Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conti (talk | contribs) at 11:42, 13 September 2004 (→[[Liho]] -- [[/Liho|Add to this discussion]]: article kept). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page contains Votes for Deletion listings that have finished their voting period and are eligible for either deletion or removal from the list as appropriate following the deletion process. Sysops can delete those articles for which a consensus to delete has been achieved. You can still add your votes to these listings if you feel strongly, but please be aware that once an article listing is on this page it can be deleted or removed from the list at any time.

See also: Wikipedia:Archived delete debates

Ongoing discussions

Needing Transwiki — Wikipedia:Transwiki log

Individual debates older than five days

August 12

User talk:68.48.167.231 -- Add to this discussion

Tally 5 merge, 2 keep as of 22:37 (UTC) 21 Sep 2004.

We have a vicious vandal bot attack here. Check this IP's history. All its entries are substubs about "Twilight Zone" episodes. They've been coming in for hours, sometimes one a minute. These also came in en masse about a week ago via the same proxy. I've also listed this on the "Vip" page. Help! - Lucky 6.9 05:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I took a look at the pages created. That is one sophisticated bot! Seriously, I think its probably a big Twilight Zone fan rather than a bot. Probably a very fast typist. Why do you want to delete the user talk page? The Steve 10:03, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with the idea that the creation of substubs is an act of vandalism. I also disagree with deleting a banned anon user's talk page. -Sean Curtin 14:24, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I should have made myself clear. There are just so many of these that listing each individual entry would have been a waste of time and space. I've posted the user page (which I began anyway) as a means to check the individual entries and to bring attention to the fact that several attempts at contact were made before nominating the entries themselves, not necessarily the talk page. - Lucky 6.9 18:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • IMHO the talk page should be kept for a reasonable amount of time; even if flagging up anons' new messages doesn't work yet, it might in the future, and this user might want to know why they've been banned. -Sean Curtin 21:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea. Keep the user page for a limited amount of time if the other articles are deleted. - Lucky 6.9 17:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all substubs created by this user. --Jiang 23:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • merge all stubs/substubs --Jiang 23:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep them they are good. Eric B. and Rakim 23:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Based on a spot-check of the stubs created, they seem reasonable and did not show up as obvious copyright violations. Can you please explain in more detail what concerns you about these articles? (Keep for now.) Rossami 20:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Of course. They're little more than unformatted text dumps with near-useless titles and more than one user has expressed concern over individual synopses of non-notable television episodes. I couldn't find anything that matched as a copyvio, but I did find a couple of sites that list the information on a single page. If they aren't copyvios, and since they are factual, I would encourage that these all be merged under a single page, titled along the lines of List of Twilight Zone Revival episodes, or even merged onto an existing page. It's very unlikely that anyone at all would try to find info on a single episode of a relatively unremarkable revival series without first searching for a list. The parentheticals pretty much assure that these will be nothing but orphans. - Lucky 6.9 21:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into a single article is fine. I suggest Twilight Zone (1985) Delete or redirect the stubs? The Steve 05:21, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Let's make lemonade out of lemons. Merge all into a single article and delete the individual stubs. No need for redirects as far as I can tell. A list is born! - Lucky 6.9 06:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • No such animal as "merge and delete" under the GFDL, as user attribution is lost. I vote to merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 09:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. Very short articles are mostly bad. Unannotated lists are mostly bad. Annotated lists are good (well at least more likely to be good). Jallan 16:40, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note: I have just come to count up the tally of this discussion, and the consensus is certainly to merge the articles together. The only difficulty with that is that not all of the Twilight Zone episodes that have articles were created by this user, and some of the others are actually quite decent articles - are these to be merged also? See List of The Twilight Zone episodes for this full list. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

August 15

Template:Bmoviebandit1 -- Add to this discussion

Template:Bmoviebandit1 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 acheive a clear consensus to delete, this template is kept. However, I note that the Bmovie Bandit phenomenon seems to have died down and this template may no longer be necessary. It is no longer in use on any article. I also note that a majority of the keep the template votes came early in the discussion while a majority of the delete the template votes came late in the discussion. If after a reasonable period (perhaps another month) the issue remains calm and the template remains unused, this template may be renominated. Rossami 23:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ignoring all the discussion about the Bmovie Bandit's actual work, my best interpretation of the votes about the template are:

Keep template
  1. Rick
  2. Lucky 6.9
  3. TIB
  4. Rhymeless
  5. Siroxo
  6. Jallan
  7. Ambi
 Delete template
  1. Gzornenplatz
  2. Everyking
  3. Meelar
  4. Jgm
  5. Eugene van der Pijll
  6. Wikisux
  7. The Steve
  8. Wile E. Heresiarch
 Abstain or Ambiguous vote
  1. Sean Curtin

