the expression deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Aecis 09:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep Dmn 00:13, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep it is an historic song, in my opinion it is worth of an article, hence Lennon's page linked to it.
SimonMayer 00:58, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yikes. Ok, do I think it can be more than a stub and therefore escape a VfD citerion? Yes. However, it needs a move to Jealous Guy (song) just for the sake of clarity and to prevent future disambigs (I know that Andrewa disagrees with me on these topics, but, well, I'm consistent). We need a discussion of what the song is about, the chart positions of the various cover versions, etc. For Bryan Ferry, the song was a hit, while for Lenon not so much. Anyway, all of us voting keep (including me) can add a single straw to the pile. By the end of voting, this might be so good an article as to remove all doubt. Very weak Keep if we do our bit to help out. In general, I'm with Skyler, as these things very rarely make it, and I'll change to delete if we don't succeed in a couple of days. Geogre 01:01, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- < GomerPyle> Shame, shame, shame! </GomerPyle> Nobody helped it. Well, I've done some. I sympathize with Skyler's point of view and normally hold it. Only really monumental songs and chapters and things deserve to break out. I thought this was one. I maintain my keep. Geogre 18:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Moving this article to Jealous Guy (song) seems pointless unless there is something more or equally notable to claim the title, either instead of Jealous Guy (disambiguation) or in its own right. It doesn't do a great deal of harm, but setting up extra pages when there's nothing to disambiguate is a waste of time. It's no harder to move the article when (and if) we do find something to disambiguate. No change of vote. Andrewa 03:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I knew you'd disagree. I'm a preventionist in cases of single artworks like songs or movies, and it's just an opinion. That said, the "waste of time" argument works both ways. There is no additional functionality to not having the "(song)," but after things link to the unclarified title, those pages will have to moved with the article once some new animated show with the title becomes all the rage or some old anime is discovered with the title. It's a minor point, of course, and doesn't affect our votes. Geogre 04:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
How sad a state of affairs it is when Wikipedia becomes overly idealistic. This article contains atleast some useful content, whether it is a great sized article or not, what does it matter? This page contains information that may be important to some people. Even the most primitive stub is better than no article at all.
SimonMayer 02:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not at all concerned with the size. If someone wrote two sentences vaguely defining the Great Wall of China (just an example) and left it as a stub, I would have no problem. Even if it were a stub for an article which has the potential to be expanded into encyclopedic content by others and all it said was "Please expand." I would not complain. It's not the length, it's the topic involved and I don't think that is idealistic. I think it very practical thinking if we want Wikipedia to remain credible as a source of knowledge. If we create entries for any song (or book, or movie, etc.) that a group of people find to be historic than the fansite information will come to outweigh the serious encyclopedic content. Skyler 04:32, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
I still don't know where you draw the line. Shall we fill Wikipedia with stubs for the names of every song ever written by a successful artist and wait for someone who feels they are historic songs to come along and fill in as to why we should take notice? Show me a reason why this song constitutes encyclopedic content outside of the fact that John Lennon wrote it and a couple bands covered it and I will gladly reconsider. ~~Until then I'm with Andrewa on one thing: no change of vote here, either.~~ Skyler 04:32, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I don't mean to be argumentative (well, not annoying, anyway), but I do stand by my convictions and my goal is to help Wikipedia continue to be a credible source of encyclopedic content. Sorry if that bothers anyone. Skyler 04:32, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not paper means that we shouldn't delete it because we're afraid of running out of space. However, as others have mentioned, there's the question of whether this article is, or is likely to become, encyclopaedic. -- WOT 05:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to appropriate article (John Lennon, for example) — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 15:07, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I can go along with this solution. Skyler 19:51, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. If a summary of one of the most famous John Lennon songs cannot be kept, what can. I suggest if you delete this, then look at much of this Encyclopedia. In particular, Pink Floyd songs, which are in some cases, not NPOV and some factually wrong (Shine On You Crazy Diamond). paidforit, yesterday
  - For the record, I don't think any of those should be kept either. Skyler 19:51, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
    - May I suggest then that if you want to tidy some of these pages up then you have a large task ahead of you. paidforit, today

Keep It's a very popular song by arguably the greatest singer-songwriter the world has ever known. It just neefds expanding on. Someone was going on about how people would nort be so acceptant if someone made an article about Pearl Jam, Eminem, Aerosmith, Snoop Dogg, or Britney Spears. Firstly, I would not have any problem with artcles about any of these acts most significant numbers, as would never be so ignorant as to rule out the potential value of such an article to someone else. Secondly unpecidentedly successful though the majority of these acts are, they do not have universal significance on the samew level as Lennon.

--Crestville 18:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see much difference between Lennon's and Eminem's agendas. Everyone needs a hobby, but misogyny isn't one of mine. Fire Star 14:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You think Lennon was a misogynist? This strays from the point of this page, but if you would care to continue the dicussion on my talk page, I'd be glad to introduce you to a little lady named Yoko. Also, wether you think they have similar agenda's or not (I suppose 'Purple Pills' could be construed as being in the same vein as 'Strawberry fields' or 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' - albeit a somewhat tedious link) my point was that Lennon's influence, recognition and significance as leader to a generation was far greater than that of the others named and therefore his work perhaps deserves greater exploration. You only need to look at the 100 Greatest Britons list to see his phenomoinal popularity and status, at least in the eyes of we brits.--Crestville 18:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I support recognizing his influence and popularity as a person. I even support recognizing his works (perhaps in a page entitled "Songs by John Lennon" with a list and brief statement about each notable song). I never personally liked Lennon's songs or philosophy, but that does not make them any less note-worthy. What I don't support is having a separate entry for every song people find influential. If we start doing that with every popular artist, we will have more fan-based material, than substantive encyclopedic content. ~~That is my whole point of voting to delete and I stand by it even though this is a lost cause.~~ Skyler 22:53, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

If the content is encyclopedic and decent, I think analyses of songs belong on Wikipedia. And which songs belong on Wikipedia and which don't is not for us to decide (although I do have an opinion on many pop songs, and it's not a positive one) Aecis 17:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In principle, I don't think every song that has ever been written should have a separate encyclopedia entry, but if something more than "This is one of John Lennon's most famous songs" can be added to the entry, I'd vote to keep, or at least preserve as a section in whatever entry exists for the Imagine album (I see that there is only part of one sentence about the song at that entry right now). If not, delete. I'd be glad to find more info and expand it if it gets the votes to remain. (I would agree that it would probably need a Jealous Guy (song) dab though.) ffirehorse 21:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I find Skyler's argument convincing. Fire Star 16:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Although I'm sort of swayed by Skyler idea of a John Lennon songs page, I'll personally volenteer to help ffirehorse expand on this page if it is spared. I think there is room for expantion-for example, it closely links with Lennon's 'lost weekend', which was actually a pivotal year in his life that he spent in Las Vegas. There is other stuff similar to this (I think George Harrison played on it which is significant to his 0place in the whole Lennon/McCartney row. I'm sure you will agree stuff like this is more than mere fan based material as, being a Lennon spong, it is bound to have a wealth of significance to his lifew and his contemporary world which is of encyclopedaic value.--Crestville 17:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- If you can edit this entry to include historic information about Lennon that is related exclusively (or mostly) to this song, I will reverse my vote. Geogre has expanded the page, but it is still an article about a single song and no matter how notable, I still don't think this constitutes encyclopedic content in its own right. If you can expand it into something encyclopedic, I would be very receptive. Skyler 23:56, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Crestville, are you game? I am. ffirehorse 01:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'll give it a shot mate.--Crestville 22:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right, i've done a bit on the lost weekend - a pivotal point in his life which wasn't mentioneed on the John Lennon article. i think it's imortant and significant to the importance of the song as a commentry on Johns life, which is, essentially, what it is.--Crestville 23:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Though I still think it is setting a bad precedent for a wave of song title stubs and believe it is still largely fan-based, I am sufficiently impressed with Crestville's expansion. I still stand by all my previous statements made in this argument, but with regard to this particular song, I think it would be a shame to delete. It still needs some good work, but the content is there. I withdraw my previous vote to delete and change my vote to keep and move to cleanup page. Well done. Skyler 01:28, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I would agree with Skyler's observations. Great job, Crestville. I vote to keep. ffirehorse 02:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Kohar University of Science and Technology -- Add to this discussion

Kohar University of Science and Technology was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep

From Cleanup since July 6. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 17:42, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

NOTE: This nomination was listed incorrectly by User:Poccil at the top of the VfD page and moved down by me. Neither I nor Peter O. have voted (yet, anyway) on this submission. Salasks 22:27, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Keep - Just because it was on Cleanup for a while doesn't mean it should be deleted. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 01:44, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I have wikified what was there, corrected some grammar, and added an external link to the University's homepage. Given that new development, I do think it merits staying, although the name needs to be corrected to read "Kohat" rather than "Kohar". I also removed the cleanup tag and added a stub tag. My vote: Keep, but correct name. Skyler 15:33, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

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

August 7

Rung Sat Special Zone -- Add to this discussion

Rung Sat Special Zone was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Blatant copyvio, and after the copyrighted material was deleted it's not even really worth an article. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 01:14, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: The history shows the former content, and it was out of context, with little to establish any notability for it at all. Geogre 02:03, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agree. I don't see how this could be expanded to warrant its own article. My vote: Delete Skyler
Delete. Nothing of any use at all on the article site. ScottyBoy900Q 20:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Terry Teene -- Add to discussion

Not notable. Even tho' according to the article, "Terry Teene wrote and performed the song Pussy Galore for the James Bond thriller Octopussy...and literally hundreds of other songs...Though Terry Teene has recorded more songs than Madonna...", neither IMDB nor allmusic.com know anyone named "terry teene", "terry knutsen", "terence knutsen", or "terry knutson". allmusic credits other artists for the song "Pussy Galore meets Bond". One google hit for "ToBo the clown"--a username in a public message forum. Of the 21 displayed hits for Clownzo (most are for "Interdimensional Clownz, by T. L. Winslow. Explore the parallel dimension of Clownzo..."--unrelated) the only ones about this guy are VfD (#1 hit--his name was mentioned in the Glenn Nolastname discussion), and some 1992 articles about his being 'convicted on six counts related to his messy house and property'. ""Curse of the Hearse" only gets 114 hits, #1 of which is on a website titled "SCBD The Chart of the Flops", which makes me think it's not very notable. This article seems to border on vandalfiction (or whatever the common term is), altho', in fairness, I have to mention that the contributor has also added a great deal of interesting info that appears to be accurate in some previously under-covered areas such as boomerangs and people associated with the Grateful Dead. Regardless, one little-heard of single, and some minor convictions, I don't think add up to notablity. Niteowlneils 02:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, unless the author or someone else can verify the statement that "Terry Teene wrote and performed the song Pussy Galore for the James Bond thriller Octopussy". If it can't be verified, the article is unreliable and should be deleted. To the best of my recollection, Pussy Galore is a character in Goldfinger, not Octopussy. I don't recall any song about Pussy Galore in Goldfinger. No song by that title is listed on Amazon's track listing for the Octopussy soundtrack. Google searches on "Terry Teene" "Pussy Galore" and "Terry Teene" "Octopussy" yield no hits. By comparison, "Shirley Bassey" Goldfinger" by comparison yields 13,800 hits. Something's wrong here. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: A very compelling VfD nomination with a striking indictment of the article. It seems pretty much like a spoof. Geogre 04:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I've also blanked the page. Having obvious hoaxes freely visible doesn't do much for our credibility. Ambi 13:34, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Beware. This article has several linking to it, and User:Pedant has made many changes to those articles. These changes may also be false information. Clown, Stage name, Ronald McDonald, Dr. Demento, Glenn, Clownzo, George Voorhees. It's not good to have blank articles lying about, so I'm making it a redirect to Hoax until we delete it. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 14:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment. After Chameleon's post, I've been doing a bit of digging, and I'm beginning to suspect this guy might be one of the more clever vandals we've seen. He's added this, and George Voorhees (which I've speedy deleted as another, worse, hoax). Yet he's also made a mix of obviously bad and obviously good contributions, on top of this clear vandalism. Ambi 14:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment That's two articles you've deleted unilaterally there Ambi. How on Earth am I supposed to make a decision if I can't see the supposed problem? Bad, bad Ambi. Let Vfd do its work. The Steve 19:08, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

People have tried to substantiate the articles? How? Using google? The very nature of these folk is that they are somewhat obscure...

ever seen a photograph of Bozo the Clown out of his makeup? NO! you have not, because Bozo, being a syndicated character, does not exist without his makeup. Whatdoes Bozo mean? Can you find that out on the net? Not until it's put there.

Why is "monicker" the preferred clown spelling of moniker?

How do you confirm that?

What is the code of non-infringement?... well pretty much what it sounds like, but what does that mean to a clown?

Why is a clown alley an alley? What is the significance, in terms of status, of being 'on the door' of the alley - to a clown?

Who goes first in the clown car?

the answers to all of these questions arealmost universally known (and important) to clowns, yet almost unavailable to the layman. The answers might not be on the net, but there are answers, and they are verifiable and they areof significance culturally, worldwide, as EVERY culture has some version of the 'clown'

Say YOU were writing an article on the subject, where would you research it? Not on the net, yet in any country of the world there are experts available who could quickly accurately and unambiguously answer those questions, I am one of those people.I can referyou to other, if necessary.

Want to substantiate who was the first live and first tv, ronald mcdonald?

not on the net, and not from mcdonalds, they are very secretive about it, as they have been involved in messy lawsuits about it... including one with george Voorhees that even he can't discuss, but which resultedin an injuntion preventing him from using the character or likeness. It's public record though,someoneableenough to go to the court housecould buy a copy for 6 dollars once they knew the titleof the case... I don't so I didn't mention it,,,

but you can contact willard scott, he will tell you he was the first television ronald mcdonald this can be verified from an archived copy of the mcdonalds website, which I posted alink to, which Icould find if you hadn't deletedit.

and from the 3 ads themselves, which I will happily post if I can get permission. or can email to you if you are interested.

You can note that on the first ad, A child states,"you really are ronald mcdonald!"

Ronald is already a known character before the ad! the first ad!

How? digging further, you find a picture of "Ronald Mcdonald (George Voorhees)entertains his fans at the Grand Opening of a localMcDonald's restaurant"

Why isn't this on mcdonald's site? they have a corporate interest in ronald , and want a younger clown with a more clean cut appearance, the original 2 versions ronald were a little bit 'old' and a little bit 'icky' looking by TV advertising standards of today.

I've seen the costume, saw the newspaper clipping, this is not original research it is a compilation, the willard scott material, at one time, was on the net but apparently you can barely even say McDonald's without cease and desist orders from on high, no matter where you are hosted, so maybe it's not there.

but really? is the wikipedia supposed to be a repository of information of encyclopedic nature? or only things that anyone can find on the web? if the latter is the case, why a wiki at all?

and I have seenshort-lived websites with the geo.voorhees stuff,but I personally haveseen the costume and interviewed both terry teene(who has nevereven tasted beer, he's so moral) and george, additionally there were hundreds of unavailable witnesses.

if it has to be verifiable on the net,then delete Art Carbecause you won'tfind Guitcycle, Eelvisa, or Nevada Car on the net... you won't get a quote from the owner of any of these cars...

What is the World Record longest time in the Fast Catch event in boomeranging? Not on the net,it would take good research just to find that one at all...unless you hadadozen eyewitnesses who all would eagerly tell you the drama a man with two throwing sticks can create in one minute,eightpoint nine seconds, in an event that is supposed to be over in well under 20 seconds. Find that on google.And yetthatrecord has heldandwilllikely hold a long time. 12 years so far.

If its a matterof it being false, well, actually it's true, everything I posted, except one glaring error (goldfinger was the movie, not octopussy, the one Terry Teene wrote pussy galore for (wasn't in the movie,but it's on vinyl)(personally, I'd be quite happy not to see that on wikipedia, I was just transcribing stuff wholesale from my notes. Actually I'd be happy if I never see that word again unless there are are mammals of the species felis involved)

if it is a matter of not being notable, well,it IS, you noted it...

if it is a matter of it not being written well or bad POV, well wiki up, it's open source, my new friend,

if it's just unwelcome material, tell me why, other than 'hoax' 'vandal', patently untrue. You can quite trust that if there is anything untrue in an article I touched, it's likely becauseI haven't read that far. "Like I am still mostly just past the first paragraph of Sovereignty

if it needs to wait until it comes out in my book it will be too late, I won't live that long, and I don't think too many people are left that can tell some of these stories ... should they be lost to history?

The burden of substantiation is on people who contribute material. Many contributors, including myself, don't always substantiate things as well as we should, but when challenged it is the contributor's job to answer the challenge by supplying verifiable information. When an article gives the impression of being fishy, some VfD participants will perform some quick checks, including Googling, as a form of "due diligence" to make sure we don't delete material that is easily verifiable. If the consensus of the discussants, based on our own knowledge and a little rough-and-ready due-diligence research, is that it still looks wrong, out it goes—unless someone—the contributor or someone else—presents information that changes our mind. If you look at VfD discussions, you will see that changes in opinion as the discussion progresses are very common. The reason for the long discussion is to give time for anyone interested to bring evidence to light.

If you wish to prevent the article from being deleted, what you must do is to create a rough consensus among the participants in this discussion. It's very unlikely that you can do this by attacking judgements that have already been made based on the information at hand. The most likely way to change peoples' minds to introduce new, verifiable information.

There's nothing wrong with deleting articles that are accurate but insufficiently. The articles can always be recreated when someone takes the trouble to substantiate them. There's no rush at all on putting things into Wikipedia; we're not trying to scoop anybody.

And we are not a channel for first publication of anything. If you have wonderful material that exists only as oral history, it is not Wikipedia's job to preserve it. You must find some other way of preserving it. Then, in a few years, when we can read books about it, see that people are talking about it on Usenet, etc. if someone then writes an article about it, there will be a basis for accepting it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Beckhauser -- Add to discussion

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

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Beckhauser - Portuguese, probably the sort of genealogical note we usually exclude. -- Jmabel 22:26, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
- (I am portuguese) You are correct. In short: «Beckhauser came to Brazil and made a lot of sons»... Also it is probably advertising to www.beckhauser.com.br. I say delete. --Nabla 21:16, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

Delete: Wikipedia is not a genealogical site. Geogre 04:24, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ditto. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:49, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. For reasons listed above. Skyler 15:48, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neither notable nor encyclopedic. -- Ian Maxwell 05:01, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

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

Alase technologies -- Add to discussion

Advert for non-notable company. 8-900 hits, but most are on kinda google bomb-ish link-farms. Needs move to proper caps if kept for some reason. Niteowlneils 03:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Arrrrg. I shoulda guessed, it's a copyvio, anyway. Gotta go change the tag... Niteowlneils 03:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. It is most definitely a copyright violation. The bottom of the webpage states that its entire content is copyrighted as of 2002. A stub could be started with the standard description on the bottom of all press releases, which is not a copyvio, but unless someone edits it soon, I say delete. Normally would edit myself, but I don't think this company warrants an entry at Wikipedia. Skyler 16:00, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Aside from everything listed about. Its not objectively written and I agree with Skyler1534 100% that the company does not warrant an entry. ScottyBoy900Q 21:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Technosexual -- Add to this discussion

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

The result was Keep.

August 2004 discussion on Votes for deletion

Delete

Delete This article strikes me as fluff, with the external link seeming to have little to do w the subject matter. (rm'd unnecessary comment) Sam [Spade] 03:45, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: The article is another neologism, and it has a "see also" section with other neologisms. I'm sure that someone can be aroused by tools, but this seems like original research. Geogre 04:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. While the 4,000 Google results are probably an exaggeration of the term's scope, the topic is nonetheless a valid one: some generally agreed-upon definition does exist. —No-One Jones 13:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The presence of an accepted definition does not warrant its inclusion in an encyclopedia, rather it might be support for it going in a dictionary. This article needs substance. - Centrx 17:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Idiotic neologism dicdef. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:49, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Cribcage 14:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. The external link leads to a website that promotes technosexuality. The man who created this website redefined the term 'technosexual.' If this article, which has been edited to remove reduntant and plagiarized content, is deleted because it seems "fluffy," the Metrosexual article should deleted as well according to this new standard... Loremaster 15:24, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Metrosexual" unfortunately has enough stupid people saying it for us to be forced to have a stupid article about it. "Technosexual" has not gathered enough twits yet. Neither word actually refers to anything in the real world. Some people just think the words sound cool. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 15:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See my two folllowing entries below. Loremaster 16:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The substance of the metrosexual article is from discussing its popularity and publicization in the media. The term itself, however, is not uniquely substantiated; it is much like dandy and fop and would properly belong in an article that includes all such terms if not for this fad. Unless it is demonstrated that there is some substance to the term technosexual, by adding such substance to the article, technosexual should be deleted. - Centrx 17:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, neologism dicdef. I had heard of "metrosexual" before seeing it on Wikipedia. The same is SO not true of "technosexual", and since I work for a dot com in Silicon Valley, I think I'd be one of the first to hear it if it was in common usage (my co-workers go on regular 'field trips' to ogle the goodies at Frys Electronics). Actually, I'd nuke cyberprep as well--to quote from that article, "Cyberprep...is a seldomly-used term..."--then why do we have it? Niteowlneils 16:00, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If encyclopedias only contained terms that were used often, they would be very small and sometimes useless. The term 'cyberprep' is mentioned in many cyberpunk role-playing game sourcebooks so I have edited out that comment from the article. Loremaster 16:56, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From AlterNet: Enter the Technosexual Although it seems like a made up word just to give the "M" word some competition, Montalvo didn't invent the technosexual. As far back as the 1970s, fetishists and intellectuals have equated the term with robo-rumbustication. Or, as defined by the Alt.Sex.Fetish.Robots FAQ, "Technosexuality is a word used to get away from the oft-confusing acronym, A.S.F.R., which refers to the sexual interest in machines, robots, androids, gynoids and other sexual devices not really occurring in real life." Based on this reported fact, I strongly conclude that the Technosexual article should NOT be deleted. On the contrary, it should be expanded. Loremaster 16:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep: As idiotic as it may sound, the word already spread into Turkish; some popular Turkish magazines have published extensive articles on "technosexual" and a Google search on the Turkish word "teknoseksüel" reveals some, though few results. There is already an entry in Urban Dictionary. Obviously it is currently a stub, but I am sure it can be expanded into a good full-blown article.--leandros 22:04, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep: It's a dictionary definition with some potential. While I completely agree with Chameleon about it being a stupid word, that's not our problem. It seems to be attracting people to use it just like metrosexual, and if that happens we need to document it. If it dies out quickly (which is admittedly likely, as most of those google hits pointed to the linked site) it could be revoted upon. Rico 23:32, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I hate neologisms like this, but even I will have to admit that metrosexual is notable. I'm not convinced that "technosexual" shares this notability (in English, not Turkish), and in any case, what we have now is nothing but a dicdef. At best, it should be transwikied to the Wiktionary, but that's assuming there's more to this word than its obvious definition. I doubt there is. --Ardonik 05:46, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Keep. It's a word and if metrosexual merits a place on Wikipedia so does technosexual. Also see: http://www.wordspy.com/words/technosexual.asp. Don't transwiki, this can be expanded! -SocratesJedi 07:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Dmn 15:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tentative Keep. While I do think it is a stupid word and strongly question the ability to turn this into encyclopedic content, there are a whole range of technical words that are not well-known, but still can merit an entry. Examples may be a whole range of the -phobia's and -pheliac's. If someone is able to expand this into a more relevant article with some actual information, I think it should be kept. If no one has expanded on it in, say, 1 or 2 months, I think it should be put up for vote again. Skyler 01:55, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Concur- it's a silly idea, but a real one, and probably noteworthy & widespread enough to merit an article. Keep. -FZ 12:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The -phobia's and the -pheliac's can warrant articles by reason of medicine and known symptoms, treatments, etc. or they should properly be merged if there are many with similar pathologies. Technosexual, however, is no medical term and there is no substance in the article. - Centrx 17:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete - Tεx τ urε 15:30, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wiktionary (where they can decide if they want to keep this neologism or not). Rossami 13:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a relatively old neologism. The article should be expanded instead. Loremaster 17:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep and expand the article. I actually know a guy on IRC who purports to be a technosexual and as such I had heard of this before reading of it on Wikipedia. I don't think the article really defines it properly, though. Andre 08:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep does need to be expanded. --Vik-Thor 03:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Notes for two of the biggest arguments brought forth: 1) that there is an accepted usage of the word does not warrant the inclusion of the word in an encyclopedia. Some substance that is appropriate to an encyclopedia, that is not redundant, and that does not properly belong in another article like "gender role" or "abnormal sexual attractions", must be added to the article in order to provide some reason for keeping it. 2) The presence of the metrosexual article does not indicate that technosexual should be included. The metrosexual article is included because of the high use in the media and popular recognition and use. Metrosexual contains almost no neutral, non-sourced information about so-called "metrosexuality" and is almost entirely devoted to its popularity in the media. Without this fame and the media information, that article would properly be deleted. - Centrx 17:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Taking everyone's comments into account, I will work to expand this stub with susbstance appropriate to an encyclopedia as soon as possible. Loremaster 19:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Carlos Barnett -- Add to this discussion

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

Delete, Vanity. -- Jmabel 04:05, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Delete tentatively: The page is very, very new. I may change my vote if it shows improvement, as it is possible that the author has much to say and takes some time in translating it into English. What is in the article at present, however, is vanity/CV/attempted user page. Geogre 04:28, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Hasn't gained or lost a word in 2 days. Take away the "tentative" from my delete vote, and the scolding tone from my comment. (We are fast, necessarily, with VfD's.) Geogre 13:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's a resumé in Spanish. Vanity's vanity. --Ardonik 05:40, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. --Ianb 15:53, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. See previous comments. Skyler 01:59, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Same. --STLEric 02:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality 00:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete --Vik-Thor 03:29, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Freeipods.com -- Add to this discussion

Somebody doesn't like this website. Rick K 04:44, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, it looks like they don't like it, otoh, though, it all seems verifiable and not to far off NPOV, though could perhaps use some tidying. As for notable, I've seen lots of advertisements for it. So what's the reason for deleting it? For now, Keep. Someone posting negative stuff about something that is uniquely bad isn't POV, it's just true.--Samuel J. Howard 05:15, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
- We really can't keep an article that attacks a website that hasn't been involved in legal actions. RickK 05:26, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
  - Why can't we?--Samuel J. Howard 18:58, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
    - You do understand the Neutral point of view, don't you?
Difficult: They make a compelling case and link to the US Federal watchlists on the scam in general, so it's informative rather than a rant. I'll say that we should delete it, but not because it's an attack. For one thing, I think that, other than "classic pyramid scheme" (which could be neutralized just by saying, "may be" or "some critics have called it"), it's not really a rant. Instead, I vote delete because it's a site review and/or a consumer protection argument. Geogre 12:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- But it's not opinion, but fact about a site that seems to be fairly notable (through prolific advertising granted). It's at least a good example of its type.--Samuel J. Howard 18:58, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I don't think there are substantial POV problems. I also think that folks ought to be warned about this spammer. I don't think that a stand-alone works, though, because of our prohibition on reviews and web guides. Would it be possible to have a discussion of the questionable value of this site in one of the articles on the scam? E.g. could this article, in a slightly condensed form, be "Examples" or "Current examples" of matrix scheme? Geogre 13:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
FreeiPods.com is a legitamate matrix scheme. It has been proven to work. Check this out for more info: [1]. Keep. 24.58.46.3 14:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- a legit matrix scheme?? Did you read the article matrix scheme that you linked to, it says that they are of "questionable legality".--Samuel J. Howard 18:58, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Not notable. Spam. Delete with extreme prejudice. - Brisby 04:02, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Even if the heart of the article is in the right place, we should still delete this article, since it encourages spam. I just delivered a warning message to User:24.186.133.51 earlier today since he was spamming both Freeipods.com and iPod with links to the freeipods.com website. These spammers and their websites do not even deserve the dignity of a mention in our work. --Ardonik 05:37, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
Although it's likely a scam, it's still quite notable. Just about every web forum I've visited has had posts related to this thing, and I've referred in some of my forum replies to this wikipedia article to try to convince folks not to participate. According to Alexa, it has a current traffic rank of 3838 (slashdot has 2164) and a reach rank of 2546. Keep --NeuronExMachina 20:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but encyclopedic content means something to me. One thing that I find important for something to be of encyclopedic content is that it must be able to stand the test of time. It is a warning of a scheme. Is it a valid warning? It sounds like it. Is it an important message? Probably. Is it notable? Some seem to think so. But if the website/scheme goes away tomorrow, will the article still have any meaning? In my opinion, no. If it goes to court or the FTC takes strong legal action setting precedent, I would reconsider this opinion as those facts may be relevant for making it a good example of a scheme and the consequences. But as it stands now, I say delete due to lack of encyclopedic content. Skyler 02:13, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Tεx τ urε 15:31, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep Rhymeless 05:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. While rational and based on some facts, the article is mostly opinion/warning that will not stand the test of time. If cut back to only the encyclopedic content, it would be deleted as non-notable. We already have plenty of good articles warning of the dangers of spam, pyramid schemes, etc. Rossami 13:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete regretfully. A worthy cause, but not encyclopedic. Bishonen 17:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Postdlf 03:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Strong Delete- Spam. Balatant Spam. -MegamanZero 15:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Farber -- Add to this discussion

Vanity. "Self-styled" indeed. --Shibboleth 04:44, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: J. Random Teacher at a high school who has designated himself a sociologist who works on "C-changes?" "Those are pearls that were his eyes/ Nothing of him that doth fade/ But doth suffer a C-change," as Shakespeare wrote (Ariel talking about coding a new cyborg of Ferdinand's father, no doubt played by Arnold). Geogre 17:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity page. IP scan of user verifies location in Massachusetts. Goobergunch 17:40, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Ianb 15:51, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC), self-styled anti-vanityologist
Delete. Vanity and/or simple lack of notability. Skyler 02:15, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, but we can delete vanity pages without making fun of them, I hope. (No offense, Geogre.) Even though this article is written in the 3rd person--as if about somebody else--I always worry that we're merely seeing a newbie attempt to create a userpage or subpage, and that the person might come to read the things said about him/her on VdF. Apparently it's not uncommon to write one's userpage in the 3rd person on the German Wikipedia, for example, and German speaker might bring this custom along when trying to create a userpage here. Bishonen, who mistakenly created a subpage as an article a week ago, but fortunately nobody put it up on VdF 18:25, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: In this case, I felt that I, anyway, sought to "lash the vice but not the man," as someone said. The person is an American teacher, and it seemed self-aggrandizing. I do not want to turn away potential users (indeed, a function of VfD, to me, is to ensure usable content so that people aren't turned away), but the entry set me too much on edge with its malapropism on Shakespeare. Geogre 18:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Whatever the intentions of the author, it is NOT a user-page - so it must go: Delete Giano 06:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yelf -- Add to this discussion

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

Stubby history of a non-notable family name. Rick K 05:08, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: belongs in m:GlobalFamilyTree if anything (if and when that project begins). My opinion is the same for all these not-particularly-notable families and family names that are cropping up. TPK 11:50, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: We're not a genealogy project. It needs to be fleshed out a bit before really being contributory on the Family Tree project, I'd guess. Saying that it's a Danelaw family that went forth and was fruitful is nebulous to the point of meaninglessness. Geogre 12:18, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Either move it to another area or get rid of it altogether, but it doesn't seem particularly noteworthy or interesting to anyone other than someone with that particular last name. Not Wikipedia material. Skyler 03:05, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete --Vik-Thor 03:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic. -- Ian Maxwell 05:05, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

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

Arghoslent -- Add to this discussion

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

Obscure heavy metal band, appears to be neo-nazi [2]. Delete with extreme prejudice. --Shibboleth 05:36, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No entry at all music guide, nor ultimate band list delete Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:58, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Oh, it's a two-for-one: death metal and third reich 'n roll. Not notable, link spam. Geogre 12:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete this nazi spam. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Noteworthy and/or encyclopedic content? Skyler 03:06, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Argh indeed. Delete. Postdlf 03:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Skitching -- Add to this discussion

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

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

Skateboarding NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Skateboarding, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Skateboarding on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkateboardingWikipedia:WikiProject SkateboardingTemplate:WikiProject Skateboardingskateboarding

NA

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

WikiProject Skateboarding to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Cooper Wilt, 5boro Skateboards, Adrianne Sloboh, AntiHero Skateboards, Aidan Mackey, Gino Iannucci, SKATEISM
Citing sources : Grabs (skateboarding)
Cleanup : Leo Baker (skateboarder), Flip trick, Aerial (skateboarding), Maloof Money Cup, Footedness, Nyjah Huston, Na-Kel Smith, Harold Hunter, Terry Kennedy (skateboarder), Ishod Wair
Expand : Category:Skateparks (please see talk page), Cliché Skateboards, Jason Dill, Krooked Skateboards, Patrick O'Dell,
Infobox : Template:Infobox sportsperson (add to skateboarder biography articles)
Maintain : Skateboarding brands (subject of regular vandalism)
Photo : Category:Wikipedia requested images of skateboarding

From VfD:

From VfD:

From the random pages. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 05:33, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC) moved from main page

Keep. At the very least, a somewhat useful stub. I revised it to bring it more in-line with guidelines. The name should probably be verified, however. --Slowking Man 09:21, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Keep: A particularly stupid pastime that does exist. See this Google search, (there are even some pictures for you). TPK 11:48, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Still, Wikipedia does seem to be one-stop shopping for ways to, as one reviewer said, win the Darwin Awards. The practice is common, sort of, and the term is widespread, so we keep. Geogre 12:12, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If we keep it, then it should go to the Wiktionary under "skitch." Wikipedia is not a dictionary. However, I'd rather not have this neologism anywhere; it's just a stupid (NPOV my foot; it really is stupid) practice with 1,940 google hits, the first few of which describe how a yound Canadian named Daniel Peterson died doing it. How...encyclopedic. --Ardonik 05:30, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
neologism, slang, dicdef... sounds like a regional (Canadian?) thing. Delete after transwikify-ing, unless someone comes up with evidience of, say, a National Skitching Championships ("Sponsored by the Federation of Untertakers") or something. --Ianb 22:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Possible move to Wiktionary. It is actually a common word/occurrence relating to anyone who lives in a high-traffic area (usually the city) and rides a bicycle, skateboard, or rollerblades. I can't think of an appropriate way to make it fit for an entry of encyclopedic content, but it definitely is a valid entry for a dictionary as slang. So keep, but strongly consider moving. Skyler 03:12, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
The practice has been around since the invention of the bicycle. This, however, is a neologism. Delete. Consider offering it to Wiktionary. Rossami 13:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The term is not THAT new a neologism; I recall it being used in multiple Tony Hawk Playstation games, so I suspect it's in fair currency in the skateboarding scene and others. —Morven 01:09, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Not a Neologism, not a Canadian regionalism; I used the term (and performed the act) as a child in '70s New York. I know of people who've used the term (and performed the act) in Chicago, Minnesota, Philly & more, over the past 50 years. Freddiefreelance (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

end moved discussion

From Dancomono:

From Dancomono:

Regardless of where it belongs, why on earth is the snow or ice variant mentioned as the primary? None of the pop culture references mention anything about skitching without a skateboard or bike (okay, and hoverboard). These should be flipped at least, or the ice skitching might be removed altogether unless evidence of it existing can be proved.

"(B or not B) is true" is _not_ information

The skitched vehicle can either be aware of their load or unaware.
When the skitcher is discovered by a previously unaware driver, the driver's reaction is sometimes negative, sometimes positive.

The expression "well, duh" is the first that comes to mind in reaction to these revelations 195.8.88.197 23:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While (B or not B) is not information, I get the impression from these sentences that neither situation is typical. If generally skitchers had some kind of "code" where they let the drivers know ahead of time, that would be notable - for example, I think that in Locksport there is a cultural proscription against picking locks that don't belong to you. It can be useful information to say that there is no general rule - though it might be better to reword these examples to illustrate that they are saying that neither option is the general case. 24.7.67.75 (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skitching Ski/hitching. Not skate, bike hitching or otherwise

Ski/hitching (skitching) on a tube would be called tubing behind a car. A bike grabbing the side of a car in NYC surely wouldn't be ski/hitching (skitching) due to the absence of snow. Roller blades and Skateboards surely wouldn't be able to ski/hitch (skitch) either.

No skateboard, bike, rollerblade, inner tube, sled or any other variant people seem to want to include should be associated with this activity/sport. I have lived in both Colorado and Rhode Island in the 70s/80s. All of the skaters/roller bladers I hung out with in both places never called hitching a ride on a car Skitching. It was simply hitching a ride. I knew people from all over the US who skated and traveled all over for demos. I first heard the term skitching in the 90s when I worked in Boston. It was a common term for grabbing a car in the Winter and getting dragged. I grew up skating and read Thrasher and other magazines. I watched many skater movies as well. They all showed kids grabbing the side or rear of a car. Never was the term skitching used.

Skitching is absolutely specific. It's a stupid, way to have some fun with no sled, tube, skateboard........That's what makes it so unique. Your feet are the skis. I'm sure people ski/hitch "skitch" wherever there is snow and pavement all over the world. Seems like a NewEngland term and should be honored on Wikipedia. I'm sure the term is used outside NewEngland as well since the originators have dispersed and now have skitchers of their own.

Snow boarding isn't called skiing on one wide ski. Roller blading isn't called roller skating. Snowboarding on pavement would surely have its own term if it became popular and wouldn't include snow in its title (tarboarding). I hope this helps illustrate my point. Lumping all forms of hitching onto a car under the term skitching doesn't allow each variant to have its own specific classification and slanders the term skitching altogether. There are no other "forms" of skitching. Barefoot water skiing is the closest thing to skitching there is and is called barefoot water skiing I think. Maybe someone will eventually call it water skitching- which would actually be acceptable in my opinion.

I welcome anyone who wishes to revise, edit, and return skitching to its origins and true meaning, even if it shrinks to a paragraph or two of info. No "other forms of skitching" PLEASE!