This template is being tagged on factual stubs, saying "Since the entries are factual, current policy dictates that these substubs must stay." Indeed, if they are factual, they should stay, and shouldn't have this unnecessary template tagged on. Gzornenplatz 05:54, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, and delete "Since the entries are factual, current policy dictates that these substubs must stay.", since I disagree with that contention. RickK 06:03, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Not to worry. I'll be happy to drop the line about the factual entries. I truly do not understand why anyone would allow these "entries" to stay. I was simply following the suggestion of another user. I realize I wrote the stub, but I'd like to vote to keep with revision. - Lucky 6.9 06:11, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Done. In fact, I noticed that there were some other edits to the template, so there must be others who agree. - Lucky 6.9 06:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Now you just made it worse. The articles are factual (if you disagree, please point out what is not factual on Staci Greason), and we do not delete factual articles on valid topics (if you don't think we should have any article on Staci Greason on grounds of insufficient notability, feel free to put it on VfD), so the sentence you removed was the only one that made sense. I don't understand what your whole problem with those stubs is. Contrary to what you seem to think, no user is ever obligated to expand any stub. You can ignore them. But instead you want to delete factual material. Gzornenplatz 06:40, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gzornenplatz must like Sneaky Vandalism. --TIB 06:37, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Please explain what is "sneaky vandalism" about Staci Greason. Gzornenplatz 06:40, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • stars on Days of Our Lives from 1989 to 1992. - an impossible contradiction. RickK 07:06, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
        • It says starred, and already did so when this template was added. Gzornenplatz 07:13, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
        • Bad grammar is an indicator of ignorance or stupidity, not vandalism. -Sean Curtin 01:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • In response to Gzornenplat'z sneaky vandalism question: Wikipedia:Vandalism... at the bottom. --TIB 08:50, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • I didn't notice that you said 'about staci greason'. Still, the fact that the diff between the first and second edits point to botvandalism. --TIB 08:53, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • If anyone can think of a better alternative, or would be interested in nominating themselves to cleanup each of the Bandit substubs that appear, then by all means, vote to delete. In the meantime, I vote to keep this, even if the wording seems a little harsh. Rhymeless 07:03, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The articles are factual and do not necessitate urgent "cleanup"; like any other article, they can be improved by anyone who wants, but they don't have to. Gzornenplatz 07:12, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Normally I'd agree with you; I'm very much an anti-deletionist; But I can't help but believe that because of the inferior nature of these substubs, they are likely to remain undeveloped for quite some time. Furthermore, having a massive number of distinctly unremarkable substubs, of such inferior quality, reflects poorly on Wikipedia. I'm afraid that merely ignoring these substubs, hoping that someday, a mysterious someone will come and make them useful, and furthermore, that hundreds 'more will not be made in the meantime, is not an option in this circumstance. Rhymeless 07:20, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • You don't have to hope that someone will improve them; they are already useful. You seem to have the misconception that stubs are only placeholders which may prompt others to create useful articles, but are not themselves useful. But even if you knew for sure no one will ever expand the Staci Greason article, it provides the information that she was an actress who starred on Days of Our Lives from 1989 to 1992 - that's better than nothing for someone who seeks information on her, isn't it? How can that reflect worse on Wikipedia than lacking any information on a topic someone might look for? Those who don't look for it won't even see it, other than by clicking on Random page, and if that's a problem the better solution would be to implement a preferences option for a minimum article length for Random pages, and the default value could be high enough to exclude stubs like that. Gzornenplatz 07:41, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
          • I'm not so sure I really follow you on this. These substubs, are like leaving bricks in the middle of the sidewalk. Sure, you could stand on them, and get a slightly better view, or carry it off and make something better of it. But it's far more likely that somebody will trip over it or kick it into the street, or simply ignore it. It's the same way with these pages. I think it's a bit of a flimsy excuse to say that these substub pages *might* help somebody, when, more than anything, they're simply in the way. Rhymeless 07:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
            • That analogy doesn't hold water. How could the stubs possibly be "in the way" (of what?)? If you don't care for them, just ignore them, they can't harm you. Gzornenplatz 07:59, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
              • On reflection, no that probably isn't the best analogy I've ever used, although it is 5 AM here. However, I maintain that these pages ARE in the way (if only because they are consuming an inordinant amount of various editors' time) and are detrimental to Wikipedia. I would have more problems with this template, if these substubs were not apparently the product of a single vandal/bot. It is the nature of their appearance, more than their content, that is troublesome, and would require this temporary template. Rhymeless 08:10, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
                • No editor is obliged to spend any time on those pages. You actually want to delete them or put this template on them - that is spending time. Instead you could just ignore them. How is factual information detrimental to Wikipedia? Gzornenplatz 08:22, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • The "article" said "starred" only after someone else fixed it. Also, anyone who de-contents existing articles and turns them into this sort of nonsense after repeated warnings is a vandal. So many people have done such terrific work here. Why should this person be any different? Why should we allow this kind of nonsense to stay? It's been suggested that I put these up for deletion on this page...and I've been crucified. It's been suggested that these be turned into redirects...and others revert them. Still another user suggested that a template be made because he recognized a real problem...and I find myself defending its inclusion. I've cleaned up more of these things than I can count...and I just don't want to do it anymore. I've left this project on three occasions because the frustration I feel over this individual was becoming too much to take. Now, it is jeopardizing my nomination for administratorship. Some hobby I've chosen, eh? :^) - Lucky 6.9 07:26, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • So someone fixed it, what's the problem then? Even if the user vandalized other articles, that doesn't mean that every article created by that user is vandalism. Articles like Staci Greason are not "nonsense". This template is nonsense. And if you don't want to clean these articles up, just don't do it. And don't take things personally, no one is crucifying you. Gzornenplatz 07:50, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • Your heated demands that this vandal's articles remain would have one wonder if you weren't involved in their creation. RickK 08:27, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, strongly. The idea of putting this in an article seems so counter-productive that it's almost painful to see it exists. Either clean up the articles in question, delete them through VfD if their subjects are too obscure, or just ignore them. Everyking 12:00, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. normally on something like this I'd vote delete. But, many wonderful wikipedians have put in much time to fighting the B Movie Bandit in a variety of ways, this is a recent idea, we should see how it works out. If this template can save some amazing contributors a bit of time, then its worth it for sure —siroχo 13:15, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The template is absurd. But it only exists because too many people oppose other responses to this "flooding". Flooding is usually counted as vandalism on the web. Some call it denial of service attacks. It means that time and energy spent on the flood prevents normal activities. Ignoring garbage is an option only for those who care nothing about quality. Fixing up litter dropped purposely over and over and over again by someone who won't stop isn't what anyone is here for. If people don't like the template, then argue instead for quick deletion of the articles. Stop claiming that articles that are an embarrassment to Wikipedia should be allowed or that others should fix them up as fast as they come in, that those few who really know the B-movie area should have all their time taken up every day dealing with litter dropped by one editor. Jallan 15:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia to have these articles. Other encyclopedias don't have any articles at all on such subjects; they should be embarrassed. If nobody ever touched one of these after its creation, we'd still be better off than we were when we started, because we'd have a little more info than before. On the other hand, wikifying one of these articles can be done in a matter of seconds. In a few seconds more, one can add a link to IMDb. And so on. But if they are just deleted, we might never get articles on some of these subjects again, and no editors with time to kill would ever come across them to improve them. Everyking 16:31, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If these bother people so much, why are they looking at them? Revert any vandalism from this person, even hand out 24 hour blocks if it gets to be too much of a problem, but there's no need for a template. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:48, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
  • I really don't mind if this template is deleted. I thought it was a good idea at the time, and I knew that creating it wouldn't deter this person. It was intended as a temporary measure to alert users who might not be aware of the problem, and if it's going to cause this much contention, I'd just as soon see it gone. However, it's easy to take things somewhat personally given the kind of grief and mixed signals I've gotten over this. I tried from the get-go to reach out to this person with everything from pleading to out-and-out invective. I tried the "carrot" approach just last week, right up until the time an existing article was de-contented. Meelar has the right idea. Let's just block the range from submitting any anonymous entries. A legitimate user would sign up in a moment, and if the Bandit signed in with a user name, it could be blocked if the mischief continues. It's also a bit hard to swallow the fact that this numbskull gets a free pass to litter the site while users who try to act for the common good have to fend off attempts to stop the littering, and I'm referring to users other than myself. - Lucky 6.9 19:02, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • By this point I would think that all of the "is it vandalism, can we ban this range, can we use this temple" arguments have taken up more of our users' time than actually fixing these stubs would have. -Sean Curtin 01:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree. Many users have already spent a great deal of time on cleaning up, expanding and redirecting these entries and it's become extremely tiresome. At no time has this person shown the least inclination that they're willing to play by the rules. I've already fixed a countless number of these things and so have other honest users as indicated, and this hasn't been some sort of knee-jerk reaction to a clueless newbie. - Lucky 6.9 03:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • If it's tiresome, stop it. Why do you feel obliged to expand these stubs? We have thousands of stubs - why are these particular ones such a problem for you? Gzornenplatz 08:36, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I apologise for the strong language, but I'm frankly disgusted by those people who insist on keeping these, yet won't spend any of their time cleaning these up or even wikifying them. Rather, they're happy to let these sit, idle, forever, or wait until some other Wikipedian spends their valuable time cleaning them up. Bye bye any form of quality control. This isn't an argument about inclusionism vs deletionism. It's an argument about a vandal who's driving numerous users up the wall. Unless you, yourself are willing to do the work, for gods sake, put up or shut up. Ambi 03:31, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd like to cite two recent examples. Another user put this template on the Staci Greason article soon after it was modified with little more than wikis, bold face and a substub template. Twenty minutes after I left a terse note on an anon user page, the Bandit returned on the same proxy with another substub for a little-known actress named Sharon Leal. No "B-Movie" template was posted, but the only other contributions were to formatting and not content. I expanded it a bit. The point is, no one really wants to expand these things and I don't blame them. - Lucky 6.9 03:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I don't think vfd is the place for this discussion; what's being discussed here is essentially policy rather than whether an article should be deleted As to the issue at hand, hanging an ugly sign around somebody's neck seems to me to be a most decidedly un-wiki approach to (not, actually) resolving this type of situation. I agree strongly with Everyking's comments above: we must treat the articles, not the template. Consider this a delete vote, both for the template and this way of doing things. Jgm 07:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It's an ugly sign that would never have been necessary if this had not been allowed to get to this point. They're not useful contributions, he's not a newbie, and how the heck else would you resolve the situation? Ambi 08:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Why the heck are correct facts not useful contributions? Is there any precedent for deleting articles just because they're unwikified or have poor grammar? There's a lot of worse stuff on Cleanup. Why are you singling out those actor stubs? I don't see any "situation" to "resolve". Gzornenplatz 08:36, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
        • Gzornenplatz, have you actually looked through this user's contributions? I'm not anti-stub, and neither is anyone pushing for the deletion of these. Stubs are good. Sub-sub-stubs are bad. Particularly when they're en masse, every day, for months. And moreover, no one wants to expand them. So either they sit there, one badly written sentence, forever, or someone who didn't want to in the first place takes up some of their time, that could've been spent doing something useful, fixing them up. Ambi 09:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • Even if they just sit there, they are useful information. They are short stubs, but not too short. Maybe our whole "stub" terminology is a bit unfortunate. There are longer articles which could just as much be described as "stubs" because of all the relevant information that could still be added. On the other hand those actors, precisely because they are not particularly important, don't need much longer treatment. I think short entries, even one-liners, have their legitimate place. If someone has heard the name "Staci Greason" he can look it up and find that she's a soap actress who starred on Days of Our Lives from 1989 to 1992, which may be just enough information. Instead you would rather have his search turn out blank. Gzornenplatz 10:28, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
          • If you think the current stubs are useless, how exactly is adding an insult-box to each helping? They go from being tiny bits of fact that, should someone stumble across one, might eventually be the basis of an improved article to a tiny bit of fact with a major, somewhat mysterious borderline-personal-attack caveat attached, that nobody is likely to want to mess with. Jgm 11:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • A vote for deletion of this template should be seen as a means of volunteering your services toward fixing the problem with the user/cleaning Bandit entries up. Rhymeless 08:29, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Ambi 09:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh piffle to this. A vote to delete template is what it is: a vote not to destroy whatever use these harmless stubs might have by adding an insult to them. As others have pointed out, there are more useful ways for most folks to spend their time than fixing harmless stubs. Jgm 11:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the template, keep the articles. Clean-up/VfD/ignore the articles, as appropriate, but they're substubs, not candidates for speedy deletion, as the template says. Compare these articles with Rambot's articles on U.S. towns: they consist of a bit of (some would say "almost useless") information, they can function as a starting point for a useful article; most won't, but those don't actually hurt anyone. Eugene van der Pijll 15:55, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the template and keep the articles. What harm does it do to keep the articles, even as substubs? I've said this before, but if Wikipedia is headed for the rocks, it certainly isn't because of an excess of factual information. Wikisux 02:03, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think this template reflects much more poorly on wikipedia than any malformed substub ever could. Yes, I would be perfectly happy to wikify stubs you are unhappy with. Just have a list of them somewhere and I will occasionally fix a few. No, I don't consider it a waste of my time. (Well, no more than any other work I do here) The Steve 20:41, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm also in favor of deleting B-movie substubs but that's an entirely separate discussion. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:53, 8 Sep 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 20