69.207.161.88 (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skitching app

http://evernote.com/skitch/ will definitely lead a lot more people to the definition of skitching, so sorting out the term's true meaning is extremely time sensitive. Maybe the app is in violation already for using this term to label their product. 69.207.161.88 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of term

I grew up in Dollard des Ormeaux, Quebec, and we called it "skitching" -- and I did it -- in the late 1960s. I'm sorry, the section on origins assigning it to Laconia, New Hampshire is completely WP:OR. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-phi -- Add to this discussion

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

Neologism coined by an "as-yet unpublished" author. SWAdair | Talk 05:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Has little to no potential to grow if the supposed works in this subgenre don't exist yet in published form. --Slowking Man 09:13, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. Andrewa 11:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you think about it, a lot of sci-fi probably falls under this definition, but, it's an unheard-of neologism, so Delete I say. TPK 11:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It's a good neologism or critical observation, and I hope its creator writes a serious article on the subject for one of the literary Science Fiction magazines. However, it does not seem to have currency. Geogre 12:10, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, neologism. Google returns 4,100 hits, some of which deal with a record label of that name. Goobergunch 17:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism and simply unnecessary. Skyler 03:15, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality 00:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

First Bible Stories -- Add to this discussion

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

This entry consists of three somewhat POV lines giving publishing details of a non-notable children's book published by Backpack Books in 2003, plus a list of chapter headings. I reckon it's an advertisement. After trying various combinations, I found the same title+ISBN at barnesandnoble.com, where the year is given as 2002 and the editor named as "The Staff of Barnes & Noble" (!)--a different edition, a different book? I found no trace of a Backpack Books issue of the title in 2003 (excepting always the good old Wikipedia article googlehit), but then searching is a bit hampered by First Bible Stories, as such, being all over the place. (Hey, maybe we need an article on this category of children's books?) In any case, I suggest delete as advertising.--Bishonen 08:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Object. This is no more an ad than any other stub about a book. Temp Tom 08:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- This presumably is the author whose contributions include removing the vfd notice from the page (a big no-no). Suggest the author goes to welcome, newcomers. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:02, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - No, the original author appears to be User:AntonioMartin. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:04, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- ignore this vote. sockpuppet acct. --Jia ng 10:48, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - advert. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:02, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence that the book is in any way notable. Andrewa 10:49, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: non-notable: how many bible-story books can there be anyway? Do we need the Bible rehashed as a chapter list in articles for them all? TPK 11:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete & start again: ~~The trouble with making a clear delete strike here is that this particular title belongs not not one book. There are many, many books in the genre, and more than one has taken this title.~~ As Bishonen says, an article like Children's Bibles or similar could mention notable titles and discuss somewhat how this genre began. ~~Before there were fictions for children (1749), there were children's Bible stories.~~ Geogre 12:03, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Not advertisement as I dont go for that, real book, not POV, and I find it interesting so someone else must too. "Antonio Yo Quiero Sexo Bell! Martin"
- But, Antonio, how can anybody find the book interesting as long as the article doesn't tell us anything interesting about it? The interestingness doesn't do the reader any good if it stays in your head. Put it in the article. Bishonen Quiere Sexy Antonio Martin 14:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ambi 01:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Honestly, have you seen any other articles that were nothing but chapter lists? I mean, don't you want the Wikipedia to be a good encyclopedia? How does an article like that help? --Ardonik 05:23, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
Delete. I thought I was going to read something about the J and E stories of the documentary hypothesis, and instead all I saw was this... Fire Star 15:09, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment I wanted to vote "delete." I was ready to vote "delete." I applied my own notability test, which is that the Amazon sales rank exceed 0.5 * the number of articles in Wikipedia (i.e. greater than 160,000). It's not sold by Amazon. It is sold by http://www.bn.com . Barnes and Noble gives it a "Barnes and Noble sales rank" of 7,725. This needs to be explained somehow. Maybe the Barnes and Noble brick-and-mortar stores have it stacked high on a table near the checkout line. Or maybe it ranks 7,725 among illustrated religious books for children. I don't know. I don't move in Christian-kiddy-lit circles. If nobody can explain this sales rank away, I'm open to the possibility that this might actually be a genuinely notable book. The article is still unacceptably full of promotional and POV language. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'll have a shot at explaining it away, Dpbsmith, even though I can't find any actual sales figures to use in illustration, and I'm very sorry for boring everybody. But this is the principle: I don't think a bn sales rank of 7,725 for a book published by bn means that much. See, this book doesn't just happen to not be stocked by Amazon. The reason it's not available through Amazon is that it's a bn book, produced by bn, sold by bn and noone else. Since real book sales figures seem to be a big secret, I'll just make up a reasonable example, based on the fact that although bn is a big outfit, compared to Amazon it's small potatoes. Say that bn sells 10 books where Amazon sells 100. OK? Now say that First Bible Stories (ed. bn) and Kiddy Bible (ed. anon) are both reasonably popular, each selling 10,000 copies/year. Kiddy Bible is sold everywhere, so out of those 10,000, 8,000 copies are sold through Amazon, 800 through bn, and the remaining 1,200 copies through Christianbooks.com and other outlets. On the other hand, out of the 10,000 annual copies testifying to the equal popularity of First Bible Stories, every single one is sold through bn. OK? Now look at the resulting bn sales ranks for the two books:

Kiddy Bible: 800 copies. Rank: 456,789

First Bible Stories: Wow, 10,000 copies! Rank: 7,725

Talk about outranking! And, always keeping in mind that this is a book published by bn, the table near the check-out line sounds good too.--Bishonen 19:02, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Besides the table at the door, don't forget price: sold-only-by-publisher means that the marketing expenses are zilch; combine this with either public-domain/copyright-expired content, or a labor-of-love text by a vanity author (50 bible stories in the re-imagined style of the one the missing parent read in the fragmentary memory of a sole (warm?) interaction before disappearing forever?!), and the publisher-retailer can run off 10,000 copies on their own presses on the day they would otherwise be idle because of, say, a temporary injunction against a borderline-libelous memoir, without changing other schedules. Those 10K can be quickly sold at a ridiculously low price (making a razor-thin profit margin) by making them look like an incredible bargain. The result is a big seller no more notable than the test marketing of 10K boxes of a non-starter breakfast cereal with, say, marshmallows in the shape of the star of a cartoon that sank without a trace in the first weekend. --Jerzy(t) 16:57, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
- Considering casting a "Keep" vote: Aren't all cereals and cartoons notable?! --NoddaZogBubbid

Delete. I think Ardonik said it best. Skyler 03:19, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Del. Not notable. --Jerzy (t) 16:57, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable in the slightest. Postdlf 03:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Sheraton City Tower -- Add to this discussion

Delete, not notable, or explain why it is notable. Pud 11:01, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep: There is precedent for skyscrapers having articles at Tall buildings in London. There are also a number of very active skyscraper-enthusiast groups around the world, so there would be interest in these articles, in my opinion, irregardless of how notable the structure is in general. This article is just a stub: there is bound to be more information that can be added to it (although I don't pretend to know any of it myself); but I have planned to create articles for Australian skyscrapers, and I know that there is a lot of information available on these, even the relatively small ones. Keep it as a valid stub. A skyscraper, unlike a not-particularly-notable person for example, is something that can be know to a very large group of people. I think I'm rambling, but you've got my vote, anyway... TPK 11:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I like sky scrapers too. Where i live, however, this would not a notable building. But then I guess that is a POV. Pud 12:12, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't seem notable to me. Delete this stub unless greatly expanded — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I'm for the project and its work, but I don't think this building is really especially remarkable as a tall building. I would also like to point out that "Sheraton City" is present in a number of places, and there are multiple Sheraton City Towers. Geogre 17:32, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Notability? Do we really want the name and brief description of every large building as part of Wikipedia? Skyler 03:22, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
- I'd say only if they're notable in terms of architectural, cultural or political importance. If an article can do more than just give its height, on the other hand, then it doesn't appear to be significant. 'Delete' unless the article is revised to explain why it is notable. Average Earthman 11:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Template:Todo1, Template:Todo9 -- Add to this discussion

Template:Todo1 and Template:Todo9 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep (for now)

Template:Todo1 and Template:Todo9 seem redundant with Template:Todo; it's unclear how they might be useful.

Delete. --Eequor 08:37, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep for now. The To-do facility is still in its infancy. Let's keep working on it in Template_talk:Todo. Pcarbonn can probably explain what these are for. -- Netoholic 08:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hang on for a while. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Fruculence -- Add to this discussion

From Fruculence: This phrase was coined in 2002 by Dr. Andrew Bowman-Finney, PhD, who holds the Rollofze Chair in Human Resources in the Department of Management and Organizations at the University of Iowa's Henry B. Tippie School of Business. Zero Google hits. -- Pjacobi 13:00, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: If it has caught on in HR departments, we can't find evidence. Otherwise, the word is a synonymn for "prolix, productive, fertile" and isn't really a needed neologism, so catching on is going to be difficult. Geogre 13:53, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
delete Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:02, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: fabrication. There is a Dept of Management and Organizations at U Iowa, but there is no Rollofze Chair and no Andrew Bowman-Finney [3]. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:33, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Read "Rollofze Chair" aloud, preferably in a mock-Nazi-cum-SS-commander accent if you're still not convinced.
- D'oh! And we have another Rollof*.* above with another fake article. Hmm, patterns emerging or coincidence? (If you have fruculence, you'll rollofze chair.) Geogre 01:30, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete patent nonsense by User:216.51.227.202, who is evidently getting a kick out of wasting other people's time. --Ardonik 05:17, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
I've managed to stay in my chair long enough to vote to delete. Fire Star 15:11, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wouldn't this be a candidate for a speedy deletion? Obviously delete. Skyler 11:27, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Brad Spitz -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brad Spitz

Atomic Vortex Theory -- Add to this discussion

(William M. Connolley 13:04, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Just looks like somesones pet wacky theory.

Quote: Atomic Vortex Theory has received very little critical attention or reviews. When pursued upon the world wide web it is apparent that the theory has been mostly latched onto by various “fringe” groups (I.e. free energy, vortex sites) which has likely tended to dissuade critical evaluation. Let the scientific community get on with their job of doing the science, let us get on with the job of documenting the paradigms. Let's not let the nutters write NPOV articles on silly pet theories. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
delete -- Jmabel 15:47, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Delete non-notable Timecubery. —No-One Jones 15:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: 2nd hand research. It's interesting that it attempts to separate itself from quack users, and yet it offers no scientific peer review or use. Geogre 17:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Doesn't belong on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research. --Slowking Man 22:05, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I did a search of a comprehensive journal database and was not able to find anything relating to this. Without published findings, I would have to call this original research is violation of Wikipedia:No original research policy. If it becomes published, it can be put up for review again by the original author. Skyler 14:39, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Image:TrangBang.jpg -- Add to this discussion

Image:TrangBang.jpg was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the image is kept. It should be noted, however, that several specific legal questions were raised during this dicussion. The Votes For Deletion process is a consensus-building process designed for making policy and editorial decisions about encyclopedic content. The decision reached by the VfD process should not be considered binding on any future decisions specifically addressing the legal issues involved. Rossami 07:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep

Delete

(permission verbally denied by API NY)

Abstain or Ambiguous vote

Image:TrangBang.jpg

This image is clearly copyrighted by the AP. See here for proof of that fact. People argue it's fair-use. It's not our place to argue these sort of things. Terms state clearly that copyrighted material is not to be submitted. ~~Delete~~ ASAP. — マイケル ₪ 16:26, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
- After extensive discussion on the Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List, I've decided to retract my vfd. Keep — マイケル ₪ 21:42, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. A lightning rod for legal problems. WP's claim to using this photo is uncertain at best; I don't see any good reason for leaving solid ground for a legal morass. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree (delete). This image is obviously still under copyright, and the people you see using it have either paid for it (BBC) or are using it illegally (everyone else, including the person or people who keeps putting it back.) I also do not think it is a good example of strategic bombing. This would really fall more under a tactical scope. And the origin of the incident in question is in doubt, as well. -Joseph 17:01, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
No, the photographer is not supposed to make money off it every time it is used. US law never grants the photographer a monopoly over fair use of a work, so no license or payment is required for any fair use.Jamesday 03:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is not fair use. See below. -Joseph 22:39, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Keep. Fair use. One of hundreds of images currently posted in articles of similar status. 172 18:24, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How is it fair use? Can you prove it? Just because they have it doesn't make it so. A photo being famous doesn't automatically make it public domain, or even fair use. This was a newswire or magazine photo, right? That makes the photo the property of the photographer, publisher, etc., and he is supposed to garner money off of it every time it is used. So unless he or his agent gave you permission, it is verboten. Furthermore, here is the link you can use to purchase the photograph in question on behalf of Wikipedia, if you choose. [4] -Joseph 19:51, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

???: I brought up this question initially. I have no opinion on the matter. I respect the copyright law and the effort to which AP went to get the photo, and I see the fair use argument as presented by Jamesday on Image_talk:TrangBang.jpg. I am not as concerned as マイケル ₪ about the violation of Wikipedia's terms (namely the text on the checkbox) because there are a great many fair use images on Wikipedia, for which none has received permission, but I am not entirely clear that Jamesday's argument falls squarely in the "fair use permitted" court, perhaps because I'm not a copyright lawyer (or any other kind, for that matter). If AP asked us (insisting, no doubt, in a letter from their lawyer) to remove the photo, I'm certain we would comply rather than fight it in court, but that situation has not arisen. (Then again, how many other AP photos do we have? - perhaps we should get a subscription to their wire photos, but then what would that do to our photo license terms?) -- ke4roh 21:40, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Who are we to decide for the entire wikipedia community what is legal? We aren't lawyers. If anyone is a real copyright laywer, please step forward with your expertise. What happens when AP sues us for copyright infringment? It won't matter if we remove the image, they could still pile of tons on court fees. I don't think it is our decision to make on what the wikimedia foundation can pay for in legal fees. I think this is a serious issue that should be brought up the whole wikipedia community, especially the board of trustees. — マイケル ₪ 21:56, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

To me, this is simple. We're breaking copyright law in the U.S. and likely other countries, and there's no way anyone can deny it. The only choice is to a) hope AP gives us permission to use the image (unlikely) b) pay for it (with what funds?) or c) delete it. Photographs do not fall under "fair use" -- only texts or audioclips do, and even then, only excerpts, and under certain circumstances. Corporate logos do, when used in a relevant article, but this is not a relevant article. But also, the photo in question is the result of a tactical operation, when the article is about strategic operations. I appreciate the effort of whomever to try to present the horrors of war, but if there was an article labeled "Tactical bombing" or "Incendiary bombing," perhaps that would be more appropriate. -Joseph 22:04, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Since the use is fair, there is no copyright infringement. All copyrightable works qualify for fair use and there is no prohibition on using all of a work (or a reduced size and resolution version such as the one at hand here) if that is what is required for the purpose. Jamesday 03:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The only parties potentially liable are the uploader and those who place the image in an article (because their use in each article must be a fair use). The Wikipedia itself is protected by both the Communications Decency Act and the OCILLA. The issue has already been considered many times by the community here - en accepts fair use and urges replacement with better images as they become available. This is an image case where I'd be very inclined to recommend to the board that we do defend the right to make fair use of a work. You might also want to review the recent mailing list discussion when the British National Portrait Gallery sent a notice inquiring about the status of two images of works in its collection to see how the community might react to bogus claims of infringement. You also appear to under-estimate that and the quality of the free legal advice we'd have available to us in such a case. Jamesday 03:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. If someone would bother reading the Strategic Bombing article, they would discover that the picture is in reference to the events that kept the United States from conducting a strategic bombing campaign. As for Fair Use, the picture itself is one of the images most indelibly marked on the Western Consciousness from Vietnam. The author does not seem to object to the image's use. The picture is used in numerious other places. So, the image is historically significant and it is used in a manner that appreciates that. It also is used elsewhere, and in an image quality that does not cause any lose to the photographer. So it is clearly fair use. Therefore, I believe that N327KF's objection has less to do with the image or its' copywrite status, and more to do with some desire to whitewash the United States' involvement in Vietnam. Stargoat 23:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, clearly you are skilled at figuring out what I am thinking! </sarcasm> That aside, you just dodged the copyright issue, what you believe I might or might not believe is irrelevant to the issue as it corresponds to Wikipedia. I just said that it might be better placed in another article. Napalm is not used in strategic operations, it is used in tactical operations. Therefore, I believe it's placement in the article is incorrect. If you do want to keep it, throw it in a new article specifically related to such operations–and it's clearly used in other articles. So my objections are just a) copyright issues b) placement within this particular article. -Joseph 23:37, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Napalm is simply a weapon. The nature of the operation determines whether it's use is strategic or not. Generally wasn't used for strategic targets in Vietnam - may be now, against biological weapons targets. Jamesday 03:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep, and delete the userpage of the copyright paranoid person who listed this. -S V 02:00, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Beg pardon? The guy who listed this is trying to protect wikipedia. Please, let's show more civility than this. -- orthogonal 13:40, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with this simplistic and insulting-to-our-intelligence characterisation. "protection" and "defense" are flagwords for "censorship" and "pov attack" - they user is most likely advocating the deletion of the image for political reasons, and hence POV reasons. -S V 03:46, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. The reasons given for deletion aren't valid - policy here does not prohibit the uploading of copyrighted works and the Wikipedia itself isn't liable for any infringement in the event that an uploader gets it wrong. If someone has a better image to illustrate the political considerations behind US bombing choices in Vietnam, of course, that's certainly welcome. Will be really hard to do better than this one, though, because it had considerable impact. Will also be really hard to replace it as an illustration of the famous work of the photographer, another place where it is used and its use is clearly fair. Jamesday 03:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"policy here does not prohibit the uploading of copyrighted works?!" What have you been smoking? Have you not read any of the messages the wikipedia puts up when you edit an article or upload an image? This is the message I am getting from the wikipedia right now when I edit this page "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" This is the message I get when I try and upload a file "I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." I'd say that contradicts your statement that policy doesn't prohibit uploading copyrighted works. Either that, or we have a policy that we don't follow up on with our statements... In either case, something needs to change here. — マイケル ₪ 21:10, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

"I affirm that the copyright holder of this file agrees to license it under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright". Wikipedia copyright links to Wikipedia:Copyrights which specifically includes fair use uploads. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just removed this image from Wikipedia:Copyright Problems after it had been considered there for a month. Jamesday 03:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(This should have gone to Wikipedia:IfD, but what the hey.) Keep, emphatically keep. Even the most cursory web search turns up a large number of webpages that are using the exact same photo, and infringing on copyright in the exact same way:

This is a historic photo that opened many people's eyes to the realities of warfare in Vietnam. If other sites have the courage to show this, then why shouldn't we? Are we so petty? Would anyone have a problem with the image if it were a clothed adult in a similar state of suffering? --Ardonik 04:56, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Which part of illegal do you not understand? -Joseph 05:03, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Years ago, I discussed the image in high school history class. My teacher didn't get permission from the AP to display the picture, either. Come off it. --Ardonik 06:00, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Classroom use gets the most liberal interpretation of fair use there is. Showing almost any image in a classroom ==> fair use. Distributing copies for a course ==> dodgy, but for a single image I've never heard of anyone pursuing it. Placing on the Internet specific to use for some class ==> Much dodgier, especially if you don't meta-tag your page "no robots", and you might lose in court if anyone ever bothered to sue you but if it was only up there temporarily for the time it was discussed in class, might be fair use. Posting in an encyclopedia, intended to endure indefinitely, well publicized, open to search engines? Implying that anyone within the bounds of GFDL can also use it? If I were the owner of the image, and I were at all inclined to litigate, I'd figure I had a pretty good case. Reluctantly delete unless we can get overt permission. Too bad. -- Jmabel 23:17, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

It's nice to see someone with some actual knowledge of the statute and expert opinion commenting here. All i'll add is that

Classroom use gets the most liberal interpretation of fair use there is.

is not a statement that the law has been been interpreted to give more leeway in the classroom. What JM is referring to is that there are two specific passages of the statute that say that besides what everyone gets under fair use, classroom use and specific cataegories of libraries, respectively, get additional rights. (IANAL, but doesn't it seem obvious that the statute implies that no one else has the fair use rights given explicitly to teachers or those librarians? Take heed.) --Jerzy (t) 07:57, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Wrong page. Please Read The Fucking Manual. Keep --Jia ng 07:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see how this is fair use just because people say it is. Since when does fair use allow you to republish a work in its entirety? Gamaliel 08:03, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
deletethe image is available for sale from the owner/the image is the entire work and is not an exerpted portion of a work. it can't be fair use if 1)its not anexcerpt and 2)it's for sale the issue is not the nudity or the obscenity of war, it's a commodity that is currently owned and for sale,so how do we use it and claim we aren't thieves???
Comment. RTFM: we have ~~Wikipedia:Images for deletion~~ Wikipedia:Copyright problems. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 11:08, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)'
- From Wikipedia:Images for deletion "This page is only for listing images which are duplicates or otherwise unneeded. For cases of (possible) fair use, see Wikipedia:Fair use. For copyright infringements, use Wikipedia:Copyright problems." So I'd say based on that description, it doesn't belong there. — マイケル ₪ 21:03, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  - So it belongs at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. It doesn't belong here. Please move this entry. --Jiang 00:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - It was already listed there and had been for a month, until I removed it shortly after this VfD started. I decided to refrain from just deleting this VfD or merging it with the possible copyvios, since the purpose of the listing here seems not to be to determine whether it's fair use but to try to change policy or because of the nature of the image - the edit comments for some of the removals suggest that it was the content of the image, not the copyright status, which prompted the removal. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

according to the AP

Nick Ut took the pic, he works for La calif. AP

I just spoke with a coworker (from the photo dept./LA bureau of AP) of Nick's who stated that it is the property of AP,

that wikipedia

IF it is a member of the AP may use any AP photo, and

if not, may not use any photos legally without payment.

as he is not in a position to make a final judgement, he referred us to the New York office for a definitive answer or permission. New York API office denied permission to use in an Encyclopedia without payment -- phone call.

strong vote for deletion copyright reasons only. photo is so famous that a verbal description would serve as well IMOPedant 19:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) and Pedant 20:39, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

No permission is required for fair use. It's not one of the rights granted to a copyright holder, so they aren't in a position to license fair use. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nothing to Do With Copyright

These photograph are copyrighted, and we're using them. There are thousands more like them on Wikipedia. [[Image:Kent State massacre.jpg]] [[Image:Bourke-white.jpg]] [[Image:Nguyen.jpg]] [[Image:WTCCollapse.JPG]] [[Image:Pitcher Mike Boddicker.jpg]] The argument to delete the photograph has less to do with copywrite issues, and more to do with some misplaced and jingoist desire to whitewash US involvement in Vietnam. Stargoat 21:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that the involvement of the US in Vietnam was an appalling crime. My vote to delete has nothing to do with that opinion and everything to do with wikipedia rules and copyright law. Please assume good faith on the part of others. Gamaliel 07:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. This does NOT fall under free use, no matter how much Wikipedia might wish otherwise. The images Stargoat mentions should also be removed. Wikisux 00:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I wish we could use this picture, and I want a pony too. Wishing doesn't make it so. -- orthogonal 13:40, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep unless consensus is reached for a change of policy regarding images that claim fair use. That change, however, cannot be reached on VfD, meaning that there are no current grounds for deletion. Snowspinner 14:06, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Someone needs to define fair use specifically as the term concerns photographs. I think that since the AP is charging on a per-photo basis, that indicates that it doesn't apply here, but we need a concrete definition. Only some people here think that the image falls under fair use -- so the issue is not whether or not fair use images are permissable, it's whether or not the image itself is fair use. -Joseph 14:12, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

For an example of fair use of a reduced size version of an image, see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation or just look at Google's image search, which provides such images in every search result. I recommend reading the full decision as well. The article was written by both me and a professional copyright lawyer, Alex. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep Fair use applies. Image is used for educational purposes, and for comment on an issue. Negligable $ effect on AP. Image is famous enough to be newsworthy. Entire work argument is immaterial because the photo is a very small work to begin with. Low-res jpg contributes to fair use argument. The Steve 18:11, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep.~~ Fair use. Cited from 17 U.S.C. 107: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching... scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." Relevant issues: comment, teaching, scholarship, and research. Skyler 19:23, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that doesn't mean this automatically falls under fair use. Much the same as university professors and teachers need the publisher's permission to distribute photocopied material in class, Wikipedia must have the copyright holder's permission to host and display this image, as well as the other copyrighted photos pointed out above. Reason? Fair use very rarely allows the reproduction of a work in its entirety, not even for eduwhich is what's relcational use. I doubt there's a court in the U.S. (evant) that would find our use of this photo to be fair use. I want to see Wikipedia improved as much as anyone, but it's important that we not run afoul of copyright law in the process. It's really not worth the risk. Wikisux 03:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This is absolutely not fair use, but a blatant infringement. Would the people who keep claiming that it is fair use read the article instead of just linking to it? This image fails all the criteria for fair use:
1. Purpose and character: Although Wikipedia is educational, the license permits redistribution for profit
  There are several parts of this test. Here's the full set:
  
  (1) the commercial or nonprofit educational nature of the use (discussed above); (2) the "preamble purposes", i.e. criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research (this list is not restrictive, and falling within one of these purposes does not create a presumption of fair use, it is just one factor to consider) (3) the degree to which the work has been transformed, has the fair use added to the original work in some way giving it a different character, or adding the original and giving it a new meaning or message. And here's how I analysed all of those factors on the image talk page "the use is to illustrate an encyclopedia article (is tranformative), is of considerably lower resolution than the original work and serves to educate the general public about the consequences of some strategic bombing approaches for the general population of the areas subjected to them (preamble purposes: criticism, teaching). There's no attempt to make money from this use (though reusers may not have this argument available). The use is part of a project to create a globally accessible, neutral encyclopedia for the world and the work as a whole has received numerous awards and been featured for several weeks as a good example in the foyer of the United Nations building." Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Nature of the copied work: This is an exceptionally important and famous work, taken under trying circumstances that cannot be reproduced. Some people have suggested that that would make fair use easier to claim - in fact the opposite is true! Further, this is an image that has been widely published legally. Once again, that does not weaken its copyright, it weakens fair use, since it is perfectly possible to discuss or analyse the image without including an unlicensed copy. (Indeed, we could simply link to a legal copy of the image.)
  The nature of the work is a factual news photograph which has been previously published. Unpublished would tend to weigh against fair use. Published tends not to. As a factual image, fair use is easier than if it had been a highly creative one. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Amount and substantiality: It is 100% of the image, at fairly high resolution. The "fair use" claim would be more defensible if it was cropped, or at lower resolution (but even then, the claim would be weak).
  See Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation for a case considering reduced size images of works. This isn't a full copy of the image, it's a highly reduced resolution one, at 300x180 pixels max. That's about 2.25x1.5 inches on this screen or about 1"x0.5" at the 300 dots per inch of a low resoluton laser printer, half that for the now-routine 600 DPI laser printers. It doesn't come remotely close to the nearer 3,000 DPI a professional print publication in a book or magazine would be likely to use. This makes it largely unsuitable for high quality reproduction in print or newspapers, the purpose for which it was taken. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Effect upon work's value: The copyright holder is currently selling commercial licenses to reproduce the work. Under our license, we would be giving it away for anyone to do with as they wish.
  Fair use allows anyone to do with it as they wish, provided the use is fair. Our license is irrelevant - we aren't asserting that the image is covered by the GFDL. The fair use test, inpart, assesses the effect on the market for the work. What's the effect of the use here? I wasn't aware that the image was taken by Huynh Cong Ut or where to obtain a license if I wanted to use a high resoluton print, so I for one am now more likely to be in a position to know how to buy it. The use of the image in the articles clearly identifies the phtographer (because I made sure they did when I removed the image after a month at copyright problems a few days ago) and that presumably enhances awareness of the works of the photographer and their value. The image description page links to the AP sales site (because became aware of that site as a direct result of the use of this image in the Wikipedia and just added it). Those tend to increase the chance of sales. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Further, it clearly does not even fall within the spirit of Fair Use, which would only apply if the article was about Ut's photograph, rather than simply exploiting its fame to improve our articles.
  That's part of the "purpose and character" fair use section. The image is currently used in articles covering: nudity (a direct reference to the use of nudity in this image and its acceptability in this context), Vietnam War (the impact of this image and similar images on the conduct of the war), Strategic bombing (same as Vietnam war), Kim Phuc Phan Thi (presence in this photograph), History of the United States (1964-1980) (effect of this photograph and similar photographs), Huynh Cong Ut (the photographer, discussing possibly his most famous work). Every one of those uses is one of the preamble purposes for fair use (the "preamble purposes" are criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research), since all are about this work or its impact. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. There is also the issue of fair dealing. Wikipedia is international in scope, and many countries' fair dealing rules are stricter than in scope than the US' fair use doctrine. I am posting from Australia, and it is definitely illegal here.
  Does Australian fair dealing prohibit use for criticism, comment, scholarship and teaching? Those are the purposes for which it is being used. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
7. Finally, the claim that Wikipedia is not vulnerable for such violations has been discussed before and it is widely held that it could in fact harm the project (e.g. see meta:Avoid Copyright Paranoia, which is just about the weakest take on it.) Maybe if Wikipedia was sued, the EFF would come to our rescue. But a shortfall of even a few thousand bucks could destroy the project.
  The CDA and OCILLA apply and it's been very well established that they cover this sort of situation. Please ask on my talk page if you'd like some examples of their use. Jamesday 11:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8. Securiger 03:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Unlike some others may, I do not base my arguments on information obtained from Wikipedia articles. I came to the conclusion after reading the text of 17 U.S.C. 107 as well as subsequent Supreme Court decisions evetually reverting back to Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., et al. v. Nation Enterprises et al. (which seems to be the most oft cited precedent for interpreting the fair use clause of the Copyright Act). I still believe that the picture falls under fair use and that the argument would hold up in court. Fair use is a defense and not clear cut. However, upon reflection, I come to the realization that any litigation, whether it would be won or lost, could destroy Wikipedia. Therefore, I am choosing to err on the side of caution and reversing my previous vote. My vote: Delete. Skyler 23:31, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
This picture is one of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of fair use images on Wikipedia, and they are all here to stay. And if this images is deleted, I will continue to upload it over and over again. 172 03:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He just defined to you why it is not fair use. Why do you keep ignoring that point? And uploading it over and over again, especially when it had been deleted either by vote or by policy, who are you to override that? Good way to get yourself deleted, if it came to that. -Joseph 04:35, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Are you going to sue me? 172 04:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You know what, nevermind. It's clear that you are not capable of responding in a rational manner, when you have to resort to vigilantism and taunts. Also, removing the {{vfd}} tag from the image itself while the subject was under discussion was very inappropriate. (See the history for [[Image:TrangBang.jpg]] -Joseph 04:43, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

That was a rational response based on the legal issues. As the theoretically libel party, I'll reconsider my stance pending a lawsuit. Otherwise, the use of this image does not go against established practice on Wikipedia. 172 04:51, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nobody threatened to sue you, least of all, me. And you said the "Delete" voters were being paranoid? -Joseph 04:53, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Great. Then it sounds like the image is staying. 172 04:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Believe whatever you want. It's not my role, nor the role of anyone party to this discussion to enforce copyright law or terms of licensing. The whole idea is to strike a balance between providing information and keeping Wikipedia out of trouble. It's clear that you wish to skirt around the arguments as to why this image is not fair use, and exercise your whim. You proved this by not only threatening to make unilateral changes in spite of the indeterminate (as of yet) outcome of a vote or policy decision, but you went and removed the image in question from the Votes for Deletion page. -Joseph 04:59, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Keep. I agree with User:172. The moon is looking rather bluish today. Still as melodramatic as ever, though, aren't you? --Robert Merkel 06:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Wikipedia does not have the legal right to redistribute this photograph. -Sean Curtin 07:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Del. (Even tho this is not Wikipedia:Copyright problems, it would be nice if we deleted it here and saved the effort of deleting it from there in spite of a failure to delete here.) Both use of authentic fair-use images, and non-atty. judgements about this highly technical and not yet fully litigated area of law, are harmful to WP; see Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Jerzy (t) 07:57, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
Delete. The image is not fair use in any of the articles it is currently used in. User:Securiger has explained why. And I want a pony, too. -- Jao 08:42, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I find Jamesday's rebuttal more compelling than Securiger initial reasons for deletion. There are reasons to be opposed to take advantage of fair use in a GFDL text, but given that we have chosen to take those reasons and deal with them, I think this is an extremely strong candidate for fair use. Pcb21| Pete 14:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. From what I see, this is fair use. Nikola 17:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - and let's have all the other copyvios listed here. We cannot risk this project in fighting legal battles that are outwith our objectives to create a copyleft encyclopedia. If this were an article about photojournalism there might be a fair use argument but not if the image is purely illustrative. Cutler 21:39, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, reluctantly. Timeless image, but it belongs to someone who has clear ownership. "Fair use" is a thief's call on this one. Denni ☯ 01:13, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

(Already voted). A strong consideration of the "delete" lobby appears to be that we might be putting ourselves at risk of a (necessarily catastrophic) legal case if use this image. I don't really understand why you guys believe this is so. In particular
1. We are online. The DMCA/OCILLA acts apply. If AP decided that our fair use defence is invalid, they would have to issue a takedown notice. If we then decided to comply with notice, there is no possibility of a suit?
2. Further, given the wide availability of low res versions of this image available online, it appears that AP, whose lifeblood is photos and text, have decided not to pursue users of its copyrighted image, hence indicating that they too believe the iconic nature of this image makes for a strong fair use claim.
Thus I think some of these delete voters are not remembering to meta:avoid copyright paranoia. Pcb21| Pete 10:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Jamesday and yourself both make compelling arguments with regard to the legal liability of Wikipedia and the question of whether they could be sued or not. The arguments were so compelling that I had to check on the provision. Unfortunately, you are both incorrect. Regardless of what the notice regarding copyrights before people post or the notification provision prior to suit states, 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(1)(A) requires that to relieve monetary responsibility, that the service provider (in this case, Wikipedia) "(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing" and "(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material." This entire discussion constitutes evidence of knowledge of the violation and to not remove it would make the good faith provision previously mentioned void. Sorry, no change of vote. Skyler 23:12, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Keep if resolution reduced slightly. This is fair use, IMO, although I'm highly worried over the fact that we're denying the original author of royalties. However, if CNN (and just about anybody else) can get away with this (get a way as in, not being pestered by AP), so can we. Johnleemk | Talk 16:35, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

CNN is an AP client. That's how they get away with it. -Joseph 19:46, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

CNN "gets away with it" by actually paying for the use of the photo. Gamaliel 02:15, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep --I was not aware of this listing on VfD until coming across a nascent revert war over it. There does not appear to be a clear consensus to delete this image and I don't understand why it was deleted. In any case, so long as we are using a relatively low-resolution copy and are giving appropriate credit I think this falls under fair use. older≠wiser 11:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) (sig added later)
Keep. If this is to be deleted, then all fair use images must be deleted, with the exception of book cover scans and the like. I am all for removing unnecessary fair use images, but this one we cannot replicate. As Jamesday points out, we are unlikely to be liable for damages for hosting the image. A printed edition would require more caution. Also -- why was this deleted already? There is certainly not a consensus to delete. Dan Gardner 16:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is 'fair use' something that can be debated? We really need a lawyer's opinion on this. And IANAL. -Joseph 16:28, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

Keep This image is controversial in two senses (the political and the fair-use issue). This makes it (imo) a bad choice to delete on fair-use grounds since it could affect the policy of using copyrighted images. The risk is that the image may get deleted on partially political grounds. Policy-makers may then conclude (from the discussion and votes) that fair-use is not acceptable. Instead, choose an image without other controversies than copyright/fair-use to argue over. Or keep the discussion in the general policy making forums. When the policy on fair-use has become more clear the discussion over this particular image may be reopened. J grafstrom 18:01, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You can't say that it's bad because you don't like the potential answer (re: whether it affects the policy on fair use.) The goal on that point is to determine whether or not it is really fair use. Do you wish to expand upon that point? -Joseph 18:17, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Sure. There seem to be a number of viewpoints here: The image stays because it is relevant and legal. It goes because it violates copyright. It goes because it is irrelevant. It goes because its use is biased. Or any combination thereof. A potential result "Delete it" may be interpreted as if most people think fair-use cannot be used like this. This might not be the case though, if voters had both the fair-use question and the relevance/POV question in mind when arguing and voting. Therefor I would like the image to stay until the question of fair-use images is decided in general by discussions in other forums. In short: Dont delete it now, but let the question be open til the fair-use policy has been decided. J grafstrom 19:04, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My initial concern came from the relevance to strategic bombing. If the assertation is that it is the result of an ARVN operation, how does that relate to an article on aerial theory? -Joseph

I think the image is relevant to the article (public opinion making bombing difficult, civilians suffer). Regarding fair-use question, i'd say wait for a general policy or a cease and desist from AP, whatever comes first. J grafstrom 22:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Possibly. But I don't believe that this is strategic bombing. Where was the strategic target? Nobody has indicated that. -Joseph 23:38, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

I won't vote, as this is not an issue to be decided on VfD. However, as I have stated on the mailing list, I believe this image is fair use in two of the articles it appears in but still feel it should be deleted, because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and these are not free images. anthony (see warning) 14:04, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Count

Delete: 14
Keep: 16
Abstain: 2

Revised count now at the top of the page (by name for easier verification)

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

Ewnion, Ontario -- Add to this discussion

Delete and BJAODN: It's pretty funny, in that Mankato, Minnesota way, although a bit crude. Geogre 17:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I cannot find any reference to this town. It appears to be a prank. I have searched http://geonames.nrcan.gc.ca/search/search_e.php Samw 17:06, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. The citizens of Ewnion will be outraged to discover that the rest of the world thinks their community is a joke. - Tim

Keep. Just because Ewnion is more exciting than your average small town doesn't give you the right to say it doesn't exist. I've seen (and touched) the big Buttocks, and I'll tell you, there's nothing 'fake' about that. - A Concerned Citizen

Keep. A Joke? I've been living in Ewnion for 19 years, and my friends and I are outraged that our town could be considered so insignificant as to label it a 'joke'! This situation WILL be rectified, by the buttocks of Arnold Jackson Smith! -Outraged Citizen

Delete. Not in The Times Atlas of the World. No relevant Google hits. Not found in the Canada 411 phone directory, http://www.canada411.ca/ . Should not be in Wikipedia. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

~~Agree. Dpbsmith002~~

~~You're right. Yet again, as usual. DopPelgangerBsmith~~

~~You can say that again! CertainlyNotASockPuppet~~

~~Dpbsmith is my idol. EthelbertNevinObscureJokeBetNobodyGetsIt~~

I intended these to be obvious jokes. Probably not a good idea in VfD. Sorry if they offended. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:46, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like the way you write as four other people to agree to your sentence. All those comments are you...

~~Despicable! What a terrible thing to do! I am shocked, shocked. I can only thank goodness that they didn't actually vote. WhateverGaveItAway?~~ See above, struck out by [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:46, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete and BJAODN. (Vandals, please procure a picture of a giant stone butt statue for the article. It'll make BJAODN prettier.) Side note: 4.11.17.36, one of the authors of the Ewnion, Ontario article and the anonymous Keep votes, above, had contributed some patent nonsense to the Murrieta, California article, which I fixed. --Benc 21:15, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete and do not BJAODN. Articles by vandals are no laughing matter, and the sockpuppetry above is nothing short of pathetic. I'm diffing all future edits here by anonymous users in this page to make sure people's words don't get changed --Ardonik 04:40, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
- Update: As usual, my sarcasm detector malfunctioned. One day I'll have to buy a suitable replacement, but for now, I'll retract my sock puppetry accusations. I still vote to delete, though. --Ardonik 10:08, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If this town exists, it must be so small that it wouldn't have notability.
Delete. Geonet also doesn't mention it. Nikola 17:07, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Isomorphic/Minions_of_the_Church -- Add to this discussion

This is an offensive user subpage written to target Mike Church, a mostly extinct Wikipedia editor.

Some of these "sock puppet" claims may be true, but a number of proven false ones are included on the page. Some of these users don't even exist; for example, User:521 has zero contributions. Most of these alleged sock puppets use distinctly different writing styles from Mr. Church's. A number of them seem to be anonymous accounts of Wikipedia users who wished to express opinions on controversial matters without it affecting the rest of their Wiki-lives. Others were new users who were turned away from Wikipedia from the ugly politics that emerged as soon as they commented on hot-button issues and were accused of being other users.

The page is inaccurate and defamatory, and is damaging to the working environment of Wikipedia. It ought to be deleted immediately. Maradox 17:10, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maradox - Contributions!