Dartmouth dodecaphonics -- Add to this discussion

A college singing group. Campus organizations are not sufficiently notable. Geogre 04:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Concur- there are campus groups that merit entries for notability- but this isn't one. Delete. -FZ 12:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Same with the Dartmouth Cords, which I listed below. RickK 05:21, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Campus organisations can definitely be notable, but I don't see this one as being of sufficient note. They've appeared on an apparently obscure compilation CD. 92 Google hits, 83 Teoma. Average Earthman 11:53, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. How can you measure sufficient notability? If The Whiffenpoofs are worthy, it seems rather arbitrary to exclude this group. And while several presidents have come from Skull and Bones, who knows where the future ones will spend their college days. I say keep this because there's no way of knowing what information might be useful in the future. Pcw 14:50, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, as a rough measure, 90 Google hits for "Dartmouth Dodecaphonics" and 1210 for "Yale Whiffenpoofs." We all understand the limitations of that metric, but it's an indication. And... I'm sure that more than ten people know about the tables down at Morey's and the place where Louis dwells for every person who knows, um, sorry, what is the Dodecaphonic signature song? Hey, I'll bet that more people know about "gentlemen songsters off on a spree" than know about Kipling's "gentlemen-rankers off on a spree." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You make a funny point about Kipling and the Wiffs, but the logic still escapes me. You seem to be making the argument that things are worth including because people already know about them. But I would think that people would turn to an encyclopedia for precisely the opposite reason. Pcw 03:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I'd include the Whiffenpoofs because of the The Whiffenpoof Song, a notable piece of American musical history. And perhaps because they were the first college a cappella group to obtain wide renown (because of the song).--Samuel J. Howard 20:10, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Non sequitur. Who knows what pizza parlor, McDonald's or car repair place some future President may have worked at? Does that mean we should list every single possible place in the world on the off chance that a President might, at some time in the future, come from there? If a future President should happen to have been a member of this non-notable choir, then we can write an article about it then, assuming that it would even be worth more than one sentence of trivia in the President's biography article. RickK 19:49, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • You know, I hate to make this personal, but I could care less about any of the state parks you've written about. Seriously. I doubt I'll ever visit any of them. I doubt that any president will ever set foot in most of them. In fact, I bet the governor of CA doesn't even know that most of them exist. Plus, anyone who wants to visit them can probably get more timely information from the state's own website. (They're always closing some and renovating others.) But I'm still glad you've spent the time to write about them because maybe I'll need the information. And if I don't, I'm sure that others will need it. All of the entries are well-written and someone looking for a vacation spot will be grateful to you. Pcw 03:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not concerned with possible notability in the future. It includes things after they have become notable. This isn't the place to debate this policy. Jallan 19:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is completely arbitrary. The information is apparently accurate and doesn't overlap with any other articles. Are we afraid of making too much information available on Wikipedia?--Deepgreen 21:32, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • Sock puppet. This is this user's first post. RickK 04:48, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • Several people have written me and accused me of creating this sock puppet. I didn't. But I did encourage the 80+ students in the class to vote as they feel and post constructive comments. Perhaps this is one of them? Perhaps it is someone else? Sheesh. Pcw 14:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Here, here. A great point. Pcw 03:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delayed deletion. Unencyclopedic but there may be mitigating circumstances. Andrewa 22:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 22:39, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Will go with Andrewa's delayed delete if there's consensus and some tracking mechanism to make sure it does get deleted. "Dartmouth Dodecaphonics" = 90 Google hits. It should get a brief mention in the Dartmouth College article, just as the MIT Logarhythms (412 Google hits) do in the MIT article. Arise, ye sons of MIT/In loyal brotherhood/The future beckons unto thee/And life is full and good... sorry, I forgot myself there. But much as I cherish the dear old alma mater I would vote delete for a whole article devoted to the Logarhythms. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Go ahead, write one. You've got my permission :-) In fact, I hope you'll make it a long one filled with some of the details and perhaps even some of their nerd humor. While I never went to MIT, I like reading up on all of the hacks. It's a great schtick. Please, take my invitation, not the stern bile of those above. The Wikipedia is better when it has more information, not less. Pcw 03:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • This is not a vote, but... We're not trying to say that we think this information is worthless. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Before creating an article, there are three things I usually think about:
  1. Would an ordinary encyclopedia include this?
  2. Has the article's focus had an effect on the lives of more than 1000 people?
  3. Can this article ever be expanded to more than just a stub?
If the first two are not true, it doesn't deserve its own article. If the last is true, well, anybody can write loads of stuff about themself. The important ones are the first two. We're an encyclopedia, not a place where people might get confused by (just an example) Abraham Lincoln the President, Abraham Lincoln from Monrovia, Abraham Lincoln from Dallas, Texas, and so on... Sure, we could have a disambiguation page, but that's infinitely annoying for something of such little worth. To be honest, we appreciate valid information, but information with such limited value is not encyclopedic and not valid for inclusion. Johnleemk | Talk 08:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Would an ordiany encyclopedia include this? Surely this isn't a legitimate test. Our goal is not to become an ordinary encyclopedia, it's to become an extraordinary encyclopedia. Would an ordinary encyclopedia include Tiverton or Handzame or tarabuka or AGM-88 HARM or Sonic Blast (my first five random page hits before James Burke)? Check your encyclopedia at home, does it have any of these? Wikipedia is not an ordinary encyclopedia. It is obviously more inclusive than an ordinary encyclopedia. These articles are being singled out because they were created all at once by a group of people who don't know the obscure wiki syntax very well. There are people now going around looking for any recently created Dartmouth-related articles just so they can add them to VFD. Had these been added by Wikipedia admins over a longer period of time the majority would have never even been listed here. Yes, I agree that Dartmouth Beer Pong has got to go. But most of the rest? anthony (see warning) 11:43, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • I can tell you that the Dodecaphonics clearly pass the second test. There are several thousand students at Dartmouth at any one time. If you multiply this by the number of years that the group has been in existence, I'm sure you can claim that they've had an effect on tens and perhaps even hundreds of thousands. Of course, I understand your point about Abraham Lincoln, but I don't think we have a problem with a namespace collision here. Pcw 14:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Long comment. (OK, rant)

Pcw, your arguments are familiar ones. Wikipedia is what it is. A large percentage of people whose articles come up on VfD make the point that disk space is cheap or that Wikipedia should accept any contribution that is factual. Currently, Wikipedia does have a requirement that, very broadly stated, articles should be "encyclopedic" and that inappropriate article are deleted.
Other paths have been and are being followed by other web encyclopedias. Originally, Wikipedia was Nupedia, which accepted, I believe, only peer-reviewed articles by Ph. D.'s. After a year or so, with less than a hundred articles written, it was generally conceded that approach wasn't work. People who disagree with Wikipedia's policies, particularly editorial control over article inclusion, advocate for change within Wikipedia and/or start projects such as Everything2.
I've been trying to figure out why the Dartmouth project bothers me, I would say this. People often try to make inappropriate use of Wikipedia to promote a product or a personal point of view. For example, a used book dealer had a website with short blurbs about books, and thumbnails showing their covers, and went through Wikipedia adding dozens of links, one in the article of every author whose book was for sale on his website. He could have argued that disk space was cheap, and that since the articles didn't have pictures of the book covers that he was adding information. Wikipedians felt strongly that this was "wikispam" and the links were quickly removed. We also feel very strongly about neutrality. On the other hand, we accept the fact that an encyclopedia written voluntarily by enthusiasts will have wildly uneven coverage. And we accept the fact the contents of such an encyclopedia represent a compromise between the needs of users of the encyclopedia and the needs of contributors to engage in pleasant activity, get ego-boost, or whatever it is that motivates us.
I think the strongest argument that could be made in favor of the Dartmouth articles is that they represent the uneven coverage resulting from the personal interest of the contributors.
The reason they bother me is that a) they feel like promotion to me. A flood of articles on one specific school just feels like an attempt to promote that school. Somehow, the fact that the article on MIT is so much longer than the article on Yale doesn't strike me the same way. b) The fact that they represent a systematic effort bothers me. These articles are not Wikispam, but in a way they sort of feel to me like what the bookseller did. c) The balance between the needs of the people writing these articles and the needs of readers who wish to find information about Dartmouth is out of whack.
The best thing you could do would be to try to direct your students into creating articles that would not have VfD problems. If you look at what this editorial process is doing, you will see that some of what is happening is that the material that has been contributed is being selectively reused and reshaped into improving the Dartmouth College article.
It is easy to find articles we need more than one about the Dodecaphonics. If the students had been allowed to choose topics of enthusiasm at random, we would probably not be seeing this issue. Or they could be gently directed into areas of need (we are very weak on biology, to pick one topic at random).
While we do encourage people to Be bold, someone using Wikipedia as a classroom exercise needs to observe how Wikipedia works and what sorts of articles are well received if hurt feelings are to be avoided. For example, someone reasonably familiar with Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines would be able to explain why sentences such as "They've been through 4 albums, hundreds of concerts, and thousands of satisfied listeners in the past 20 years and we're still going" and "if you'd like more information on how to get a copy of their latest album... if you're interested in booking, contact their business manager" should not have been in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


    • Comment only: I've taught technology for a long time. If I send my students off to an outside resource to make a page, they are like students abroad: they must obey the local laws. Otherwise, I use our intranet! Pcw has not only sent his student onto us, but he is now arguing that what's at fault is our decision making, and, at the very least, we should act as a mute web host for his class until he is done with his project. He has gone so far as to even insult the editors here. This doesn't encourage a great deal of charity in me, at least. Perhaps lesser schools like Dartmouth don't have intranets, but I wouldn't think so. Geogre 21:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Rebuttal. They were given copies of the so-called local laws and these local laws continue to say things like "Welcome" and "write what you know". That's what they did. Quit acting like this is some secret military computer and the students broke in to steal the launch codes for the nuclear missiles. I fail to see how extra information really hurts anyone as long as it doesn't confuse the name space. Sheesh.

And if the tone sounds insulting, you should remember that it was an old experienced hand who started tossing around phrases like "Dartmouth crap" to refer to the hard work of someone who is pretty much just a kid. Then these self-appointed editors followed up by making vague arguments that the people at Dartmouth are somehow [much virtual handwaving] not notable. So who's insulting whom?

Everybody at Wikipedia is self-appointed.
We do say "Welcome" (and we mean it), but we do not say "Any article that is factually true and well-written will be preserved in the form in which the author contributed it." We do say "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly... do not submit it." (And we mean it).
For what it's worth, your views are those of a significant minority opinion within Wikipedia. Some regard Votes for Deletion as harmful. Recently, Votes for Deletion was itself listed for deletion. There is a continuing dynamic between "deletionists" and... what would you call the other faction?
Many believe that the way in which Votes for Deletion is presently conducted does lead to "biting newbies."
JImbo Wales has said that Wikipedia must be both a free encyclopedia and a free encyclopedia. The ways in which Wikipedia functions, dysfunctions, malfunctions, etc. are a means to an end. The end is producing an encyclopedia, by whatever broad or narrow definition of "encyclopedia" you wish to apply. Therefore, judging whether an article like Barberry or Warfighting or Shoe_Flinging or Bazbeaux Pizza (take a moment to look at them) is "encyclopedic" is legitimate process, even if you think we are doing it poorly.
Some of us think that the use of the technical term "crap," which mean "articles deserving a weeklong editorial process, discussion, and consensus-building in order to determine how they can best be used to further the mission of Wikipedia," does sometimes lead to misunderstanding. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 15:55, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Some regard Votes for Deletion as harmful." Yeah, some including that founder Jimbo Wales, who also thinks that we should have an article on every Simpsons episode. If every Simpsons episode is encyclopedic, then Dartmouth Dodecaphonics is. anthony (see warning) 11:46, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Dartmouth College arts. Kevyn 23:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacrimosus 00:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC).
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 21:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 03:53, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. - Bill 09:17, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Articles should only be accepted if every other object of it's type could reasonably be accepted. The group in question has had a non existant impact on anything larger than a small number of college students. An encyclopedia can not reasonably have an entry for every college singing group in the nation. -TheFed 23:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, we could. There are probably no more than, say... well, the World Almanac lists about ten pages of accredited four-year colleges with enrollments of 1000 or more. About 70 per page. That's less than a thousand. If we assume six singing groups per college, that would be six thousand articles. If you figure 3K characters for each article, that's eighteen megabytes of storage all together. I'm not an inclusionist, but we need to be careful about articulating our reasons. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:34, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The founding motive for deleting non-notable articles is not because Wikipedia does not have enough space, but because they are unverifiable and it would be all but impossible to assure factual and neutral coverage of such minutiae. - SimonP 01:09, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
      • It is perfectly verifiable through official Dartmouth sources as well as the CASA website. Do you think Dartmouth is lying about the existence of this group? anthony (see warning) 01:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


This debate is now closed. Results: 11 delete, 5 keep. Deleted. DJ Clayworth 19:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Joseph Greenberg (economist) -- Add to this discussion

Re Joseph Greenberg (economist)
Non-notable (but IMO not vanity): Google search on

"Joseph Greenberg" McGill OR economic -Linguist -Linguistic

yields 183 distinct hits out of 378 raw.
(Hopefully this is a no-brainer not deserving the space and attention needed to present my complex evidence on the bad faith i think the article was created in. But i will present it, for judgement as to its relevance, if i'm wrong in expecting a slam-dunk deletion.)
--Jerzy(t) 05:17, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

  • Keep. Neutral. He's a professor who has written 3 technical but perhaps interesting books on economics, game theory, and sociology; one was published by Cambridge University Press. His CV, available online, lists 50 publications. There is no obvious agenda in this stub. He sounds notable enough to pass as far as I can tell; Google is not God. If there's bad faith here, it ain't obvious. Smerdis of Tlön 19:34, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I understand Jerzy's concerns here better than I did before. Still, I'm not wholly convinced that an article about this particular economist merits deletion. Even if it were created to occlude Joseph H. Greenberg, disambiguation should point people looking for Greenberg the linguist in the right direction. The article should stay or go on its own merits, not on the motives of its first editor. As to whether he is significant enough to merit inclusion, I'm inclined to keep it, but not strongly. Smerdis of Tlön 19:07, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Smerdis found more evidence than I did so I'll work with his facts for now. Even with that, he looks like an average professor to me. My understanding is that the current standard requires more than average to be included. Probable delete for non-notability. Jerzy, I also do not understand your claim of bad faith. I think you're going to have to lay out your evidence. Rossami 05:36, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wiki is not paper and I see no reason to delete it. He's published and might be notable in his field(s). Unless someone here is familiar with these fields and his works and says otherwise. MikeCapone 03:16, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Remove based on Jerzy's evidence. MikeCapone 18:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. (Stance taken after reading Jerzy's documentation below.) Ruhrjung 12:09, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

Bad-Faith Issue

OK, i've been unable to get confirmation that the deadly effect of transcluding headings is a thing of the past, so let's just keep an eye open in case the ones i'm adding break the VfD main page.

The Bad-Faith Goal that i Allege

I will assert at the end of this heading's section that two edits were made in bad faith. The first, covered by the first edit-diff in the history of the nominated page, shows that the bio we are evaluating (created at 17:07, 2003 Dec 8 by User:145.254.194.65) overwrote a redirect to an existing article, Joseph H. Greenberg, which

  • currently is linked by 25 articles (note: non-talk, non-user pages),
  • currently runs to over 6 k-bytes, and
  • covers a prominent linguist much better known than the new bio's subject, with views described at length in full-scale articles i read in Scientific American and Atlantic,
  • albeit someone whose views are at least controversial and at best not-yet-ready-for a role as part of his field's conventional wisdom.

The redirect then had the title Joseph Greenberg, and i (not the author of the nominated article) was the editor who (3 months later) renamed it to Joseph Greenberg (economist) and converted the resulting redir to a dab that repaired that author's disruption of the former Joseph Greenberg redir.

The second of the bad-faith edits i allege is the creation of the redirect Greenberg at 17:25, 2003 Dec 8 by User:145.254.193.110 (that is, 18 minutes later, by an IP differing by 1 in the third byte of its dotted quad). Greenberg is currently an orphan dab, but until the time when i converted it into a dab, there was at least one page with a red link that, from context, was intended for the Joseph H. Greenberg article. (I think exactly one, and i think an article; sorry, i could check for my name in the histories of the 31 (counting user and talk pages), that now link to Joseph H. Greenberg, but i don't really want to.)

I assert bad faith in this form: that these two obviously coordinated edits were each performed with the goal of sabotaging access to Joseph H. Greenberg:

I assume the motivation to have been beliefs

  • that Joseph H. Greenberg had undeserved influence, and
  • that that influence would be diminished by giving most readers who previously would have followed the overwritten redirect, or searched to satisfy the red link, the false impression that WP doesn't regard him as worthy of an article.

Why Might Bad Faith be Relevant?

IMO, it is well established that deletion is directed at the content, not the motivation, of articles. However, assuming good faith implies trusting that the author of an article placed on VfD believed it met our significance standards, and made an effort at accuracy. I think articles written in bad faith should be retained if the subjects are notable and the content sufficiently accurate, but on VfD they should not, if the bad faith is verifiable, receive the benefit of those normal assumptions.

In this case only Joseph Greenberg (economist) is nominated; i mention Greenberg because the similar indications of bad faith in its coordinated edit are part of a pattern that strengthens the evidence that the nominated article (then Joseph Greenberg and now Joseph Greenberg (economist)) was made an article in bad faith.

Some Assertions about the Edits that i'm not (yet) Documenting

I've casually investigated a little further, and found evidence that the editor (or conceivably coordinated editors) has since

  • edited elsewhere on WP on lingustic subjects,
  • asserted linguistic ideas that are at least not slam dunks for acceptance,
  • had linguistic edits reverted with less patience than they sought, and
  • got blocked at one point.

(On the other hand, i found no signs of further interest in economics or game theory, which strengthens my opinion that the economist Joseph Greenberg was of interest only because the similarity of names could promote confusion that the author desired.)
I don't claim to be able to judge the wisdom of the actions against this editor. Still, the total picture of

  • the two edits i document here and
  • my further undocumented research

satisfy me that whatever normally flows from the asssumption of good faith should be "deducted" in judging this article.

I haven't investigated the size or ownership of the IP block involved.

I do not suggest there is any specific Keep vote that this evidence should change to a Del vote; that judgement is for the individual voters to make.

Questions on Content

My research on the content has been restricted to

  • confirming that there is an academic economist to whom some of the particulars apply, and
  • investigating briefly the "Towering Over Babel" article, which stands out in
    • being the only publication included in the very first edit, and
    • making seeming reference to language in its title.
I found possible evidence for the 1996 date, but clearer evidence for a 2003 December date, around the time of the edits. I'm not prepared to claim the article's value deserves downgrading for errors; on the other hand:
  • Further research on the publication in question may be called for, e.g.:
  • If kept, the nominated article should go to WP:CU for fact checking.

--Jerzy(t) 06:48, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)


This debate is now closed. 3 votes to delete, 1 to keep. Article deleted. DJ Clayworth 16:47, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Winter Carnival -- Add to this discussion

This Dartmouth College stuff is getting out of hand. There are tons of Winter Carnivals all over the world, and it's the height of egotism to think that an article at this title should be about the one at Dartmouth. It's also not worth moving to Dartmouth College Winter Carnival, because it's non-notable. RickK 06:42, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete for non-notability and to discourage these shenanigans. Only of interest to Dartmouth students, who will no doubt learn of it through other means. — Gwalla | Talk 08:24, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge with Dartmouth College page if appropriate (possibly a section on college traditions). Darksun 11:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no chance whatsover this is the most important Winter Carnival in the world. The Dartmouth college page is rather short at the moment, if these things aren't significant enough to appear there, they shouldn't be in at all. Perhaps a separate page on Dartmouth College Societies would suffice. Average Earthman 12:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I really hope these represent a real person or two and that said person(s) sees the VfD notice and comes back here. Folks (at Dartmouth): we've nothing against your fine school, your fine organizations, or the fine ways you have fine fun, but none of these are of encyclopedic notability. Surely there are notable, famous, and important things at the school, if you want local content, but campus organizations and campus activities are almost never going to qualify. Geogre 12:50, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Dartmouth College page. Trilobite (Talk) 15:00, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge the relevant/verifiable parts with Dartmouth College. If it inspired a movie with a script by F. Scott Fitzgerald, that is notable and should be mentioned on Dartmouth College page. Andris 15:19, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a significant event, at least as significant as many of the small events like the Gilroy Garlic Festival. Do we want to draw some limit on attendance? Pcw 15:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • FYI, the article on Gilroy Garlic Festival says that it is the largest food festival in US, with the attendance of 132,000. Not quite what would qualify a "small event". Andris 15:50, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh, yes. I agree. I'm happy that the GGF is here. It's a great little note. My only point is that what's small and not-notable to one person is a crucial part of someone else's life. It's quite possible that Dartmouth's winter carnival draws ten to twenty thousand people. Perhaps even a few more. It doesn't reach the size of Gilroy's Garlic Festival, but how do you draw the line? 129.170.214.193 18:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Also... I'm sort of beginning to suspect that the Dartmouth Winter Carnival, and the Dartmouth Outing Club which founded it, played some kind significant role popularizing skiing in the United States. Haven't got the puzzle pieces together yet on this, though. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:28, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) "1935—The first overhead cable lift, a T-bar is built at Oak Hill in Hanover, New Hampshire, by the Dartmouth Outing Club. The lift is still in operation." One in a enormously long list of not-really-so-major Major Events of US and World Skiing History. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The least that should happen to this is that it should be moved to Dartmouth College Winter Carnival. I'll even undertake to write a stub for Winter Carnival. Even after that my vote is still delete, unless someone adds some info that makes it notable. DJ Clayworth 16:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 22:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral, but Dartmouth Winter Carnival is pretty famous and has been for a long time. -- Jmabel 02:10, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Dartmouth College#Winter Carnival and make Winter Carnival a redirect to the section. I've made major revisions to the article, by the way. And I've removed my previous long comments from this page, as they are now pretty much incorporated in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) BTW My own view is that Dartmouth Winter Carnival is notable. Marginally. A lot more notable than the Dodecaphonics. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:30, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Dartmouth College#Winter Carnival and make Winter Carnival redirect there until a disambig is needed.--Samuel J. Howard 04:10, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
I've boiled it down a bit more and performed the merge [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:13, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect, or turn into a disambiguation for the event and the movie. -Sean Curtin 03:57, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)


In view of the merge of this data into Dartmouth College and the reworking of Winter Carnival to a more general article, this vote is not longer applicable. Keep. DJ Clayworth 19:43, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