Question: Have you contacted Isomorphic and asked if he or she will remove the page or why he or she believes it to still be necessary? I agree that people are very quick to label sock puppets and that the local politics can be off-putting, but I hope we can get an amicable solution before VfD. Geogre 17:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment: The fact that User:Maradox's second edit was to mark the page for deletion somehow makes me suspect an ulterior motive. Also I would like to note that 521 has in fact made edits, though to a deleted page. —No-One Jones 17:23, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Mike Church is easily one of WP's most controversial users. Most people who support him do so anonymously (like myself) because they don't want to see the disruptive wrath that was inflicted upon Mr. Church earlier this year. For example, a poster with six hundred edits, dating back to October, was once accused of being a "sock puppet" for Mike after writing a very cautiously pro-Ambition post. This kind of crap only adds to that environment. The sad fact of the matter is that no one would argue that Ambition was worth an article; Mike just made the mistake of writing the article himself. If he'd been older and wiser (he's what, 23?) he would have known that this would be bad form and lead to automatic rejection of his contributions. Neither Mike nor any of us can erase the blemish that mistake has given his Wiki-reputation, but we can erase the petty crap that comes out of these long-stale squabbles. Blue Dragon 19:50, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Blue Dragon - Contributions!

Oh, please. Mike Church is hardly "one of WP's most controversial users", much as he might like to think so. At the very most, he's an annoying self-promoter (and not the only one of those, might I add, Mr. my-first-edit-was-to-an-obscure-VfD-page). 24/142.177.etc/whatever he calls himself nowadays, who's carried on a two-year crusade against Wikipedia in any forum that won't kick him out, is "controversial"; most of the users on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration are "controversial"; Church is strictly a small-time pest. —No-One Jones 21:32, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep; anyone poking around on user sub-pages should realize the limitations of private work product and of guesses about sockpuppetry, so accuracy is not required. But it provides valuable clues to anyone willing to use it with that understanding. --Jerzy (t) 04:21, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
Keep. Ambi 10:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. No case to answer. Andrewa 12:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I'll also comment that User:Maradox is an unlikely candidate for Church-ness given that s/he quoted Ayn Rand on his/her user page. Also: Blue Dragon, Mr. Church is either 20 or 21, according to his user page. 259 17:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The evidence suggests that this is yet another M.C. sockpuppet. —No-One Jones 18:08, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Mike doesn't seem to want to be on Wikipedia, Isomorphic and his herd don't want him here, and keeping this page is just going to provoke regular rashes of vandalism. It's not worth the time that will be wasted. Unattributable 17:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Unattributable - Contributions!
- Sock puppet. —No-One Jones 18:03, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Your mom. Unattributable 18:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. —No-One Jones 18:08, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Part of one of the more clever but most petty smear campaigns in Wikipedia's history, one that has turned away hundreds of users and is mentioned in several disparaging reviews of Wikipedia. Zzzzzz 18:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Zzzzzz - Contributions!
- Sock puppet. —No-One Jones 18:45, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep: I hope the users in question can sort out their differences. I haven't seen convincing arguments that the user pages violate Wikipedia policy, and therefore they stay. I understand that they might be upsetting, but our user pages should be places for us to work through out Wikipedia-related thoughts, even if they're wrong. Geogre 19:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Well said. Two quibbles. One, I don't think it's really a case of working out differences as one side has absolutely no case to answer IMO. Two, I'm unconvinced that this is all a particular user. It may be, but a number of people find it amusing to disrupt our activities. There was a similar deletion debate about one of Tim Starling's user pages a little while ago. And I can understand why most (not all) sock puppets dislike being identified, how would you like to have the whole logical basis for your being removed? (;-> No change of vote. Andrewa 20:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Flip reply: Happened to me a long time ago. It just left me wondering why I was here, and then I discovered Wikipedia. :-) (Truthfully, I think the only possible response on these matters is to not engage the issues, but only to assess flatly on deletion criteria. Anything else means that VfD gets to be another forum for airing grievances, and we'll see more people settling scores here.) Geogre 04:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Comment: Yeah, exactly. It's a balancing act between being proactive on one hand and avoiding trouble and time waste on the other. Andrewa 10:08, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep: What Jerzy said.--Bishonen 20:13, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Jesus H. Christ. How many users have been registered solely for the purpose of voting to delete this article? Whoever keeps doing this (Mike Church?), please cut out this stupid sock puppet crap; it isn't working, and I'm sick of liars. Vote and argue under your own username. Keep. --Ardonik 20:48, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Delete with haste; there shouldn't even be a debate. I'm sick of this fucking childish, inane bullshit. I made some mistakes early on (like, February) in the overzealous promotion of my game and my ideas and people never forgave me. Why? Because they're petty, egotistical, and inherently negative. I've accomplished things-- for one, invented a well-respected card game-- through my talent, toil, and yes, some luck. Isomorphic et al, rather than investing time into their own accomplishments (and I'm sure many of these people are quite talented, some probably smarter than I am) spent hours upon hours attacking me for their own childish amusement. Why? It's hard to accomplish stuff; much easier to sit back and shit-talk others' achievements. Since then, they've done everything they possibly can to annoy or insult me, taunting me to get me as riled up as they possibly could; it was a source of humor for them. This is not good for my health, to be regularly angry. I left WP in disgust last May hoping I could end it, but then people began using the remaining Ambition page (which I wanted deleted) to insult me, both in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. So, yes, I'll admit I did a little bit of "sock puppetry" on Ambition (card game); I wanted it either deleted or modified in ways that were not insulting to me. The page was deleted, as I wished. And yet, this insulting, highly inaccurate page against me persists, and I will have it and any like it gone at all costs. My desire is to erase every trace possible of my existence on Wikipedia, for good. I have spent enough time on Wikipedia to know its fatal flaw: The massive egos of a few overzealous contributors dominate, and ruin the experience for everyone. Knowing this, I want no part. Furthermore, the highly inaccurate and, in many cases, provably slanderous statements on here about me and my supposed "sock puppetry" ought to be removed, and will at any cost. This page and all other slanderous claims about me ought to be removed now, so I can peacefully leave WP as I wanted to a long fucking time ago. Mike Church 22:32, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and some reading for ya. It explains much more.User:Mike_Church/72804 Mike Church 22:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sock puppet. 936 22:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. Black. —No-One Jones 23:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete No personal attacks. The Steve 17:37, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There should be no debate. It should be a speedy deletion. It clearly violates # 4 on the list of what Wikipedia is not. Skyler 19:50, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Try as I might I can't see how you can get even a debatable violation of what Wikipedia is not out of this. It's a user page, so it doesn't need to meet the article guidelines, just the general ones, and it does. Whether the page is a personal attack is an opinion I guess, it seems to me that it's accurate and commendably dispassionate. There's a bit of humour in the wording which is helpful IMO seen in the context of the whole messy story of Ambition (card game), Mike Church's now deleted article about the game he wrote and promotes rather aggressively at times. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Reply: There are two parts of the "Wikipedia is not" article. The first is in general. The second applies to actual entries. Number 4 in the first part states, "Wikipedia is not a place to or means of calling people names or bashing people. It is a serious encyclopedia." I take that to mean any page under the domain of wikipedia.org, whether it be a subject entry or personal one. Whether it is a biased personal attack or a factual statement, it is punitive. I support the policy. Skyler 02:33, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
    - Comment: I support the policy too. But I don't think this page exists to call Mike Church names or to bash him. I think it exists to help contain the damage caused by the unfortunate actions it documents, and is a very reasonable attempt at minimising the time wasted by everyone in the process. It's a shame such things are necessary, it's a thankless task as this debate has proved, and the page is not perfect but what is? No change of vote. Andrewa 13:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's a vanity page. User:Isomorphic is an alternate screen name of Mr. Church, who created the page to glorify himself. Mr. Church created a lot of the users who have attacked him, to bring as much drama and press to his game as possible. I hung out with him a bit last winter and he had this all planned out, that he would create as much drama as possible, phase the page out in August or September, then people would wonder where it went. And he'd become famous, the story went. User:Isomorphic will fiercely deny being a sock puppet of him, as will others, such as Mr. No One Jones, but the fact is, they are. You have all been pwned. The troll you summoned 01:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The troll you summoned - Contributions!
Keep: Church is a serial liar and an admitted puppet master. Isomorphic's page is a public service, quite apart from being a user page. --Tagishsimon 01:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sigh. Creating this page was, admitedly, not my brightest moment on Wikipedia. I let Mike's behavior get to me. However, his comments above (all of them, not just the ones he made with his own account) give a pretty clear picture of what got me to that point. I don't really care if the page is deleted eventually, since I can recognize Mike pretty easilly under any name he chooses. Still, I don't think I could take the irony of having it deleted at the request of one of Mike's sockpuppets. Isomorphic 02:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I love the page name, very apt. We don't need to be humourless in the user namespace, especially in these matters. Hang in there. Assuming there is no consensus to delete, I hope we can keep this discussion for a while too, it contains some interesting stuff. Andrewa 21:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The page has outlived its usefulness, and maybe -- just maybe -- if we clear away all references to Mike Church, he really will go away. It's worth a try. In any event, the page isn't useful anymore. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Rather hard to clear out all the references, since he put so much effort into spreading them. Besides, he already made an enormous deal of "leaving" once, and what did that turn out to mean? Only that we'd have to deal with sockpuppets instead of a fixed identity. Do you think it will be different this time? Isomorphic 02:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Well, I guess you're right. I still don't think the page serves a purpose. Not that it matters a lot one way or the other. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - Comment: I think it matters. From time to time we suffer deliberate disruption by serial pests, for various reasons. It's important to have policies that allow us to deal with them efficiently. What Wikipedia is not and the deletion policy are two key policies. The only issue to be decided here is, under these does this user subpage qualify for deletion? The question is its existence, the details of its contents are another issue. IMO the subpage is a useful contribution to MWOT even if some of the contents are arguably a bit passionate, and even then I said arguably. My calling these people pests above is arguably a personal attack too. It's a fine, difficult and thankless line to walk between attack and dispassionate accuracy. Isomorphic has a history of patience, skill, hard work and a sense of humour in these matters (so no wonder some people don't like it), and has my support. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      - Unfortunately, it seems to me that Isomorphic has taken a big step over the dispassionate line, as you call it. Even the title, used instead of something like User:Mike Church's suspected sockpuppets tells me that Isomorphic has something against this other user. Some of you may think it amusing, but to the ordinary contributor who knows neither user, such vitriolic humor only ends up making Isomorphic look worse than Mike Church. The Steve 08:18, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
        Comment: I agree there are some things in the page that in hindsight are unfortunate, and I think Isomorphic has agreed with this too. I disagree that they are major seen in the context, and as for any comparison between the behaviour of Isomorphic (or me for that matter, see below) and his attackers (Church and/or others), come off it. But in any case, is VfD the appropriate way of handling this? Of course not. The first thing to do about a user page is to contact the user. Andrewa 21:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Look at all the bullshit this page attracts, on both sides. Maybe if it's deleted, the conflict will stop as there will be nothing to fight over. After all, the Ambition (card game) article is gone and I don't think anyone wants it back. 38 14:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
38 - Contributions!
- Surprise surprise, 38 is on the list of sockpuppets. —No-One Jones 16:23, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: My guess is that Mike Church wants the article back very much. But it's a guess. If you like to have a look at the evidence, it's all online. That's what he's trying to stop now. There are some inconsistencies in his behaviour, yes, read Pavlov for some clues here, although we only briefly mention the work in question. Food for thought? Andrewa 21:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment. (I already voted) Grow up, all of you. I know I'll get the label of "sock puppet" thrown at me; it's half-true. No, I'm not an M.C. sock puppet. I contributed under my real name until last spring, when an employer suggested I avoid such public exposure; this stuff gets copied a lot and is pretty prominent on the 'Net. I left Wikipedia, returned four months later with this name. According to Wikipedia:Sock puppet this is appropriate, and so I feel no need to answer for anything, and will not reveal my prior identity.

Anyway: I do know Mr. Church, it being a small world and all, and I followed his contributions quite a bit while he was a contributor. A few points I'll make:

Mr. Church is a talented, energetic young man who, like most ambitious young men, has a pressing need to prove himself, bordering on insecurity. He lives in constant fear that he won't accomplish or be well-known for anything, despite proven mathematical and literary prowess. His zealous and, at times, dishonest promotion of his game comes from this pressing, almost neurotic, fear of obscurity.
Before he stomped out in disgust, it's true that about 20% of his contributions dealt with his card game. Another 20% was silly college-kid stuff (List of severed penises and dog years, I believe, he admitted). The other 60 or so percent were legitimate, well-written contributions (indeed, one of the criteria for M.C. sock puppetry has been good writing, which is stupid because there are a lot of good writers here). I think he honestly wanted to contribute something positive to Wikipedia. All of you forget this while you insult him in his absence, but for a while, he was as much a part of this thing as many of you were, and did as much as you did to build it.
I think he did engage in some "sock puppetry" (the anon. vandalism is obvious) but not as much as you might accuse. At any rate, is this so unforgivable? In his mind, he's inerrantly right but outnumbered, and the only way to counter an incorrect (as he sees it) majority is to create an illusion of support. It's not a good way to solve a problem, but it's not like you can't understand where he's coming from, especially when his adversaries would rather outright insult him than reach consensus.
I don't think this issue is permanently resolved, but not because of Mr. Church. What happens when Ambition does become well-known? The game, now, is not much more notable than Magic circa October '93, but its reputation at Carleton and in the surrounding community is pristine; it will probably break within 5 years. What happens then? Will the unwitting contributor who writes an article on the subject be insulted and interrogated mercilessly?
Mike realized, three months before you did, that this is a conflict he could either lose or walk away from. The same goes for all of you. Is Isomorphic's page going to serve any other purpose than as an excuse for Mr. C, and other trolls knowing their crimes will get pinned on some other guy, to vandalize pages? You won't gain anything by pursuing this conflict further; everyone is best to walk away.

At any rate: I still propose the speedy deletion of this page and any others that exist solely to insult this user; it borders on bullying. Then, a nine-month moratorium on any mention of Ambition on Wikipedia, regardless of what its notoriety does-- even if it were published in the New York Times, the game is not that important that Wikipedia can't function without it. It's best for everyone.

That's longer than I ever want to write again about another user. 259 22:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

259 - Contributions!

Your point?

Read again: I'm not an M.C. sock puppet. I contributed under my real name until last spring, when an employer suggested I avoid such public exposure; this stuff gets copied a lot and is pretty prominent on the 'Net. I left Wikipedia, returned four months later with this name.

I already explained and cleared the fact that my contribution list is short; I used to contribute under another name, until last April when I started at a somewhat political job and was requested to terminate my Wikipedia activity, at least under my real name.

Now, please reiterate the point you were trying to make. 259 13:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your contributions speak for themselves. That's the point. --Tagishsimon, anonymously.

They speak... what, exactly? I'm not sure how you can infer any patterns, as I've only been on this name for a couple weeks. 259 22:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some people are good at inventing card games. Some people are good at spotting patterns. Live & let lie, I say. (Sorry, my v key isn't working :) --Tagishsimon

TMSCA -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable association. The original also included email addresses and phone numbers of the executive board, which have been commented out. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:48, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Too minor an organization and too small in scope. If there is a Math & Science Education article some day, we might see this as one of the numerous "organizations" as an adjunct. Geogre 01:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It looks like it was copy-and-pasted from a webpage or text dump thereof. (Checks a bit). Yup. It's a copyvio. I'm taking the usual action. --Ardonik 04:29, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress -- Add to this discussion

Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was transwiki to Wikisource. As of 17:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), this article was still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

Transwiki to Wikisource. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also get George Washington July 9 1776 General Orders. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:02, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikisource for both of them, if the latter isn't alredy there. Geogre 02:59, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Skyler 21:17, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Ditto all. Neutrality 00:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Peerweb -- Add to this discussion

Clearly an advertisement. Deb 19:27, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, especially due to the use of the first person. Goobergunch 22:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Promotional, and wikipedia is not a web directory. Also, the content is a c&p from the service's promo materials. Finally, it was founded by "Sarevok," and I know several of us have killed Sarevok. Geogre 01:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete advertisement, and delete Media:Headbg2.jpg while you're at it. It was uploaded by User:Help, whose lone contribution to the Wikipedia is in the Peerweb article. Apparently, User:200.66.13.59 realized that he needed to log in to upload images, and registered a throw-away username just for that purpose. I'm positively sick of all the spam that these sorts of people add to the Wikipedia. They're probably getting paid to add it, and we're certainly not getting paid to remove it. --Ardonik 04:26, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
Delete article and image. Appears to be advertising, and I feel comfortable in saying that the site isn't notable for an encyclopedia. -- Stevietheman 05:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Skyler 21:19, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Stephanie Heinrich -- Add to this discussion

I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me like this person's done anything notable. Deb 19:42, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Not sure how I'll vote, yet, but she has appeared in one non-Playboy movie called "Dark Horse" in 2004, where she was "Dog's girlfriend." Otherwise, she's been in Playboy stareware and a Playboy TV show. The avid teens and sad men who populate the web with ratings of their favorite "babes" seem to like her to distraction. Geogre 01:42, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, delete. Why should being selected as a playmate get a person her own encyclopedia article when she hasn't done anything else that was noteworthy? A Google search turns up only porn pictures. Gimme a break. --Ardonik 04:20, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
Delete. LOL. Antandrus 04:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I took a few hours to think about it. Being Dog's girlfriend isn't really putting her at the level of a soap opera star (my personal minimum for actor/actress fame). Being a drool stimulus certainly isn't enough. Geogre 17:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[Not a vote: Anon] Retain. Under Playmate there is a list of Playmates of the Year and famous playmates. If Playmate warrants an entry, why not the ladies who have held that title? Cf. the lists of members of Congress, most of whom are similarly anonymous and did not do anything memorable. I say leave her in.
- She's very pretty and, um, pneumatic. The question is whether she is notable enough on her own accomplishments to be in an encyclopedia. She might do great things in the future, or infamous things, and achieve notability for something other than her looks and be included. She might not. Information on her is appropriate in the Playmate list, but not as a solo article at this point. See below, for example, on some of the other notability debates. The bar is not awfully high, but it's not awfully low, either. By the way, be sure to sign in. On VfD, only logged-in users have their votes count. Geogre 01:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Feel free to add her to the list of notable Playmates if you really feel like it, but she definitely does not warrant her own entry. Skyler 21:22, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Question: Google result is "583 of about 9,630"; am i right that this means "of the first 1000 hits, only 583 were significantly different"? Would that Google score be keepish or deletish, if her notoriety were based other than on mushy-core porn? I think that would determine my vote, since the tone on this VfD sounds to me excessively high-brow compared to our voracious appetite for punk, anime, video games, and rare sexual practices. --Jerzy(t) 20:24, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure exactly what you meant, but since she was a playmate, it would not suprise me that she had 583 entries on google. I'm betting there are a few actual fan sites and then the rest are redirects to a pay porn site. If someone can expand on the article and show relevant notable status, I will retract my vote. However, I stay with delete because it does not appear that this can be done. Skyler 23:08, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

- - Well, Jerzy (t), I can tell you why I voted the way I did. I believe that we vote on notability. I do not think one's body, or exposure of it, is an accomplishment. As you know, I also don't think we need to be collecting trading cards or writing up our favorite jokes or comic books, but here it's a matter of what she has done. She is all over Google, yes, in one form: her picture. In that regard, her accomplishment is akin to Elsie the Borden Cow: she's an object of graphic art. I think that her notability as an actress, spokeswoman, author, or anything else, is in the future. I do believe she'll achieve some. She is trying films and will, I think, do well. At present, she is a graphical object. Geogre 01:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Briefs -- Add to this discussion

I think we've seen enough of these now, haven't we? Deb 19:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Minor Dragon Ball characters. Some of the other characters listed in Category:Dragon_Ball_characters could stand to be moved, too. --Benc 21:31, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, do not redirect. Useless pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:26, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I note that my Dr. Boxers card can beat him if played sideways on the 4th rank, and he's only available in the special edition collector's supersets available only in Korea for 2 weeks in alternate months of May.... Sorry, folks. I don't mean to live up to my name, but delete. Geogre 01:46, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Merge and redirect is fine, but if no one does that, definitely delete. Skyler 21:25, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If we are interested in probing the granularity of the universe, this might be a useful article. However, what comes next is Socks of the famous. Do we really need this ultratrivial ultraboring ultranonsense? Denni ☯ 01:42, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
Merge and redirect' to Minor Dragon Ball characters. I thought this was Bad jokes and deleted nonsense?. -S V

Raffaellesco-- Add to this discussion

discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Raffaellesco - Italian, I suspect either Italian-language dicdef or nonsense. Someone put the {{notenglish}} tag on it July 25 but did not list it here. -- Jmabel 00:56, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Not nonsense, but dicdef. I suppose it could best be deleted at this stage. Someone with experience in the field could check whether it could be inserted in a list of psychical disorders. For now I don't think it merits and article by itself (it isn't even a stub). Cat 09:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Cat, I agree, it should be deleted here. But Italian Wiki does not have an entry like that yet, so maybe we should copy it there, and let them decide. --Fenice 16:11, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Done. Let's see what comes of it. Cat 19:17, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - So can we move this discussion to VFD? -- Jmabel 06:22, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

It's either nonsense or an Italian-language slang dicdef. Delete either way. Jmabel 20:13, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Agreed w/ Jmabel. Incidentally a web search for "Raffaellesco" yields images of beautiful dinnerware. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete dicdef. Doesn't belong on the Italian Wikipedia, either; the Wiktionary is multilingual and perfectly capable of accomodating these sorts of things. --Ardonik 04:17, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
Delete. For reasons listed above. Skyler 21:27, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Wikiverse -- Add to this discussion

Re Wikiverse (There is an interim tally at or near the bottom of the page.)

We don't need articles about Wikipedia mirrors. Especially not about those who do spamming. The editing history of that article already switched between a rant against Wikiverse and a very praising version. andy 20:28, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[Not a vote (anon)] [Restatement of confusing attempt to vote:] Keep ~~Don't delete~~: form your own opinion and edit the article if you think it's too praising to to reflect the facts.
Andy also seems to be confusing legitimate link notification emails with spamming. How is a non-profit Wikipedia mirror useful if nobody knows about it? I thought spammers were criminals who hijacked PCs, stole bandwidth and flooded our inboxes with a tidal wave of emails with fake headers trying to sell us herbal penis enlargement pills!
- Per [5] and [6], User:81.218.221.77 closed essentially the above 2-'graph contrib with "[Katz]" before removing that and making minor formatting changes approximately 1 minute later. --Jerzy (t) 22:52, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
- Unauthorized emails are spam, regardless of good will or not. But that is not the topic here, the topic is if Wikiverse is important enough to be worth an article in a encyclopedia, and that it is IMHO not. andy 20:40, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - No vote. I swear that I could set a clock to the number of times an anonymous poster arguing to keep an article accused someone here of elitism for wanting to delete it. Please stop calling people names, User:81.218.221.77; it's not bolstering your case, and neither are your rhetorical questions and sarcasm. --Ardonik 04:14, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
delete non-notable. maybe worth mentioning at Wikipedia:Forks and mirrors. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- [~~not clear enough to be a vote~~ - Duh, already voted [blush].] Yes. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Simple: Wikipedia is not a web directory. Current rule of: Top 1000 of Alexa is notable, everything else must have strong arguments to be notable. And how do you know none of the other mirrors is viable? andy 21:14, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Google search: exact phrase "www.wikiverse.org." Result: 8 hits, 5 listed, one from Wikipedia, two from Wikiverse, one from a link exchange site, one real one. "Find pages that link to the page www.wikiverse.org" Results: "Your search - link:www.wikiverse.org - did not match any documents." Apparently nobody links to it, despite invitations to do so. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Del It never ceases to amaze me how people think that, somehow, by offending other people it increases the likelihood that they will get their article kept. Delete. Oh, and you did know that votes by anonymous users are not counted, right? Rick K 22:02, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, list it on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks but it's far from significant enough for an encyclopedia article. —Stormie 01:06, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
- [Comment?] Agreed. -Sean Curtin 01:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete as Wikipedia is not a web guide. A merge and redirect to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks would be fine. Let controversies associated with this particular service be summarized, hopefully by a new, NPOV, and disinterested hand if it has to be there at all. Geogre 03:02, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Del. Not notable. --Jerzy (t) 04:06, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
Delete. Ambi 10:27, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete.. Twice if possible, once for not understanding Wikipedia principles. --Ianb 15:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Spammer resorts to personal insults - news at 11. Rhobite 21:34, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
[Not a vote: Anon] [Restatement of confusing attempt to vote:] Keep. ~~Do not delete~~ For people (like me), who receive spam mail from wikiverse, it is very valuable to look up the "wikiverse" entry in wikipedia to find out whether it is a respectable mirror, or just a spammer and hijacker.
- a) Which category would you judge it to be in, based on the present content of the Wikiverse article?
- b) Unsigned votes don't count, but in weighing your opinion it would be helpful to me if you'd identify yourself in some way. If you run a website with which Wikiverse has requested a link exchange, perhaps you'd care to identify that site. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:41, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep [, as restatement of confusing vote] ~~Do not delete~~ I agree that it's useful to look up who they are, having just received their spam myself. Why is it spam? Because _they_ didn't create the link, they just inherited it, but they pretend they created it and imply that linking back is a requirement to maintain it. (If they had created the link it would be arguably a legitimate link exchange request.) They also have a spurious domain registration, claiming their city is Daganbanga (not found by Google anywhere), their state is Not Applicable, and their zip is 90210 (as in the TV show). Looks like they plan to first establish a presence, then sell advertising or whatever. They also are setting up subdomains for -- in this instance -- an artist in the form of "artistname.wikiverse.org" -- perhaps in a mild way a real service (but are they selling this?), plus they include a search for current press mention of the artist (small added value). So: is there a "scams" section this might be filed under appropriately? WytCld 15:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Hi everyone, in response to WytCld, I'm one of the programmers who helped create Wikiverse. We never expected Wikipedia to be so hostile to what we were doing, and I'm still not sure I understand why. I'd like to set a few things straight.

The first link exchange emails Katz sent were inaccurate in their wording (saying that we added a link), but that was fixed as soon as we noticed people were confused.
The domain registration was not fully accurate to for privacy reasons. The registrar has a privacy option, but the gal who registered the domain figured it would easier to just put in some bogus details. That has been fixed since.
We don't understand why the Wikipedia community is so hostile to Wikiverse. It's the nicest Wikipedia mirror out there. It's non-profit, it has a clean interface, it has an integrated newsfeed.
At this point I don't think there's anything I can say which will convince you we are not the sinister evil spammers you make us out to be. However, for those of you who are not yet biased by baseless accusations I'd like to say: there is no conspiracy, clever scamming or otherwise going on, just a humble little mirror of Wikipedia made some people who love it enough to donate resources to make sure it's always available in one form or another. (Wikipedia is under such a huge load it has been down on numerous occasions)
Why do you hate Wikiverse so much? --Tomco 15:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- - Speaking for myself and nobody else... I' don't hate Wikiverse. But based on my own observations, I don't think it's notable enough to be worth an article of its own. A brief mention in an article on Wikipedia mirrors is sufficient. The spam controversy should be mentioned briefly, because there is controversy about it. My own vote remains delete. If and when Wikiverse becomes important, I'd have no objection to an article.
  - By the way, Tomco, as a registered user, you are allowed to vote, which I don't think you've actually done yet. On a new line at the bottom, at the start of the line type an asterisk, then your vote (keep or delete, presumably the former), then sign with four tildes. Perfect formatting is not important, just make it easy for a sysop to spot your vote and determine your intention. VfD is an exercise in forming and determining rough consensus, not parliamentary procedure, so don't worry to much about the exact count and please don't create "sockpuppets" (registering as multiple users to inflate a vote), as Wikipedians really do hate that. Votes can be changed for as long as the discussion proceeds, by the way). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - I can't judge the site as, at least for the last 15 minutes, it's been down. Niteowlneils 19:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. ~~Keep.~~ (I change my vote. See my note below about "shame on me".) Apparently there is sufficient controversy about this new mirror to justify a Wikipedian dialog. It appears to be something more than just a mirror and may bear watching, or perhaps I should say, policing; and the Wikipedia entry is an excellent place for that. I will say that the message I received from Wikiverse, and which ultimately led me here, could in no way be considered spam. It concerned the Glosa language, and proposed an exchange between one of my Glosa pages and the Glosa entry in Wikiverse. Very precise, very relevant. Of the many link exchange requests I've received, I've only accepted one; this may make two. (Unless somebody else here, with no Glosa pages, and not even an interest in auxiliary languages, received the same proposal? Yeah, that could be spam.) The only questionable aspect of the proposal: Linking back to us will also help maintain your link with us in the future.. If Wikiverse is truly a mirror, then I see no way that an exchange could help maintain the link. (WytCld makes some interesting points above. And I too was intrigued by Wikiverse's use of subdomains for every Wikipedian page; an odd technique. Maybe I will wait a bit before linking. See what I mean? Even this VFD dialog about Wikiverse has been useful for me, already!) Ailanto 15:50, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
- I don't want to say this in a way that is unfair to Ailanto, especially since i'll be surprised if they turn out to be a sockpuppet. But, at the cost of singling them out for attention, i'm pointing out that their 3 or 4 editing sessions, with 6 edits, concern

the cryptic user page,
favoring retention in the successful VfD and unsuccessful undelete discussions on Ceqli language, and
this one.

It may be that they just need to request attribution of their anon edits. But they certainly are an unusual and contrarian editor here, and since i noticed the above, i'm drawing attention to that: FWIW, even tho i expect it's worth nothing. --Jerzy (t) 22:52, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

- - Thank you, Jerzy! I appreciate the gentle manner in which you raised your concerns. True, I haven't done much work in this Wiki yet. (And may not for some time; I've gotten myself involved in too many things lately! And Wikipediawise, I'd like to focus on the Esperanto and Ido sister sites.) As for my user page, I was influenced by the Ceqli discussion, in which self-promotion was oft cited as a major no-no. I assume that user pages are a special case since they would seem to be inherently self-promotional; mine is about me, after all... unless of course I am simply misunderstanding the purpose of user pages. I proudly accept the label unusual... and contrarian too, though in these cases I think that it would only mean that I'm in the minority, hehe. Ailanto 14:21, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
    - Y're welcome, Ail': the comment was specifically meant to be consistent w/ yr taking pride in it; i like to think such attitudes abt such qualities are characteristic of WP, as when my reservation abt being odd elicited "Odd is good" during voting on my adminship. --Jerzy (t) 18:24, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
  - ... Hehe! Suddenly it became clear to me! Linking back to us will also help maintain your link with us in the future. "Your link with us" doesn't refer to the link from them to me; it refers to a "link" between us. If I create a link to them, there will still be a link between us even if their link to me disappears. Hehehe. Ailanto 20:13, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
    - Hmm, which would ensure you had a way to find them to say "Wha'happened??" when they cut off your traffic. Or they may just mean "when we decide whether to continue linking to you, we'll factor in whether you're sending us traffic." (Which difficulty communicating may be a sign of their being not odd, contrarian or unusual, but just fly-by-night, incompetant, confused, likely to fold, and -- dare i say? -- non-notable.) --Jerzy (t) 19:02, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
Hi again. Thanks for sticking up for us (in a sense). Your view reflects the crushing non-wikipedia majority. Your point regarding that line in the email is valid, and I've sent an email to Katz regarding that. I'd like you and everyone else to keep watch over wikiverse for as long you it takes you to become convinced there is no cloak and dagger conspiracy going on. --Tomco 15:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The email Wikiverse sent me was to "Webmaster@<one of my domain names>" (with a CC to another username at that domain). There is no LAN associated with that domain name, and no email accounts. Email to made-up user names is clearly an unsolicited electronic message, which, in my mind (and according to m-w.com), is spam. Yes, it is better targetted than most spam--it linked to an article I editted some time ago (even tho' it's a topic I don't really care about)--but it's still spam. Ailanto, et al, using separate domain names for every article just gives them more google presence. Note that the vast majority of the hits for wikiverse are <some topic>.wikiverse.org. Niteowlneils 18:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. After reading numerous (many good) arguments on both sides of the aisle, I put it to my own test of keeping Wikipedia reputable: Is it encyclopedic content? No. As valid as some arguments are, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a list of warnings, subliminal advertisements, or whatever else this could be used for. It's not encyclopedic, borders on breaking several rules and, in my opinion, is not notable. So I say delete. Skyler 21:40, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete from the main article space. Spam is an encyclopedic topic. Individual spammers generally are not. If this is spam (obviously still a disputed point), this doesn't make the cut. Might deserve a mention in a more general article about scams involving Wikipedia or in a Meta article. Rossami 16:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ (see my vote in the comment of 16 Aug 2004 below) (I change my vote after reading Ailanto opinion below and re-reading Geogre post of 03:02, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC). A redirect to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks should be enough) ~~Keep.~~ [, clarifying confusing vote] ~~Do not delete.~~ Yesterday I was searching for something in Google and Google pointed me a page in Wikiverse. I was curious: "What is this Wikiverse and what is its relationship with Wikipedia?". The best place to find out is in Wikipedia. It would be frustating if Wikipedia did not at least mention what Wikiverse is. Akira - Cleber Akira Nakandakare 15:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- [Too vague to be a vote] That's a reasonable argument. And its why we have Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks - so that these (non-)relationships can be explained. There is no need for an encyclopedia article on it yet though - too far from the big time. Pcb21| Pete 19:06, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Okay, shame on me. Your comment that "(non-)relationships can be explained prompted me to finally visit Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and see that it contains lively discussions about those mirrors and forks, not just a list of mirrors and forks which I guess is what I was assuming. That satisfies my concern except for one thing: If I Search for Wikiverse, only the Wikiverse page shows up, not the mirrors/forks page. So, if the Wikiverse page is deleted, and I come here to find out if there's a relationship between Wikipedia and Wikiverse (which is exactly how I ended up here!) and I search for Wikiverse, will I be led to mirrors/forks? Redirect, search results, something? If yes, then I'll definitely change my vote, for deletion. (I probably will anyway. Just hope I don't lose my contrarian status, hehe.) Ailanto
Delete This has all been blown way out of proportion. I'd like to point out the only reason the wikiverse article exists is because someone who had felt deceived by the link exchange request created an article that was little more than a rant against wikiverse explaining that we were spamming scumbags who deserved "to die frightened and alone", trying to explain Wikiverse's point of view in the article (biasing it the other way), and the subsequent Vfd flamewar created much more heat then light and the impression something significant was going on in contrary to the facts

We decided to create a non-profit mirror of Wikipedia that was decent, clean and useful.
We made a few mistakes in the way we promoted the mirror that caused a member of the Wikipedia community to become upset and feel they had been deceived and cheated. He wrote the first article.
My response to this article, combined with a mis-understanding of Wikipedia culture eventually created a huge backlash that magnified Wikiverse into something significant and sinister that outraged the Wikipedia community.
For Wikipedians, the closest thing to deleting Wikiverse is to delete the article about Wikiverse.
It would be convenient for Wikiverse to have an article in Wikipedia about itself, where we can have a dialog with Wikipedia and introduce the site.
But I agree logically that if every minor website created an encyclopedia article about itself in Wikipedia, Wikipedia wouldn't really by an encyclopedia anymore.

--Tomco 00:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. The site may be useful, the article isn't. A couple of clarifications. 1. Ailanto: The reason your search for Wikiverse fails is that Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks isn't in the main namespace; if you click the "Wikipedia" check-box on the search results page and re-search, it'll come up. That certainly is a bit confusing, but that's a general issue about our interface, not a reason to keep the article. 2. Tomco: Thank you for finally acknowledging in a less sarcastic manner some of the specific issues others have raised, though it's really not productive to raise straw men like "cloak-and-dagger conspiracy" that obscure those specific issues. I'm still not convinced that you get the particular ways in which you "misunderstood Wikipedia culture" (which are clearly spelled out in the help pages - basically, don't engage in edit wars on subjects you're affiliated with [you could easily have voted to delete the original anti-Wikiverse article yourself], and don't delete others' comments; it's not rocket science). Your assertion that "the closest thing to deleting Wikiverse is to delete the article about Wikiverse", though, is just ridiculous. I might as well say that if someone posts a pointless article about me, deleting it is "the closest thing to murdering me". I think it's safe to say that Wikipedia users do not mistake non-listing for nonexistence, and know that articles are not written in order to "introduce" a site or to "have a dialogue". —Hob←Talk 15:54, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

(Vote above this 'graph if you change the tally accordingly, or below if you don't.) Votes above: DEL 14, KEEP 1 (unless someone changed their vote but didn't strike thru the old one). No one has yet double checked me. --Jerzy (t) 19:02, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

Redirect so that visitors to Wikipedia who seek information about Wikiverse can be sure of reaching the appropriate passage on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. Jerzy, you seem to be counting "delete and redirect" as a simple "delete", so I'm not sure how you want my vote to be reflected in your tally. Do any of the "delete" voters actively object to a redirect? JamesMLane 01:59, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. Please, redirect instead of just deleting. Akira - Cleber Akira Nakandakare 03:09, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hangon

can i point out that the wikiverse google co-op is NOT AFFILIATED with wikiverse.org. I dont understand the comments about abusive messages.

FREE BAPTIST CYCLOPAEDIA -- Add to this discussion

Chunk of badly OCR'd primary text. TwoOneTwo 20:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now listed at Wikipedia:Possible copyright violations#August 7. Please take further discussion there. --Slowking Man 21:32, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Free Baptist Cyclopedia -- Add to this discussion

Free Baptist Cyclopedia was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was the page was listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, then deleted as a copyvio.