5 Die -- Add to this discussion

A drinking game played in Dartmouth College. I think this fails our notability or even verifiability (must be verifiable via a printed source) standards. Andris 11:32, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, fair deal . But an article on Liar's dice might be nice. Kim Bruning 11:40, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Looks like it's time to seriously consider blocking all submissions that contain "Dartmouth" :P -- Ferkelparade π 11:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: More of the Dartmouth delusions of encyclopedia grandeur. (Seems that Kim's wish was granted.) Geogre 12:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The game sounds similar to Yahtzee, but with heavy drinking involved. But delete, along with most of the other Dartmouth rubbish (possibly bring some of these articles together in one - culture of dartmouth college or something)
    • Liar's Dice (no article yet?) it's even linked from the article under scrutiny :-) . Google for liar's dice DOES give some hits :)
      • We do have one. Case sensitivity. The article on Liar's dice uses a small "d", as it should. I've corrected other links here. BTW Why aren't links case-insensitive? This must have been hashed out ages ago but I think it's a big problem. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I routinely argue against deleting obscure topics because you never know when they'll be useful. Just because I don't know about the game or have a way to verify that it exists, doesn't mean that I won't be interested in the future. You never know what data might become useful. Imagine, for instance, that a future president comes out of Dartmouth and a debate breaks out about a game of 5 die, well, we'll have a place to turn for a reference.Pcw 03:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Anonymous votes are ignored. RickK 19:39, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • I can help there: this vote was made by Pcw. Kim Bruning 23:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I didn't reply to the same argument above, but we have to work with the world as it is, and not the world as it might be. We must cover what is notable now. This includes history, but not presumptions against the future. The task of an encyclopedia is not to record the world or capture reality in its pages. It is analytic in nature, and not journalistic. If something cannot be said about it as it functions in the wider web of knowledge, then nothing should be said about it at all. Geogre 00:23, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • More Dartmouth crap. Delete. RickK 19:39, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete but delay. May be mitigating circumstances. Andrewa 22:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 22:50, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete drinking game. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:13, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This RickK character just seems to be bitter about anything Dartmouth. perhaps he's just bitter because he went to a lesser institution of higher learning (did someone say harvard?)
    • Another anonymous vote which will be ignored. RickK 04:49, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • Bit of a personal attack as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • RickK is probably tired of folks forgetting to sign their votes ;-). This vote was made by User:129.170.10.68. Perhaps you'd like to log in with a user name and claim your vote? :-) Kim Bruning 08:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I think people are missing an important point, which is that it seems to me that the article on 5 Die is better written and clearer than the one on Liar's dice. Also, I think that the statement that it is played in "the bar room of Phi Delta Alpha fraternity in Hanover, New Hampshire" needs clarification. Is it really played in only one fraternity? Or is it widely popular in Dartmouth fraternity barrooms, or (perhaps) popular in some region and played in this fraternity because of influential members who are from that region? I'm thinking that this might be like saying that "Sheepshead was played in the common room of the University of Wisconsin Department of Zoology during the 1970s." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:29, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, in the following complicated way.It does not deserve an article of its own, just a brief description within Liar's dice identifying it as a variant, popular at Dartmouth. But the article is better written than the current article on Liar's dice. So. I won't do this myself, as I'm suffering mild Wikistress at the moment, but in the ideal world of my dreams the author of Liar's dice or someone else would do this:
  1. Rewrite Liar's dice to incorporate the superior presentation of 5 Die.
  2. Add a section called "Variations" and include one or two paragraphs describing how 5 Die differs from Liar's dice and noting whatever is known about where the variant is played.
  3. Make 5 Die, 5 die and Five die redirects to Liar's dice.
  4. And add a one-sentence mention of the game and link to the 5 Die section of Liar's dice from the Dartmouth College article, perhaps in a not-yet-existing section on Dartmouth's traditions, customs and culture.
[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep variation of Liar's Dice. I don't care if its kept in this article or some other one. The Steve 06:39, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: is there any verifiability to this game or Liar's Die? If not delete them both. anthony (see warning) 12:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, goodness, I just Googled on "Liar's Dice" and there are leventy-umpteen-skabillion hits, most looking pretty relevant. Start with the one on the boardgamegeek site. It's published in a box, apparently by many publishers. Says it's a variation of "Perudo." Says other versions are called Bluff, Call my Bluff, Luckigames, Wayne's World NOT. The topic looks encyclopedic as all git-out to me. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith

(talk)]] 15:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You've never heard of Liar's Dice? 400 year history, republished numerous times, under various names? Popular as a gambling and drinking game all over the world? No? This is a perfectly valid variation of that game, and should be in some article, even if not kept as it's own article. Not to mention how well written it is. The Steve 08:29, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
Guess I've shown my lack of knowledge on the subject. I'll abstain from this one. I have heard about beer pong though :). anthony (see warning) 12:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • not notable. delete. Dartmouth College users should cease writing articles about Dartmouth trivia. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:46, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Sean Curtin 03:58, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Whereas everyone enjoys a good drinking game, this is merely more useless Dartmouth knowledge. Unless we want a trivia page for every college in the world, all of this has got to go. -TheFed 23:31, 25 Aug 2004(UTC)
  • Keep. I'll admit a bias for games, but in reading the description, it seems similar to Perudo, or any of a number of variants of "dice poker." Hmm, also leaning in agreement with Dpbsmith. --Rossumcapek 23:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This debate is now closed: 9 votes for deletion, 5 to keep. Article deleted. DJ Clayworth 16:57, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Animal Farm (fictional government) -- Add to this discussion

This is just plain silly. I think the author had good intentions, but what if anything is here that should not be in the main Animal Farm article given that the book is about a political/social system? Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • There was a similar article about the Battle of the Cowshed (a battle between humans and animals in the book). Move to BJAODN and delete.
  • I thought the first one was Bathos, and I think this is the same. The author doesn't seem to realize why. Nevertheless, what we have here is not a fictional government but Soviet socialism. There's nothing fictional about the government modelled on the farm. Geogre 19:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Patent nonsense. Delete. RickK 19:20, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Only funny the first time. Nothing here that can't go in Animal Farm. Delete. DJ Clayworth 20:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Of course, I thought we should delete Battle of the Cowshed and it survived, so what do I know? But I do think we need an article on Beasts of England with a box showing its key signature, time signature, composer, lyricist, orchestration, number of staves, and number of measures, and number of stanzas, lines, words, and characters. Note: last sentence was ironic. I.e. a joke. Smiley follows. :-) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) P.S. And I see we now have Battle of the Windmill as well. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 22:20, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless to have this as a separate article. — Gwalla | Talk 05:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 08:07, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • As the page's author, I give you permission to delete my page. However, you should probably include more details about the government of Animal Farm on the Animal Farm (book) page. And I will try to make a page containing the lyrics to Beasts of England.-B-101
    • Thank you, but we don't need your permission.  :) Deletion or not is by consensus. DO NOT write articles about song lyrics -- they will be summarily deleted as copyright violations if still in copyright, or as to be moved to Wikisource if not still under copyright. You could, however, improve the Animal Farm articles. RickK 19:42, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • The text is public domain under 50 year rule (Orwell died in 1950), so Beasts of England would be allowed, if a suitable explanation can be given and it isn't just the lyrics. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • I wrote Beasts of England so atleast I can show I have nothing against the book, or writing articles on it :) Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:03, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • And, as I said I would do, I've listed it on VfD since it belongs on Wikisource. RickK 21:56, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
            • Oh, no... I will never, ever, ever, EVER make an ironic suggestion in VfD again. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:31, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • As some day it may happen that an article for deletion must be found,
I've got a little list--I've got a little list,
Of subtrivial little articles that might well be underground,
And that never would be missed--that never would be missed!

--Elf-friend 16:51, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • I added a paragraph linking the Animal Farm government to the Soviet Union. I tried to make the page better, but I'm not sure if you'll approve it.- B-101 13:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


This debate is closed. Once I've stopped humming to myself, that that's 7 deletes and 2 keeps. Article deleted. DJ Clayworth 17:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I hereby nominate the above debate for BJAODN, for lack of a better place to put it. Andrewa 22:06, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

August 21

Matt Couper -- Add to this discussion

I am renominating this page for deletion. I googled "Matt Couper" artist and received only 194 hits. i know garage bands that get more hits than that and I believe Wikipedia has a policy against them. from reading the article, i did not read any notable information...seems like vanity more than anything. Examples: opening sentence describes Couper as "a New Zealand artist who lives in Wellington", implying that he is not notable for anything...contrast with Jack Nicholson: "highly successful, iconic American method actor" or Pablo Picasso: "one of the recognized masters of 20th century art, probably most famous as the founder, along with Georges Braque, of Cubism" (extreme examples of course but the point is made). -- Bubbachuck 13:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC). that said...[reply]


Old VFD circa August 2004

Matt Couper 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.

  1. The Talk page issue is clear. The talk page has been DELETEd.
  2. The article was rewritten during the discussion period. The votes after the rewrite tended more toward keep than delete. Most of those who contributed early did not choose to come back to this discussion.

Failing to achieve a clear consensus to delete the article page, the default decision is KEEP. It may, of course, be renominated after a reasonable time. Rossami 03:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vanity. -- Grunt (talk) 21:39, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

  • Delete: 1st half is vanity, 2nd half is a help wanted ad. Geogre 00:11, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • What the heck is going on with this article? It's been a target of anon vandals for months! It has about 700 edits! Delete. RickK 05:04, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising and self-promotion (#18). --Slowking Man 06:44, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • talk:Matt Couper seems to be being used as a sandbox too. Delete both. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:51, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It's being used as a message board: We need to watch carefully. After we delete this, the marooned kiddies are going to look to make/use something else, I'll bet. The edits are coming too fast. Wikipedia is not a Post-It note on a corkboard. Geogre 13:37, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • But they're not talking to each other, they're just using it as a sandbox. Anyway, here are the IP addresses: Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:14, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I have also established email contact with Matt. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:14, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC). As a result of which, I vote to keep but cleanup. He does seem minorly notable, certainly as notable as fellow Kiwi Francis Uprichard. he says that the article was written by some guy called Aaron Lister. I think what we basically have is a Dartmouth College sandbox. Still, delete the talk page. Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:10, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC).
  • Keep now, but edit perhaps. Did get an art gallery in Wellington during a quick google search. Kiwis will always be less notable, what with living on an island and all that, but this person is probably still minorly notable. Further, what Dunc Harris says. I take it it's fixed now? (thanks dude!) Kim Bruning 13:25, 29 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.