Source text. No value. TwoOneTwo 20:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A complete mess, non-notable, delete maybe transwiki to wikisource. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:48, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page has been listed at Wikipedia:Possible copyright violations#August 7. Please take further discussion there. --Slowking Man 21:33, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, if a delete vote is even still appropriate in light of copyvio. The anon's contributions otherwise have been off the general point of Wikipedia, but not malicious. In this case, the "free" is "free will," but the "cyclopedia" seems tied entirely to a single congregation. Were it to be an encyclopedia of all Free Will Baptist theology, it would be borderline. At less than that, it's a delete for notability and web guide. Geogre 03:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- A delete vote is no longer appropriate in light moving discussion to copyvio. (But if it is not deleted as copyvio, whoever removes its entry there should bring it back here with a fresh nomination under the date that it is brought back.) --Jerzy (t) 03:53, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

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

Special price for you my friend -- Add to this discussion

It's a phrase. Non-verifiable. Not encyclopedic. Joyous 20:51, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Special price for you my friend, I will sell you an ASCII cow for ten of your Eenglish pounds. (once this nonsense has been deleted of course) Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:58, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Pointless. --Slowking Man 21:46, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice. Rick K 22:16, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: a phrase I hear all the time, only it's usually "sucker" for "friend" and "Hey, jackass" at the start, and "come 'ere and buy this junk" in the middle. Otherwise, very common. Geogre 01:59, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete --ScottMorrison 02:03, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Useless trivia, even if true. --Ardonik 04:09, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
Delete trivia. Now I'm hearing "We make a special trip for you. Same low price." SWAdair | Talk 04:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. "Today is your lucky day" — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 10:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic, no useful contents. Andrewa 11:51, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. C'mon now, people. Skyler 21:42, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Suspension bondage -- Add to this discussion

I tried improving the article, but then I stopped when I realized that there was nothing to improve — at best, this will become an instruction manual for a dangerous (as the article admits!) sexual practice. --Ardonik 04:05, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Merge with Sexual bondage. Safety warnings couched in "how-to" terms could be interpreted as advocating a practice, which might place us in a precarious legal position. Removing that part of the article leaves us with a dicdef. Merge the dicdef with the more general article. SWAdair | Talk 04:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 07:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect for good reasons noted by others. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect for those reasons and because of granularity and utility reasons. Geogre 19:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
merge/rediredt 4kintheroad
No vote as yet—I'm thinking this should be part of a separate article on fetish suspension. It's broader than mere bondage, including an S&M slant with suspension from piercings or skewers just stuck through flesh. Can't say I'm the one to write that article, but I've seen enough to know that it's a "common" practice, commonplace at fetish balls. Postdlf 04:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but should not be phrased as a how-to. -- Karada 13:52, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. Results: 1 delete 6 keep. Result: Keep. DJ Clayworth 16:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Christopher Knowles -- Add to this discussion

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

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

Biography NA‑class

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

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

Disambiguation

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

August 8

Lameframe -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable web comics site. SWAdair | Talk 00:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Note that User:81.156.219.238 removed all votes from this page, blanked at least one Wikipedian's user pages, and blanked/left a nasty message on a talk page. Geogre 15:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) Sie actually blanked this page several times, and removed the {{vfd}} tag from the page itself. —Kate | Talk 19:41, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable--46 hits. Note: I just reverted the article contributor's blanking of this VfD page. Niteowlneils 00:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'm getting exactly one google hit. Delete as non-notable. --Ardonik 05:55, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. --Slowking Man 01:51, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: And now 2004 is all of 8 months old. He created his site (on geocities) in 2004, but now it's a .com, and it's supposed to be notable enough for a general knowledge encyclopedia? Um, no. Again, I know that 8 months on the web equals 160 years of human life, but this doesn't make the cut. Delete for Wikipedia not being a link farm or web guide. Geogre 03:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete for reasons above. --Ianb 14:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
keep. Surely there are more creative solutions to difficult articles than just deleting them. Edit, rewrite, redirect, or revise instead. Arevich 18:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: So, Arevich, have YOU begun rewriting this article? Have you found a way in which it's notable? Have you found a way in which it's not a web guide? Have you found substantial information so that this can grow beyond a stub? It's very well for you to serially scold people for deleting things that violate the criteria for deletion, but it's even better if you start showing us that you believe it by fixing these things. Have you also missed the fact that this author has vandalized VfD and user pages? I review every article on its last day on VfD, and I'll change my vote, if I see that you have lit a candle instead of cursing the darkness. Geogre 02:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -- Infrogmation 20:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. To the anon: personal attacks, page blankings, and deletion of VFD headers is merely going to cause people to dislike you, so please let due process run its course. Thank you. -- Grunt (talk) 22:59, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

The Brownie Project -- Add to discussion

Not notable. 2 relevent hits for "Brownie Project" cookie. Not too surprising for a one-day old SourceForge project[7] that can't be found searching sourceforge for brownie--I had to use google cache to find the link above. Niteowlneils 00:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. SWAdair | Talk 04:06, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advertisements for pet projects are not welcomed here. --Ardonik 05:53, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
keep. Surely there are more creative solutions to difficult articles than just deleting them. Edit, rewrite, redirect, or revise instead. Arevich 19:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Sounds very ad-like, project does not appear notable. Perhaps it will be eventually. Isomorphic 03:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D. -- Add to discussion

Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D. was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Vanity. His book is self-published. Rick K 04:39, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite. Google turns up over 900 hits. He has apparently been published in medical journals, although nothing first-tier. I think he has had enough influence to at least warrant a small article. --Slowking Man 06:10, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, just barely The Marijuana Medical Papers is very well-known and IMHO is notable. But this seems to be the only thing he's done that rises to encyclopedic level. If redirects to sections worked, I'd suggest a redirect to our article on Medical_marijuana#History which mentions him and his book. Details:

The Marijuana Medical Papers is well-known. It is still in print. The title and author of the current edition is "Marijuana Medical Handbook: A Guide to Therapeutic Use by Ed Rosenthal, Tod Mikuriya, Dale Gieringer", [ISBN 0932551165]. Amazon sales rank is 143,158. I recently suggested that one crude criterion for a book's notability is that the Amazon sales rank exceed 50% of the Wikipedia article count; this passes. Mikuriya and his book are mentioned in our article on Medical Marijuana and a very quick check of the history shows the mention has been in there at least since Nov. 2003 [8], i.e. it wasn't just added.

~~The article is similar to http://home.carolina.rr.com/bbsnews/drtod.htm but I do not believe it is a copyvio.~~ I think I've fixed that, anyway. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article is way too much like a CV or Who's Who-style capsule biography.

From the standpoint of encyclopedic notability, I think his authorship of The Medical Marijuana Papers is the only really notable thing he's done to date. If you remove all the things that don't belong and rewrite to remove peacock words, promotion, and POV I end up with something like this:

Tod H. Mikuriya (b. 1933 Pennsylvania) is a psychiatrist who directed non-classified marijuana research for the National Institute of Mental Health Center for Narcotics and Drug Abuse Studies. His 1972 self-published book, Marijuana Medical Papers 1839-1972 became a landmark in the modern movement for the legalization of Medical marijuana. As of 2004 He continues in private psychiatric practice.

This is enough for an article, but just barely. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seems odd that I couldn't find his exact birth date quickly... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What the heck, I'm doing the rewrite. There's a little more. He has his own website. The fact that it isn't mentioned in the article strongly suggests that who ever wrote it was not acting out of vanity or promotional motives—or was unusually restrained. He's written some not-very-good vaguely-leftish folk-song-like song lyrics! http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/songs95.htm I wonder if we can trust that site's attributions? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this guy seems very notable, at least in California. Seems to be a conspicuous and outspoken advocate of legalization of medical marijuana, who's approved marijuana for thousands of patients and was in a big legal flap last year and in danger of losing his license. I can't find out how the story turned out--Boston Globe subscribers are supposed to have links to the Globe archives but the service is currently down, and I don't know if it was notable enough for the Globe. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep, barely: I agree that he has web notice, but I also note that many of the web hits are marijuana sites repeating each other. However, as a mover and shaker in the movement, he is notable, and as a campaigner, he qualifies. If we are having protracted debates on folks whose notability is "organizing" 50 other people as anarchists and agreeing to keep socialist papers with circulations in the dozens, then being a mighty big wheel in the medical marijuana community qualifies as notable. I would like to see knowledgeable editors rewrite and clean somewhat, so listing on Clean Up would be no bad thing. Geogre 12:51, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Weak keep Cutler 14:02, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Spleeman 20:26, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

keep. Arevich 19:01, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Lamp5 -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable. Hardly any content. No external links. Couldn't find relevant Google hits. I'm a PHP programmer and I haven't heard of this. -- Stevietheman 05:30, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. All Google hits are about lamps. Sounds vague, and doesn't even have a project link. --Slowking Man 06:15, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: too vague to be useful, and in either case, it's not even a finished product that can be meaningfully written about. What 'community' is it that is meant to be building it, anyway? TPK 12:06, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Premature entry, so to speak. I suspect some of our developer friends who have come to us from Slashdot are intending well and giving us information on their projects of late. At any rate, delete for not being notable. Geogre 12:45, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I did find the Lamp5 websiteafter more searching, but this project is spanking new. Therefore, this article isn't nothing more than a promotion. -- Stevietheman 15:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Worthy, but not yet noteworthy. --Ianb 22:09, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Glenbrook North High School -- Add to this discussion

Another non-notable high school. I wish other articles could be this long. Rick K 06:10, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Keep, but cut it down and NPOV it. The "power-puff" hazing incident made national headlines in the U.S. --Slowking Man 06:13, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, I agree with Slowking Man. It's notible enough that it merits a place here. It has close to 4,000 google hits which is significantly more than a non-notible high school that I tested it against (my own, no claim to fame). -SocratesJedi 07:54, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Kinda sorta wish the puff paragraphs were shorter, but I have no real gripe with them. Probably a good idea to amend the opening sentence so that it's clear off the bat that this article is here because the school has been in the news, and not because everyone should want to go there. Geogre 12:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Needs some cleanup. Speaking as a diehard nonnotable-secondary-school-deletionist... my argument has been that "local interest" pieces are far more acceptable if they say something interesting about the place. One of the arguments for keeping articles about high schools is that alums will get a warm fuzzy when they see the Wikipedia article; but the typical stubby article (address, district, number of students, name of principal) is pleasing to nobody, alum or stranger, and are not valuable nuclei that will induce bigger articles to crystallize around them. I think the combination of a) being setting for Ferris Bueller's Day Off, a notable movie IMHO, b) one silly "in-the-news" item, and c) one significant "in-the-news" item, justifies its inclusion. Plus it gets more Google hits than my own high school. Actually, I'll go further than that. IMHO, this article is a model of how to write a (marginally) keepable article about a marginally notable high school. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:03, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) P. S. While Northrop High School is a model of what not to do. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Have we seen Northrop High School here yet? Also, Baltimore City College is a different model of what not to do (very notable school, so definitely not VfD). I know two Wikipedians, one who went there and one who worked there, who can't persuade themselves to help it out. Geogre 04:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Just put Northrop High School up for discussion. (Incidentally, I vote Keep on this page, but please slim it down.)
Well beat me with a frozen turd and call me Ferris Bueller, but this is one high school article I vote to keep. Never thought I'd see the day, but there is enough actual newsworthiness her, plus sufficient salacious comment, that it provides info plus chuckle. Denni ☯ 01:53, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
Keep. What a nice change. I remember when the "powder puff" thing made national news. While I wouldn't probably vote to keep based on just that, when you throw in the Ferris Bueller connection and the other somewhat notable stuff, you get out a school easilly worth an article. Isomorphic 04:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. For the news & film reasons mentioned above. Sahasrahla 04:03 EDT, August 10, 2004
Yeah, keep - although I'll admit I initially thought that they had a Powerpuff-themed hazing. DS 22:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nick.com -- Add to this discussion

Nick.com was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to redirect the article to Nickelodeon (TV channel)

Reads like a press release for the web site; in any event, a TV network's Web site seems non-notable. -- Tregoweth 06:41, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Redirect. -Sean Curtin 07:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yup, redirect - TB 09:28, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Where to? Andrewa 11:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Nickelodeon (TV channel) I would guess. I vote for redirection also. TPK 11:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge with Nickelodeon (TV channel) before redirecting. I think this material would be helpful to anyone reading that article, but as a break-out article it falls to the "not a web directory" criterion. The article itself is NPOV and is reporting on a very popular international cable TV service, so the content should go into the Nickelodeon article. Geogre 12:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, Merge w/ Nickelodeon (TV channel) Noldoaran (t) 19:08, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Nick.com now redirects to Nickelodeon (TV channel), which incorporates the information about the Web site. Tregoweth 18:33, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

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

Fabian Doles -- Add to this discussion

Vanity. Non-notable; appears to have been compiled purely for geneological purposes Lacrimosus 10:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC).

Wasn't this deleted before? I emailed Fabian because he posted some things about his ancestors who were notable, and he created his own vanity page realising the details of the project. delete niceley, maybe speedily. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete pleasantly: I think all the articles he created ended up getting deleted, but this one was missed in the wave of VfD's on 7/26 (or 26/7, if you're European). Geogre 12:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
keep. Surely there are more creative solutions to difficult articles than just deleting them. Edit, rewrite, redirect, or revise instead. Arevich 19:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not a difficult article; it's a pointless article. Fabian sounds like a nice kind of guy, but even if it were the best-written article about Fabian Doles in the world, it still wouldn't convey any useful information. Lacrimosus 01:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete (as above). Lacrimosus 10:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Homie -- Add to this discussion

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

The result was Dicdef --Rlandmann 12:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

~~Delete:~~ Dictdef. You know, though, this is my favorite new word. French, Spanish, and Italian all have a word for pisano to mean "guy from my neighborhood/village," and English lacked one until "homie" came along. Not really at Wiktionary level. Geogre 12:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Merge & redirect, per Wile E. Heresiarch's suggestion. Geogre 00:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't know maybe an article explaining it's usage and how this word is in every language. Williamb 12:46, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - dicdef - unless somebody turns it into a cultural analysis Cutler 13:58, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps redirect to a slang article if an appropriate one exists. This seems like an article that will pop up again if it's deleted. -- Stevietheman 15:26, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge & redirect to urban slang. (Guess it's time to start an article on that.) Agreed w/ Stevietheman that homie will get recreated if it's deleted. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Is "urban" a euphemism for "hip hop" or for "African American"? Either way, it's a cop-out. I agree with merge and redirect, not with the proposed title. -- Jmabel 00:21, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Jmabel, the first time I heard the word, the speaker was white, and it was 1978. "Urban" has become less of a euphemism these days than an umbrella term for a host of subcultures. If we're more precise than that with the term, we'll end up with a POV debate, I think. The term probably arose in Black English, but it spread remarkably quickly - probably because it was a word standard English needed. Geogre 00:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep and improve. Spleeman 20:28, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, and expand... following the 'pisano'/cultural analysis theme?. If we are gonna keep it, I'll work on it. Already have Homie the clown on clown so theres potential cross reference. I think this has the potential to be more than a dictdef if it's treated in a scholarly manner.Pedant 00:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I thought homie was just short for homeboy, or is the former term more dominant than the latter? Pcb21| Pete 11:51, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Good point that Homeboy and Homegirl ought to redirect as well. The funny thing is that I think the slang speakers have been gender aware and have, indeed, made "homie" preferred over "homeboy." That's kind of a side issue at this point, given the votes, though. Geogre 17:43, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- - Rather than redirect to another WP page, it might be better to transwiki and soft redirect them to Wiktionary (see Wikipedia:Soft redirect) using the {{wi}} template. Pcb21| Pete 18:23, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. Results: 2 deletes 5 keeps. Keep. DJ Clayworth 16:25, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Alexander, Grand Duke of Russia -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Delete, Hmm, I thought about this for a bit before I nominated it. Although an article about all the royals that have died in infancy might be really interesting, (or even a list...maybe..). An article about each one would take more space than is available on the whole web. Williamb 12:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Merge with his father. I should probably do the same with the Duke of Kintyre and Lorne. Mackensen 22:24, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge (but where?) and redirect. I agree that simple notability doesn't get you an article. There has to be something to say. Cutler 13:56, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Merge w/ Alexander III of Russia and redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:18, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge with father. WilliamB is right--there are huge number of royal offspring that died young, quite a few with the same name. (Think how many Edwards there are in the British royals). Unless he's known for some distinctive reason (e.g. Nicholas II's daughter Anastasia, Victoria's son the Duke of Clarence and Avondale) a note with the parent should be sufficient.

end moved discussion

Paul John Clark -- Add to this discussion

Not notable: no Google hits on his name, or his 'critically-acclaimed' book or documentary. TPK 13:08, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Man alive was this guy hard to verify! Ok, here is verification. He doesn't go by Paul John Clark. He goes by Paul Clark. There are only a million publically known people by that name. The documentary didn't show up at all, but he was a writer for Spitting Image. He's also shown by IMDB as just a writer. So, what I've learned is that this isn't a vanity entry, but he's too minor a fellow for the encyclopedia at this time. Geogre 13:59, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Looks like Mr. Clark was a 2001 general election Labour candidate for the House of Commons. Combined with his scriptwriting work, I'm still not sure if he's notable enough for the Wikipedia. The worst part of this is that the article is so slim. I'm inclined to vote Delete, but I'll stay Neutral for now until I see what others have to say. -- Stevietheman 15:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- comment: mini bio --Ianb 22:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I've decided to vote Delete. Not noteworthy enough. -- Stevietheman 14:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
if I had to rewrite this, I wouldn't get much more than "scriptwriter for famous British TV shows, failed Labour candidate". Borderline notability, delete unless someone can come up with more. --Ianb 22:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If he gets a bit more famous, then OK. But right now, zap it. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 22:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment: If the writers who just wrote a single gag (and that's the only reason they're "noteworthy") are listed in Wikipedia, they should be deleted. -- Stevietheman 14:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mathias Färm Nikola Sarcevic Fredrik Larzon Erik Ohlsson -- Add to this discussion

Each of these is a breakout from a relatively minor Swedish skate-punk band. I will add the information found in each of these individual articles to the band's article. At present, they're substubs unlikely to ever grow. The information will be preserved, but no indication that any band member has achieved individual fame. Geogre 14:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete all: fancruft and/or vanity, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wile, while I agree with your general disdain for vanity and ephemeral pop culture in Wikipedia, you might want to do at least a tiny amount of checking before you say "no evidence of notability" or suggest that something might be vanity. A look at the Millencolin article should be a clue that this isn't a garage band. Isomorphic 07:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, possibly merging. --Ianb 22:06, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutral. "Millencolin" gets 362,000 google hits, and I can vouch for the fact that they're a reasonably well-known group within the punk genre. However, I don't know anything about the individual members. Isomorphic 06:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Isomorphic, no one is suggesting a delete of the Millecolin article. I'm planning, in fact, on taking all the information from these 4 breakouts and adding it all to the Millecolin article. I only nominated these 4 substub breakouts because they seem to be the work of someone a little overly zealous. Most of them say, "(birthday) plays guitar/drums/bass for Millecolin." One says, "designed the album covers." None of these individuals, as individuals, have sufficient notability, to me. Geogre 12:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I understood. I just wanted to clarify that the band at least is notable. Considering what gets submitted to Wikipedia, calling a band "relatively minor" on VfD conjures up images of garage bands and local acts. Millencolin has an international fan base, and while these individuals probably don't need their own articles, it's certainly not vanity. Isomorphic 04:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep - Millencolin is not a "relatively minor Swedish skate-punk band". It was the biggest Swedish skate-punk band at the time the skate-punk genre was popular. And Geogre, it is not "either or", you can still improve the Millencolin page even if there exists pages for the group memebers too. Eric B. and Rakim 17:07, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Mathias_F%E4rm"

Jake Hess -- Add to this discussion

Jake Hess was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Eulogy for man non-notable in encyclopedic sense. Transwiki to WikiMemorial. Salasks 15:25, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Did you look at 'What links here'? Three Grammys I consider notable. Also allmusic.com finds him notable [9]. 5,000 hits and inductee to the Alabama Music Hall of Fame. Article needs help, but Keep. (also, my understanding is that we only have a memorial for 9/11 victims, which I think is unfortunate.) Niteowlneils 21:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've done a complete rewrite. Turns out he won a fourth Grammy as part of a quintet, and is in at least three musical halls of fame, and at one time, Elvis said Hess was his favorite singer. Niteowlneils 22:28, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My mistake and thanks for the rewrite. Salasks 23:11, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. It was actually one of the more interesting vfd-rewrites I've done--heck, the dude had a six decade career, toured with his kids, cut an album with NFL Hall of Famer Terry Bradshaw, and even sang at the funerals of Hank Williams and Elvis Presley. The original article just didn't offer much of a clue to his notability. Niteowlneils 00:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep, but it's easy to vote this way with Niteowlneils's rewrite. The original was vague. As it is currently, it's a good article. Shoot, just mention The Imperials...great stuff. Good work Niteowlneils. Geogre 01:41, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. GMA Gospel Music Hall of Fame inductee, among other Hall of Fames. Elvis' favorite singer? Shows how much most of the public knows about Elvis (which is too little of the right stuff to know). I didn't know that. I learned something from you, Niteowlneils. Excellent rewrite - I hereby give you the esteemed "Mighty Mouse" award for saving the day on this article. Thanks, and Happy Trails to you! --avnative 22:54, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

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

Sword edge and sharpening -- Add to this discussion

Two reasons: 1) Not currently an article, less than a substub because no complete sentences, 2) Even if the article was written, it would more than likely have to be transwiki'd to WikiBooks Salasks 23:08, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Has no point. Delete. --Slowking Man 22:08, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
Delete substub. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 22:37, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Let me be blunt: delete. -Sean Curtin 00:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Looks like the kind of notes I took in college: "Industrial revolution process end go canals." It was very meaningful to me for about :50. Delete for being nonsensically titled and not written. Geogre 01:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The delete key is mightier than the sword. --Ianb 02:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep it. I'll fix it up. Stargoat 14:35, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Def jam vendetta -- Add to this discussion

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

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

Video games NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

NA

This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Sparrow Night (4 participants)
Steve AJ Broad (3 participants)
To Pixelia (5 participants)
Grow a Garden (9 participants)
Weed Hack Premium Beta (Internet Phenomenon) (4 participants)
K-ID (company) (2 participants)
Smoking Gun Interactive (1 participant)
Tales of Commons (7 participants; relisted)
Ilyas El Maliki (7 participants; relisted)
Platinum Arts Sandbox (6 participants; relisted)
Allin Kempthorne (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Untitled

From VfD:

I'm doubtful whether it's worth the effort it would take to turn this into a half-decent stub. Deb 17:49, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep and move to Def Jam Vendetta (Caps). I've fixed the List of PlayStation 2 games so that this is no longer an orphaned page. While I will confess that this article needs serious work, I have a hunch that I've heard of this enough before in magazines and such that the series, if not this particular game, is notable. - RedWordSmith 20:45, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Translated from AOL-speak and moved to Def Jam Vendetta. That formerly red page was already linked to by a number of pages (see "What links here"). --Slowking Man 22:24, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Wording

The current wording in this article is terrible. It really needs a grammar makeover.

Someone please describe the characters of this game! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.229.49.145 (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Def Jam Vendetta (The Fighters)

This article needs to be created. R@y 08:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the point to make a separate article to list the wrestlers in the game? That sounds like a part in this article instead of making an unneeded article.--72.65.226.19 (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Def Jam Vendetta - Front Cover - NTSC - Gamecube.jpg

Image:Def Jam Vendetta - Front Cover - NTSC - Gamecube.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Judge

Christopher Judge (Teal'c) is in this game, I haven't played it so could someone who has add in who he is --Shniken1 13:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Judge is known as D-Mob in the game.--72.65.226.19 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

def jam tournament

actually d-mob said that the player and ludacris are shit cuz he dont like the player and he mad at luda for loosing. you can tell cuz luda looked back at d-mob.24.59.73.128 (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grass Valley -- Add to this discussion

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

The result was keep. (I'm stating this just in case there an issue with the clarity of the end result 10 years ago.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From VfD:

delete I think..this looks like an ad more than anything else. Williamb 18:08, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Grass Valley, California. Rick K 19:44, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
No vote. Tough call. At a minimum there needs to be some disamb/reference to Grass Valley, California. If the article was short, I'd say 'merge with thomson, de-link from thomson, change redirs to thomson'. However, the article is substantial, has company history, and is basically NPOV. "Grass Valley" -city -ca -sierra -california -school -church -transit -food gets 38,000 hits, most of which do seem to refer to this brand, so I'm inclined to think it is reasonably notable. Niteowlneils 20:56, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added the link to Grass Valley, California and Grass Valley, Oregon to the top of the article--it should probably be moved, and Grass Valley turned into a disamb page, but I'll wait until the vote is complete, so as not to confuse the voting. I'm now leaning towards keep. Which parts are found objectionable? The list of trademarked product names? I've cleaned up worse corporate articles, but they had far more obvious problems. I think I can do the same here, but I could use some guidance as to exactly what is 'advertising' that needs to be removed. Niteowlneils 06:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Very difficult case. The company is notable, but this is advertising. Send to clean up, at a minimum, with a note on its discussion page that it should be renominated for VfD if the article isn't scrubbed of its product catalog and promotional copy. Very, very thin "keep" margin, here, and I'd as lief (for all you archaic English fans) see it go as stay. It can't stay like this, that's for sure. Geogre 01:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nuts...I promised myself that I'd limit my time on this page, but I have to weigh in on this one and say that the Grass Valley Group virtually invented digital video effects. Their production switchers are considered the creme de la creme. Remember the scene in "Star Wars" where the Death Star was preparing to blow up Alderaan? The control panel for the laser was actually an old GVG production switcher. Keep and send to cleanup. - Lucky 6.9 05:01, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, for the reasons given by Lucky. Its illustrious history merits an article separate from Thomson's, and this article can settle in among its nostalgic bretheren in Category:Defunct companies. --Gary D 06:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

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

Kopje -- Add to this discussion

Dicdef. Transwiki'd to Wiktionary. --Diberri | Talk 18:16, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Dictdef: Transwiki to Wiktionary. Since this is an Afrikanse word (in English), it's possible that Wiktionary doesn't already have it. Geogre 02:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Avigad Berman -- Add to this discussion

Article of dubious encyclopedic relevance about a fictional character, with a picture added of an unknown person. -- The Anome 18:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Originally from Talk:Avigad Berman, slightly reformatted:

stop deleting this page! this is not the hebrew wikipedia! the is no reason to delete it! a stupid person from the hebrew wikipedia makes problems there and here.-user 1
To all the English users of Wikipedia: The person that wrote this was banned from the Hebrew Wikipedia because of vandalising, and his article about Avigad Berman was totally deleted. He also linked this article to its sequel, knowing there is no such. my advise, as a hebrew sysop and one of those that banned the vandaliser (he subscribed 4 times!), is that you bann him too, and delete this article.--user 2
Please, anyone with a lock, do something - lock it and ban that user. he's bnothing but trouble. this is a bogus entry. Eranb 14:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
To the submitter: please justify the creation of this article, which appears to exist to insult someone that it states is fictitious, and then adds what claims to be a picture of that person. You have repeatedly removed speedy deletion tags from this page without providing reasons why. Google hits for the name "Avigad Berman": two. -- The Anome 17:10, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Avigad is a Israeli man - search in Google "אביגד ברמן" and you will see his article and his picture. He is not a real man - He is very important repoter, he wortes in the most famous Hebrew web site (walla - וואלה) and you can see it on Google. He is also appearing on google by english ("Avigad Berman") on the first result (see his photo by clicking "his photo" link on "walla photo" topic)
- Okay, you say "he is not a real man" and yet "He is very important repoter", and "you will see his article and his picture". If he's a fictional character, who is the picture of? -- The Anome 17:39, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
i don't know from where is the picture but is not a real man - this is a very famous character in Israel.
- Right, so let's start by deleting the picture: unknown source, of an unknown person. -- The Anome 17:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the picture has as a source - (by Walla!) see the external links
- And its copyright status is what exactly? -- The Anome 17:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - the photo belongs to Walla, thy shouldn't have problem that it will published in wikipedia they are using this photo all the time
    - Until you get explicit permission from the copyright owners to use the photo we cannot use it. I'm going to remove it from the page. (but not actually delete it yet theresa knott 18:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
now that you remove the picture (i'll ask for permission...) can you remove it form the deletion category?
- OK, I'll move the page from speedy deletion to votes for deletion, where it can be discussed further, and I'll unprotect it. -- The Anome 18:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

i've got a permission from Walla to use the picture ([email protected])

Avigad Berman isn't important at all. I live in Israel, I am part of the Hebrew Wikipedia and sysop. If we got to the conclusion that this article is unimportant, even as people that this man is known to us, there is no reason that you don't delete it. This person is fictionall and unimportant. The person that wrote the article is a consistent vandaliser, which was banned 4 times. I don't see any reason for the English wikipedia to have this unimportant stub.

This is too silly for words. Delete. -- The Anome 19:46, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Q:What is the biggest site in Israel?
A:Walla!
Q:Who is Walla! most famous reporter?
A:Avigad Berman

Do Not Delete

Delete. But if it's kept, PLEASE delete the photo. It's impossible to have a photo of a fictional character. Reminds me of the book version of MASH, where they were selling autographed photographs of Jesus on the cross. Rick K 20:00, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Rick, I don't believe that VfD is the place to make arguments about religion, implied or otherwise. --Slowking Man 22:04, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
- My comment had nothing to do with religion, and all to do with false photographs. You DO understand that photography didn't exist at the time of the crucifixion, right? RickK 22:06, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  - I'm quite aware of that, but your two sentences, when coupled together, appeared to be a thinly disguised attack implying that Jesus is a fictional character. Thank you for clarifying. --Slowking Man 23:30, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll give you that walla.co.il appears to be the highest-traffic Hebrew-language website, with 3 month average Alexa traffic rank around 452. [10] But what about this apparently fictional reporter? I agree with Rick about the picture, by the way. -- The Anome 20:04, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Avigad is an A-C-T-O-R and he has a picture, this is the photo behind the man who act him - "Avigad Berman" is an fictional name that Walla made up. Please bring his photo back.

A reporter has an actor? How can a real reporter be a character played by an actor? -- The Anome 21:16, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To say "I don't get it" would be an understatement. Delete unless someone can write an article about this guy which makes sense to English speakers. Rhobite 21:19, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

What the hell? Delete. --Slowking Man 22:04, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
This is the kind of article which benefits from deletion and possibly a later rewrite from scratch from someone who knows about the subject and can write lucidly for this Wikipedia version's primary linguistic audience. --Ianb 22:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looks like a bunch of crap to me. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 22:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, looks like a bunch of patent nonsense to me. Type 2 patent nonsense, to be correct, or "number 2" for short. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Article as it stands makes no sense and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If it deserves to be included then someone needs to give it a full rewrite. Delete. — Trilobite 01:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Um, ok, if I can figure this out (I got an A- in reading), this is a fictional columnist for an Israeli IT magazine. The magazine has a fictional, joke character who fits the typical nerd profile. It's a humor/tech column, I think. This joke figure is appreciated by readers of the magazine. Now, having parsed all that from this untranslated article and its non-fluent language, it's a pure delete. The figure is not notable for our readers. Geogre 02:30, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- I'm from Israel, and you are totally right, except for one thing: This joke figure is appreciated by readers of the magazine - even if it was true, this isn't a reason to have this pathetic article. If even the Isreali Wikipedia deleted this thing, so are we gonna have this thing?! No Way. And by the way, the guy that wrote the article said he got permission to use the picture - if they really banned him from the Heb. Wikipedia 4 times, I wouldn't count on his word...Delete now

Delete, delete, delete. - UtherSRG 04:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
delete it plese as soon as possible. this is fictional character

Don't delete!!!--Wweewq 13:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't delete, there is 300000 articles here i see no reason to delete Avigad--Israhell 13:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm a bit suspicious of Israhell being a sockpuppet. Anyway, not notable. Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wweewq too. Two and three edits, respectively. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete - if that character is non-notable for the hebrew wikipedia, it is even more so for the english one. And the current state of the article isn't worth keeping even if it were a notable character. andy 14:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep it - Avigad is notable enough!!!--Wiki2600 15:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: sock puppet --Ianb 18:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- [11]
Don't Delete!!! --0n1y0n3 16:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: sock puppet --Ianb 18:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- [12]
IF this isn't a completely made up article, and IF this is as well known in Israel as some say it is, and IF this is completely rewritten so it makes sense, THEN maybe keep. It seems this guy may be some sort of Ali G like character or something -- a character played by an actor who does some "journalism" for entertainment purposes -- but right now I can't tell what the deal is with him. There are alot of pretty unnoteworthy characters, both fictional and real, who have their own articles. Still, delete if the criteria I just mentioned are not met.-R. fiend 17:25, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You got it right Avigad Berman is the Israeli "Ali G". it would be a crime to delete this article! if you wann'a you can rewirte it. Don't Delete! --Wikiwikiwiki 18:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: sock puppet --Ianb 18:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- [13]
The amount of energy used in the article's defense in this debate is amazing. If that energy had been used on improving the article to make it understandable then maybe it would be a keeper (If it really is worthy of inclusion). Delete. Thue | talk 19:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

KEEP IT! DO NOT DELETE AND REMOVE THE VfD!!! --Public Enemy 20:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- [14]
Why doesn't someone who defends this page at least take the trouble to put it into understandable English? As it is, it looks like it was written by an illiterate 7-year-old. On that basis alone it should be an automatic delete. Hayford Peirce 20:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any spelling mistakes or problems with the grammar - if you see some fix them (after the page will be unprotected)... --Public Enemy 21:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Sockpuppet above (3 contributions, all on this VFD page)

delete with extreme predjudice. This is too ridiculous for words.

This is insanity. Delete with extreme prejudice, ban sockpuppets because I utterly loathe them and reformat all Wikipedia servers. Or at least delete this as patent nonsense. Did I mention that I loathe sockpuppets? - Lucky 6.9 23:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If this is, indeed, worth keeping, would the guy with six hands please remove a sockpuppet and go edit the article? Which is to say, I'm hearing a bit here that suggests there is an article worth having on this topic, but that someone is wasting his/her time (and a lot of other people's) by disingenuously defending a poor article instead of turning it into one worth keeping. -- Jmabel 01:00, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Right on. Stop sockpuppeteering, start fixing. I should point out that my pathetic attempt at sarcasm has generated a hilarious discourse on my talk page. - Lucky 6.9 01:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm with the "stop sockpuppeteering, start fixing" guys here. The mere fact that someone feels obliged to take on such measures to defend the article might just be evidence enough that we don't need it. Well, apart from that, I think I would have voted merge with Walla, an article that would have better chances of surviving – if someone could write it in understandable English. -- Jao 06:33, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Well he couldn't fix it whilst it was protected. Perhaps it will be fixed now. theresa knott 23:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. And by the way, I don't know who is on that picture, but it's not Avigad Berman. I searched the Hebrew name on Google, and found this picture on [15]. Pathetic. This proves there is no such person as Avigad Berman, and as an Israeli and one of those who banned this vandaliser from the Hebrew Wikipedia (see above), I can tell you that this person isn't important at all. I'll say this again: if we found this person unimportant, why should you have it? Whoever wrote the Avigad Berman page is a well-known vandaliser on the Heb. Wikipedia, uses sockpuppets, lier (he said he got permission to use the picture from Walla, but they don't even have the copyrights), and he also did some sort of vandalising in this Wikipedia as well: he did an interwiki to Hebrew, knowing there is no such article in Hebrew anymore. Delete now.
Unadulterated unmitigated crapola. Delete. -- Stevietheman 13:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
uglypeople.com took the picture from walla.co.il! in Walla! [16] you can see his shoulders but in the uglypeople website [17] you can't. Conclusion: The picture belongs to Walla! KEEP IT!! --80.16.106.83 14:43, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Even if the picture really does belong to Walla, which I dought, there are many other reasons to delete (sockpuppet, vandalising, Hebrew vandalising, Hebrew finding it uninportant etc.)
  - i dont care about the hebrew wiki... this his not the hebrew wiki and there is no vandalising related to this article! Keep! - im also from Israel and i found him very important. i can rewrite the article (after it will be unprotected and removed from VFD. i've a lot to add about it. Keep it up! --80.230.40.125 18:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - I've unprotected the page to give you a chance to improve the article now. Perhaps if it is rewritten people may change their votes from delete to keep. theresa knott 23:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

KEEP! Don't Delete! --Qwerty1234 18:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, and ban sockpuppeteer. -Sean Curtin 20:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- sockpuppeteer??? i dont think so... [18] --Qwerty1234 23:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Perhaps you could explain why you think the page should be kept? theresa knott 23:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete please. Quite a limp article. Fire Star 14:11, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. No encyclopedic value. Eranb 16:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep! can i remove the VFD now? there is a majority to keep this article... --83.130.212.58 23:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- "there is a majority to keep this article." !!!
- No, there's not; count the votes, noting that anon users and sockpuppets do not count towards the vote, and that you can only have your vote counted once. -- The Anome 00:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Delete. I've counted, and there is no majority for keeping: 20 (including myselfe) said delete, there are 6 proven sockpuppeteers, and only 1 that said to keep and wasn't proven sockpuppeteer, though it was suggested that he was. Unregistered votes weren't counted. Those that said delete unless improved have been counted as voting delete, since the article wasn't improved. This is just to show that the claim above that there is a majority for keeping is totally rubbish.--Roy 11:47, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Mai Zhou -- Add to this discussion

Just a random professor. -- Spleeman 20:17, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Substub has been around for a year. Only link is from Bean_machine. Delete if not expanded. --Ianb 22:01, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete substub. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 22:34, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Whatever explanation is needed is in the Bean machine. No one has been motivated to fix it in this much time, and the professor is not notable out of context. Geogre 02:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ha'ole -- Add to this discussion

I'm listing Ha'ole not because I think it needs to go, but because User:Zora has been blanking it. I've told her it needs to go here.

Now, I'm not sure what her problem is with the article. It may be that she thinks it's a misspelling (Ha'ole for Haole). I hope she comes here so we can discuss this. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 22:31, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi folks. The problem is that one user was propagating a common folk etymology for the Hawaiian language/Hawaiian pidgin term haole. In the Hawaiian language, haole means 'foreign'. In pidgin, it means 'white' or 'Caucausian' and is often said with a sneer (by non-Caucasians).

There is a folk belief that haole is composed of two Hawaiian words, ha and ole, ha meaning 'breath' and ole meaning 'not'. The explanation is that whites don't do the honi, the Polynesian/Hawaiian cheek-sniffing, and so they were described as 'breathless'. The implication is that haoles are aloof and ignorant -- which is what a lot of 'locals' think of haoles in any case.

This folk etymology is completely bogus. First of all, there are innumerable citations from Hawaiian showing that haole simply means 'foreign'. Including words like haole 'ele'ele for a dark-skinned foreigner. Second, the word 'breath' is ha (with a macron or kahako over the a), not plain ha. The word 'not' is 'ole, with a glottal stop or 'okina, not ole, which means 'fang'. Only someone who had didn't speak Hawaiian, and knew it only through the old missionary spelling that didn't include kahakos and 'okinas, would come up with such an etymology.

The usual response to this criticism is to claim that the original word was ha'ole, and that haole is just a variant. No reputable Hawaiian linguist believes this, as there are no citations for the word and the proposed change is not consonant with other sound changes undergone by Hawaiian over the centuries as it evolved away from a hypothetical proto-east-polynesian ancestor.

The fictitious word ha'ole was added to Wikipedia by Ilikea (who seems to have left in a huff, despite numerous messages from me urging a face-to-face meeting in Honolulu so we can thrash out our differences) in an attempt to bolster the folk etymology. Since I've deleted the folk etymology from haole, I don't think there's any need for ha'ole. Certainly not for a whole page devoted to it.

I've left any mention of the folk etymology off the haole page (I wasn't going to put a lot of effort into the page until the edit wars were over) but I can copy the 'folk etymology' explanation onto the haole page so that anyone looking for it can find it. I don't think they'd be looking under ha'ole in any case!

Zora 22:55, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No vote: Blanking a page without discussion on VfD is entirely inappropriate, and can lead to the user being blocked from editing. If you have problems with the content of the page, you can edit it to correct the content, but don't just blank. Rick K

Redirect with an explanation at haole as to why "ha'ole" is used and why it is wrong. -Sean Curtin 00:31, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We should decide which form is correct, then incorporate the content from the other article into that one, then make the wrong one a redirect to the right one. I have no opinion about which is correct, because I don't know Hawaiian/Hawai'ian. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 00:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep and redirect as above. You didn't need to bring the page here. Although you cannot blank a page without discussion on VfD, it is quite legal and acceptable and common to change a page to a redirect and to merge its data (which accomplishes much the same thing as blanking but without leaving a blank, orphaned article). Common misspellings and alternative spellings are good reasons for redirects in any case. Making the article into a redirect and providing a good discussion in Haole with arguments on both sides helps insure that another separate Ha'ole won't be created and is better for convincing people that the matter is known about and has been looked at. Just saying it has been disproved is hardly enough, if others believe strongly that it hasn't. Your discussion on the matter in this page (which I find reasonably convincing as one who has a degree of linguistic knowledge) should probably be revised and inserted into the Haole article. The best defense is an NPOV discussion in the page. You don't have to say the etymology is wrong if you instead show the difficulties in supporting it. Jallan 01:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Zora, by all means write your account and explanation on the page's Discussion link and, if you feel that it is vital, please insert a {disputed} tag on the page that will direct readers to the discussion. I think your account is compelling and persuasive, but your actions are destructive. Please try to help out our readers and fellow editors by using the Talk pages so that we can agree. Geogre 02:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Redirect: I'm on the fence about the redirect. I almost think having some account of how disputed the word is is helpful to those mistakenly searching this way, which is why the Discussion tab might have allowed it, after paring down the patently and provably false information. (In other words, it sounds like it's important that people know why they got redirected and what kind of mistake is involved, though that can be covered in the Haole article. Geogre 03:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did not intend my actions to be destructive. I simply did not understand how deletions worked. I've never run into this sort of problem before now -- in my whole three or four month Wikipedia history :/ I have reworked the haole article to include the folk etymology. Can the ha'ole article now be cut down to a redirect to haole? It includes some incredibly strange woo-woo Huna stuff and I hate to think of someone actually taking it seriously.

I should add that ha'ole is a purely hypothetical word that is NOT used. Some responders here seem to think that it's an actual word. No, it's just a guess about the past, like the various versions of 'Indo-European' that linguists have hypothesized.

I'll end with a question: where, o where, do I find a link to the escaped characters that Wikipedia uses for non-Latin-1 characters? I can never remember the code for the glottal stop, and I'd need ten codes (upper and lower case for a, e, i, o, u) to do the kahakos correctly. The codes I've seen don't look like the standard HTML codes (&#699 for the Hawaiian glottal stop, frex). Zora 02:43, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Āā Ēē Īī Ōō Ūū ʻ or ‘

These should do the job. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 07:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much. So they ARE the regular HTML codes. I've pasted an aide-memoire on my own page, and I think I'll make a little list (!) to hang up above my computer. I'll need them when I make an HTML version of Ka Mo'olelo o La'ieikawai for Distributed Proofreaders. Zora 09:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You'll find most of the information you need just by looking it up on Wikipedia itself. For example, Kahako and 'Okina. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 10:43, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment Wait. So you're saying that ha'ole is two actual Hawaiian words that translate to no breath and that have a common folk etymology and linguists dispute this? Sounds article-worthy to me. The Steve 18:34, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Nononononono. Haole is the word that is used thousands of times a day, spelled and pronounced without a long vowel or glottal stop. Hāʻole is the hypothetical, postulated word that means "breathless" that defenders of the folk etymology say evolved into the ordinary word, by the dropping of the long vowel and glottal stop. Since there is no evidence that hāʻole ever existed, it's Ptolemaic epicycle kind of explanation, summoned out of nowhere to rescue a failing theory. Zora 18:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Make into a redirect to Haole. -- Infrogmation 20:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

August 9

Intertextuality -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Intertextuality

Machine understanding -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Machine understanding

Watson and Crick -- Add to this discussion

There are already separate articles on James D. Watson and Francis Crick. Each article mentions the partner. Do we really need a little stub that repeats what is already in longer and more detailed articles? Joyous 03:12, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

I'd say it does no harm, and likely serves a disambiguation purpose; someone will link to it. The two names get mentioned in the same sentence quite often. Watson and Crick are like Rowan and Martin, only not as funny. Smerdis of Tlön 03:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Deoxyribonucleic acid it to me! - Muesli, the vegetarian jungle boy
Merge with DNA#The_discovery_of_DNA_and_the_double_helix and redirect to DNA -- Netoholic 03:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect DNA: Truly, it doesn't do much harm, but a redirect solves it nicely, I think per Netoholic's suggestion, as those searching for the combined term are really looking for DNA. Geogre 03:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
merge and redirect - UtherSRG 03:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As others have said, merge and redirect. --Slowking Man 05:18, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
~~Merge and redirect. --ssd 06:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)~~
Keep. Watson and Crick is the most common way of referring to both these two men and to their Nobel Prize winning work. I suppose just so long as we have something there that enables people to find the relevant articles it's OK, but it seems to me that what is there already is informative, encyclopedic, professional-looking and above all effective. Can I expect Flanders and Swann, Abbott and Costello, Simon and Garfunkel, William and Mary, Romeo and Juliet and all the other famous partnerships of history to now be listed as well? Andrewa 10:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- One is a title, one is a historic perioud (itself marginally useful), and the others are official names of entertainment acts. "Watson and Crick" is just the names of two fellows. Lewis and Clark is a closer equivalent, and that redirects to a nice long article about the expedition (discovery), not a stub describing the obvious. -- Netoholic 17:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
First appearance of an article of mine in VfD (bound to happen eventually I suppose). Obviously I'd like to keep this in some form. Andrewa is right, it is the most common way of refering to them, sort of like Sacco and Vanzetti. There are, I am sure, tons of people who are familiar with the names Watson and Crick (and would do a search as such) together who would stare blankly if either name were mentioned on its own. I'd be against a simple redirect to DNA, because I get annoyed when I find redirects to articles where the connection isn't clear right away, and one would have to read pretty far down the article to find out why these two names redirect to this molecule. If the specific redirect to DNA#The_discovery_of_DNA_and_the_double_helix works then I wouldn't oppose, but for me it seems those sometimes work and sometimes don't. As it stands now it quickly answers the simple question "Who are Watson and Crick?" and gives other places to go for more information. I'd prefer if it were kept and perhaps expanded slightly.-R. fiend 16:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I think there is anough information to justify a Discovery of DNA (better title?) article, which Watson and Crick could redirect to. It is a facinating story. -- Netoholic 17:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Redirecting to a section is discouraged as there's no guideline that says you must check for such redirects when editing the target section heading, so they get broken too easily. In any case, DNA#The_discovery_of_DNA_and_the_double_helix currently points to a section in which Watson and Crick are never mentioned as such, the individuals are mentioned but only half way down the fourth long paragraph, so IMO the principle of least astonishment is violated. No change of vote. Andrewa 20:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You've convinced me. Keep. Perhaps a link to the subsection in DNA should be added? --ssd 05:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I originated William and Mary quite a while back and addressed the issue in talk:William and Mary. How about a new tag fat redirect (embedding the caution against added further material locally) to formally recognise such cases? -- Alan Peakall 09:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Seems reasonable to me. People will indeed search on this. Perhaps the article could provide more details about the partnership. -- Stevietheman 13:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect and avoid the controversy over Rosalind Franklin. Rmhermen 13:30, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Here, here! -- Netoholic 17:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  I liked the controversy over Franklin. I thought it was very interesting, especially the resolution. --ssd 00:31, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Why avoid the controversy? It's important and well-known. Watson has said he can't give a lecture anywhere without being asked about it. Whatever one's opinion it's certainly newsworthy and it would be remiss of Wikipedia to pretend it doesn't exist. -R. fiend 00:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A couple final points here. Netoholic says this article "describes the obvious", but I'd say its only obvious to those who know who Watson and Crick are; someone who comes across the names and knows nothing about them will benefit from this stub. Admittedly there is only one Crick on Wikipedia so an individual search will yield a result there, but until I made a somewhat complex disambiguation page for Watson a few days ago there was no real way of finding him. A redirect to DNA, as I said, will be a bit of a stretch. Redirects should be used more for things which have more similar meanings. This stub allows one to easily find DNA, articles on both indiviuals, and a few othe useful links easily, instead of dumping you right into DNA, where the names Watson or Crick are hardly mentioned. The fact that Watson and Crick are refered together as such so often, and never as "Crick and Watson" for instance, shows how they have entered the lexicon, not as two guys who have a vague connection (such as Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller), but as a duo like Bert and Ernie, who, incidentally, have a page on both of them as well as their individual pages, so there is a precedent here. If someone wants to take Netoholic's suggestion and create a page Discovery of DNA and redirect there that would be a decent compromise, but until such a page is written I'm sticking with my original keep vote. Or keep and expand, as long as there isn't too much unecessary repetition of the exisiting articles on them. -R. fiend 14:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's useful as it stands. BTW, R. fiend's assertion notwithstanding, the two are indeed called "Crick and Watson" pretty often. "Crick and Watson" DNA yields 6000 Google hits ("Watson and Crick" DNA yields 24,000). Let's make Crick and Watson redirect to Watson and Crick. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. In the long run it will probably turn into the perfect location for the story about DNA was discovered. :ChrisG 18:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep! It's the joys of Wikipedia that it can be accessed this way. Of coure when someone does they hit their forehead and say 'D'oh' but as was mentioned earlier it's how the duo are frequently referred to. Saga City 12:27, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Chronic Fatigue (comic artist) and Mixy - Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chronic Fatigue (comic artist)

Annoyance -- Add to this discussion

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

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

Psychology NA‑class

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

Warning: Default sort key "Annoyance" overrides earlier default sort key "Knowles, Christopher".

VFD

From VfD:

~~Maeve Wickham~~ Unsigned entry listed for VfD by Securiger -- SWAdair | Talk 06:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Oops. Sorry about that! Securiger 01:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC))

OK, it's been much improved. I withdraw my vote for deletion. Securiger 07:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I'm almost on the fence on this one. Not too long ago I noticed the dicdef nature of many of our Emotion-related articles, but they seem to have improved recently. This one, though, has languished for six months. Delete if not improved within five days. SWAdair | Talk 06:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I see how it attempts to be a legitimate stub by branching out to a talk on the psychology of the emotion. That's a possibility, but "annoyance" is such a nebulous condition that I wonder if psychologists can answer it. It can mean disquiet or anger, after all. In its present form, delete. Geogre 12:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic. - Centrx 18:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality 22:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Soft redirect to wiktionary by replacing text with {{wi}} template, better than deletion. Pcb21| Pete 23:27, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, much improved since it was nominated. - SimonP 14:58, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

First person POV in certain parts should be removed

I don't have time or I would do it right now. I like the article but it is jarring and against policy to have part of it in first person. And the link to Spongebob Squarepants is a joke? Spalding 17:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up

I placed the clean-up tag on this article, it needs it badly but I'm busy with other things right now and don't know where to start. The language is choppy, with poor grammar in parts. The article is stubby - little more than a dic def and needs expanded. It is also inaccurate in places. Lastly, I noticed a lot of vandalism that's not being taken care of in a reasonable amount of time. I'll watchlist it and keep an eye out for vandalism. Someone needs to take this under their wing though. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to take some of this on, or can recruit someone, that would be appreciated quite a bit. You are 100% correct on all accounts, and it's really just a matter of who is to be the "someone" (willingness/capability/patience/etc.). I'd considered requesting edit protection, but there's not that much here to protect. The article is clearly an attractive vandalism target, as some people seem to consider it "clever" to be annoying with it. dr.ef.tymac 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is rubbish

I think the title says it all. And the property of being easily angered is called being bad-tempered or irritable. Petulance is childish anger and the things that go with it, e.g. sulking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.31.167 (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018

Error: Protected edit requests can only be made on the talk page.

2601:1C2:4B00:937:5109:CFB6:FB32:9BB7 (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip is always annoying

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rfl0216 (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SIC 2080 -- Add to this discussion

SIC 2080 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP following a pagemove to List of beverage companies. Rossami 23:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Does this article serve any purpose? Rick K 05:56, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Someone listed this in cleanup too. Aren't we suppose to wait for cleanup to do its job first? Neutral vote for now. --ssd 06:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the clean-up has been completed. The original article was ALL CAPITAL LETTERS but that's been fixed. As to the worth of the content, I don't personally see it but I'm not bothered enough by it to vote to delete either. I'll abstain. MK 03:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would say that we ought to wait, except that this is one of those "List" articles that isn't labelled as a list. The usefulness of the term is going to be very, very low. The people who want a list won't find it, and only someone researching the SEC listings will look for "SIC 2080." People doing that are almost sure to already have other resources for keeping current on the topic. So, despite how quickly the move to VfD came, I'd say that the article needs to be moved to List of beverage companies, where it can live long and prosper. Geogre 13:01, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Geogre - this page should be moved. The current page should be changed to a redirect. Ignignot 14:23, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Agree to move. After moving, is there hope this can be cleaned up? --ssd 05:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I think so. Clean Up helpers who see an entry for "SIC 2080" may look for the next thing, but those who see "List of beverage companies," I'm going to bet, open the article and start helping. Probably a very good idea for the first cleaner to set up some kind of internal rationale, though, like (US Beverage Companies) above the current entries. After all, a "List of" article isn't going to be just American. Geogre 12:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

List of religious leaders in 1220 -- Add to this discussion

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

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

Middle Ages NA‑class

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

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

Religion NA‑class

	Religion portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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

Lists NA‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
NA	This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

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

Biography NA‑class

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

Warning: Default sort key "Religious Leaders In 1220" overrides earlier default sort key "Annoyance".

From VfD:

This "list" of one entry is not likely to grow, and IMHO should be merged with all its sibling articles (1, 2) into some kind of master list. ----ssd 06:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, eventually I think we'd like to have a list for all the years, much like we're working on with State leaders by year. But like those lists it makes sense to start with more recent years and get some somewhat complete lists done. Why someone just picked 1220 I don't know, but it could grow, and I sort of hope it does. I'd say keep, or maybe merge as a subsection of a List of state leaders in 1220 page when there is one. Could be a while though.-R. fiend 07:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- OK, there is a List of state leaders in 1220 page already. Didn't realize that. I guess that also explains why there's a religious leaders page for the same random year. If it gets merged I think it should be discussed on the Talk:State leaders by year page, not here. I'd like to see all these pages get expanded and completed, so I think deleting is not the way to go.-R. fiend 07:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Strong keep. It is likely to grow, as I somehow doubt there was only one religious leader in 1220, and more importantly, it's part of a wider set. If I have to go through and find out who led each individual church in 1220 now, I'll do it, but I'd prefer that it wait until the people working on the religious leader lists get to it. A master list on such a thing would be completely unworkable. Ambi 13:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. - SimonP 15:22, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I'm guessing the year was chosen because a popular roleplaying game Ars Magica is set to the year 1220 and this page would be useful for the players of that game. The author of the page is probably a player him/herself. --Farside 17:48, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I added the Patriarch of Constantinople, but the list of Coptic Popes suggests there wasn't anyone in that position in 1220. I'm not sure we can specify too many 'leaders' exactly - how many religions have a specific 'leader'? Average Earthman 17:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I just found a whole crapload more Christian ones, linked from Lists of office-holders and List of Bishops and Archbishops. Adam Bishop 23:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, I vote to keep. What I'd like to see more than deletion, though, is some effort at linking this page to better resources, as mentioned above. Specifically, could someone add relevant links to the categories and/or parent categories for this page, so that people that do find this page can find research resources and/or the project page managing these pages? --ssd 06:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Much better now. Keep - TB 09:26, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I hope this turns into a useful source of information; I was envisaging doing something like this myself for c. 1500 - 1530 so I can get a handle on various religious / political intrigues of the time. Sjc 05:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Would it be more useful to have these organized by decade? Most of the info will simply be duplicated if we have one for every year (and there would be at least 2500 of these articles if we went by year). Adam Bishop 06:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - It'd make things more complicated, and IMO, make these less useful. In future, I'll hopefully be able to pick any year of the last thousand, put it in, and get a list of the state leaders, religious leaders, etc. In that form, it's very useful, and interlinks nicely with the year articles. I'd rather not mess with it. Ambi 06:43, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Expanding/reorganizing

For some insane reason I have taken on the crazy impossible task of listing every Catholic archbishop and bishop in 1220, and organizing them along the lines of: general area in which they were located-archdiocese-diocese. I have been using the Wikipedia articles themselves (in English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, and German, so far), Catholic-Hierarchy.org, and the Catholic Encyclopedia on Wikisource, to figure who was a suffragan of whom in 1220. As of now (October 2007) the most enormous problem is sorting out who goes with whom in Italy, and just what underlying political structure even existed in central and northern Italy at the time. For convenience I have assumed that Italy is divided into Sicily, the Papal States, and imperial territory, although obviously this is not quite accurate. If a diocese seemed to be in the Papal States, and the Italian Wikipedia and the Catholic Encyclopedia did not say that it had a metropolitan, I have assumed it was a suffragan of Rome. Unfortunately the Italian dioceses have become so intertwined since then through mergers and elevations to archdioceses that I just had to give up for some of them. Similarly for Spain, the subsequent elevation of archbishops and completion of the Reconquista makes it difficult to figure out who goes where in 1220, so I have assumed that they all go with Toledo unless otherwise specified. Next I will have to sort out the Holy Roman Empire, and I haven't really begun to touch eastern Europe or the crusader territories in Greece, and the Eastern Orthodox churches will probably never be this detailed. I suppose there will be books at the library which will clarify things, but I haven't checked there yet. Adam Bishop 05:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batshit insane article. I like it. Haukur 23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For more on the bishops at Garðar see de:Liste der Bischöfe von Grönland and is:Garðar (Grænlandi). Haukur 23:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. I've also found some 19th century German and French works (well, written by Germans or French in Latin, so you know they must be awesome) which are supposed to list all dioceses and bishops in the middle ages (by Eubel, Gams, and LeQuien), so hopefully I can take a trip to the library soon. Adam Bishop 02:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Gams is too comprehensive to be useful, and I haven't looked at LeQuien yet, but volume 1 of Eubel seems like it will be extremely informative. Another victory for 19th century German scholarship! Adam Bishop 02:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other day I started feeling a bit of deja vu...I was sure I had worked on something similar to this before, and that there already was a list of archbishops and bishops from this period, in the form of a list of participants at the Fourth Lateran Council. Yesterday I finally remembered that we were given a list in "sources of medieval history" class back in my first year of grad school. I'm glad I'm such a pack rat and keep all my class notes and handouts, because I still have that - it was from "Un document retrouvé," by Achille Luchaire, in the Journal des savants, n.s. 3 (1905), 557-567. The Journal is conveniently located on Gallica (linked from our article). It doesn't give any names, but it is organized the way it is here, geographical area, archbishops, and their suffragan bishops. The only problem is that is is not explicitly organized that way, since it is just a bare list, so it will take some work to figure it out, but it shouldn't be too hard with help from Eubel and all the other sources I've mentioned. Adam Bishop 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found this guy Cardinal Gualo hiding out somewhere in the back of beyond, any idea where he might fit? Ealdgyth | Talk 06:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eubel and the list edited by Luchaire both say he was titular Cardinal-priest of St. Martin...but I can't find any other reference to a titular church of St. Martin in Rome. Maybe it no longer exists? Adam Bishop 14:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Nevermind, it's Santi Silvestro e Martino ai Monti, listed under S rather than M. Adam Bishop 14:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there is an even better article about him at Guala Bicchieri! Adam Bishop 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess he should be merged then! Ealdgyth | Talk 04:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I'm done with Eubel, or I have looked at it as much as I can stand. It's a little outdated now, and it's somewhat maddening to use. So, as the article stands now:

-the archbishops and bishops of Britain are complete, and whatever other officials I could find from the Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae are also included

-Ireland seems to be complete but I'm not entirely sure

-France is complete, because there is so much information about it and whatever changes occurred between then and now are easy to understand; the only trouble I have had is figuring out what parts of France were part of the HRE at the time

-Spain and Portugal are pretty hard to deal with, since 1220 falls right in the middle of the Reconquista, and some dioceses are just about to be created, some are just about to be placed under a new metropolitan, and some are sort of titular but not really...I have found some books in the library that look promising, so that should help

-I need to find some books about Italy too but I think I have it mostly sorted out. Here there is also a problem of what was part of the Empire and what was not, and I'm assuming everything between the Alps and the Papal States is de facto independent at this point. Also, I am not sure how to sort out Aquileia, Grado, and Venice. Otherwise, I think it is all correct, at least according to Eubel and the Catholic Encyclopedia.

-The Empire is mostly easy to understand, except in the north where it overlaps with the Scandinavian dioceses. What is part of Lund and what is part of Bremen?

-Everything to the east is pretty messed up. What is going on in the Baltics? In the crusader states occupying the Byzantine Empire? In the former crusader states in the Levant? In Armenia?

-Eventually I want to include as many abbots and abbesses as I can find, although that is an even more ambitious project, I think. I have crazy dreams of organizing them by territory and by religious order...

And I would like to provide references for everything, although I should have done that as I went along...There are probably also articles about some of these dioceses and people which need to be linked or redirected. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For abbots and abbesses in England and Wales I have Knowles' Heads of Religious Houses which only goes to 1216 but gives the next office holder so it'll cover most of England and Wales. I suppose I could get that up soonish. I'd planned on actually getting all those into at least lists for the various abbeys at some point, so they'll exist sometime in Wikipedia, once i finish with the bishops and archbishops. Im sure there must be something similar which covers the Irish and Scots abbeys and priories, but I've never had any reason to go hunting for that sort of data so I'm clueless. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ealdgyth/Abbey list with 1220 heads there's a start. I'll keep updating it as I get a chance. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! I've got a list on my sandbox too. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same guy

These two: Bishop of Bamberg - Ekbert von Andechs (1203-1231) and Bishop of Bagnorea - Ekbert of Meran (1203-1237) are/is the same guy.Tusbra (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT?

What the heck kind of an article is this. My opinion is that which merge this with other garbage and trim down the list so we don't include every bishop EVER.

LukeScalone (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

I know this list is a bit crazy, but I personally find it very useful. Maybe some info could be removed (I suppose it's not necessary to list every single parish priest...). It's not really an indiscriminate list, actually it would be useful if we could make a list like this for every year. Anyway, please discuss the merger on the talk page first. Apparently everything that has been done to the page over the past couple of weeks escaped my notice through my intermittent watchlist-checking. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aventail and Ahlspiess -- Add to this discussion

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

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

Military history: Medieval Project‑class

This page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Project

This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

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

Middle Ages NA‑class

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

From VfD:

Dictdefs. Rick K 06:22, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

wictionary or merge unless expanded. --ssd 06:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. These are specialist terms, and they may not have them there. Geogre 12:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Both were nominated for deletion within minutes of their creation. Give these stubs a chance to grow. Unlike many of our articles, these are real things. The very fact that we still have names for them supports their claim to historical significance. Rossami 16:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Note first that we not "still have a name" for "ahlspiess". It is not an English word, it is not in the OED, and the article itself says that the English term is "awl pike". Note also that the presence of the other word in certain dictionaries does not attest to the term's historical significance, for it is not in modern use and is not in dictionaries of modern terms. The OED's latest quotation, for instance, is from 1842. Unless these articles can be expanded to be numerous paragraphs, they belong in a more general article about medieval weaponry. As it stands, these articles currently have no information that indicates why these are anything unique. Note also that Webster 1913 and the OED define "aventail" as "the movable front or mouthpiece of a helmet", which is not what the article currently states (it looks like the present definition is from Wordnet, which is--as often is the case--false). So, in conclusion, the "aventail" article is entirely false information and the "ahlspiess" article should instead be in "awl" or "awl pike". Ultimately, however, unless these articles are expanded into articles of several paragraphs, this information that should go in these articles belongs entirely in articles on "medieval armor", "chain mail", or whatever. - Centrx 18:45, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I learned of the weapon as "ahlspiess" first and always assumed that was the common name but I would not object to a pagemove to awl pike. I'd also be okay with your suggestion to merge and redirect into a more general article about medieval weaponry. Do you have a suggestion? Rossami
  - Ahlspiess is the common name; based on old texts and still supported by new RPGs (FFXI, SS2), Awl Pike is an alternative, and in itself an alternate. As for a conjoined page, I see not a reason for the weapon category already suits this and there's very few unique weapons to ever have to merge them by eras.

As for the "Aventail," remove and append with Visor_(armor). — Blade Hirato 09:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Joe Arpaio The True Story -- Add to this discussion

POV rant Rick K 06:30, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

subject noteworthy and has NPOV (?) article: Joe Arpaio. Delete. --Ianb 06:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like the other one could use some cleanup. --ssd 06:48, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Hysterically ridiculous, but mostly ridiculous. Arminius 07:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I started reading with 'merge non-rant content' in mind, but got as far as "Joe Arpaio has made a name for himself, literally, as "America's Toughest Sheriff."" (What did he make it out of? How? Are there any photographs of it?) before giving up. Delete - TB 08:34, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

(Maybe he got a belt buckle with that written on it at the state fair.) At any rate, the article is extremely POV, right down to the first-person section at the end. Delete. Spatch 16:25, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
He has been billed as a prototypical "Tough Sheriff" in numerous news accounts and has been featured in many newspaper articles, including the New York Times and USA Today. He is currently in the news for publicly broadcasting prisoners being booked and being held over webcams. - Centrx 18:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More of the pathetic war against Joe Arpaio. Not that I have any dog in this fight, mind you - but bringing the war to wikipedia is what's pathetic. Delete. --Golbez 17:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
merge the two articles. Part of NPOV is giving all/both sides. Sheriff Arpaio is not a universally loved person here in Maricopa County. --Vik-Thor 16:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Have you read the original Joe Arpaio article? Last check, it DID mention such complaints, though they are typically caught in an edit war and thus present NPOV may not be preserved. Of course, I could be wrong, not being intimately familiar with Maricopa politics. --Golbez 17:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The mention of such complaints in the "original" article were mine - the author insisted on deleting all my comments. I did attempt to merge the two articles, but apparently the author of the original is adverse to telling the whole story insisting upon reporting only a positive slant to a subject that has much more to it. I found the original to be more in the flavor of a benign, fact-lacking propaganda piece. I would love to know if you would label history books and historical literature about Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and the like as "rants"!? They do after all report all the atrocities commited by these maniacs.

I have been accused of making libelous remarks, ranting, and even copying directly from other sites (several of which I personally wrote the original content for), despite the fact that everything I wrote has been meticulously documented. Instead of embracing the true, unadulterated facts of a story, article, report, whatever you want to call it, my journalistic integrity has been questioned by people who know few of the facts - and even less of my character.

Perhaps having someone besides myself (Vik-Thor, Centrx), suggest the true character of this individual will make a difference. Perhaps, critics checking out the numerous media outlets who have also reported similar facts about this man, and his increasingly illegal activities, will have some effect on the perception that I am somehow making it all up, or exaggerating on some level.

By the way, 'TB' and 'Spatch' if you cannot find anything but cheesy comments to make about an extremely common figure of speech - why bother saying anything at all. It is common knowledge that Arpaio labeled himself as "America's Toughest Sheriff" then attributed the origin of the name to the media. 'Arminius' - if the activities of this person were not so horrendous it would be ridiculous. The problem is that the facts are true. Unfortunately, people who refuse to address these issues as serious are the reason they are allowed to continue - and people continue to be injured. [The latest beating in MCSO jails was an 80 yr. old man]

I don't think you understand TB's problem with the use of the word "literally". Rick K 07:02, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Merge with Joe Arpaio. Request mediation or something if edit wars continue to be a problem. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:25, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - merge anything useful into Joe Arpaio - Tεx τ urε 19:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chiseen -- Add to this discussion

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

Dicdef. Originally on CSD, but I didn't believe it was a proper candidate, dicdefs generally going to VFD. TPK 11:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete as dictdef. If Wiktionary wants it, they can get their own contribution, I think. I hesitate to transwiki a foreign language term, since I haven't the vaguest idea what they already have or want. Geogre 15:30, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete as dictdef. I originally listed it on CSD because it didn't even seem to be an English word. But yeah, I guess VFD is better. Andre 08:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Mirta -- Add to this discussion

Common name dicdef. Originally on CSD, but I didn't think it was a proper candidate. TPK 11:19, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Um, er, I guess I did think it a proper candidate, and deleted it. I will restore it if anyone thinks the delete was improper and it should be restored. All it said was something to the effect that 'mirta is a spanish name that means the same as martha or martin in english'. If it does come back, obviously, my vote would be Delete. Niteowlneils 14:01, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry for being a stickler, but which of thespecific cases for speedy deletion do you think this met? Rossami
  - I guess it seemed like a cross between #2 and #4. To be honest, if I had run into it on newpages patrol, or if I knew at the time it had been put on VfD, I wouldn't have deleted it. I found it because someone else had tagged it as a speedy candidate, and at the time I was probably thinking I was just 'seconding' their motion. This is also why I usually try to stick with only the most obvious cases (EG content="save page" or random letters) that show up on the speedy cat. I fix, redir, or vfd speedy cat items (or just leave them alone and let a more experienced admin make the call) far more often than I delete them. In hindsight, a) I should have held it to the same standard I use on newpages and done something other than delete it, and b) once I found the vfd listing should have just gone back and restored it and let nature take its course. Niteowlneils 20:26, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

White minority rule -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Doesn't this amount to the same thing as apartheid? Redirect to that or a new page on minority rule in general. (Including race, religious, etc. minority government). The specificity of the title suggests that only whites might become minority rulers. TPK 11:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is not necessarily the same thing as apartheid. Rhodesia had a white minority rule government between 1965 and 1975, but it did not apply apartheid. It's not only whites who might become minority rulers, e.g. Indians in Fiji, the prospect of which triggered several coups. -- Arwel 12:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well it still ought to redirect to minority rule or somesuch then, IMHO. TPK 15:11, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep and improve with Clean Up. White minority rule is now a blanket term used to indicate post-colonial nations, as well as colonial ones, where a white party has the power. Apartheid is a specific South African political philosophy. A redirect to Apartheid would be a stop-gap while waiting for this article to exist fully, and I'd rather not take that step. Geogre 18:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

REDIRECTED to Dominant minority, new. This article is too limiting, and confusing (whites to most people mean europeans, but "white dominance" in South America mean "white" Latin Americans, descended ages ago from europeans, or simply selected to be dominant by british/portuguese, etc. However, the issue of Dominant Minorities (or "minority dominance", couldn't decide on title) is an issue that affects people worldwide, and in many cases, is not "whites" doing the dominance (chinese in Indonesia, Lebanese in West Africa, etc.). The issue remains the same.

could use help with Dominant minority and important subject. Terrapin 19:42, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Comment: I really disagree with the redirect. I hear "white minority rule" on BBC World Service news nearly every night, as something historical or ongoing. "Land reform movements date back to the era of white minority rule in Zimbabwe, but Mugabe's schemes...." Geogre 21:40, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep, not redirect. The term is frequently used with reference to the history of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. I think there should be an article, it should be mainly about that country (and any others where this term may be very common), and should have a "see also" or something to link to an articl on the broader general concept. -- Jmabel 01:07, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Keep under the heading "dominant minority", mark as stub, expand, add historical details and elaborate on white dominant minority in this entry. --Fenice 07:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

White minority rule should have its own article, which isn't to say that it cannot also recieve an overview under Dominant Minority. 'White minority rule' is an important concept historically, as are other types of dominant minorities. Basically, if it effected millions of lives then it is noteworthy as such. It is highly simplistic in my opinion to simply juxtapose it to a (South African) particularity as it is a (Dominant Minority) generality. I do not entirely recall what was written, and I feel dispirited that the fate of the article has been sealed so swiftly. I believe it was a mistake and I confess that it may cause me to reeavluate my future participation and contribution to Wikipedia, and I only been here for several days (am I missing something? Hah. Undoubtedly). At any rate, certainly not as balanced process as I envisioned it in being. A shame, really. Well, so long. Remember what we spoke about. El_C

Keep as redirect - the original article was only one sentence long in the first place. -Sean Curtin 20:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Would you please cite that original article here for me? Thanks. El_C
- Original article here: White minority rule Davodd 20:38, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I should have stubbed it. I intended to continue it, I think it would have been a useful entry. I am surprised at this vote. This is an encylopedia, not philosophical abstract. Historians write about White minority rule as an historical phenomenon (principally in Southern Africa), philsophers can taxonomize whatever they wish. Wikipepdia should have a role for both. El_C

- Well, I certainly agree with you. More to the point is the question of usefulness. Is the hypothetical student going to hear or see a term and want to know what it refers to? I think, in this case, yes. I also think that this is a term too specific and broad to be lumped into any minority rule, since ethnic minorities, religious minorities, etc. are not the same as the minority rules that came about because of the invention of race and "white people." My vote's in, though. Geogre 00:00, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No Black Majority rule in my life time, or my children's (Ian Smith). What a stub!

end moved discussion

Edward Pond -- Add to this discussion

Currently a substub ("Edward Pond is an [[England|English]] [[artist]]."). I can't find any information about said artist. There is a Canadian photographer by this name, but he's not terribly famous. Delete? - TB 11:46, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

If no one can find any information on the artist, and the article has no detail on him (which art does he do? What are his notable works?), then delete. Average Earthman 18:01, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Clean, dubiously: I also found an American journalist named "George Edward Pond." But I think the particular "artist" we want this bloke. But wait, there's more (btw, my Google was ("Edward Pond" art))! Buy a book he shot pictures for here and read about photos he took for a Canadian rock band here. So, what I see is that he's a commercial photographer, rather than necessarily an "artist," in that he doesn't appear to be working primarily as a fine artist. However, a few hits on the Google ("Edward Pond" photographer) got moody people talking about him as their favorite photographer. I'm not sure he's old enough or notable enough to have web resources that Clean Up can use to put together a bio/context. However, I recommend sending to Clean Up (with this debate in the article's Talk Page, so they can get a guide through the thicket) to see. Geogre 18:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

MOST Bridge -- Add to this discussion

Currently a substub ("The MOST Bridge is a type of signal bus for automobiles."). I can't find any information about this. If it's real, there's not enough information to make an article about it, and neither is it significant enough to warrant one that I can see. ~~Delete?~~ - TB 12:01, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Does exist, see [19], [20], [21]. Perhaps some kind soul destubbifies this. -- Pjacobi 13:48, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep (I've made it a stub). It does indeed exist, and is infact a pretty big deal among automotive-electricals people. It should really be at MOST, but there's a telescope there already. If this page is kept, I'll make the two pages "MOST (telescope)" and "MOST (protocol)" respectively. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Good save - definately a keep now. I'll unlink the page from VfD in 24 hours if nobody objects. - TB 08:39, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
The MOST bus is a very important technology in the automotive industry, already widely used. But the page is hard to find, it should be called "MOST" instead of "MOST Bridge", so please make two pages. Sorry don't have a personal page yet 12:03, Aug 13, 2004 (GMT+1°

Military terms -- Add to this discussion

I'm not entirely sure what this article is supposed to convey—it seems to be, at most, a dicdef for a self-explanatory term. Can anyone justify its continued existence? Austin Hair 12:56, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

List of terms, very stubby, already served by a category of the same name. Delete. - UtherSRG
Delete: If someone wants to make a List of military terms, they can. I don't see so much here that we need to move or redirect anything. Geogre 18:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There should probably be an article Military jargon, but I think thi one is just someone's political statement.--Samuel J. Howard 04:31, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Another pointless "List of" article. I'd like to vote delete but that would be inconsistent with our prior decisions. Abstain under protest. (I'm having a bad day.) Rossami 16:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Stubby, POV, list already exists as a category. Delete. — Gwalla | Talk 20:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Battle of Blenau -- Add to this discussion

The following is a discussion of the deletion of the page on the Battle of Blenau, a fictional battle, not the Battle of Bléneau.

No such battle. Gdr 14:07, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

google gave me 62 hits. Keep -R. fiend 15:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- All the "hits" are from Wikipedia and its clones, so delete. This shows why you should be careful in interpreting the results of a Google search. Gdr 16:19, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
- (After some more research.) The misspelling "Blenau" (for Bléneau) appeared first on the page List of battles 1401-1800. It got copied by mistake to List of naval battles (Bléneau wasn't a naval battle) when the latter was selected from the former. Anonymous user 218.214.140.180 then took up the challenge and made up a fanciful story to fit the non-existent battle, with some fictitious participants to fill out the tale. Gdr 17:47, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
Delete: Once you know it's fabricated, it's kind of obvious. Now that is sophisticated vandalism. Geogre 19:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm getting nothing at all for Battle of Bléneau, and if Battle of Blenau only appears on wikipedia then I think this page should be deleted and both should be removed from List of battles 1401-1800. Sophisticated vandalism indeed.-R. fiend 20:04, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Search Google for battle and Bléneau or "Bataille de Bléneau", not "Battle of Bléneau". The Battle of Bléneau was a battle of the Fronde fought on April 7, 1652 near Bléneau in France between the armies of the rebel Louis II de Bourbon, Prince de Condé and the Royalist Henri de la Tour d'Auvergne, Vicomte de Turenne. Condé destroyed part of the Royalist army but failed to exploit his victory. (According to the Cambridge Modern History.) How's that for a substub? Gdr 21:02, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
The text as is has a delicate odour of bovine waste product. Apart from the names (Lord Henri Esteridge of Essex my posterior) 100+ gun ships of the line didn't happen until almost the end of that century if I'm not mistaken Delete nonsense,--Ianb 21:18, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) Subsubstitute substub from Gdr.
- You're right about the names, wrong about the ships: HMS Sovereign of the Seas was a three-decker built in 1637. I'll put the substub at Battle of Bléneau, but Battle of Blenau must still be deleted. Gdr 21:32, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
  - I stand corrected and plead over-exposure to European land wars during that period during highschool history. --Ianb 21:53, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Now redirected to Gdr's stub at the correct spelling. Rossami 16:48, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No Such thing. Searched "Bataille de Bléneau" and Bataille, Bléneau seperately. Pretty sophisticated, but obviously shows no knowledge in French literature: "Ville de Paris"? Thats blasphemy to name a ship such a stupid name.