August 22

Drinking_Water_Equivalent_Level -- Add to this discussion

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 MERGE AND REDIRECT

This article has no potential to be encyclopedic. Google finds [2], which defines DWEL as a measure used in defining the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal. MCLG seems to be a useful measure, judging from the referenced page, but DWEL is not. This article also has an associated redirect DWEL, which should also be deleted if this article is. 141.211.62.118 22:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge material to one of the articles on sewage or water contamination or pollution. It's a small definition of something that might well be a useful term (e.g. when does water get pure enough to be equivalent of drinking water?). Delete. Geogre 13:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Agreed with User:Geogre's rationale, but, AIUI "merge and delete" is not considered a valid vote (as it loses edit history). Besides, since the current content is inoffensive, and it's conceivable that someone may search for the term, I see no problem with a redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 21:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I know the point you're making, Gwalla, and understand it, even as I have my own private quibbles with the policy in question. What I am essentially saying is "delete" and "if someone would be so kind as to paraphrase this and put it in another, more appropriate article, it would be good." I.e. not "copy and paste" (destroying history, which is just one author in this case), but "delete but preserve the information, if someone is inclined." It's a technicality, I know, but it's a delete decision, with a preservation as an after thought. I have no quarrel at all with a redirect and actually think you're right that a redirect is better than an outright delete. Geogre 01:09, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • merge/redirect. I'm not sure I see the point of preserving this page's history, but it seems possible someone could search directly for this term, so I suppose redirect is better than delete. --AHM 18:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I am merging DWEL with water pollution and redirecting the page to water pollution. See if it looks OK. -- CDN99 20:26, 6 Sep 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.

Dartmouth Wind Symphony -- Add to this discussion

Dartmouth Wind Symphony 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 article defaults to KEEP with a recommendation to redirect. Rossami 23:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Someone is late with an entry, it seems. Another valid contribution to the Dartmouth College "Student Life" section that is not sufficiently notable for an isolated article. N.b. that the assignment students are pursuing does not instruct them to write about Dartmouth topics, and it appears that some of the students are not taking the time to, for example, find our "Requested Articles" list. Nevertheless, this is insufficiently notable. Geogre 18:07, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge and Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 19:17, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Dartmouth College. Kevyn 21:27, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Merge/delete destroys edit history (the delete would be pointless anyway). — Gwalla | Talk 22:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Dartmouth College after boiling down to a few sentences. Comments follow. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think: Eastman Wind Ensemble, notable; Dartmouth Wind Symphony, non-notable. Now I'm going to check my belief. "Eastman Wind Ensemble:" 9250 Google hits. "Dartmouth Wind Symphony:" 92 Google hits. Amazon.com, search Classical Music for Eastman Wind Ensemble. 34 results. Dartmouth Wind Symphony: I was momentarily surprised by the 382 results until I read the caption, "We found no matches for 'Dartmouth Wind Symphony'. Below are results for wind symphony."
But I have another question. Not rhetorical. Is it a notable group on the Dartmouth campus? If I look at hop ensembles, I see the Barbary Coast Jazz Ensemble, Dartmouth Chamber Singers, Dartmouth Glee Club, Dartmouth Gospel Choir, Handel Society of Dartmouth College, Dartmouth College Marching Band, Dartmouth Symphony Orchestra, Dartmouth Wind Symphony, and World Music Percussion Ensemble. And that's just at "the hop." There are probably at lot more (I don't see the Dodecaphonics on that list, for example). Well, if you had to pick the most notable, would it be the Wind Ensemble? If you had to pick the three most notable, would it include the Wind Ensemble? That is, does it even deserve two or three sentences or should there it just be one in a list of musical groups? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not merge. No evidence of notability, local or otherwise. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:16, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like Darthmouth is FULL of wind. RickK 05:34, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Die, die, die. (*posts, what, my twentieth delete vote on these?) Ambi 10:46, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:10, Aug 25, 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.

Z-box -- Add to this discussion

Z-box 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. I count 2 clear votes to delete, one vote to send to clean-up and one ambiguous vote. Looking at the article, I also note that it is an unedited orphan lacking context and add my own vote to delete. Rossami 23:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is confusing, short, and has no incoming or outgoing links. It has been over a month since it was last edited, and that was by an anonymous user who has edited nothing else. -- Creidieki 19:43, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, this seems to be a standard sort of genome/string matching definition: so I say keep and clean up first. Charles Matthews 20:00, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Question: Not familiar with what a Z-Box is. What broader topic is this a sub-topic of? Is there an article this would be appropriate to Merge and Redirect to? Kevyn 21:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: Apparently it is part of some programming algorithm for string matching. See [3] (it's a PDF)--Nabla 23:22, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)
  • Transwiki (Wiktionary maybe?) and delete OR Merge and delete (maybe to something about string matching?) Apparently, I get more Google hits about some type of computer called the Z-box --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 08:35, 3 Sep 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 23

Peter Weibel -- Add to this discussion

Peter Weibel 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. On 29 Aug 2004, this article was extensively rewritten. The preponderance of votes after that rewrite are either keep or neutral. Failing to reach a clear consensus for deletion, the article defaults to keep. Rossami 00:00, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

German and possible copyvio. Too tired to check myself.  :^) - Lucky 6.9 09:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Its a copy of his CV, which is probably not copyrighted. It's online as a Word doc at [4]. Probably worth translating and then deciding if he's notable enough; if he is, then we can deal with the form of it. -- Jmabel 15:27, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • And the same CV is also on his personal wbsite, here. Would that make it copyvio? Anyway, he seems reasonably notable, but isn't this the kind of thing we're supposed to not encourage? How is it more laudable and appropriate to upload this German document than if the same thing had existed on German Wikipedia? That seems pretty hair-splitting. Btw, what does exist on German Wikipedia is a much shorter version, a stub, about the same person , here, created in August 2003 and last updated July 2004. (Wouldn't it be sort of more logical the other way round, with the long version on de.wikipedia and the short one here?) Bishonen 17:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I say we just translate what's in the German Wikipedia. -- Jmabel 00:33, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Right ... except why do we want to help this guy promote himself on en.wikipedia, again? If Wikipedia policy says we have to lick anything he plants on us into shape, then I'm not happy with that policy. Look at this ridiculous substub, for instance, that people will find by following a wikilink in Peter Weibel. Or actually, don't look, Lucky, it'll only remind you of the postings of you-know-who. ;-) Bishonen 08:21, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • So we are assuming that Weibel posted it himself and that it's vanity? I didn't look closely, just closely enough to see that it was an academic's CV. Should we skip translation an go directly to VFD as vanity? -- Jmabel 19:18, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Right. I think a look at the page's What links here plus at the links on the page itself justifies assuming that it's vanity and linkspam. And I advise VfD'ing the ZKM substub too while we're about it. --Bishonen 10:26, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

**I agree, this should be put up for Vfd. Vanity --Fenice 20:39, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

<end moved discussion>

  • In short, vanity by a non-notable academic, delete. -- Jmabel 00:40, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Pride is a sin: delete. Geogre 01:08, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Darn it all! Jmabel, you're right, but we're in a jam, here. The article as it stands should be deleted. The article as it should be should not. We can send it to Clean Up with a note suggesting a re-nomination to VfD if not improved in 60 days. Geogre 00:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, definitely no need to bother translating this. This guy is an undistinguished arts professor nobody has ever heard about; his claim to fame is that he also plays a minor role in Austria's federal art endowment bureaucracy. Ratatosk 02:28, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, see moved discussion. --Bishonen 06:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not in English, looks like a CV. Average Earthman 11:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Now it's in English and looks like an article, so it's now a keep. Still should never have been in German on English wikipedia... Average Earthman 20:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 20:32, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Not in English + probable vanity = delete. Isomorphic 19:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Since it turns out that he's notable, keep whatever translation and expansion is made (of course.) Isomorphic 21:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • BOY, some of you people should really do some homework! This person is one of the first most important video artists per se! Not everyone or everything happens in your 'new' and seemingly uninformed and insular world across The Pond. And, PS, I am not Weibel!!
    • The anonymous entry above (which Bishonen reverted as vandalism & I restored, because it apparently is nothing of the sort) got me to go to Google rather than just look at the article itself. I searched for '"Peter Weibel" video'. Looks like this person is notable, even if the article as it stands is not what we should have. The Tate Gallery describes him as one of "curators who have been essential to the presentation of new media art over the last forty years". [5] The Gallery of the Austrian Cultural Forum in Prague did an exhibit of his work that all on its own would suggest notability [6] and here isa pretty solid interview with him. I reverse my earlier vote. Keep and clean up. -- Jmabel 23:36, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • I am the anonymous intruder above and am relieved someone did a little research! Europe has many significant artists in this field, and has done so since the technology was launched in the late 60s (In fact, working with and commenting on 'TV culture', before non-broadcast technology was available, started in the early 60s with TV 'sculptures' by Wolf Vostell, a German, simultaneously with Nam June Paik - soon to be followed by a Swede, Ture Sjolander, long before Video Art per se was 'invented').To be of value your encyclopedia MUST have a global overview not the almost parochial views witnessed on this page. In this respect It is a pity the main Video Art page does not expand to give some brief description of non-American work. Anyway keep Weibel in, but if possible (I agree) get English translation/s.
  • After looking at the new research I reverse my earlier judgement of this beeing vanity. It's not vanity, he's notable, German Wikipedia just has a stubby entry, and at the time I did no further research. Now I also did a Google-search and it showed that Peter Weibel's art has had several exhibitions in the German-speaking area of Europe. For some reason the CV does not list his exhibitions - so I don't believe Weibel posted it himself. We'll have to translate it and expand it. Keep. --Fenice 11:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that an article about Peter Weibel the video artist would be encyclopedic, and change my vote to neutral, but I feel that's the most I can do. The page listed is just a list of Peter Weibel's academic posts (his artistic achievements being polished off with the single word "Künstler" = artist). Some of these should go in the article, indeed, and I don't have much experience of Wiki policy on translating raw materials like these. Perhaps it's what we do. On the other hand, how about sending the CV to the German Wikipedia, where any potential originator of a real en.Wikipedia article would be able to mine it for information and German terminology? To translate professional titles from other languages into English is difficult and full of traps. It seems to me that any German titles incorporated in an English article would be both more economically and more safely (because of fewer steps involved) done after the article has been written/drafted. Bishonen 19:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The translation will be no problem. I just started the translation and expanded it.--Fenice 20:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and evolve the article. -- Pjacobi 22:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe the article now addresses all of the objections that have been raised above. -- Jmabel 22:44, Aug 30, 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 24