Fandom wank -- Add to this discussion

Fandom wank was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous however, even after discarding the probable sockpuppets and anonymous votes, there is not a clear consensus to delete. By default, the article is kept for now. Rossami 23:57, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A non-notable website. Andris 16:59, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

~~Delete, basically a blog. --Golbez 17:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)~~
- Changing to Keep if and only if it can be expanded the way 4chan, et.al. have. As it is, it's an unnotable blog; if it is indeed so notable, then it can have more than a paragraph. So, a provisional keep. --Golbez 14:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
how boring. I was secretly hoping it would be about intimate practices involving ropes, chains and judiciously applied voltage from the local telephone system. Delete. --Ianb 18:34, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- No, that would be modem wank. :D --Golbez 19:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I am against bondage and domination substub breakouts concerning fans humiliating their favorite stars and insulting...oh. Delete for Wikipedia not being a web directory. Geogre 19:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Someone double-check, but I'm sure this has been listed before ... 82.6.10.139 14:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- comment: if so, and it survived, the VfD comment page should be archived on the respective talk page, which is currently empty. --Ianb 17:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Don't Delete: FW is now a cultural phenomenon within fandom. The words, "You've been Fandom Wanked!" have brought threads, LJ communities, messageboards, and even entire fandoms to a screeching halt. Sometimes, even accusing someone of being "wanky" is enough to start a full-fledged flamewar. Fandom Wank: it's not just a dessert topping, it's part of fannish lexicon!nmw 09:35, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Note. The above was the first (and, so far, the only) edit by User:Nmwallace. Andris 10:31, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
- comment: that may well be the case, but I - and the rest of the world not involved in "fandom wanking" - would never have guessed, which makes the article a bit pointless, and just a random (offensive sounding) website ad. Feel free to expand on the phenomonen and transform this article into something informative. What's an "LJ community" btw? --Ianb 11:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - comment: An LJ Community is a collaborative LiveJournal — Gwalla | Talk
Don't Delete: The article needs expansion to include the history of Fandom_Wank, which has its own subculture and a massive following. It could be made into something far more than what it currently is. It doesn't need deletion, it just needs content. thephotoman | talk
- Note. The above vote [22] was cast by an anon with 68.201.215.156 IP adress. Andris 10:29, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  - Note. the above vote, linked in that comment, was indeed by thephotoman, who just has no clue what the hell he's doing. Thephotoman 04:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable blog. "FW" is hardly a "cultural phenomenon within fandom". "Bringing entire fandoms to a halt" is pretty blatant hyperbole, and asserting that any time somebody calls someone "wanky" is a reference to a specific blog is just silly. — Gwalla | Talk 20:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Appearantly, you've not seen fandom wank bring fandoms to a halt. I have--and I've been in the fandoms that it's brought to the dead stop. It's really fun to watch. Thephotoman 04:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - comment: Yes? And which fandoms were they? Do you really mean to tell me that this website caused large groups of people to lose interest in things they liked? If you can expand on that, add it to the article and maybe I'll change my vote. Otherwise, it's a substub signifying nothing. — Gwalla | Talk 03:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      - Actually, the massive drama has caused people to lose interest in the communities surrounding the things they liked. Fandom_Wank tends to lay the dirty laundry out in the open so that everyone can get a good laugh at it. However, some people don't like the drama that they get themselves involved in (usually due to involvement in some subcommunity that has been posted to Fandom Wank) that they "leave fandom", or just leave the community. This happens with some regularity in the Harry Potter and Lord Of The Rings--Real People Slash (involving writing homoerotic fiction about the actors in the films by Peter Jackson) fandoms. It should be appended, but there are people who know far more about it than what I've seen. Thephotoman 04:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep and heavily expand. Fandom Wank has made itself quite well known within many fandoms. Wikipedia has entries for far less notable entities. Aris Katsaris 03:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep It's a fandom institution now, according the jf.net admins, who undeleted it when the mods took it down for a laugh. It's inspired jokes and icons all over LJ. Nostalgia 13:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Notable enough. --Dittaeva 21:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, no useful content - SimonP 15:13, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It has become culturally significant in the on-line fandoms ~ Random
Keep. It has had an impact on fandom behavior. If fandom is mentioned here, fandom_wank should be as well. It has become noticable because it is a hub where people of many different fandoms cluster, meaning it's sort of a news source, in a way.
Keep. Fandom wank is a meaningful site for people in fandom on the internet. 1889 people with accounts on the Journalfen watch the community; many others visit the site without bothering to make an account, or do not visit the site but act in a certain way because it is there (i.e., keeping their obnoxious behavior in blog entries intended only for their circle of acquaintances so as not to get "wanked" on fandom_wank). The entry should be expanded to make it more useful to people trying to figure out what is going on in certain online fandom subcultures. Mayhap 07:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Definitely. We need our listing here, dammit, people! And, also, as aforementioned, if you've got a listing for 'fandom' (and especially 'Harry Potter', the archnemesis of Fandom_Wank) you should definitely have this here for completeness. El Juno 01:48, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Keep (And where did my other comment go where I voted to keep? Did that get editted out? Why was my vote edited out?) Fandom Wank is comparable to other articles like FanFiction.Net in terms of relevance to the fan fiction community. A google test on it shows 282,000 search results. The site is relevant to fan scholars doing research on fan fiction studies. The community influences fannish language that occassionally crosses over into non-fannish circles. --PurplePopple 18:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Embarrassmints -- Add to this discussion

Who listed this, and why? Rick K 18:32, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, and quickly. Precisely zero Google hits; probably an elaborate joke by someone playing with Photoshop. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 19:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(And it's not even a very good Photoshop job, either.) Delete. Spatch
It's a real product. See http://www.upguild.com/cgi-bin/cp-app.cgi. Nevertheless, it's just advertising and not an article for an encyclopedia. Delete. Rick K 19:35, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
I get roughly 228 google hits, of which 15 are displayed and 223 are "omitted" because they're "very similar to the 15 already displayed". I'm not convinced this product is notable enough, but I could go either way. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:45, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
Do not misunderestimate these guys. On the other hand, delete. Although if the producers would care to hang a big VfD notice on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, I might reconsider. --Ianb 21:08, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Advertising. I mean, "I know how hard it is to put food on your family," but, whether or not we can even pronounce "subliminable," we can't let the terrsts win by "frightening people with the phantoms of lost liberty." Feel free to breathe the air at Ground Zero, because our EPA has been ordered to tell you that it's fine, and we should go back to our regular business unless there is an alert that we think is an embarrassmint of political activity. Geogre 21:47, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you delete this, then delete the one-member Category:Controversial candies at the same time. Gdr 21:49, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
Delete. Not worth an article of its own. Do we have an article about George W. Bush (to be NPOV, let me add "and/or John W. Kerry") in popular culture and the various anti-Bush lampoon products and slogans, e.g. Texas Homegrown Dope seeds? If so, merge there. The article might have been created because of its appearance in List of breath mints, not quite VfD-worthy but perhaps not Wikipedia at its finest. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete National Embarrassmints and Category:Controversial candies too. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:15, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. 20 years from now - this information will still be of interest to students of U.S. political history. Davodd 20:29, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's not advertising, and if it is, just look at all the other candies and products advertised on Wikipedia. Plus, like the last user said, it could get more and more important as time goes on. 00:40, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Indeed, GWB is not only a national embarrasmint, but an international one, and as an innovative and resourceful president who thinks of ways to harm your country and your people, he deserves a breath freshener named after him. However, Wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting oral hygene products, real or imaginary. Denni ☯ 01:44, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
Agree with Davodd, keep. Rhymeless 05:42, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete advertising. A line about the candy might be appropriate in some other article about GWB. Rossami 21:07, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --Dittaeva 21:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. For crying out loud, it's blatant advertising for an obscure brand of mint. Featuring GWB's face doesn't make it noteworthy. Why don't we create stubs about every different type of campaign badges used this year? Lacrimosus 01:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- If you could find pictures? Sure! Rhymeless 01:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. There isn't a good enough reason to delete this page. --152.163.252.3 21:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

These votes moved here from misnamed page Votes for deletion/National Embarrassmints: jni 09:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete - advert/not encyclopedic - nothing more than a sales advert for a novelty item. Links directly to purchase of item. - Tεx τ urε 17:30, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Useless article and also mis-spelled (unless purposefully). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

GnuFU -- Add to this discussion

This appears to be the complete user guide for Gnutella. It would make more sense to just have a link from the Gnutella page, otherwise the content will need to be updated in two places (Wikipedia and external). --LeeHunter 18:09, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a copyright violation? RickK 18:32, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. I suspect that since it's open source software that the documentation is not copyright. But it still seems pointless to add it to Wikipedia. --LeeHunter 19:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Then move to Wikisource. Rick K 21:44, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikisource or Wikibooks. About copyright issues: the original text was released under the GNU FDL (or so the article claims). About the redundancy issue: the original wiki where the article originated seems to be dead. Also, a number of Wikipedians have clarified sections here and there. I think Wikisource or Wikibooks would be a good place for this document. • Benc • 21:49, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Transwikification completed and link updated at Gnutella. Still needs clean-up at Wikisource:GnuFU; I merely copied and pasted. Delete from here. --Ardonik 21:51, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  - Is an interwiki redirect from GnuFU to Wikisource:GnuFU okay, or even recommended? It would help if GnuFU were still under Category:File sharing in spite of its new home on another MediaWiki project (people will have an easier time finding the article after searching for Limewire and what-not.) --Ardonik 21:56, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  - The more I think of it, the more I feel that this should have gone to Wikibooks. --Ardonik 21:58, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  - Does it make sense to update the links pointing to things like 'hash function', 'tree' etc to point to Wikipedia? Or is that something that's generally not done for whatever reason? --Underscore 21:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Invagination -- Add to this discussion

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

Basic dicdef, move to Wiktionary. Quadell (talk) 18:09, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

~~Delete:~~ huh huh huh you said 'invaginate.' Actually, I think the definition is slightly off, but it's a dictdef. Probably no need to foist upon Wiktionary, but delete or transwiki. Geogre 21:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Darn you, Nunh-huh! You should let us know that you're making it a good article. :-) (It did sit from March to August with no change from an inaccurate dictdef.) Keep Nunh-huh's rewrite. Geogre 17:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Invagine all the people...sharing life in peace...(/Lennon)--delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:21, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
Keep. Informative, potential for expansion. Article is good as it stands, but it should note the term is used in other contexts. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep stub. Specialty term that may take more time than most to grow into a full article. Rossami 16:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. -Sean Curtin 20:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep in present form. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep in present form. [[User:Radoneme|Radoneme
Keep, but I won't presume to suggest where... Fire Star 16:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

B2\cafelog -- Add to this discussion

This project page was nominated for deletion on 12 August 2007. The result of the discussion was merge to WordPress.

From VfD:

Do we need an article on a piece of software that was never completed? Rmhermen 18:17, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Keep - it was used on over 200 blogs, which I think makes it notable. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 19:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep - it laid the foundation for WordPress. It may not have been completed to its full extent or the expectations of the developers, but it was still a funtional piece of software. Webber b 04:07, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

The software is still in use by many users, since it has long been the default blogware of online control panels provided by the hosts. - Sigg3 @ http://sigg3.net/cafelog

Sunshine nee -- Add to this discussion

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

Notable? I think not. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 18:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ex-Asian eh? I wonder whether the sun shines out of... oh never mind, delete or I write an article on Moonlight Pocket, the former Antipodean star of Kangaroos Down Under 43 and Castlemaine XXXX. --Ianb 21:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree - Delete. Deb 21:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Ex-Asian? You can take the girl out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the girl? Delete: completely non-notable. Even for a porn star, this is a tremendously small, eh, body of work. (Delete porn stars unless they're notable for some other reason, and especially delete even more new porn stars.) Geogre 21:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. She has an entry on IMDb. RickK 04:34, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: here: [23]. For information: does an IMDb entry automatically infer notability? --Ianb 07:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The person who made the coffee for a straight to video film could probably get an entry on IMDB. Doesn't make them notable in their own right. Average Earthman 12:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - quite. Wikipedia doesn't need to mirror every IMDB entry... --Ianb 12:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - She made 14 movies. Rick K 18:39, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- RickK, porno starlets make a lot of movies. All I could find was three, but she probably made another eleven in the day since I wrote that. That's why I said she had a remarkably small body of work (smirks aside). The ephemeral nature of the careers in adult films is such that starlets can make 100 films and be forgotten in a year. I don't want to start saying that things have be notable for X time before they're in, but in some cases the very small viewership and prolixity of production argue that numbers of films just aren't going to be accurate measurements of notability. Geogre 19:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - OK, I don't really have any axe to grind here, it's no big deal to me, one way or the other, except that we've kept other vanity articles solely on the basis of one or two entries in IMDb obviously written by the same contributor. We should be consistent. Rick K 19:22, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. DJ Clayworth 19:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --Dittaeva 21:53, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Andris 14:18, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

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

G Senjou Heaven's Door -- Add to this discussion

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

The result was (apparently) keep; the last comment was made on August 17, 2004. This has to qualify for some sort of record for the oldest unclosed deletion discussion... or something. —Dino guy 1000 05:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G Senjō Heaven's Door

Er...No idea what this is supposed to be about. Deb 21:43, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

evidently manga. If the original contributor isn't able to disclose exactly what, and why it is notable, I say delete. --Ianb 22:24, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: We're not a place for product reviews, no matter how deep touching the products are. Send this to the new Anime Ghetto that we're building. Geogre 22:28, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- To be picky, it doesn't belong there, since manga is not a subset of anime. In saying that, I've about exhausted my own knowledge of the subject (I don't by any means live up to my manga/anime username), but if nobody minds, I'll try and clean it some. It looks like a labor of love, I don't find it that incomprehensible, and I don't quite see why this particular original contributor and obvious non-native speaker is to be left to fend for himself/herself in conveying "exactly what". The title, as strange as it looks, is apparently exactly correct, since it both gives Google hits - only 14 of them, but quite helpful - here's a synopsis, for instance. It is also to be found in the List of manga and in Seinen. --Bishonen 20:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So, I have cleaned it up, but I don't know what I was thinking, offering to NPOV a highly POV account of a work that I haven't read, seen, or heard of. There's sort of not much oxygen in the mix. I was hoping to discover that G Senjou Heaven's Door was somewhat notable, but unfortunately it turns out that it's not famous in the manga community, it doesn't have any anime based on it, and it hasn't been published in English. So, well, sorry for the prideful impulse, and after all that, I have to vote delete. Bishonen 15:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You were doing a serious karma bump by even trying, a mitzveh, in fact. We should all be as conscientious. Geogre 16:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep. Now that Bishonen's cleaned it up, it's a good article. The only question is whether it's a good article about a non-notable subject. —Triskaideka 14:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, I suppose. Not an especially popular manga, though.. Rhymeless 05:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --Dittaeva 21:54, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Sounds fascinatingly thought-provoking. -RedWordSmith 02:30, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Expansion report: I have added the scanlation, which I thought before would have been against copyright policy to mention, but compare the scanlation article! Also I took a shot at what the author may have meant about the drawing style, and mentioned lack of fame. Pitch in, people. Now that it's looking like a Keep, let's make it a Featured Article. ;-) Bishonen 08:10, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Daniel Nazarian -- Add to this discussion

Hoax article. No Google hits for "Daniel Nazarian" "The Liberty of the Fleet". No Google hits for "Hans Nazarian". No Imdb entry for this supposed actor. The photo is obviously not from 1899. Also the Fleet Prison was closed before he was supposedly born. The creator has shown himself in other places to be a troll. And delete Image:Actor-dmnazarian.jpg, as well. Rick K 21:58, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: 1. "performed in over fifty plays during his three years at university" is impossible. 2. "paid him a gratuity of 10 Pounds 3 Shillings. Nazarian used the money to finance a 3 week production of "The Liberty of the Fleet"' is also impossible. 3. The photo has fashions from the 1930's on and has modern film and so is not 1899. 4. He would have been 74 at his death, and yet he is supposed to have died in an accidental tram incident. 5. "Daniel Nazarian" is showing up in other Wikipedia articles. However see this for evidence of a London anonymous person writing the story/myth in a guest book. This is not proof, as it has no fact check and is a voluntary piece of information. Now, is this one of our mirrors? I think this is a spoof, but I urge anyone (RickK, interested?) to search our articles thoroughly for places where this information might have been slipped in. Geogre 22:24, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, WordIQ is one of our mirrors. I just deleted the Daniel Nazarian entry from our version of that article, as well as the pages for his supposed birth and death dates, and List of male actors, or something like that. It's also highly unlikely he would have a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame without an entry in IMDb. RickK 22:45, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  - I just went to http://www.hollywoodchamber.net/, the Hollywood Walk of Fame official website, and there is no Daniel Nazarian listed as having a star. Rick K 22:50, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
- And in the "It's right in front of my nose" category, there are two spellings: Nazarian and Nazarrian. Geogre 17:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- Decumanus 22:47, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Lacrimosus 01:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fabrication. Andris 08:14, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
If this is patent nonsense, isn't it a speedy delete? Average Earthman 12:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: An apparent hoax is not patent nonsense according to the specific cases for speedy deletion. Several articles that were thought to be hoaxes have turned out to be true and were rescued by the VfD process. Not that that seems to apply here, but I'm still on my campaign against the misuse of speedy deletes. Rossami 16:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. But not speedy. DJ Clayworth 19:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. PBTim 18:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Borza lesa -- Add to this discussion

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

Borza lesa - Something Slavic. Stub. -- Jmabel 23:34, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
Word-by-word googlesearches suggest Slovenian. From the few words I can understand ("interaktivni spletni" = "interactive conversations"), it might be about a website (which probably does not merit being in Wikipedia). Andris 09:12, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
I confirm Slovenian, but I'm not good enough at actually reading it. Alfio 19:30, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This page is indeed in Slovenian, but IMHO it's just a commercial for a company. Verbatim translation is:
Borza lesa (English: Wood Exchange) is interactive web accessory for exchanging business information among people dealing with wood. It works by the means of classified ads. You can visit it on the [24].

I would suggest that you delete it; if the contributor really thinks that it is wortwhile to include it here s/he should at least translate it to English. --Romanm 16:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable. -- Jmabel 22:40, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
delete, ad, non-notable, not-in-English to boot. Prefer good honest wood trading to thingymon card swapping though.--Ianb 23:10, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm Ok. If you are too, please carve your name on Borza lesa, and I'll get back to you." Delete for advertising and web guide. Geogre 01:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Spam in Slovenian. Zocky 01:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tillie -- Add to this discussion

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

The nickname for a painting of a demonically grinning figure painted on some building in New Jersey, USA. Orphan article. If this is some popular icon of renown, the article does not say so. --Ianb 23:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- has been rewritten and notability established.--Ianb 23:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If it's the one I instantly find myself thinking of, yeah, it is kind of famous. I seem to remember a picture of Bruce Springsteen with this in the background. I don't know a thing about it having a name, though. Can a Springsteen fan or a New Jerseyite possibly confirm (or disconfirm)? -- Jmabel 01:15, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
~~Clean up:~~ Oh, piff. Yes, this is a famous one. It's been used in a number of recreations. Unfortunately, our author didn't give us anything to work with. Let's give Clean Up a shot at it. Geogre 01:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- No need for clean up, now. Rhobite did good work, and it's a full article now. Geogre 01:14, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Save Tillie! I'll clean it up when I get a chance. Rhobite 17:51, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Rewritten. Rhobite 22:30, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  - thanks. --Ianb 23:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) (wishing the original contributor of this article had given at least a hint of context...)
    - Sorry, I kinda scrwed that up, thanx to Rhobie for fixing it. --
      - While we couldn't save the building, the article at the very least must be kept. --Asbury Parker Abroad

68.39.61.62

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

Touché -- Add to this discussion

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

This is a dictdef. -- WOT 23:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Securiger 01:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: No Wiktionary transfer. Too common. Geogre 01:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. dictdef. - Centrx 19:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Chris James -- Add to this discussion

Vanity. --Diberri | Talk 22:52, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Zombie Panic! -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable Half Life mod. Previously listed as a speedy delete, but it doesn't meet the SD criteria. --Diberri | Talk 22:57, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

reads like a copyvio though. --Ianb 23:01, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, I missed that. It's a copy of [25]. I've marked it accordingly. --Diberri | Talk 23:54, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  - Update: May not be a copyvio (see talk); followed up with CoP. Please vote based on the article's encyclopedic potential and not on its copyvio status. --Diberri | Talk 20:15, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
    - OK, but I'm not convinced of the enyclopedic worth of this. Is it released (the site speaks of game testers), is it known in the Half-Life community? I have no idea (third party opinions welcome though), but on the basis of the available evidence (including just one google hit) it sounds like advertising for something new... (even it it is an excellent product, which is not the matter of debate). Delete. --Ianb 23:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete —Rory ☺ 23:09, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I don't think that a mod of this level and preliminary nature offers us evidence of notability that we can verify. The article doesn't help us. Geogre 00:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep: I thought the gameplay was fairly unique and therefore somewhat notable as compared to most mods (ie, all but one person starting on one team, and then gradually joining the other team as they die.). Other Half-Life mods that are shown on the "List of Half-Life mods" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Half-life_mods) page that are not necessarily very well-known or popular, or even unique, and yet they are still listed. The only difference here is that I actually wrote up a description of the mod (The excerpt is a description I wrote for the site that the excerpt is taken from, so there is no copy-right violation. I am the mod's leader, after all...) for when you click on the Wiki page for it, whereas many of the other mods, such as "Drug Barons", "Xen Exploration Team", and "Rats-Mod" have nothing on their correlating page. In other words, if it's a case of popularity or being well-known, then there are already other mods listed there that are not necessarily very popular or well-known. The main difference was I wrote up information for the mod's wikipage itself, and many of the others have nothing linked to them. Perhaps it only deserves to be listed on the HL mods list page along with the others, but is not well-known enough to warrant it's own page with information?

Twilight 20:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Twilight, I know that the List of Half-Life mods isn't presently organized with paragraphas about each mod, but how about writing some description there? The question under consideration here, as nearly as I can summarize it, is not how good or unique the mod is, as much as whether it is known to such a degree that people will search for and need information on it. Since this is broken out into a separate article, there is also a question of whether people know this mod outside of Half-Life's mod community. No one is against a description of the modification, that I can tell, but it is quite possible that a poor mod that gets on more computers is going to be more useful to an encyclopedia than a brilliant but unknown one. Again, for my part, I would love to see some description in the List article, if the break-out article does not survive the VfD vote. Geogre 21:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It would seem that it did not survive. I'll write up a description for the HL mod list. How long should it be, to avoid aggravating/annoying/worrying people? Thanks for the vote of confidence, in any case. Twilight

August 10

Supercilious -- Add to this discussion

Dicdef. Transwiki'd to Wiktionary. --Diberri | Talk 00:39, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Concur- kill it. -FZ 00:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: This is so beneath me to comment upon. However, if those people insist on putting definitions in an encyclopedia, what can we say? (Kidding! Dictdef, common.) Geogre 01:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. - Utcursch, August 10, 2004
Delete. Transwiki (obviously). Skyler 01:18, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

In perpetuity -- Add to this discussion

dictionary definition - Mattingly23 01:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki to wiktionary and delete. --Diberri | Talk 01:11, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Again, I don't think Wiktionary really needs it, esp. with that link to another online dictionary that this was derived from. It's a dictdef, though, so it's gotta go. I don't really see a way for it to improve. If others do, we can all revisit our votes. Geogre 02:08, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I agree 100%, but as Wiktioary doesn't interest me much, I leave those sorts of decision up to the Wiktionary folks. If somebody notices the transwiki'd dicdef and sees hope, they can rework it into a proper definition. If not, no skin off my back. --Diberri | Talk 04:06, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't find that term at Wiktioary so I've entered it - but is that OK? I'm a little confused here on how I enter information that isn't on Wiki anywhere but it is available elsewhere on line? I'm supposed to reference sources and yet because I did its going to be deleted? -- Fee | Talk
- Hi, and thank you for that. The question really isn't the quality of your work or whether or not you gave a reference, but just which project handles which thing. In Wikipedia, we delete all articles that are merely dictionary definitions, just because it's an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. In addition, we have the Wiktionary project for dictionary references. This particular article in Wikipedia needs to be deleted unless it becomes encyclopedic. In Wikipedia, we ask contributors to give references (just because of the encyclopedia format), but not in Wiktionary. If you have entered the word in Wiktionary, then the deletion here won't affect that whatsoever. Geogre 12:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- If you want to make an encyclopedia form of "in perpetuity," for example, the best way would be to discuss the origins of this legal term, give examples of how the term changes meaning in different contexts, any historical uses, etc. Please don't worry about our excision of this entry from the Wikipedia, because it won't affect the work you do for Wiktionary. Thank you for contributing, and please, please don't let this discourage you. Geogre 12:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Transfer to wiktionary is OK. Now delete it. - Utcursch, August 10, 2004
Transwiki to wiktionary if not expanded. I do think that there's something interesting to say about "in perpetuity", but the present version doesn't say anything. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK Thanks for your help Geogre. Perhaps an administrator could delete the page as I can't. Thanks again for your patience. -- Fee | Talk
- We've all got each other's backs here, Fee, even if it looks like there are knives sticking out from time to time. :-) There is no need to take any more action. At the end of the VfD voting period, the article will be deleted if the vote remains "delete." Again, be bold in your edits. This is, hopefully, the only page where you will see negativity. Geogre 01:21, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This could have good value as an entry of encyclopedic content. I think it should be expanded, but even if it is just edited to a stub format, it should be kept for Wikipedians with legal interest (like myself) to expand in the future. Skyler 01:28, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Skyler. --Dittaeva 20:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wiktionary and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary then delete. - UtherSRG 20:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Skyler and Dittaeva. This has the potential to evolve into something along the lines of Time immemorial. Wikisux 02:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Abu Shusha massacre -- Add to this discussion

Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request

This page is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.)

Administrators may disregard the above message.
You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If administrator}}. You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning { display: none; }

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this page:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

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

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

Military history: British / European / Middle East Project‑class

This page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Project

This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force

From VfD:

Re: Abu Shusha massacre
This page is a stub and has not changed since December 2003. Due to lack of easily available information, it is likely to stay this way. There are many similar pages linked from List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, List of villages destroyed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, List of massacres committed during the Al-Aqsa Intifada and probably similar pages that I was so far lucky enough to not have run into. I chose Abu-Shusha as an example. Gadykozma 01:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep, unless no useful information can be found. I don't think it is appropriate to list stubs on this page just because they are stubs. Cleanup would be a more appropriate place. --Zero 09:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) I changed my vote, see below.
- I assumed all votes would appear on the subpage, but this one doesn't. Is that a bug, or just something I don't understand? Gadykozma 17:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Your entry and the one above it, which were part of the VfD page, have now been moved to this one. (There, only users reading the VfD page saw them along with the others; here they are seen by users using either method of reading this discussion.) You made the small, easy, and often harmless mistake of clicking on "[edit]" instead of "Add to this discussion". If you again click on "[edit]" in the section of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion where you posted, and read the whole edit pane, you'll find the following:

which is the markup for a Wiki comment. (Since it is a comment, you don't see it when you read the page, but only when you read the edit pane.) No one expects you to read all the markup in the edit pane, but usually people notice it when they are about to edit right next to it, and go back and use the other link. You were the victim of the person who edited it before you, and didn't notice and follow the link as we hope editors will do; once there was an existing entry between the comment and the bottom of the page (where you added your entry), it was almost inevitable you'd also not take the opportunity to go back and use the other link, so don't feel too bad. [smile]--Jerzy (t) 03:53, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

Keep: A stub by itself doesnt meet the criteria for deletion. Nor does it mean much that you can supernaturally predict that it will remain that way unto perpetuity. It may make sense to merge these into a single list, but then you have to accept the possibility that these will develop in to articles, sometimes slowly and at the author's pace. -S V 18:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge & Delete: I have no interest in the factuality of the entry. Rather, I think what stub information there is here should be merged back into a page that covers the whole list. (N.b. I'm in favor of allowing the NPOV information, but not having a series of stubs that don't reward clicking on them from the list. (E.g. If you're at "List of Intifada Battles" and click on "The Big Battle" and get text saying, "The big battle was a battle in the Intifada," there wasn't much point.)) SV and I are using the very same logic, I know, to reach opposite conclusions: I'd rather they stayed as paragraphs on a list until they needed to break out. Geogre 18:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree that the information should be merged, but I also think that the stub should remain. If a Wikipedian comes along who knows more about the subject, I think they will be much more inclined to expand on the stub due to the fact that it is a stub than undertake the (sometimes daunting) task of creating a new article. The stub has value. I think it should remain. Skyler 01:37, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Merge and delete. Cutler 23:05, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
~~I change my vote to Merge and redirect Gadykozma 06:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)~~
I changed my vote to delete after looking in the standard sources (Morris, Khalidi) for information on this subject. Abu Shusha was an Arab village of about 1000 people in Palestine until it was depopulated and partly destroyed in May 1948 by the Zionist/Israeli forces. A Jewish village was then established at that place. This much of the story makes it about the same as a couple of hundred other Arab villages. There were some reports that a massacre of Arabs took place there at the time of depopulation, but there doesn't seem to be the solid evidence that is required before one could definitely say that it happened. Therefore this page does not deserve to exist with this title. --Zero 11:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In this case I'll change my vote again. Its either plain delete, or rewrite to reflect that these are rumors, merge with the list, and then delete. Gadykozma 15:08, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Controversy involves historically and culturally significant events. It is our job to keep its content NPOV through editing. Davodd 20:25, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with Davodd. --Dittaeva 21:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. To someone coming to this topic with no knowledge, this articles offers no enlightenment whatsoever. To someone familiar with the incident, this article offers no new perspectives. Unless it does more than say "on this date, some (unspecified) event happened", I don't believe it merits space. Denni ☯ 20:19, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

end moved discussion

action to be taken

Since the attempt at deletion failed, I propose to replace this article by one called just "Abu Shusha" with a mention of the claims about a massacre. The present name can remain as a redirect. I'll write a first draft today or tomorrow. If anyone has objections, please speak up now. --Zero 23:51, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You should somehow handle the link from List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war too. And the link from List of villages destroyed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Gadykozma 05:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Amyl -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Amyl

Namo -- Add to this discussion

self promotion - Mattingly23 01:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's a copyvio from [26]. I've listed it at WP:CP. --Diberri | Talk 01:56, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipediaddiction -- Add to this discussion

Neologism. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 02:07, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC) [moved from mainpage]

Wrong namespace. Move to Wikipedia: namespace, and link to Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test? Securiger 06:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipediholic is no less neologism and does not seem to be nominated as a consideration for deletion. Grice 10 AUG 2004
- Delete. Neologism. As for Wikipediholic, firstly it isn't in the article namespace, and secondly I'm inclined to agree that the redirect should be listed in redirects for deletion. That doesn't affect the decision on this. Andrewa 13:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete or move to another namespace. Rmhermen 13:07, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Redir to Wikipedia:Are You a Wikipediholic Test or Wikipedia:Wikipediholic. I also think it's incorrect--WP addicts are more likely to be editors, not just readers. My life is currently being negatively affected by my compulsion to edit Wikipedia (I only work about 20 hrs/week, when my employer would prefer 40, thus I am losing $1400 per week), so I think I know the subject. Niteowlneils 15:23, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I went ahead and moved the article to Wikipedia: Wikipediaddiction. Hoping that this has changed the namespace of the article, I hope it is no longer in the "article namespace". Grice 19:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete the redirect from Wikipediaddiction since it is obviously in the wrong namespace. I have no opinion on whether Wikipedia:Wikipediaddiction should be deleted or not. Angela. 01:16, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
- If the redirect for wikipedia: wikipediaddiction gets deleted then the redirect for wikipediholic should also get deleted.
Delete. Not encyclopedic content. Move if it may be appropriate elsewhere, but not in the context of an online encyclopedia. Skyler 03:32, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete or get it out of the main article namespace. Not familiar with the rules on the Wikipedia namespace, don't see any harm in its being there. It's not a standard term, and in the main namespace it would be sort of incestuous in-joke, inappropriate. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:31, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, the name of the article seems inappropriate. Said aloud it sounds as if it may be an article on proper Wikipedian pronunciation.Fire Star 16:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it needs to be somewhere, keep under some name, because it does refer to a demonstrably extant phenomenon. Personally I'm not an addict, I can quit any time, but one can become addicted to wikpedia. Might be nice if this were actually addressed in a supportive manner, (what can you do if you find yourself getting addicted) etc., rather than as a joke though. Pedant 00:00, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Article on Wikipedia addiction by a user who's been registered for a week and has 15 edits (most to the article in question and this debate)? Hah! You know nothing about being addicted to Wikipedia! -- Cyrius|✎ 01:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not much more to say... The Land 17:44, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Societas Via Romana -- Add to this discussion

Societas Via Romana was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Non-notable semi-fictitious internet-based micronation club. Article created by editor who apparently has an axe to grind concerning another similar group and whose only other contributions involve vandalism of parts of the Micronation article that relate to the competing group. --Gene_poole 02:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) [moved from mainpage]

Non-notable micronation status of this group is strongly indicated by repeated attempts at interpolating references to Societas Via Romana into the Micronation article, by Belgsoc, who is a self-declared disgruntled former member of Nova Roma - an older, larger group that Societas Via Romana competes with - and whose edits ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Belgsoc ) are limited almost entirely to Societas Via Romana and Micronation --Gene_poole 12:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Neither obviously better nor worse than the other micronation articles, which have repeatedly survived VfDing. The problem here seems to be that Gene_poole and Belgsoc seem to have it in for each other and are VfDing each other's clubs. Maybe what is really needed is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Securiger 06:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Belgsoc is not the only one with a dispute over Gene's actions; I also do not feel that Gene acts in a reasonable manner. Samboy 06:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Looks like self-promotion to me. Samboy 07:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, I agree. If I was Emperor of Wikipedia, internet micronations would be one of several classes of articles we would manage without. But we are a cooperative community, and the community seems to want them to survive. That being the case, I don't see this one as any worse than the others. OTOH, if the vote was to delete all internet micronation articles I would vote for deletion. Securiger 07:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Another small, completely non-notable hobby club/website/discussion group. --Robert Merkel 07:23, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable, even by micronation "standards". -Sean Curtin 07:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that claiming 'micronation' status makes you notable (so don't think describing micronation aims are going to impress me), or that getting articles in newspapers written about you are (I've read enough newspaper articles about complete oddballs and silly stories to not rate this as a measure of importance). Claimed membership numbers when you don't charge a membership fee aren't going to impress either. What this society would need to persuade me is a significant number of members, or a significant profile in the community (re-enactments, educational work, regular film extra work, etc). It might be my laziness or an unclear layout of their webpage, but on a quick look I didn't see anything that describes such real world activities. So, if it is in practice no more than an online talking shop, delete. Average Earthman 12:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: As said above, micronations survive VfD over and over. Well, the only thing that I think I can offer is consistency. I keep, as much as possible, criteria that do not change with my feelings. I feel that real life always takes precedence over fiction, that the smallest town in our infamous geography dump is superior to the largest website. Micronations, to me, have notability that is extremely difficult to establish, almost impossible to verify. I have no feelings whatsoever on the worthiness of this micronation vs. that, no judgment on whether they are as notable as they are loved. To the degree that a micronation establishes notability in an empirical way, I can vote to keep. In this case, I cannot get that notability and must vote delete. Geogre 13:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Ianb 17:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wholly agree w/ Geogre. Delete. Lacrimosus 02:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Non-encyclopedic. Seems like an advertisement. Skyler 03:42, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I have visited the website of this group a few times. They are not a bad bunch, and they at least do not presume to be a micronation. {Poole's description of them as a "micronation club" is inaccurate in this respect. The article here flat out denies micronation status}. Still, I have to agree this club is not notable and it's small size and lack of achivements {beyond being a pleasant place for Roman buffs to associate} make it inappropriate for a reference encyclopedia. Stuart Smith 12:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They can deny being a micronation all they like - but the facts - and their own actions - speak for themselves. This internet-based entity was created by a group of disgruntled former members of the Nova Roma micronation, with the specific intention of setting themselves up in opposition to the former group. The editor who created this article has also attempted to delete references to Nova Roma in the Micronation article, and replace it with references to Societas Via Romana - which would appear to be rather odd behaviour for a group that claims to not be a micronation. --Gene_poole 00:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As an aside, "Gene Poole" is really George Cruickshank, "Emperor" of Atlantium. Samboy 00:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Samboy is a crank who has repeatedly posted irrelevent off-topic statements as a way of attempting to villify another editor. Admins please note this latest example. --Gene_poole 00:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gene_poole flat out lies. I (Captain_Q) did not attempt to replace references to Nova Roma with Societas Via Romana (edit: I see this inaccuracy has been corrected now). Like some other users here say, the matter appears to be revolving around tricking people into believing your POV rather than the actual facts. I find this very petty...

Let's see...on the micronation discussion page, you argue that Nova Roma is a micronation and will continue to refer to it as such because that is what the Nova Roma webpage says it is. Ok. But when SVR denies being a micronation, you ignore that and insist it must be. I see. The real criterion here is Gene Poole's POV! If Gene Poole says something is a micronation, then it is. And if he says something is not a micronation, then it is not.

And according to the edit page, Belgsoc did not even create the article! You know what I think Gene? I think you would have ignored this Societas Via Romana article were it not for Belgsoc tamp ering with your beloved

micronation article. Belgsoc is as strong in his or her opinion as you are in yours, and that is a terrible distraction for you. In the end, when you saw that Belgsoc did an edit on this article, you decided to have some personal revenge and put it up for deletion. But you did not count on Belgsoc putting your Atlantium article up for VfD, did you? Isn't this whole matter rather petty? Stuart Smith 01:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You know what I think? I would not have even known about the Societas Via Romana article if Belgsoc - an editor who has been around for 1 entire week, and contributed to 2 entire articles -(and who has been strangely inactive since then) had not attempted to repeatedly interpolate it into the Micronation article - which, I repeat, indicates in no uncertain terms the nature of Societas Via Romana - ie that it is a web-based micronation. As it was therefore non-notable, I nominated it for deletion in exactly the same way that I have done for articles on numerous other unverifiable, non-notable web-based micronations. In a fit of pique, Belgsoc then listed Empire of Atlantium for deletion. That attempt will fail this time, just like it failed the previous 2 times it was tried - and Belgsoc, like all other Wiki self-promoters, will (indeed, already has) disappeared from whence he/she came. --Gene_poole 02:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I don't care if it calls itself a "micronation" or a blog if it's nonnotable. Postdlf 05:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fire Star 16:09, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, for a multitude of reasons already presented. Denni ☯ 01:53, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
Keep. Captain_Q Obviously you won't find me very objective because I created the article, but in my defence, I would like to point out the following facts: the Societas Via Romana is a serious organisation and is not a micronation. The one who put it up for deletion purely seems to have purely done so out of spite. Secondly, it is not the only article I have written or contributed to, so, I can't be accused of using it as self-promotion... Please don't be too dismissive in your scepticism, people. I wonder if some of you even bothered to read the page at all...
Delete, not notable, let emperors Gene Poole and Belgsoc go and fight it out elsewhere. —Stormie 02:14, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

But neither user is associated with that org! Captain_Q 11:37, Aug 14, 2004 (CET)

Gene Poole listed it on VFD, Belgsoc removed the VFD listing, I don't really care if they're officially associated with your society or not. —Stormie 06:46, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Keep I previously voted for deletion, but I am changing my vote. I think Stormie is right and this whole affair is a personal quarrel between Cruickshank and Belgsoc. And it is not fair that the SVR gets its article deleted because of being in the crossfire. When I see some of the really insignicant stuff that is allowed to stay in Wikipedia, SVR looks a bit more noteworthy. {eg. I like the Beatles...but Hey Jude is NOT and NEVER will be encyclopedia material. So, even though my vote change will not be enough to help keep this article from deletion, I will change since they ought to have someone on their side. Stuart Smith 16:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --Dittaeva 20:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete yet another vanity article on a micronation based on ancient Rome. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:28, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is not a micronation. Uh. Captain_Q 11:57, Aug 16, 2004 (CET)

How did I miss this one? Delete. Ambi 10:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. - UtherSRG 20:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

Homer Lea -- Add to discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Homer Lea

Atlantium -- Add to this discussion

This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

Previous AfDs for this article:

From VfD

Atlantium - irrelevant "micronation". --Wik 05:05, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete; agree. Most of the google hits, incidentally, refer to a TV show or a city in a Might and Magic game, not this silliness. Tempshill 05:16, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)\
- They claim over a thousand members and have recognizable stances. The article is moderately well-written (certainly not patent nonsense). Some of the towns from Rambot actually have less population. I'm forced to say keep. Meelar 05:25, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  - They can claim a lot, but it's not verifiable. --Wik 05:28, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Unless this is particularly well-known (ie people in Sydney have heard of these people) then delete. Secretlondon 08:44, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
  - I don't wish to vote on this one, but if it helps I do live in Sydney (since 1958) and have never heard of them except through Wikipedia articles. Andrewa 09:31, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Strongely oppose deletion. This page has been salvaged by a good many longstanding and respected Wikipedians over the last year. --mav 10:27, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- - If the topic is irrelevant, there is nothing to salvage. --Wik 19:19, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion. It may be small but it is not unverifiable see this article in a major british newspaper and [27][28][29] theresa knott 13:08, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  - Some of the information in the article might be unverifiable, and should thus be deleted, but I think the article per se should be kept. See these sources. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:10, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  - I don't see how any of this verifies the claim of 1,000 members, and a sizable membership would be the only thing that could justify an article on this. One of your links is a copy of the Wikipedia article Micronation, where Gene Poole himself added his nonsense. Another is merely an internet directory. And the Guardian surely has not verified the membership of Atlantium; it is mentioned within a larger article about micronations, and the information given is likely just based on a web search and maybe a brief telephone interview with Cruickshank. See Andrewa's comment above showing that even a longtime Sydney resident has never heard of this. It is of no relevance and the membership is unverifiable, therefore it has to be deleted. --Wik 19:19, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. —Psychonaut 14:34, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I find it interesting. -- Cyan 22:03, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Relevant verifiable micronation. Has more citizens than Sealand. Anthony DiPierro 23:46, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Gene Poole It appears that Wik has issues with the fact that I have chosen to challenge his/her repeated vandalisations of the "micronations" article over recent days, and has chosen to engage in some sort of half-arsed vendetta in consequence. The current attempted article deletion is an obvious consequence of this malicious, uninformed and outright vexatious attitude. Needless to say, more than ample physical evidence exists to verify all claims made by Atlantium and its administration that are not affected by privacy considerations. These include on-site video coverage by such international media organisations as Reuters and TV Deutsche Welle, in addition to a raft of print media articles - all of which are in the public domain. In summary, I encourage Wik to either put up or shut up.
  - Gene Poole had the audacity to put his "Atlantium" fiction on a list of "serious aspirant states" together with Palestine; my "vandalisations" consisted in removing it from that list. If there is "ample physical evidence" it's up to him to show it. --Wik 05:47, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Gene Poole The increasingly shrill blatherings of Wik on this subject are a clear illustration of this individual's inability to maintain anything approaching an informed or rational viewpoint. Atlantium is obviously not a fiction, no matter how often Wik attempts to devalue it by making that patently false claim. It is a real entity comprised of real people - many of whose photographs, names, addresses and telephone numbers are listed - along with a large volume of other entirey verifiable data - squarely in the public domain. The fact that Wik cannot be bothered to do any serious research (sorry but a Google word search doesn't qualify) - even when provided with appropriate leads - speaks volumes concerning his/her real agenda - namely, to rubbish the efforts of those whose personal attitudes he/she disagrees with.
- Chill out, Imperator. As for everyone else, I think it is worth mentioning semi-serious endeavours with real histories and extended followers -- they are definitely encyclopedic, although might be culled from a paper 'pedia. See for instance Pi Day or even Yellow Pig Day (but see its VfD entry below) or the Scottish streaker who crossed the pond to hit the Superbowl. But I do think that all Atlantium content [bios of its Emperor, list of its cabinet, refs to its policies] should be on a single page, reflecting its size and small history. And I don't think it should show up in any list other than a "micronations" list which explains that most of these political entities are recognized only by other micronations, if at all. +sj+ 03:28, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)
- Delete: irrelevant. Wile E. Heresiarch 09:59, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - we could all invent micronations in our bedrooms. Secretlondon 23:47, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I never knew of Atlantium before this. Just don't go nuts over NPOV, and everything will work out fine. (Yeah, this means you too, Wik and whoever's disputing Wik.) Rickyrab 18:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tiki Ti -- Add to this discussion

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

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

California NA‑class

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

From VfD

Advertising for non-notable bar. Rick K 05:26, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Non-notable? I wasn't aware this article existed before just now, but the bar itself is one of the most well-known establishments in Southern California. A Google search for the name, with or without quotes, brings up (literally) myriad results, all relevant; at any rate, I certainly grew up hearing about it. The article is in dire need of a clean-up, but it's a definite keep. Austin Hair 05:42, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Needs a clean up, but its a very notable place. --KenV 05:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Clean up and removal of advertising: It has no employees? Very weird. You can see two different hands at work, at least. One is a Wikipedia-appropriate one, and one is not. Geogre 13:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. OMG, Los Angeleans are second only to New Yorkers in thinking they live in the center of the universe. I live in the same state, and frequent bars, and have never heard of this. "tiki ti" only gets 600 hits. (compare to 16,000 for "tiki hut", which doesn't have an article). If this stays, expect articles on The Oasis, Murphy's Law, and Blinkys, "notable" bars in MY neighborhood. "The Oasis, known to many as "The Bat Cave" for its dark, cramped atmosphere..." "Murphy's Law is in the popular Murphy Street neighborhood of Sunnyvale, and features live classic rock music on the weekends. ..." "Blinkys sports bar is on the renowned El Camino Real, and features live classic rock music on the weekends..." Note, KenV's only edits are here and the subject article--suspect original contrib of article. No employees? What, the waitstaff is all volunteer? Niteowlneils 14:08, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
All this for a one sentence stub on a notable bar on Sunset, hmmm I reedited my first entry to an approprate one. California Smoking Law is ment to protect the employees, the oweners do not have employees, they do everything themselfs. --69.33.44.66 17:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- That helps explain some of it. You do see how confusing it was in the article to say that it was a place with no employees? If this is as famous as Tiki Hut, then realize that most of us will re-examine the article before the end of VfD voting and review our votes. Geogre 17:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep! Los Angeles landmark referenced on our Sunset Boulevard page. jengod 18:36, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If jengod says it's an L.A. landmark worth keeping, then it's an L.A. landmark worth keeping. -- Decumanus 06:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - POV. In Canada, Toronto claims to be the center of the universe. I'm sure every country can claim a metropolis arrogant enough to make the same claim, and at least one bar in said metropolis arrogant enough to proclaim itself monarch. Denni☯ 02:06, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
- The article makes no claim that the bar exists at the center of the universe, or any claim of any superiority whatever. I can only assume that you're not referring to the actual content, or even the name, but rather the article's very existence. Given this assumption, I ask: how is this a violation of WP:NPOV? Austin Hair 02:36, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  - I claim only that a fricking =bar= has no place in Wikipedia, unless someone famous drank there regularly, or a notable person committed suicide on the premises, or some other event occurred which elevates it above any other similar liquor-serving establishment in Backwash, Indiana (where the same fun can be had at half the price). Plain and simple, this bar is irrelevant to five decimal places to the world's population - what reason other than fondness for the establishment or vanity could there be for including such an article? Denni☯ 02:03, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
    - Nobody notable drank there regularly? Amongst the many famous regular patrons of the Tiki Ti have been some key figures in the underground rock scene of the 1980s, such as the members of The Cramps, Jeffrey Lee Pierce, Bob Forrest, and many others. It was the post-punk scenester crowd who discovered the bar, previously a neighborhood joint little known outside of what was then a relatively obscure part of L.A.
    - In fact, you claimed that this article was POV in the lead sentence of your first post, which is a very different argument from the one upon which you've now decided to fall back. Significance, you secondary argument, is relevant to this vote, and I simply argue that a notable landmark in what is unarguably a notable city can rightfully be considered to be both encyclopedic and significant to a sizable portion of our audience. Neither Pikachu nor Giraldus Cambrensis are of any interest to "five decimal places of the world's population," but they both (quite appropriately) have their place in Wikipedia. Austin Hair 02:26, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
      - And I still think that a sentence like "It is considered by many to be the very epitome of the Tiki tavern style" is POV unless you have some demonstrative proof that "many" ≠ "me". And what precisewly is "...a sizable portion of our audience..."? The hundred odd regulars? The few thousand who have visited because of its "notability", or the few (being generous) tens of thousands who have heard of it? Both Pikachu and Giraldus Cambrensis have notability to a hugely larger audience than this article. I stand by my vote. Denni ☯ 18:47, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
        Have you read WP:NPOV? "It is considered by many" is precisely the way to state a particular viewpoint while not actively espousing it. In fact, I don't personally hold an opinion either way, and did not write that tidbit in the first place. I did rephrase it per the NPOV policy. As for the bar's prominence as a Los Angeles landmark, perhaps you'd best leave that judgment to LA residents and tourists—i.e. those actually qualified to judge. I certainly wouldn't take it upon myself to speak for the popularity of a site in Jakarta, having never even been there. Austin Hair 23:13, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --Dittaeva 20:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

photoreq

removing photo request. photo has been added. Minnaert 00:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above discussion

Putting aside the discussion of bars, Sunset Blvd, center of the universe etc. The Tiki Ti is an historic landmark for those involved in "Tiki Culture" just because "you" don't understand the concept doesn't mean it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. It is as much a part of "tiki" as Trader Vics or Don the Beachcomber. And it IS world famous by the way. Hell, without Ray Buhen there would've BEEN no Trader Vic's! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.203.11 (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swampwater?

Really, no mention of Swampwater?! Magenta, the most notorious owner of Millie's Diner in it's long history, would hang at the Tiki-Ti and finish all the unfinished Swampwaters that foolish patrons ordered! She never spent a penny there in 10 years! 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ACS Chess Club -- Add to this discussion

"ACS Chess Club" was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. The notable alumni were moved to Anglo-Chinese School with attribution noted in the edit summary. Rossami 00:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just couldn't pass this vanity article by. POV as well. Didn't some other article from the Anglo-Chinese School come up recently? - Lucky 6.9 07:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity. --Robert Merkel 07:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge the facts that they have produced an International Grandmaster and a Secretary General of FIDE into Anglo-Chinese School; delete the rest. Securiger 08:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete the article: I suppose rescuing the ACS info for the linked articles is good and noble, but this article, as well written as it is, should be deleted. Geogre 13:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge the GM, the IMs, and the SecGen into Anglo-Chinese School, and delete. -- Jao 05:41, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Merge and Delete Vanity but some information could be used. Frankchn 13:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment: an attempt was made to remove the VFD notice from the page. -- Grunt (talk) 03:32, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
Vanity Vanity Vanity... Having an article about this Club could potentially happen, but merge and COMPLETELY REWRITE. I mean common... The whole thing about not being daunted about being called geeks? Totally unnecessary.

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

Waldo 54 -- Add to this discussion

This is a poorly written (in my opinion) article about a poorly written (again, my opinion) web-published autobiography about a clone. Seems like vanity to me. Delete. Gentgeen 08:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

oops, I forgot its clone, "Waldo 54" should be deleted with it. Gentgeen 08:34, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- If it hasn't been published off line, and the author has no significant publication record, then delete. Average Earthman 13:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete both. 33 hits. Actually sounded like a potentially interesting book, until I learned no one is selling it! Niteowlneils 13:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete both: Not published except on the web, no notability. Geogre 13:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
All is vanity, but at least this is notably vain! -Waldo 37, 10 Aug 2004
Delete Cutler 22:52, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

MegaWorks -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable small computer software company, founded by a school student in 2001. Google comes up with speaker systems, not this company. TPK 08:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Looks like vanity. Even if it weren't, it's not notable. Geogre 13:34, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete Cutler 22:51, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Andris 14:09, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

YOSAKOI -- Add to this discussion

A Japanese dance (festival)? If I'm mistaken, and this is notable, it would need a far better translation. -- Pjacobi 12:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

MASA 13:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)I am … though I translated the item of "YOSAKOI festival" which appeared on Japanese edition as a summer festival which represented Japan into English and it let me write it.
Keep, notable. Started in 1955, teams of up to 150 people compete, "よさこい" (yosakoi) yields 100,000+ Google hits, FAQ here. Looks like we need an article about the Super-Yosakoi Festival [30] as well. Move to cleanup list. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. In desperate need of cleanup, but keep. Title probably shouldn't be in all-caps, though. — Gwalla | Talk 22:34, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Lacrimosus 02:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Madness Temple -- Add to this discussion

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 07:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madness Temple

There's no point in it. Madness Temple is an enclosed forum. We rarely get new users. If someone wanted to know about the site, they's actaully visit it or type it into google. This article does not serve a purpose at all. Can we be rid of it again, please?

Jakemcmahon 16:50, July 13, 2004 (GMT)

Delete, just another message board. Dcarrano 18:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable message board. JamesBurns 08:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An apparently non-notable website created a few days ago. So new it does not even have an Alexa ranking. Andris 12:24, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Sheesh. Vanity/advert; delete. Lupo 12:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Apologies for the idiots from my board (yeah, the temple) trolling this page. Note: the page was created by a non-admin member. I believe you both have a point, and support the deletion of this page. Alreadyinuse 12:44, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Comment Hi, I'm one of the people that created the Temple. I can assure you it was a member who created the entry. However, if you wish to delete it... then you will, I suppose. Which is a shame, as it's a completely valid site. The only decent case you have against it is the Alexa thing. Never mind. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- What he said
Comment I'm another person from the Temple, yes its new, but why should that mean it gets deleted. freakimus
Because it is non-noteable, and also because Wikipedia is not a web directory. Lupo 12:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not for advertising new sites; even a "spin-off" of Slashdot probably wouldn't make it here. --Ianb 12:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment I guess this is a losing battle (and quite a pointless one at that) but the fact is that Madness Temple is a fast-growing community. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The point isn't that it's a fast-growing community- it's that the temple isn't really a notable site. b3ta has tens of thousands of members, it has got a lot of press attention and it is very well known around the web community. Madness temple has been up for about five days. Hardly anyone knows about it, and it's done nothing particularly important. Yet. Alreadyinuse 13:00, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
  - Fair enough. We'll see what happens in the future. Chimneysweep 13:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment Hi, I'm the guy who wrote the piece...I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to inform about various issues, including sites on the Internet? I wrote the piece from a neutral standpoint as requested (writing only to inform, as is the whole point, and without giving an opinion either way) and stressed heavily the fact that it was new and a b3ta spin-off of sorts. I didn't realise that Wikipedia only lists major sites; to me, that seems rather moot, as everyone knows all about the major sites anyway. I felt the MT had enough noteworthy stuff on it to deserve a place here, hence my entry. Heh, please don't bash, 'twas an honest mistake if it can really be considered as such. Feral.

Delete: Wikipedia does not offer web guide functions. Geogre 13:39, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete - neither notable nor encyclopedic - the sort of article that makes me think that the criteria for speedy deletion should be more widely drawn. Cutler 22:49, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory/promotional tool. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

How to Build -- Add to this discussion

Far too general title and the material only covers automobile engines. I don't think this title ever be useful for any article. Rmhermen 13:01, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Material is not usefull. --Starx 15:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agree with above, and Wikipedia isn't a "How-to" guide. Delete. -- Stevietheman 15:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Not true. There is plenty of how to info on wikiepdia. Also thwe title is a non issue as the page can easily be moved. However it reads like a wikibook page, so I suggest it's tranwikied to there. theresa knott 15:15, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Disagree. Wikipedia contains a good amount of info it's not supposed to contain. -- Stevietheman 15:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - But the issue of how-tos has never been resolved and there's isn't any established policy or consensus. There's nothing about this in Wikipedia:What's_in,_what's_out. And Wikipedia:How-to tells specifically how to write them. By all means express opinion on articles, but I wish people would please stop asserting that there is any established policy that excludes procedural knowledge from Wikipedia. You can start a section on this in Wikipedia:What's_in,_what's_out or try listing Wikipedia:How-to, but please do not assert policy where none exists. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: How-to, and not an actual how-to. It's along the lines of "To score a touchdown, be sure to go all 100 yards down the field." Perhaps it belongs in Wikibooks, but I wouldn't judge that. Geogre 16:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - not encylopedic Cutler 22:46, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It is of no interest, this is an encyclopedia of knowledge not a guide to the web. anon comment moved off main VfD page
Move to some better title, such as "Home-built automobile engines" or whatever phrase would be most natural to hobbyists who design and build their own high-performance auto engines. It's a vaguely interesting topic. I can see this growing into a decent article. Check to make sure we don't have one already. If someone objects deeply to the procedural language, this could easily be rewritten since, as other have noted, it's not really a procedural article at all. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Moved to Home-built automobile engines. Attempted cleanup. This is an area that I am sure Wikipedia has very little info on, but is in fact quite popular in the real world, it would not be very encouraging for new users if such stuff is simply deleted. Vote to keep. --Dittaeva 21:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Evocative -- Add to this discussion

definition - Mattingly23 13:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Dicdef. -- Stevietheman 15:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: dictdef...doubtful Wiktionary. Geogre 16:51, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - dicdef Cutler 22:44, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete uninformative dicdef. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I Spy With My Little Phi -- Add to this discussion

No google hits. Dubious content. If it were a comedy I doubt it would be funny. Almost certainly a hoax. Michael Johnson (teacher) is linked from Blue Coat School, Oldham Դմն 19:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete Դմն
Delete unless it can be verified within the VFD period. Cutler 21:54, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Blast! I thought I had it here, but that's a mirror cleverly disguised. Not a bit of it is verified. Burn it, unless someone finds something. Odd that a BBC series in this much detail doesn't provide us with the name of any of the stars, isn't it? Geogre 01:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Lacrimosus 02:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
BBC website hasn't heard of it either. Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete entirely on the basis of stupid title. Wikipedia is not Everything2. Denni ☯ 02:11, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
Delete ... in a chilled out yet stringent manner. - Nat Kraus e 20:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete probable nonsense before it spreads. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Blue Coat School, Oldham -- Add to this discussion

I can't see anything significant about this school. Dmn / Դմն 19:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete Dmn / Դմն 19:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We seem to have admitted that we'll have a page for every High School and this is one. It's moderately historic but the article is a gross abuse of bandwidth. WP:Cleanup then see if what's left survives WP:VFD. Cutler 21:52, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, obviously there are factual inaccuracies, but it is a notable secondary school. Perhaps put this version on Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense and create a serious page, afterwards. There is clearly a load of intelligent humour here, probably from students of the school. Whilst it is most definitely wrong to have this on the encyclopaedia; bad jokes would surely be a fitting end to some artistic self expression. Also, if we don't save it, I can see these students(?) doing the same thing again.
SimonMayer 22:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
what a lot of work this page has had put into it. Alas, the really interesting stuff, which would be the basis for a proper article (the history, as it looks like quite an old school) is very sparse. Agree with SimonMayer's suggestion. --Ianb 23:13, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, I agree with SimonMayer. Ele 00:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Joke. Preserve on BJAODN and have a rewrite from nearly blank. A lot of work, fools the casual eye. Geogre 01:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Cleanup and Keep. Lacrimosus 02:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Schools are inherently notable for anyone researching educational facilities. Article needs cleanup though. Davodd 20:19, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. -Sean Curtin 21:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Clean up then keep. And then ban the vandals. The page was fine before the sabotages. -- ~~~~
This page has turned into one giant ugly-ass school vanity article. I took an axe to it in the hope of chopping out some dead wood, including the blatant irrelevant copyvio of the area map. Give cleanup a shot at it, but if it's still garbage by the time they're sick of it, delete without regret. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Cleanup. Neutrality 02:58, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Cleanup. If noone else does this, I'll have a shot at it. Being related to a member of staff of the school gives me a shot at doing some fact-finding. RDevz 22:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Michael Johnson (teacher) -- Add to this discussion

Insignificant teacher in a hoax tv programme. Dmn / Դմն 19:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Dmn / Դմն 19:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not worth an article. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 20:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Geogre 01:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Lacrimosus 02:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:06, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WackoWiki -- Add to this discussion

WackoWiki

Old VfD

Just an advert for some unknown wiki. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 20:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete Cutler 21:46, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. Geogre 02:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Geogre said it. Skyler 03:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Comment. It's not a Wikipedia mirror. It's not a website running a Wiki for some other purpose. It's a site offering some kind of Wiki software (like MediaWiki), under a license described as "You are free to everything. Hmm... almost =). See LICENSE file in installation pack." Whatever that means. Does that make a difference? Do we have a guide to sources of Wiki software anywhere, and should this be on it? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New VfD

~~del~~ Keep. Mikkalai 01:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Vote changed after the article being expanded. Mikkalai 18:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Note: there's an article on the same in the Russian Wikipedia. Samaritan 02:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It may be of notability for russian programmers. The current article says nothing why it is notable. Mikkalai 07:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep, no clear reason for deletion. m:Wiki is not paper, remember. Dan100 09:31, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Has more than a hundred thousand Google hits. Lose the advertising copyish features list, though. --Korath ^会話 00:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If you have just abit of patience to click 4 times thru the list of hits, you'd notice there are only 318 of them, and vast majority of these are purely technical references, like invitations ot download, user documentation, etc. My son's website has more hits for his silly college projects. Mikkalai 01:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
FYI, here's the exact number of hits from wikis running on WackoWiki. Again I can hardly understand your systematic deletion policy for Wakka forks -- Dario (User:151.37.62.186)
- And the exact number would be 75, if you click at page 8 of google report. Mikkalai 17:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - No, that the number of pages that Google thinks are "dissimilar"; the real number of pages found is shown at the top of the page. --JavaWoman
Delete. --fvw * 09:17, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
Ok, why don't delete MediaWiki also? WackoWiki has more than 300 installations, such as http://freesource.info/, http://wiki.qube.ru/, http://wiki.phpdoc.info/, http://docs.mamboserver.com/ . Keep, --- kukutz
Comment: Is there any clear policy on (dis)allowing articles describing trademarks / commercial products / open source software products? DenisYurkin 16:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- There is a common policy of notability. You cannot have an article for every piece of software out of college's dorm. Mikkalai 17:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - Excellent. And what're criteria for notability? If I believe it's notable and you believe it's not, how can we resolve a conflict? Is it only voting that can help us? (i.e. number of adherents vs number of ignorants) Some kind of Sanhedrim that is supposed to know everything notable? DenisYurkin 17:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - If there is nothing more to say than "I believe it's notable" in its support, then it is non-notable. If there is something to say, say it. "WYSYWIG editing", "easily cutomizable", etc., are commonplaces, hence not proofs of notability. Mikkalai 17:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      - In other words, there's no common criteria for notability, I understood correctly? Then, let me clarify: what do you mean by notability? Is 'well-known and widely used' enough? (then what's criteria for wideness?) Or we only mean 'having unique features, which makes the product different from others'? DenisYurkin 17:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        We are not in the court of law here. Once again, if you have something to say, say it. Rewrite the article to show the notability of the tool. See also wikipedia:Importance for general guidelines. Mikkalai 17:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        Thanks for politely answering my every question (sorry, I started replying when your last phrase read 'Otherwise goodbye'). Now I clearly understand that it may or may not have any sense to say anything on the matter... Anyway, what I know about WackoWiki is: (I'm ready to contribute this to the original page):
        it is used as a knowledge management system in many companies in Russia, including Yandex (search engine and one of largest internet companies in Russia); detailed list of companies can be provided if it can add value
        
        it is leading wiki engine in Russian segment of Internet (if you measure by number of installations)
        
        its codebase is used for NPJ (english page), first open-source "blogs+wiki" web service/software in Russia
        
        it has javascript-based WYSIWYG-like editor WikiEdit, and it's far more advanced than MediaWiki's (smart (un)indentation/lists, lots of keyboard shortcuts (press '?' in toolbar here))
        
        DenisYurkin 18:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        
        So what are you waiting for? Be bold <-click here. Mikkalai 18:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- - - - So, if there is nothing more to say that "it's not notable" then it's notable? Just exactly what would provide "proof of notability", please? Could you please drop the derogatory tone, mr. Mikkalai, and provide some objective criteria why these articles should be deleted? The mere fact that now-deceased Wakka has so many different forks (not "copycats") is in itself notable (as are their differences). Of course they have common features (MediaWiki has common features with Wiki, too! - in fact all Wiki engines have common features, that's why they can be classified together in the first place). Keep - all of them. Maybe they should merely be edited somewhat to emphasize their differences. -- JavaWoman
- Once again, if you have something to say, say it. Rewrite the article to show the notability of the tool. The article looks like a cut'n'paste from User Guide or promo leaflet. It doesn't even say that the developers are Russians.
  - Why would it be "notable" that the developers are Russians (are they?). Does it matter where they come from or where they live? - JavaWoman

Once again, I pointed you towikipedia:Importance for general guidelines. Did you have a look into it before immediately jumping at me? Mikkalai 17:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- - Yes, I looked. The first thing I see is "This is a proposed policy" - and I don't even see any occurrence of the word "notable" or any of its derivatives. The one "jumping" at others is you Mr. Mikkalai, by proposing to delete seemingly arbitrary pages and not others in the same class and using derogatory language rather than objective criteria to make your case. -- JavaWoman
Keep. Agreed with previously announced reasons. --Yemperor 18:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep. VfD abuse - David Gerard 23:07, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Are you crazy? Extreme keep! --L33tminion | (talk) 03:56, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Whether or not the software is being actively worked on, the contents of this article are helpful to a reader looking for an overview of development efforts in the wiki software field. — DV 04:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep I've started the article, nice discussion -- enno 23:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pacific Root -- Add to this discussion

Not notable. Neutrality 21:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

WP:Cleanup then we can decide because I could make neither head nor tail of this. Cutler 21:44, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: If I understood it, it's obsolete and asks us to be a web guide for something that's out of business already. Pretty self-destructive entry. Geogre 02:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
mildly notable, evidently defunct, would be better off as a redirect here: Alternate_DNS_root --Ianb 06:54, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. As it stands, a technogeek message saying "This number is no longer in service." And we should keep this because...? Denni ☯ 02:10, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
Delete ad for defunct service. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Lacrimosus 23:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche/parody -- Add to this discussion

Impossibly POV. Rick K 22:29, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Gzornenplatz 22:33, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Delete if not NPOVed and moved to a better title where it isn't duplicating anything. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 22:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, but also move to WP:BJAODN. Neutrality 00:05, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh my. Mildly entertaining in a sociopathic way, but please delete with all due haste. Fire Star 02:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, WP:BJAODN. -- Jmabel 23:58, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, but could we move it to a metawiki thing someplace? Stirling Newberry 03:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

B. R. Frieden -- Add to this discussion

This project page was nominated for deletion on 5 February 2025. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

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

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

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

Biography: Science and Academia NA‑class

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

Warning: Default sort key "Frieden, B. Roy" overrides earlier default sort key "Religious Leaders In 1220".

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

Friedenr (talk · contribs)

Copied from VfD discussion

155 Google hits for "B. R. Frieden Tucson." Looks like original research as well. Another vanity article I couldn't let pass by. - Lucky 6.9 22:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep: I don't understand mathematics beyond division, so I haven't a clue about whether the article is accurate, but the problem here seems to be in the article's name. B. Roy Frieden turns up a lot of hits. B.R. Frieden virtually none. Further, the B. Roy Frieden looks entirely consistent with the article's description of him. I can't say that it's significant or not, but he does have the Fischer chair, etc. Geogre 02:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Frieden's "Extreme Physical Information" theory has gotten a certain amount of press. From skimming some websites and newsgroups, it seems to be considered interesting and not crankery. See for example this skeptical book review [31]. The article as it stands is a promo piece, certainly written by Frieden himself (try a reverse DNS lookup on 150.135.248.126). Move to cleanup for NPOV-ification, which might be hard but oh well. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:32, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Also the article should be renamed to Extreme physical information theory or something; it's the theory that gets any press -- Frieden himself is not otherwise notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Works for me. It was the self-promotional tone and the whacked-out Google search that threw me. Clean and rename. - Lucky 6.9 08:56, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Looks like another article came in from the same proxy. See Extreme physical information. I'm far from a mathmetician, but this could use a look from someone who knows the subject. - Lucky 6.9 19:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment number two: Wile was right about the proxy. It's from the University of Arizona. - Lucky 6.9 19:14, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The article needs a lot of cleanup/attention, but EPI is a real (if unlikely) physical theory; Frieden has 39 papers in the Scitation index[32], and other writers cite his work at least occasionally. It's a well-known enough theory that people would reasonably want to look it up- keep. -FZ 13:17, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Also delete B Roy Frieden - This is a new attempt to recreate the vanity page under a new title. User acknowledged it is his (and his name) on Wikipedia:Help desk. - Tεx τ urε 20:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

B. Roy Frieden's anonymous POV-pushing edits

B. Roy Frieden claims to have developed a "universal method" in physics, based upon Fisher information. He has written a book about this. Unfortunately, while Frieden's ideas initially appear interesting, Frieden's work is highly controversial:

Binder, Philippe M. (2000). "Physics from Fisher Information: A Unification (a review)". American Journal of Physics. 68: 1064–1065.
Kibble, T. W. B. (1999). "Physics from Fisher Information: A Unification (a review)". Contemporary Physics. 40: 1999. (the reviewer has some positive comments but concludes that Frieden's work is "misguided")
Case, James (2000). "An Unexpected Union---Physics and Fisher Information". SIAM News. July 17. eprint (highly favorable)
Matthews, Robert (1999). "Physics and Fisher Information (a review)". New Scientist. January. unauthorized electronic reprint
Physics from Fisher Information: A Unification (a review) from Cosma Shalizi (Computer Science, University of Michigan) (highly critical)
Physics from Fisher Information (a review) from R. F. Streater (Mathematics, Kings College, London) (highly critical)
Physics from Fisher Information thread from sci.physics.research, May 1999 (mostly critical)
Fisher Information - Frieden unification Of Physics thread from sci.physics.research, October 1999 (mostly critical)

User:Lucky 6.9 was dead right about WP:VAIN. Note that Frieden is Prof. Em. of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona. The data.optics.arizona.edu anon has used the following IPs to make a number of questionable edits:

150.135.248.180 (talk · contribs)
1. 20 May 2005 confesses to being Roy Frieden in real life
2. 6 June 2006: adds cites of his papers to Extreme physical information
3. 23 May 2006 adds uncritical description of his own work in Lagrangian and uncritically cites his own controversial book
4. 22 October 2004 attributes the uncertainty principle to the Cramer-Rao inequality, which is potentially misleading
5. 21 October 2004 adds uncritical mention of his controversial claim that the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution can be obtained via his "method"
6. 21 October 2004 adds uncritical mention of his controversial claim that the Klein-Gordon equation can be "derived" via his "method"
150.135.248.126 (talk · contribs)
1. 9 September 2004 adds uncritical description of his work to Fisher information
2. 8 September 2004 adds uncritical description of his highly dubious claim that EPI is a general approach to physics to Physical information
3. 16 August 2004 confesses IRL identity
4. 13 August 2004 creates uncritical account of his work in new article, Extreme physical information
5. 11 August 2004 creates his own wikibiostub

These POV-pushing edits should be modified to more accurately describe the status of Frieden's work.---CH 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: subsequent to my protest, B. Roy Frieden created a user account as noted above. I have exchanged some polite emails with him and he feels that his second book (which I plan to examine) overcomes objections raised by myself and other critiques regarding his first book. We have more or less agreed to reopen the discusssion in sci.physics.research once I have obtained his second book.---20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on B. Roy Frieden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050403215217/http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html to http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on B. Roy Frieden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050908074451/http://www.optics.arizona.edu/faculty/resumes/frieden.htm to http://www.optics.arizona.edu/Faculty/Resumes/Frieden.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving "Counter Criticism" content here

I have moved the "Counter Criticism" section from the main page to below, as its style is not particularly neutral and rather confrontational. Some of these points may be worthwhile to reintroduce into the article (preferably not by B. Roy Frieden) if they are rewritten and appropriately sourced. See WP:NOR, WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV. —BryanD (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since criticism has been introduced here, it is only right that some of the conceptual perforations made by these authors should be considered.
Streater's claims:
Streater has a short section in his text referring to lost causes in theoretical physics, essentially making three claims against EPI.
Claim 1: Streater claims that: Frieden generally identifies I with the kinetic energy, and J with the potential energy. Rebuff: It is Streater who claims I equals the kinetic energy in this criticism: a wrong and baseless claim, except in quantum mechanics. To explain further, EPI is formulated through aims and operations that center on demonstrating, algebraically and philosophically, that the central, elementary laws of physics arise out of Fisher Information. These are expressed by values of information functions I and J generally, with I generally not being the kinetic energy and J not being the potential energy. It is quite clearly shown that I and J are informations that, only outwardly, look like the familiar energies of mechanics; and that these associations were made merely to motivate a person with a standard physics background to think in a different direction on this fundamental level. Our thesis is that the laws of physics arise out of information. The derivations of each chapter demonstrate this. The right physics results out of I and J in each case, something that Streater has not denied.
Claim 2: Streater claims that “Frieden claims to have derived quantum mechanics from information theory, forgetting that he started with Schrodinger's equation.” Rebuff: Frieden’s approach does not start with the Schrodinger equation. It starts with general forms I and J as above. Schroedinger himself was ever-mystified as to where the Fisher Information (called ‘kinetic energy’ in standard introductory physics) came from in his now-standard Lagrangian-based approach. Schrodinger never resolved this issue; but had he been a biologist he might have heard of R.A. Fisher’s foundation work using his ‘Fisher Information.’ Fisher’s biological work, in the UK, was, in fact, going on during the same years (circa 1922-25) that early quantum mechanics was being developed just across the channel in Denmark, Germany and France. Too bad Schrodinger was not aware of this.
Claim 3: Streater claims that “Frieden claims that the position of a particle does not send it into an eigenstate of energy. As it is, his result is hardly new, being the basis of the Rayleigh-Ritz method of finding the eigenvalues, known since the nineteenth century.” Rebuff: Frieden did not originate the statement “measuring the position of a particle does not send it into an eigenstate of energy.” It originated in the work of the esteemed John A. Wheeler. He believed in, and championed, a participatory universe, whereby each physical effect follows from the way a user carries through on it with a particular choice of observing apparatus. Indeed, even when the apparatus is changed during the experiment (a so-called “delayed choice” experiment) the output changes accordingly.
Shalizi's Claims
Shalizi has a more extended claims against EPI, though curiously he notes at the end of his commentary that it may not have peer support. It might be seen why this could be the case when considering some of his claims.
Claim 1: Shalizi claims that Frieden does not really maximize Fisher Information; he simply requires that its variation be stationary. Worse yet, says Shalizi, he is admirably candid about the fact that simply doing this doesn't give us any very interesting equation of motion. To get that, he subtracts from the Fisher information a new quantity of his own devising, the "bound information," and requires that the difference between these two, which he calls the "physical information," have stationary variation. Rebuff: Fisher Information really is maximized, but out of the variation of quantity I - J, not just of I, and the assumption of such stationary variation is standard in physics, as Shalizi undoubtedly knows. This is particularly apparent in quantum mechanics, where the Fisher Information I = J, the full amount needed to launch quantum mechanics via the ‘participatory universe’ thesis of John A. Wheeler.
Claim 2: Shalizi is unable to see any reason why the physical information should be maximized. Rebuff: Unlike a Lagrangian, Fisher Information is generally not invariant under change of coordinates, e.g. from Cartesian to spherical, so Shalizi would have liked some reassurance on this point, which is not forthcoming. As the book makes clear, there are no “correct” physical variables, until you first define what you mean by “information.” It’s not C.E. Shannon’s form, but rather the continuous generalization due to Fisher.
Claim 3: Shalizi claims that Frieden evidently believes that Nature thinks in Cartesian coordinates. He tries to justify his "extremal physical information principle" (pp. 79--82) by saying that physicists are in a non-cooperative game with Nature, trying to seize as much data as we can from Her, and the upshot of this is that physical information should have stationary variation. I couldn't say why he thinks this should convince anyone not raised on the lumpenfeminist idea that modern science is a way of raping and torturing Nature. Rebuff: The inference is wrong. Observers do not want to seize a maximum amount of data but, rather, a maximum amount of information in the data taken. It’s not quantity - it’s quality that matters. As a matter of fact, Nature itself operates by this principle: “natural selection” (Darwin) is selection for maximum information I.
Claim 4: Shalizi claims that adding bound information (or rather, subtracting it off) reduces the scheme to vacuity. Frieden pulls these terms from out of, to put it politely, the air, and they seem to have no independent significance whatsoever. They are simply whatever he needs to get the equation he wants at the end of the variational problem, subject only to the (really rather mild) constraint that they have the right symmetry properties. Frieden's scheme is at best mathematically equivalent to orthodoxy; it adds nothing empirical; places fundamental and useful concepts in doubt; does nothing to unify physics either internally or with statistics; and it is associated with some really bad metaphysics, though that last perhaps reflects more on Frieden than on the scheme itself. I see absolutely no reason to prefer this scheme to conventional mechanics, rather the reverse. This is at best an extended mathematical curiosity. Rebuff: The reason is, as shown throughout the book - from one physical scenario to another - Nature simply acts that way (also, see Wheeler’s previously noted hypothesis). For example, in biology: Darwinian “natural selection”, i.e., “survival of the fittest,” can be derived on the basis of the principle of Fisher Information J – I = minimum. See Frank, J. Evolutionary Biology, “Natural selection maximizes Fisher Information”, Jan. 2009, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01647.x As to Shalizi’s other remarks, “placing fundamental and useful concepts in doubt” is the purpose of any worthwhile new theory; e.g., Galileo’s assertion of having observed a non-centrist universe. Was he wrong: in fact, and in trying to make it known? Shalizi just doesn’t ‘like’ the idea behind the book; but evidently, this is not out of having read and well-understood it. Finally, contrary to what he claims, information does rule.
That information rules is supported by Meijerin (http://www.sintropia.it/journal/english/2013-eng-3-01.pdf), who argues that Frieden's Fisher Information framework has a fundamental property of intrinsic information, and this produces matter. Intrinsic information is defined to be the most complete way of describing a contextual object. This is consistent with Barbieri (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257780021_The_Paradigms_of_Biology ) who explains that there are three paradigms that reflect on reality, the chemical/physical paradigm, the information paradigm, and the meaning paradigm, and where information can be an intermediary between the other two.