Nelson A. Rockefeller Center -- Add to this discussion

Nelson A. Rockefeller Center 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. It has subsequently been merged with and redirected to Dartmouth College#Nelson A. Rockefeller Center. Rossami 00:14, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A Dartmouth College department. Has had famous visitors. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: It's the student center! Sure, folks have gone there. The same would be true of The AMOC at Emory, the Great Hall at UNC, the Student Center at UGA, etc. You can't borrow notability from your husband/wife, or your visitors. Was the "Iron Curtain" speech delivered there? No redirect, as Rocky got other things named after him. Geogre 18:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Elf-friend 19:49, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge a short summary into Dartmouth College. (I would guess that the notables mentioned didn't just stop there to visit the john and buy a candy bar from the vending machine; they probably were invited speakers at those dinners. But possibly they were paid an honorarium for their attendance). Incidentally, if you want to see promotional language, take a gander at http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/about/index.html : "Located at a busy cross-roads of campus, the Rockefeller Center is a lively, intellectual gathering place for students and faculty. It is a catalyst for public policy research and education and prepares students for lives of leadership and service in a diverse and globally interdependent world." Give the author of the Wikipedia article credit for exercising some restraint. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:49, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Dartmouth College student life. 21:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • It would be nice if people actually looked at the article before they vote to delete it.
This is not a student center.
      • It is a research institute. Now, it may not be notable, but at least figure out what it is before you trash it.--Samuel J. Howard 00:37, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
        • I read it. Both Dpbsmith and I seem to have missed what it is. This article is so poorly written that it doesn't even indicate clearly what it is about is the conclusion I draw. If we weren't so bombarded with these, I might have gone to Google to research the subject to provide what the author did not. I might have spent the time trying to filter out the ad-speak in it. To return to my original argument about notability, then, I'd ask about all the other policy centers at all the other universities in America? Emory has The Carter Center, which deserves an article because of what it has done. It has brokered peace agreements around the world, been the election monitor various places, etc. Compare that to Rusk Center at the University of Georgia. Many, many famous people have gone there, and it does good university work. It is normal that way. It would not be worthy of an article, IMO. It is the burden of the article to explain significance, and to clearly indicate what it is about. This article fails on both counts. It's a place. Famous people getting honorary doctorates have spoken there. That doesn't make it Oxford Union. Geogre 04:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The article's not much as it stands, but unlike most of what I've seen lately from Dartmouth, this probably has encyclopedic potential. keep. By the way, has anyone worked out exactly what is going on here? Was this a classroom assignment gone awry or was this just a bunch of people from one school who decided to spam the heck out of wikipedia? If it was an assignment, we'd do well to contact the faculty member and see if next time this can be done appropriately. Dartmouth is a rather good university, and surely a bunch of Dartmouth undergrads could actually write useful articles on encyclopedic topics. -- Jmabel 02:43, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: It was a computer science course assignment. The assignment sheet is here. (The due date was Aug. 20, so the worst of the onslaught is probably behind us now). A larger discussion can be found here. -- Kevyn 03:02, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Wow. So they nearly all on their own chose to write about campus trivia instead of encyclopedia-worthy topics. Wow. Sure lowers my opinion of Dartmouth. -- Jmabel 05:29, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
        • "nearly all on their own chose to write about campus trivia?" No, no, no. The latest word from the instructor is that nearly 200 articles were contributed. He happened to mention a couple indirectly in passing to me when I spoke to him; I looked at them and checked them out they were absolutely first rate. They would never come up for VfD in a million years. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 09:51, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:34, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Needs lots of cleanup and more content, but keep or, if no more content is corthcoming, merge/redir. +sj+ 09:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete. anthony (see warning) 14:13, 28 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.

Kappa Kappa Kappa -- Add to this discussion

{[Talkheader}}

Culture and politics of Toronto -- Add to this discussion

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 aged and useless non-article. The little information here is already well covered in the main Toronto article and it is unlikely a joint article on both culture and politics will ever be wanted. -SimonP 21:55, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Hmm. Cleanup, merge, redirect. There seems to be some information there that isn't in the main Toronto article, just not written in an encyclopedic form. — Gwalla | Talk 22:55, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article topic is not narrow enough. Although, I do support future History of Toronto politics-type articles. Davodd 11:58, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with SimonP. Denni☯ 22:44, 2004 Aug 28 (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.

Dartmouth College Marching Band -- Add to this discussion

Dartmouth College Marching Band 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. It was subsequently merged with and redirected to Dartmouth College#Marching Band. Rossami 00:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

found another one. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:35, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect to Dartmouth College student life Kevyn 22:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: If the author cares enough about his or her material, then he or she can merge it and do the redirect. If the author just came here to be perfunctory, then I don't see anyone doing a search for this lemma. Geogre 00:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:36, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. anthony (see warning) 12:48, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Elf-friend 13:15, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I still want an article about my high school chess club... - Tεxτurε 17:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redir. Texture, I'd say you can have an article about student life at any institution that has its own WP article, if there is enough student life to merit breaking out a separate title. +sj+ 10:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • How many? 5? 15? 25? - Tεxτurε 19:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:41, 2 Sep 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 25

Festa -- Add to this discussion

Article listed on WP:VFD Aug 25 to Sep 21 2004, consensus was not reached. Was merged and redirected to Culture of Malta until further action is taken. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:57, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(begin moved from Cleanup/Leftovers)
Festa Needs other "festae," as it's also a Latin word, and this article bleeds into 'fete' and 'feast days,' doesn't it? 206.205.115.3
(end moved from Cleanup/Leftovers)
Non-relevant. The word festa is a Latin word, plural of festum. It is excatly the same in italian and portuguese. And there are very similar variations: fiesta (Spanish), feast (English), fête (French), maybe more. Also almost equal religious festivities as the one described can be found in many other countries, including almost every, no matter how small, town here in Portugal--Nabla 16:44, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

  • Sorry, what's your point, Nabla? Bishonen 23:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Festival, possibly move content to Culture of Malta as well. Kevyn 23:27, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • One of those comments up there is mine, from Clean Up. The problem I had then was that it took the word "festa," which is "feast" in Latin, and presumed that there was only one, and that one being the Maltese one. I had been trying to insinuate that a cleaning meant coming up with all the languages that had that formation and possibly talking about how festa becomes the fete, the festival, and the feast day. I know that such has not been done, and I think it cannot be done. Delete. Geogre 02:28, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion

Bradley Amendment -- Add to this discussion

Political capital

Has anyone looked into the how much political support if any Bradley garnered from this bill? Has he commented on special cases - coma cases, etc? Has he ever been extremely poor? In other words, is he able to empathize with the plight of a poor father whose wife decided she perhaps could do better and whose job was outsourced to India or Mexico, for example?

I think that answers to these kinds of questions would improve the article.

24.206.125.213 10:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI[reply]

Votes for deletion archived debate

Article listed on WP:VFD Aug 25 to Sep 21 2004, consensus was to keep following reqrites. Discussion:

Nothing much but POV, and very whiny POV at that. KeithTyler
Rossami pulled it off. I rescind nomination to VFD and change vote to Keep in its new form. - KeithTyler 05:22, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • It could be worth having an article on this. Has it been on cleanup?—Rory ☺ 19:27, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Vote delete; this is always going to be contentious in this incarnation.—Rory ☺ 13:17, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Much better now. Good job. —Rory ☺ 10:53, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Real law. Real social problem that has been independently discussed. Unwikified and POV first draft, but that's cause for Clean-up, not deletion. Keep. Might need renaming because essentially every amendment proposed by Senator Bradley gets called the "Bradley Amendment". Rossami 22:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I am the author of the Bradley Amendment page, Jeff relf 23:03, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC) .

I prefer the term Bradley Amendment because that is how it is referred to in technical articles: 

 The 1986 U.S. law nicknamed the Bradley Amendment.

A contents section could be added if someone wanted to add yet another Bradley admentment. This page is about how uncaring the U.S. Congress bureaucracy has become. A bureaucracy that won't even allow a state, much less a judge, to consider individual cases. It is of particular concern to all males, especially those in the U.S.

Boy, this needs MAJOR work! At least cleanup, at best, delete it and start over. RickK 23:15, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Rossami is right that clean up is appropriate, if clean up can do it. We need a lawyer or a contemporary historian, and no divorced fathers or ideologues. That's a tall order for Clean Up. Let it go there with an amendment in its discussion saying that it ought to come back here, with prejudice, if it is unimproved in a month. Before anyone says it, I do have a reason for putting a time limit on it: the persistence of a rant on our space is unlike the persistence of a stub. It leaves us prejudicial and POV. Geogre 23:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Changing vote to delete: I think we'd be leaving a rant too long, and we're just going to have an edit war with one or another person. Better to have a hole, IMO, than to give the world the wrong impression of our goals or practices. Geogre 12:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Rossami's rewrite and efforts and helping the article along have convinced me to say we should keep it. Geogre 04:43, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

____

Hah.

All *knowledge* is subjective. The winners write the histories as it was once said.

If you think that you can write some kind of antiseptic "truth" in this Wikipedia -- I think you are sorely mistaken.

I know Jeff. I know that his life has been severely affected by the Bradley Amendment.

Is that not knowledge?

Jeff is exposing not only the Amendment, but its deleterious affect on Men. And why not? He "knows" through experience.

The Wikipedia claims to be an "encyclopedia" -- and it uses a form of Open Source Knowledge to do so...yet, here you are, the Pharasees of truth, trying to censure it.

For shame...for shame...

john bailo http://home.earthlink.net/~jabailo

We're not trying to censure, NOR censor anything. We just want an article that makes some sort of sense. RickK 07:29, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • You, Rick K., want:
" an article that makes some sort of sense " ?