Fu -- Add to this discussion

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

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

China NA‑class

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

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

Disambiguation

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

From VfD:

Dictdef of a slang term. Rick K 23:09, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Slang term, but it has been around for quite a while. I think it originates in Joe Bob Briggs's movie reviews, where he refers to any exploitative element in a movie as -fu. It's funny when he says it. Geogre 02:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please Merge with Kung fu. The phenomenon of appending "-fu" to words and "your [whatever] is weak" jokes are extremely widespread. And Animefu, is, in fact, a popular Anime website linked from the front page of Slashdot. - RedWordSmith 02:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- On second thought, Gwalla's right, the Kung Fu article actually is a bit long. Just plain keep. - RedWordSmith 21:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Widely-used suffix with an interesting, if silly, history. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agreed with Wile E. Also, merging with Kung Fu would merely clutter that article with something that isn't terribly relevant to its topic. Keep. — Gwalla | Talk 18:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Aside from the reasons already mentioned, suffixes are included in Wikipedia. I don't see any reason to exclude a slang term. Maybe we need an article listing slang suffixes? • Benc • 22:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I've done a bit of work on it. Fire Star 18:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Reasonably close to encyclopedic. - Nat Kraus e 20:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Your wiki-fu is strong, Fire Star. Keep. DS 00:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Seems meaningless. No one knows what it means. ("Peeping-Tom fu. Handcuff fu". "Flame-thrower Fu". "Whiskey-bottle Fu". ???) Joe Bob Briggs seems to use it for everything and anything; it'll mean garbage soon. Mandel 11:47, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

end mvoed discussion

Explanation needed

"Fu is a word meaning expertise" appears to be an unsubstantiated claim - when and where does fu = expertise? A link to a relevant, explanatory page would be more useful than a link to "expertise". 192.43.227.18 07:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC) ws[reply]

I agree. Some explanation needed here. A bare link to "expertise" is not informative. Acsenray 19:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David_Saville -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable? --Ianb 23:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability, probable vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, even though he's famous in NW England. I wish the man and ministry well, but evidence of notability is lacking. Geogre 12:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Same reasons as above. -- Stevietheman 15:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. (Or re-direct to Alvin and the Chipmunks as a typo) Davodd 20:16, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Salt_Cellar_Youth_Project -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable? --Ianb 23:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:37, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't seem notable. -- Stevietheman 15:00, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Created by a user who seems to have an unhealthy interest in Blue Coat School, Oldham, and marking major additions of material as minor edits. Delete, non-notable. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

W00t -- Add to this discussion

The result of the debate was keep [added by Andre🚐 23:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC) for afdstats][reply]

Not-even-slang term. Reads like a copyvio, but I can't find it. Who's Tristan? Rick K 23:57, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. It's very commonly used online. By me, anyway. [[Voporak 16:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Object. The word is important part of Internet culture. Plus it gets 326,000 Google hits. [33] Neutrality 00:02, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I've NPOV'ed it and removed the odd Tristan reference. This is a definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite, definite keep. blankfaze | (беседа!) 00:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I suppose it'd be a dicdef, but it doesn't actually seem to mean anything :) It's a fairly common piece of leet, and (to my shame) I know at least one person who says it aloud (in company, even). It's surely not a copyvio - it's 18 months old, and has been built incrementally by numerous users. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Have caught myself saying this word ;-). --Ianb 00:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's a staple of Internet culture. Andre 08:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The article itself should be wikified, but such a topic belongs on WP. Aecis 14:28, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's already listed in Leet and Internet slang. Does it really need its own article? Neutral. -- Stevietheman 14:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The listing on those pages are just that - lists. Several of the other words on those pages have their own articles. The page seems exactly like a less sure version of suxxor. It could possibly be improved, but it's valuable as it is. Yelyos 15:49, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  - Naaah. Just because there are other bad examples doesn't mean they should be applied to the article in question. I vote to redirect to Leet. -- Stevietheman 16:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to leet where, as Stevietheman says, it's already listed. The speculations about the origins of the word are just that - speculations. They do not add any verifiable facts beyond what is already listed in leet. Rossami 15:37, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Remove or Redirect to leet as stated. "It was first seen in 1994" LOL? violet/riga 15:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Addition: The article is all speculation and without any firm facts it has no place in a -pedia. violet/riga 16:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep — I enjoyed reading that article. It is a very informative and useful article to have, and it distinguishes us from traditional old-fashioned antiquated paper encyclopedias. — Timwi 15:43, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's widespread enough on its own as a term that it deserves an separate article. Yelyos 15:49, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep or redirect. It deserves its own entry. Pahalial 17:04, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's listed on leet, but any slang term with a complex etymology and/or near-ubiquitous usage deserves its own article (compare pwn). • Benc • 08:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- "The definite origin of the term w00t is unknown" doesn't say "complex etymology" to me. violet/riga 08:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Um? I count five different plausible theories in the article. "Unknown" does not mean "simple". Yes, it's speculative information. But it's still potentially useful information about a frequently-used term, and therefore has a place in the Wikipedia. • Benc • 10:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - Theories yes but there isn't anything factual there - I know of at least one other claim to be the true etymology. Though I understand and agree that it has a place being mentioned in a -pedia I don't see how such pure speculation as to it's origins can be included. violet/riga 10:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep In case others have not noticed, w00t has now moved beyond internet-only usage and into the mainstream. The Steve 08:55, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
- No, actually I have not noticed that. Please provide evidence so that I can consider revising my vote. Rossami
  - Only anecdotal I'm afraid. I've caught several non-computer-savvy people using it. I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong... The Steve 11:17, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's definately in widespread usage. Plenty of etymologies are highly speculative. --Nickco3 12:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Mike H 21:11, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I see no harm in leaving this here. Also, it IS a very commonly used word on several internet communities, so if someone is confused they may easily find the meaning here if kept. AaAA
Keep. It's a different enough concept from the rest of Leet that it deserves its own article, like pwn. Ilya 01:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Leet and absorb any valuable content into that article. W00t is certainly one of the most frequently seen words in leet slang, but I don't know why that fact alone should merit a separate article. There's nothing so complex or nuanced about its usage or etymology that it can't be reduced to a paragraph in the article on Leet. —Triskaideka 00:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Although I detest the word, I hear it all the time. Historie Pete 18:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
KEEP - Just like pwn and this word needs to have its own page. If there is a problem with the article itself it can be edited. --Windfinder 15:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Very common word on the Internt, and the article is extremely useful in explaining it to people who encounter it without knowing what it means. --Goobergunch 19:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep -- Jrc 18:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep I wrote the comment on the rap origins since I had heard it used as w00t in that context (online gaming, but with references to rap culture) before I had seen it used in geek-admin-speak, and which apparently came later. The word was used fairly separately from the rest of l33t because of that origin as well. You'd usually see things like "w00t there it is", and you know, it wasn't just lamer teenage "i pwned you" speak. It could be a cultural-sexual reference encoding hyper-sexual emotional responses to embarassingly rare social contact in anonymous internet chat rooms. So then, that's a pretty interesting origin. At least relative to the general topic of l33t speak origins, which as a whole is just an amusement. If you delete this entry, I pledge to start a subversive revolutionary movement called "Save the w00t!", and bring crushing masses of l33t gamers to bear, the only true protectors of internet culture. Or at least I'll make T-Shirts about it and try to get some friends to wear them. -- Pablo Mayrgundter 18:57, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- On Google "W00t" gives 333,000 results (more that l33t at 205,000). I'll change my vote to keep but I think the article needs some work. violet/riga 19:41, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep - I'll agree that the article needs some work; w00t is more than an example of l33t. Possibly, though, it would make sense to redirect to l33t and put the etymology in wiktionary. 66.222.36.122 00:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep - It is a well known, well used word among geek and online gaming circles. If it was a word that has only recently entered usage I would deem the deletion acceptable, but it has wide enough scope for its own page. 62.255.32.9 10:22, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - I hate wikipedia. It shall all die, one vote for deletion at a time. 66.109.201.10 03:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template history Iceland -- Add to this discussion

Looks like an attempt at creating a template message. Suggest merge with History of Iceland and delete, as a redirect could be confusing. -- Netoholic 01:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note that the author of the page blanked it shortly after creation. I think just deleting would be appropriate. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pier Dominguez -- Add to this discussion

It's back, with the same old copied-and-pasted content, even after the community's consensus was to delete the article (the old discussion is below.) Evidently, User:205.188.117.20 thinks we have short memories, or that his article has some God-given right to exist? --Ardonik 02:09, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Old discussion starts here.
Pier Dominguez was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE
Stupid, shallow ad for this guy's website. I've deactivated the link. A google search (28 hits) reveals that this guy has been spamming every online encyclopedia that he can edit. Interesting thing is, the page has been edited and re-edited for about a year, and nobody's considered deleting it. --Ardonik 06:46, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Good thing you caught it. These vanity listings really steam me. Delete ASAP as this has been clogging up server space long enough. - Lucky 6.9 06:54, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even if that is all he has done - writing celebrity books doesn't make him notable in itself. Delete. Secretlondon 06:54, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. This does not add any significant value. Delete. -SocratesJedi 09:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If he's written real books that actually made money (is this confirmed or just asserted?), he's worth an article, though with severe rewriting. No vote yet - David Gerard 12:18, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The action is advertising. The article is an ad. Delete on those grounds -- no stance taken on notability. Geogre 15:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Delete, following Geogre's reasoning. -- orthogonal 02:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Delete, agree with Geogre. Thue | talk 11:27, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Delete this spam. — Chameleon My page/My talk 13:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Needs major NPOV rewrite. I find these brief vignettes of the barely notable to be fascinating. I see no harm in keeping them, an online encyclopedia is the perfect place for them. Arevich 03:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vanity—delete with extreme prejudice. Postdlf 14:26, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I support keeping the entry "Pier Dominguez". I found it to be a portal to many interesting true crime facts, and it is true that he's an author. What harm does it do? I say keep it.

More proxy by hosiery. Sorry, no unsigned votes. - Lucky 6.9 07:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Old discussion ends here.

Put new discussion here.

Since it lost VfD, doesn't it go straight to speedy delete if it shows up again? Geogre 02:59, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Yep. It's gone. Rick K 05:40, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have just removed this article again. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

August 11

United States naval weapons -- Add to this discussion

United States naval weapons was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete

Nothing but a list of red links, no change for almost a year. Joyous 03:19, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Although I'm surprised it isn't a category yet... Securiger 05:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Someone meant to come back to it and didn't. At present, it's a disambiguation for items that aren't here. Geogre 12:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yep, Delete this abandoned article. Agreed that it would make a good category. -- Stevietheman 14:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agree. Delete. Skyler 18:13, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

List of Barbadians -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Notable Bajans are already listed in the List of Eastern Caribbean people, and the sole person included in "List of Barbadians" is apparently not very well-known. --Sesel 03:45, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What? No Gordon Greenridge? No Walcott, Weekes or Worrell? No Sir Garfield Sobers? Garfield Sobers not listed? I mean, really. I'm shocked. Really, really shocked. Average Earthman 15:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Joel Garner as well, of course. I've added them to the list of Barbadians in the 'List of Eastern Caribbean people'. Next is to add articles on them. Average Earthman 15:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete.~~ Unless expanded, I don't see the usefulness of this article. Skyler 18:15, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Looks like it's been redirected to list of Eastern Caribbean people -- keep as a redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, best thing to do. Average Earthman 16:56, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'll go along with that. Keep as a redirect. Skyler 23:21, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

ChavScum -- Add to this discussion

It's a funny website.. but it's just some website, hardly encyclopedic. Alexa rating is 60,920. —Stormie 04:11, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Securiger 06:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
slightly amusing, but once you take away the detailed forum rules there's not much left. Delete as per usual procedure for website entries. --Ianb 06:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. A casual user hits the non-forum stuff, where things are sold. Loved the movie "Snatch," but not so much this. Geogre 12:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Same reasons as above. -- Stevietheman 14:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It may have had a big article on it in the Daily Telegraph, but still delete. Wikipedia isn't a web guide. Average Earthman 16:05, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Skyler 18:35, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

2318 -- Add to this discussion

"According to the point-and-click series The Journeyman Project, 2318 is the projected year that that extraterrestrials land on Earth to form a permanent alliance. This is, however, entirely fictional, and most likely will never happen." This merits inclusion in 2318 if it is possible to expand it, but this bit of trivia is not worthy of its own article, and finding enough information about a year this far in the future would be impossible. Guan aco 04:34, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. And frankly, even if it wasn't in the far future, I wouldn't want to see a minor bit of fictional trivia like this in an article about a year. —Stormie 04:40, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. TPK 06:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There was a precedent for this quite recently, ah yes, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/2443. --Ianb 06:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: fancruft. It makes my head hurt to look at all the red links in The Journeyman Project... more useless crap on the way. God save WP. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:14, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: A private fiction. The year entry is supposed to be for stuff that happens. Geogre 12:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with everything that has been said. Definitely delete. Skyler 18:37, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
I removed some non-encyclopedic information and simply put in encyclopedic information. True or false: now this article can re-direct to 24th century. 66.245.7.55 22:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Why waste the space it takes to redirect such a strange number, which could refer to any number of different subjects? I can't see people typing in this number and expecting to be redirected to information on a future century. No vote change. Make me an argument. Skyler 22:27, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  - Poof. You're an argument. :^P Seriously, delete this. This is just goofy. - Lucky 6.9 03:13, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge into timeline of fictional future events and delete. -Sean Curtin 21:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Agree, however the format of timeline of fictional future events includes links to the relevant date page. Since the author has already taken down the doubtful content, I have been bold and inserted a reasonable facsimile into the Timeline page. Rich Farmbrough 21:16, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mahaveer School -- Add to this discussion

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

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

India: Rajasthan NA‑class

	India portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This page is supported by WikiProject Rajasthan.

From VfD:

Once again, I can't resist. This time, it's a grade school. Non-native English, too. Check out the name of the corresponding redirect: Shri Mahaveer Digamber Jain Senior Secondary School. - Lucky 6.9 05:51, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... ~~a grade school~~ (oops, it's a secondary school -- Wile E. Heresiarch 03:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)) ... no evidence of notability in sight. Still, as such, it's more meaningful than the entire compendium of Pokemon fancrap cluttering up WP. ~~No vote yet.~~ (Vote below -- Wile E. Heresiarch 03:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Wile E. Heresiarch 06:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment: You sure got that one right. I'd rather see this stay and get cleaned up than stumble across the latest waste of server capacity and shake my head over the whole thing. Isn't there some active talk about redirecting all those Pokemons and Digimons and Dragonballs and other anime whatsits to their own wiki? Consider this dismaying observation: Pikachu reminds me of Rosie O'Donnell. - Lucky 6.9 07:43, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Wrong side of the line, no matter how well done. Lucky 6.9, I was sorta kinda joking about the anime ghetto, but it is a good idea. Geogre 12:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Expansion: We seek to offer information on all institutions that are notable. There never was and is not now really a policy rule that one type of school (college) stays or goes. By simple deseutude, we came to a sort of deletionist's agreement on that, but the truth is that there is one criterion: notability for NPOV non-stub articles on schools. "Notability" is something we can argue about. I have voted to keep, for example, schools that were the first school of a particular denomination in a place. This school offers us no notability. There are many, many web guides to schools available now. Most of them are free to users (because they charge schools). We do not need to get into the habit of trying to duplicate in a clumsy way what others do in a professional (i.e. they're paid to do it) way. Sorry if this is testy. Geogre 00:13, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Side-Comment: I have not been here as long as many who vote on this page have, but I am in total agreement with the previous statement. Notability is an arguable subject. Also, we (those who vote on the basis of notability when it is in question) are not elitists, but if you let everything and anything have its own entry, this beautiful project goes from a heirarchy of what is seen as credible knowledge to a scattered mess of this and that information. I do not feel my time is well-spent in working to make Wikipedia better if the latter is going to be the outcome. Skyler 00:42, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. Note: Just because there are a lot of entries of inappropriate content, this does not give reason to keep others. I have seen the "If you delete this, than you'll have to delete that..." argument far too often as an excuse to keep. From my understanding, the point of this page is to improve Wikipedia and keep it respectable. Other similar tolerated content should not be used as an argument, they should be listed here as well. Skyler 18:44, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Would be included in an unabridged encyclopedia of religious schools. Information probably useful for those researching: Jainism, architecture of the Johari Bazaar, or the historic legacy of Sawai Man Singh Bahadur. Remember: just because you personally find no need for an article, doesn't mean it can't useful to someone else. Needs cleanup, though for format and context. Davodd 20:10, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Agreed w/ Davodd. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. --Dittaeva 21:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to contain promo material

This article seems to be made for promo of the school I mean does the lay reader really need to know the version of computers used in the school .....ehFORCE RADICAL (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Desultadox -- Add to this discussion

Useless neologism. --Diberri | Talk 05:55, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yep. Delete Securiger 06:05, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Neologism" - and how! Delete, delete, and for good measure, delete. TPK 06:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Lacrimosus 07:35, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Forum neologism. Geogre 12:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity slang. --Ianb 14:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism/Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Skyler 18:46, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Double Delete. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:30, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

ClamAV -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/ClamAV

May-december romance -- Add to this discussion

dicdef; delete. Lupo 12:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And the title is misspelled too. Gdr 13:21, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
Might be a good idea for an article, but this one is just a definition and it should be titled "May-December romance". Delete this one for now. -- Stevietheman 14:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, nothing useful here. Darn, now I have September Song running through my head... For it's a long long time from May to December/And the days grow short when you reach September/And the autumn weather turns the leaves to flame/And you haven't got time for a waiting game... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Which singer's version of the song? I actually like the Lou Reed one. Oh, the article? Um, delete for dictdef that can't be expanded without our heading into People Magazine territory, and there's no point in that. Geogre 17:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'm partial to the Walter Huston version, from the original musical, in which the lyric actually rather menacing. Rich, powerful old guy expects to win the body if not the heart of the sweet young thing. "And I have lost one tooth/And I walk a little lame/But I have a little money/And I have a little fame." All of the song seems to be analogies with money and power. The phrase "These golden days I'd spend with you..." "If you examine the goods they bring they have little to offer but the songs they sing," whereas Stuyvesant "has a little money." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Dicdef. I don't know how it could be expanded in order to constitute encyclopedic content. Skyler 18:51, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Wake up Maggie, I think I got something to say to you/It's late September and I really should be back at school... Sorry, couldn't resist. Oh, delete, btw. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. An important 20th century (if not earlier) phenomenon. Rewritten. Denni ☯ 03:33, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
Keep; rewritten (consider disregarding previous votes). Many thanks to Denni for the rewrite; I moved the text of the article over to Age disparity in sexual relationships and changed May-december romance to a redirect. • Benc • 21:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I see you have, but sigh ... User 66.56.110.36 had then already created a new article Older women-younger men. I would nominate that one for deletion separately and suggest merging contents with Age disparity in sexual relationships, except that this is getting so monotonous, and moreover that there is not that much to merge, apart from the unsupported statistic that 34% of women are now dating younger men in the US. Otherwise it's all there already in Age disparity, in more NPOV form. Could somebody appropriate please just delete Older women-younger men on sight without further formality? I suppose putting the 34 % statistic into Age disparity first, in case a reference for the figure is forthcoming. Bishonen 09:46, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Sorry, I see now that Older women-younger men has already been put up for deletion under its own steam. And you say you've already moved it? See, when I go look, it doesn't look moved, and isn't carrying a VfD template either. Maybe I'm having a cache bug or something. Checking ... no, the same thing happens when I change from Mozilla to Safari. Maybe the proxy is messing with me. Is anybody else experiencing the same problem in viewing this article, please?Bishonen 10:21, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, it's Older men-younger women that is listed on VfD, not Older women-younger men. Thank you for finding this third page; I've moved its content to Age disparity's talk page and changed it to a redirect. No need to list it a third time on VfD. (By the way, 66.56.110.36 created all three of these pages. In fact, I don't think any of the three pages should've been listed on VfD... the nominator should've merged them and listed it for cleanup.) • Benc • 19:49, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Sorry, Benc, yes, I know I got confused there ....I just couldn't face writing in a third time, after boring everybody to death already. Thanks for working out which target it was that I was shooting wildly in the general direction of. Bishonen 22:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm happy with • Benc •'s reorganization of this content at Age disparity in sexual relationships and change my vote to redirect. (The phrase "May-December" is more likely to be a search query than "Age disparity"). Denni ☯ 05:16, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Overwatch -- Add to this discussion

A military term with difficult-to-establish usage. I wrote a note on the article's discussion tab asking the author to expand or consider another manner of providing the information to Wikipedia. Geogre 13:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Very common military concept used in any discussion of modern tactics of "fire and maneuver". Current content is a mere definition (and not completely right). I'll try to fix it later. Rossami 15:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: That's all I could ask for, Rossami. I sure don't mind being proven wrong, if it means we get good articles on military topics that we've been lacking. Geogre 17:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. As above. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Even if Rossami does not have time to expand, it is a valuable entry and someone with extensive military knowledge could add great contribution to it (i.e. common usage, historical usage, examples, etc.) Skyler 21:14, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Keep Important military concept, merits expansion, not deletion. -FZ 15:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on earth -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Capital E missing. The page with the capital E already exists. Helldjinn 14:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Redirected to Jimmy Corrigan. Keep harmless redirect. (Any decision about the relative noteworthiness of Jimmy Corrigan would require a separate nomination.) Rossami 15:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Rossami, keep harmless redirect. Thue | talk 16:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agreed: redirect, though I wonder whether it should be to Jimmy Corrigan or Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth? I vote the former, because the latter is too cumbersome. Geogre 17:34, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: The latter is already a redirect to the former. Didn't want to create a double redirect. Rossami
Potential readers should be aware that the plot does not catch in the first dozen or more pages, so initial patience is needed. How duh can it get? If you can "get" Lord of The Rings in the first hundred pages, you're doing better than most. What kind of intellectual vacuum does this article occupy? Denni☯ 02:27, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
- No kidding, Denni - so edit it to be better, why don't you. —Hob←Talk 03:28, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
  - Because (a) I couldn't care less about Jimmy Corrigan, (b) my Wikiplate is full of other projects, (c) I think this kind of nonsense is not appropriate to Wikipedia, and (d) a vote to delete is not an obligation to fix. Hope this answers your question. Denni ☯ 20:35, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Student Developed Education Policy -- Add to this discussion

Perhaps worthy, but not noteworthy article. "The Mission Statement of the CeSDEP says 'The Center for Student Developed Education Policy... will maintain a web site that will help students develop new and old policies for their primary and secondary public schools.'" OK, so it's a web site... that's not listed in the article and when I find it in Google, it doesn't load. At any rate, since this article revolves around such an obscure site, the article should be deleted. Further, Google searches on the term mostly list the same article in Wikipedia knockoffs.

Tentative Delete. Currently, this article reads mostly like an advertisement for the website, but without a link to the website. If it can be expanded upon to create a meaningful article, rather than an explanation of a web site, I would reconsider. For now: Delete. Skyler 21:18, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Weak delete: First, we're not really a web guide, so this needs to have become notable prior to entry here. There isn't much indication that I can find for this being a well used, effective, or unique entity. Geogre 00:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory, and no evidence of notability. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wakaba -- Add to this discussion

Addon module for an image messageboard software (idlechan, which may or may not be notable enough to deserve an article). I don't think Wikipedia should list individual addon modules for every software package in the world -- Ferkelparade 15:21, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge and Delete. In agreement with the above statement, I believe this is not notable enough to have it own entry. Any notability could be merged into an article regarding the original software. Skyler 21:21, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Vote Against This is not some minor addon for existing software, but an entirely separate program. unsigned vote by anon User:24.42.73.51, creator of the article
Delete. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat, and there's no evidence of notability. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Robert Hetzron -- Add to this discussion

Whoever Robert Hetzron might be, the article/substub doesn't do anything to educate us about him -- Ferkelparade 15:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This seems to be content originally destined for Beja language. Perhaps move there as an external link and speedy delete? My guess is that someone clicked on the link to Robert Hetzron on that page trying to edit it and ended up creating a page by accident. Yelyos 15:26, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not sure exactly what this is, but I know it should be deleted. Skyler 21:55, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The link is cool, but belongs in Beja language, where I've put it. Robert Hetzron is a major Afroasiaticist and Semitist, but not a newspaper. - Mustafaa 23:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Substub tells us nothing and is just a link. Geogre 00:21, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - not an article. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:12, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PictoChat — Add to discussion

The result of the debate was no consensus [added by Andre🚐 22:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC) for afdstats][reply]

Last I heard, Wikipedia is not a fortune-teller. Niteowlneils 16:54, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attention: it's out now. Thus, everyone saying "futures" and such is wrong, now. Andre (talk) 02:55, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

This is a vote for the deletion of this yet-to-be-deleted article. It is likely that it wil be deleted once enough votes have been cast -- Ferkelparade 17:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, futures, does not exist. Promotional. WIkipedia is in no rush to document things, Wikipedia is not interested in being "first." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:00, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a vapourware directory. --Ianb 21:15, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. As of yet, non-notable. Skyler 21:57, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Fallout IV is a program that will likely be really cool, if the company stays in business and the programmers keep coding and the public keeps buying.... Not an article. Geogre 00:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Nobody edits/deletes it until they know it. WikiPediaAid 6:26 PM, Aug 12, 2004 (EDT)
Strong Keep: Maybe all of the articles for unreleased game hardware and software should be removed? Nintendo DS, PlayStation Portable, Super Mario 64x4, etc. etc. It was demo'd at E³, and even has a page with screenshots on nintendo.com [34]. Sure, it's a bad entry, but just because it's not out yet doesn't mean it's delete-worthy. - Plutor 17:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) Weak keep. Mark my words, it'll be released and back within a year! See also below. - Plutor 21:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I do think articles for unreleased products should be deleted. Particularly when a product has been announced but not released, such an article verges on being promotional. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for dissemination of preannouncements. There's no rush; we're not a news source and we're not trying to scoop anyone. But if you don't agree with me, maybe you should weigh in with your opinion at Wikipedia:What's in, what's out#Products.
  - Okay, thinking about it a little more calmly, I can agree that with future products, notability is probably more important with future than existing products. For instance, the Segway article was created just after the product's unveiling (and official naming), but the first ones weren't available for delivery until 15 months later! [35] I'm not arguing that PictoChat is quite as notable, but rather that the Wikipedia:What's in, what's out#Products page is a bit too broad. - Plutor 21:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - current content is an unverifiable future event (with the key unverifiable point being its notability). Comment: Some of the other articles that Plutor sites might be eligible for nomination under the same criteria. It is, however, irrelevant. We evaluate each nomination on a case by case basis. Rossami 20:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be News reports. And that should cover promotional pieces written as though they are intended to used by media as News reports. Jallan 23:15, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
YOU EVIL SO-CALLED KNOW-IT-ALL VOTING PEOPLE OTHER THAN ME! You think you can delete PictoChat?! NOT YET! WikiPediaAid 4:16 PM (EDT) September 1, 2004
This is ~~coming~~ out~~in a number of weeks~~. Keep. Andre (talk) 23:52, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, as long as the confusion on the protocol PictoChat uses ceases (it uses the proprietary protocol, not Wi-Fi). --Evice 21:16, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Top superhero (and supervillain) hide-outs and bases — Add to discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Top superhero (and supervillain) hide-outs and bases

Legault — Add to discussion

Fictional character that is an orphan article, gets only 600 hits for Legault fire emblem, and is apparently NOT notable enuf to be mentioned on Wikipedia's Fire Emblem page. Niteowlneils 18:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. If someone wants to merge into the Fire Emblem page, that is fine, but we cannot give every fictional character in history their own entry and still remain a reputable encyclopedic source. (IMO) Skyler 22:15, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Send it to the game dungeon. Break out of a character from a game, it's fiction, unwikified, and tremendously minor as a game. Divide the game's notability by some large number for the character's notability. Geogre 00:28, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Scuffleball -- Add to this discussion

I don't think this sport is notable. It seems very much tied to various micronations and most of the Google hits originate from Wikipedia. I'll reconsider my vote if enough people know of it. David Remahl 20:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. David Remahl 20:20, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert for website, well done and perhaps well intended but not what we want. From the official website :Organization is the key to this, and right now, this is essentially a one-man operation. I have some close friends who help me out with various objectives, and several good people who have helped test the sport out. If you would like to help with the organizing of this sport, drop me a line here. I would love to hear from you and would really love additional input into developing the sport. So it's not yet encyclopedic, and may never be. Andrewa 21:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I fully agree with Andrewa for a change. Skyler 22:18, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Just a Comment. The sport is real, it's not fictional. It has been played, and it has a set of cohesive rules. It does exist. I thought Wikipedia was an information source. I had no idea that just because someone has not heard of something that it deserves to be deleted. Delete it if it doesn't pass this litmus test, but 'not notable' is quite arbitrary. scuffleball 22:24, Aug 11, 2004
- Comment: Welcome to Wikipedia! See your talk page if you haven't already. Andrewa 13:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Whether it exists or not, it is not yet notable. Indeed, we are confined to notable information, in context. The reason for this is simply to set some limit. Were we to not have that limitation, then we would be including every product of every imagination anywhere at any time. All terms, such as "notable," "significant," and "important" are going to be open to some argument, and that's why the deletion process is by vote. Geogre 00:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
While I have no desire to bash Everything2, having contributed to their pages myself, I will say that the primary difference between E2 and Wikipedia is that E2 is prepared to accept any article on any topic. E2 is a much more suitable repository for neologisms, neopolitics, neoeconomics, and neosports such as scuffleball. What I most appreciate about Wikipedia is its insistence on some kind of history for its topics. Even though that may be, in some cases, only four or five years, at least there is some legacy to demonstrate perpetuity. Denni ☯ 02:41, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

Kevin Toth -- Add to this discussion

Googling "Kevin Toth" +"Cleveland" -"Shot put" gets 98 hits, most of which still seem to deal with the shot putter. I don't think this person is notable enough. First contribution by new user. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:51, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

~~No vote.~~ I question the notability, but when it comes to a person and one who seems to have made a name for himself (however small) in the music industry, I don't want to jump to conclusion. I will reserve my vote to hear arguments for notability, but if none are made, I agree with Meelar. Skyler 22:22, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: The author has repeated removed the VfD tag, it seems. Promoters are, to me, too tangential. Unless we're talking about Myles and Ian Copeland, I think simply being a promoter is insufficiently notable. Geogre 00:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No vote. But get ready for a HUGE influx of Olympic athletes. Davodd 01:12, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Anonymous: Uncounted vote. National band "The Starting Line" on MCA Records has thanked him on thier latest CD setting him apart from average concert promoters and he manages several bands listed on wikipedia / has worked with or on several shows listed on wikipedia. - Anonymous
- Still no vote: On checking for "What links here" on the Kevin Toth article, all I find is the VfD page and a user talk page stating it should be up for deletion. Perhaps you could add Mr. Toth to these bands' entries in order to show relevance? Skyler 11:25, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Anonymous: Uncounted vote. Like listed above, he has repeatedly worked with a number of high-profile bands, even to the point of being thanked in album linear notes because of it. He has been doing what he does for a long time and is a recognized and revered promoter in Ohio. From the perspective of a touring band - any band who is stopping through Ohio would get the best possible show through Mr. Toth. Keep it. - Anonymous
- Comment: Interesting points, but you guys (the two listed above) know that you need to be logged in and sign your votes for them to count on this page, right? Skyler 11:20, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. - UtherSRG 15:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. - Centrx 19:38, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see sufficient notability in this person for them to warrant an entry any more than any other person on the planet. It sounds like simple vanity to me. Skyler 23:59, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

Tssf -- Add to this discussion

Vanity. Redirects Mathew Valente and TSSF should be deleted too, of course. Fredrik | talk 21:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. --Ianb 22:55, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Even maintains a profesional LiveJournal." Gee wiz! Thanks for sharing! </sarcasm> Delete. Neutrality 00:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete vanity and all its tentacles. Geogre 00:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete --Vik-Thor 02:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep national band "The Starting Line" on MCA has thanked him on thier C.D. setting him apart from average promoters. - 67.38.242.22 19:55:13, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, I was the one who added the page, not Mathew Valente himself, I added the 'vanity' in there and I recently removed it. However, Mathew Valente has made meaningful contributions to Final Fantasy remakes and is very well known within the Nobuo Uematsu's fan community for his contributions in the form of Soundfonts and other music to help others. This should be enough to keep (please remove my previous vote declaration because this one explains a bit more of my reasoning). Furthermore, his work on the Chrono Trigger ressurection project should be enough. - User: 66.93.247.62
Delete: nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - UtherSRG 15:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, I didn't add it but I see it as being fair. - mvtssf 11:30, 12 Aug 2004 (Likely sock puppet - first and only posting)
keep, EZD (Likely sock puppet - first and only posting)
Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 20:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, with vanity removed and I think that Mathew Valente is notable enough to be posted here.--TME 857309 20:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Likely sock puppet - first and only posting)
Delete, not notable + sockpuppets. -Sean Curtin 21:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. tssf is a very well known musician on several internet communities. Someone may wish to look up his name here to find out more about him without personally asking him, if this is kept. Also, whats the harm in leaving it here? - AaAA (Likely sock puppet - second posting - after one other VfD)
Delete. I'm quite sure he's a very nice guy, but being a nice guy or gal doesn't get you inclusion in an encyclopedia. Or everyone would be listing their mums. Don't take it as any kind of punishment, it's simply not a valid function of Wikipedia to make note of everyone who rocks or is otherwise nice. Aris Katsaris 02:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Vanity. Non-notable. "Known on several internet communities" doesn't count for much—the same could be said for me and I know I don't merit an article. Delete. — Gwalla | Talk 03:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, if only to discourage this sockpuppet crap. Why can't these people would spend as much time actually researching something of importance and writing about it...? -- Jmabel 17:50, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion follows:

They have other game musicians listed, why is there any exception here? - User: 66.93.247.62
I personally removed the vanity references, and I don't agree that Mathew Valente is "nonnotable" especially to the thousands who were recently brought aware of his work through Chrono Trigger: Resurrection, which was linked from Slashdot and Game Review pages for people to freely download his remakes. To the Fans of any Squaresoft game this person is genuinely worth keeping. - User: 66.93.247.62
You need to keep Tssf in here, he is a great person and deserves this right. He has done alot for the music community midi-wise and should take this honor. -kokiri_boy
Why delete him? He's a great guy who's really talented. Besides that, you list other game music musicians, why not him? It doesn't make sense to me... Keep him in. - walnut100
Keep tssf in here. He is a great musician, and a nice guy. And like others have said, you list other game music musicians, so why delete him and not the others?
Dont delete him!!! He rocks!!! - Nebetsu: The Slayer Of Weasels
Dont Delete TSSF he's a nice guy and his music rocks too!! - Easy D
Keep him, what's the harm of not doing so? He's done tons of work for many forums, people, etc... He's arranged tons of Zelda remakes and custom songs for me personally (for my fangames and custom games). Mathew has done great things for many communities and the least that you can do is let him keep his account. - Scrappersa
- It's not an "account", it's an encyclopedia entry. -Sean Curtin 22:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It puts the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again. - Mamoruanime
keep him because his name is 4 letters long, i mean what the hell, its only four letters! psshht - pâpÈr mÃçhË pÛppËt
How many potential "Sock Puppets" never post to Wiki at all until they see something that interests them 66.93.247.62 22:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- People use it as reference and find that there is no need to post anything, but as soon as soon as they try to defend something they believe in, you call them "sock puppets". I personally don't care if you guys delete this or not, as far as I'm concerned it's all about who's notable or who's not. I believe I've done enough for both the fan-gaming, and the game music scenes that it's not like I don't deserve a notable listing here. A lot of you call it vanity, but most of you don't even realize that I did not post this of myself. Someone else did. So if you're going to accuse me of self-promotion, then fine. Delete the damn thing. A lot of you don't know the whole story so you vote vanity, I bet it makes you feel powerful. I don't care anymore. -Mathew Valente 69.193.14.149 22:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Think of Wikipedia as a community. Some people live here (citizens). We edit, we collaborate, we register our identity, we join the community. Some people don't live here, but are still a part of the community, in some lesser sense (visitors) - they read some articles, and they might edit anonymously. I don't know any community that allows visitors to have voting rights. If these sock puppets wish to be full members of the community, they need to register their identities and participate *before* voting, not so that they can have voting rights, but because they care about the community and not about any one specific article. - UtherSRG 22:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You don't get it. We KNOW which of these supposed edits are by sock puppets, and we KNOW that they don't get counted. There's no point in your continuing this nonsense, as only the votes of editors with a significant amount of contribution to the Wikipedia database will be considered. Rick K 23:27, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I vote for "tssf" to stay. It's totally true,not spam.

My vote for him is to stay. He has given many valuable contributions to the community that many of you simply might not understand. Hes activly involved with the community and an honor to have. Requesting he be removed is like requesting Miss Spears be removed from publicity. Don't let said talent go unrecognized, embrace it : ) - PKGINGO

Did you even bother to read what I wrote just one paragraph above you? Rick K 04:07, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

- RickK, this is clearly a wooly-footed centipede we're dealing with: a creature of at least 100 socks. Geogre 22:04, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - LOL! - UtherSRG 22:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I second that! In fact, I was looking for a sock in my dryer just this morning, one which I was sure I'd put in, but alas, 'twas gone. That incident in turn made me think of this gentle discussion with its various and sundry versions of talking hosiery. Then, it really hit me: We may have finally discovered where all those lost socks really go! Ren and Stimpy, eat your hearts out. By the way, I found my sock. It was in the washer. It did not abandon me to become yet another sockpuppet. Since I feel bad for punishing the sock needlessly, I must vote delete. Since I have, in fact, voted once or twice on this page, I felt it was proper to allow my sock to type this particular vote. Trouble is, all I got was dD&YR)TJsfig87348hnkaau&^$#*. It is, after all, merely a sock. - Lucky 6.9 00:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: The name "Nebetsu: The Slayer Of Weasels" deserves points for originality. I may have to steal that one! - Lucky 6.9 00:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment comment: I ran "dD&YR)TJsfig87348hnkaau&^$#*" through Rot-13 and it came back "B-Movie Bandit." Thought you should know. - Lucky 6.9 00:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete musical vanity/self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:18, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Duck Family Tree -- Add to this discussion

From VfD:

Content is already covered in Donald Duck and Carl Barks. If some isn't, it can be added to those two articles. supadawg 22:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep, but needs major cleanup/expansion. Ideally, the article would need a graphical representation of the family tree, but I fear all available images are copyrighted -- Ferkelparade 22:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Addendum: It might be a step in the right direction if the article actually focussed on the intricacies of the Duck family tree as it can be reconstructed from the comics instead of rehashing information on Barks and Rosa that is covered elsewhere. I'd volunteer to rewrite the article, but it might be at least two weeks until I have sufficient time to do the necessary research -- Ferkelparade 22:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Thanks very much. supadawg 22:18, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Concur- this is something a researcher might actually want to look up for reference, and it is a bizarrely complicated family tree for very well-known characters. Clean & keep. -FZ 12:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As others have said, keep and expand. Aris Katsaris 02:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep and expand, with careful distinctions between the animated cartoons and writing by Barks and Rosa. Jallan 23:03, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Cat Town -- Add to discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cat Town

John F. Kennedy/Inaugural Speech -- Add to this discussion

This is a prime candidate for a transwiki, although I'd be mighty surprised if it wasn't already posted elsewhere. - Lucky 6.9 23:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Move to Wikisource. (But give the Wikisource link on the JFK page, by all means!) Neutrality 00:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki and delete. --Diberri | Talk 00:26, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
- It's already on Wiksource as Wikisource:John Kennedy's inaugural address. --Diberri | Talk 00:29, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
Delete since it's already at WikiSource. -- Netoholic 03:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete since it's already at WikiSource. —Stormie 11:10, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Maiden flight -- Add to this discussion

Delete - Dictionary definition, found via Wikipedia:Deadend_pages. No room for expansion that I can see. —Rory ☺ 01:21, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Dictdef. Oh, it could be expanded. In this form, it hasn't been in a coon's age. If it gets built up by the end of VfD, I'll change my vote. ("Maidens flee quite often.") Geogre 12:33, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete for dictdef and oldologism and I hope people don't create articles about all the "Maiden X" terms that mean the earliest occasion of X: maiden voyage, cruise, speech, crop, day, dish, law ... what? Yes, reading from the OED here, sorry. "He but borowyng their woordes, bryngeth it foorthe for a mayden booke" (1555 copyvio template). Bishonen 14:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Dicdef and simply unneccessary. Skyler 01:09, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality 22:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Expanded somewhat. All votes above cast before expansion.

I say keep expanded version. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:41, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
Very cool addition, thanks, DJ Clayworth. Changing my vote to Keep. Bishonen 20:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Decent enough. Keep. - UtherSRG 01:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interstate 495 (New York City) -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Interstate 495 (New York City

One religion state -- Add to this discussion

Content is "da state is smelly." Useless article. Neutrality 02:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

VfD Footer section

This section describes how to list articles and their associated talk pages for deletion. For pages that are not articles, list them at other appropriate deletion venues or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases. Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers.

Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. (Autoconfirmed registered users can also use the Twinkle tool to make nominations.) If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process.

You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.

To nominate multiple related pages for deletion, follow the multi-page deletion nomination procedure.
To nominate a single page for deletion, you can use Twinkle, or follow these three steps:

I – Put the deletion tag on the article.

Insert {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the article. Do not mark the edit as minor.
If this article has been nominated before, use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} or {{subst:afdx|3rd}} etc.
Include in the edit summary AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. replacing NominationName with the name of the page being nominated. Publish the page.
The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)

II – Create the article's deletion discussion page.

The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear.

You can do it manually as well:

Click the link saying "deletion discussion page" to open the deletion-debate page.
Insert this text:
{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
Replace PageName with the name of the page, Category with a letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion for [[PageName]]. Publish the page.

III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions.

Open the articles for deletion log page for editing.
At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:{{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}}
Replace NominationName appropriately (use "PageName", "PageName (2nd nomination)", etc.)
Link to the discussion page in your edit summary: Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. Publish the page.
Consider letting the authors know on their talk page by adding: {{subst:Afd notice|Page name}} ~~~~
If this is not the first nomination, add a second parameter with the NominationName (use "PageName (2nd nomination)" etc.): {{subst:Afd notice|PageName|NominationName}} ~~~~

[[fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer]]