I think the page that I created does at least a fair job of explaining a very important U.S. law. One that is much discussed by the U.S. government itself, state and local. Feel free to do better yourself.

I provided an example, the only one I know about. Examples are not evil POVs, they are the best teaching tool.

I welcome you all to also add your own examples, if you have them. The more the better. And no, I don't care if your examples are radically different than mine. --Jeff relf 09:47, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


It is not sufficient to couch your own personal opinions in wording such as "some people say" or "it is believed by some". You cannot possibly claim NPOV for this article, because not only does it slant the treatment of the subject very narrowly towards your own opinions (there is nothing from any opposing view, no pro- arguments taken from Congressional records or court cases to baland the con- arguments, etc.), but it is deliberately written to evoke a certain value judgement in the reader, with off-topic details of worst-case exaggerated hypothetical cases. After all of that, the article ends with "One way or another, this is an abuse." (Plenty of other statements are borderline POV though written as if to pretend that they are not, such as "This renders all state statutes of limitations meaningless.")

It is clear, if only from that last statement, that the purpose of creating this article on the subject was for you to push an agenda, which is POV.

Nor is NPOV best achieved by a battle of contrarian examples (which I could easily give you from my own family's experiences) being waged in the edit history of an article. An encyclopedia is the summarization and culmination of facts and considerations, not a battleground for opinion or even debate. No, an encyclopedia should stand back from the battle and then report on how the dust settles.

It should strive not to take sides, as your article plainly has.

I don't think there is anything much at all salvagable in the current article. There is too much to strip away and nothing readily available to replace it with.

KeithTyler 19:50, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. This article is so POV and confused that it might be a parody intended to mock those opposed to the Bradley Amendment. Jallan 20:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Clean up.
 But show real-live examples, 
 as vague notions of so-called noncustodial parents 
 is damn near incomprehensible.
 If, as seems likely, no one is interested in doing that,
 and if, as also seem evident, 
 you don't trust me to do the cleaning... 
 Then remember this: 
   People will remain ignorant of this law.

--Jeff relf 05:43, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

    • People are already ignorant of thousands of laws. This is not a vehicle to push your own agenda, even just to selectively promote the one law that you are most concerned about. That's the point. This is an encylopedia, not a pamphleteering forum. KeithTyler 17:17, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • This law effects all Americans, not just me. It also effects people in other countries, as we live in a very global society. The law is not being promoted as you claim, it is being explained. I created the page, people were repulsed by my example, so I hand it over to you guys. If you want to clean it up, as you say, then I think that'd be a good idea. If you don't... well, all the more ignorance will prevail. How would that benefit you, Keith ?

--Jeff relf 23:39, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - if the author put half the effort into trying to make a real article out of this that he's putting into arguing to keep it, we wouldn't be here. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • You imagine that I put in too little effort, do you Cyrius ? This Bradley Amendment page is the result of years of research using all the facilities at my disposal here at the Univeristy of Washington, including many technical magazines on the topic and full-text search engines like Lexis-Nexis.COM . Feel free to do a better job... if you can. By the way, what is it that makes so many people seek to purpetuate such inorance about this vital topic ? It's a total mystery to me. --Jeff relf 04:38, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Rossami's rewrite, while rough, is an attempt at a real article and not a rant. Keep rewrite. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

*Delete. If there was enough substance in the article to make me interested about it, I'd certainly "feel free to do a better job," and it sure as hell wouldn't take me "years of research." I can't even tell what Act this was an amendment to, though perhaps I missed something as my eyes crossed while trying to read through the poor formatting. There is nothing worth salvaging here. Postdlf 07:17, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    • The 1986 U.S. law nicknamed " The Bradley Amendment ", ( 42 U.S.C. 666 ( a ) ( 4 ) ) affects millions of Americans, and I explained why using an example. And you claim it has little substance ? Ok, you win... I give up. WikiPedia is off my list of favorite sites. --Jeff relf 08:02, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 13:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I cleaned up the text somewhat (removed leading whitespaces, etc), but the POV rant remains. Article, as is, seems unsalvagable. Delete.Dukeofomnium 13:14, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • From what I can see, most Google hits for "Bradley Amendment" seem to point to deadbeat dad advocacy sites. It does not appear in findlaw.com Dukeofomnium 13:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • keep as rewritten. Dukeofomnium 17:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I have now completely rewritten the article. Please judge it on its current merits. It's not perfect yet but no Wikipedia article ever is. The facts are all supportable. (I have no idea why Dukeofomnium could not find it in findlaw.com. Title 42 is pretty easy to find and the sub-paragraph citations were correct.) I don't think the current tone is any more POV than the cited Washington Times article or the other najor newspaper articles I found while researching this. Rossami 01:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I found the law in Findlaw.com (Title 42 section 666(a)(9)(c)), but not the phrase "Bradley Amendment". I misspoke myself. I shall try to atone. Dukeofomnium 17:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Now keep. It still has POV problems, but it's now clearly keepworthy. Ambi 02:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • WADR I don't see the POV. There's opinion, but it's both balanced and attributed (not stated as fact). - KeithTyler 05:22, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to keeping rewrite—kudos to Rossami for making this a real article. I still wonder whether or not there is a better name for the article, however—it seems imprecise. Postdlf 13:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Considering the cultural consensus (as determined by Dukeofomnium's Google search, stated above) that "the Bradley amendment" most commonly refers to this particular law, the name is appropriate. In other words, given the cultural consensus, the majority of people looking for info on "the Bradley amendment" will be looking for this one. Given that, I would almost argue that even if we do see articles on other Bradley amendments, that this should be the default topic, with a disambiguation link preface. - KeithTyler 17:23, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep now. The current article seems NPOV, reasonably well written (probably above the Wikipedia average) and is quite comprehensible. The unsalvagable original did not even make clear what the problem was. As to its name, it could be renamed as Bradley Amendment (1986) or Bradley Amendment, 1986 or something like that to avoid confusion with any other Bradley Amendment. But that could wait until such time, if ever, that another article on another Bradley Amendement is written. Jallan 16:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • IMO it is OK for disambiguation to wait until there are ambiguous articles. - KeithTyler

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:01, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Challenge to statistics

In a recent edit, this text was added challenging the HHS statistics on arrearages. Unfortunately, I can't figure out the intended meaning of the edit in the context of the article. Maybe I'm just getting confused by the grammar. I'm pulling the comment to the Talk page until we can figure it out. Any help would be appreciated. Rossami (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However, the above statistics may be misleading because child support cases are typically closed after four years of inactivity. Closed or not, the Bradley Amendment makes all arrearages final judgements, greatly simplifying collections.

HHS statistics are Very deceptive, because cases are typically closed after four years of inactivity.

Automatically making past-due child-support a Final_Judgement is how the Bradley_Amendment facilitates collection. Collection is it's raison d'etre.

I don't know why I didn't make this clearer before, but it's obvious that I'm not the only one confused by all this.

If you reject my wording or dispute my assertions, please feel free discuss it here and/or do a better job, keeping in mind the vital nature of this information. --Jeff Relf 19:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing your assertion. I just don't understand it. How does the fact that "cases are typically closed after four years of inactivity" create bias or perception of bias in the HHS statistics? If there is bias and if that bias is relevant to the topic of this article, then we must explain it clearly enough to be understandable to any future reader/editor. I still can't make the connection. Rossami (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HHS' statistics omitted closed cases, agreed ?

By some estimates, including U.S. census data, a million or more men have left the official work force in the last 30 years or so, disappearing into the so_called invisible economy, a.k.a. the informal economy.

So there are men and women who are effected by Automatic_Final_Judgements even though the state has closed their cases and HHS' statistics ignore them.

Automatic_Final_Judgements prevent men from reentering the visible economy for fear of losing everything in a seizure. Even when the past-due debt is 40 years old. Even when the obligee has long since become a former_mother.

--Jeff Relf 17:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm just being particularly dense today but I still don't understand the relevance of your proposed addition. The paragraph in question currently reads:

According to Sherri Z. Heller, Ed.D, Commissioner of U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement, the child support system collects "about 58% of current support due." The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 68% of child support cases had arrearages owed in 2003 (a figure up from 53% in 1999). Some believe that the process can never collect the full amount because a high proportion of obligors are unable to make the required payments. According to Ford Foundation Project Officer Ronald B. Mincy, between 16 percent and 33 percent of obligors are "turnip dads" (obligors earning less than $130 a week). According to one study (http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/new/csr9701.htm#9701c%7C) 38% of non-custodial parents not paying child-support said they lacked the money to pay.

I find the theme of the paragraph in the third sentence. To paraphrase, "A says the Bradley Amendment is good because so much child support is unpaid and A implies that it's unpaid by choice. B says that A's analysis is flawed because a big chunk can never be paid - a problem the Bradley Amendment does not and can not address." If HHS's statistic had included closed cases, are you arguing that the 68% statistic would be higher or lower? In that case, how would the theme of this paragraph be any different? Rossami (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I made it like this then:

The numbers above omit closed cases. Typically, cases are closed after four years of inactivity. Open or closed, past-due child support is still automatically a final judgement, thus non expiring and easy to collect.

--Jeff Relf 15:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still under repeal effort?

Whats happened to the repeal effort since 2004? theres no current information? Or did it fail?

I'm guessing feminist groups are fighting hard behind the scenes to keep that from happening?216.52.163.1 19:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)LUID[reply]

Lack of Citations under "Controversies" heading.

The "Controversies" heading lists several "notorious" cases of unintended consequences to the law. If these cases are so "notorious," then why are no sources cited? Without specific sources, there's no way to tell if these examples are real or apocryphal. Captain Bathrobe (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already cited in the section above. See the comments attributed to McLeod. Rossami (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some independent verification would be a good idea, don't you think? (Captain Bathrobe (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Just reviewed McLeod's "testimony." He provides no evidence of these claims, names no names. Yet the existence of these cases is being cited as "notorious" cases of unintended consequences. In fact, McLeod isn't even saying that he has specific examples; he just make vague reference to "endless stories." If the story are endless, why can't he cite even one. I say, unless these cases can be substantiated, let's delete the "controversies" heading and keep McLeod's testimony as just that--his testimony. (Captain Bathrobe (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
When the content was added, it was attributed to his book (The Multiple Scandals of Child Support, I believe), not to his testimony. To be honest, I would not have expected anything qualifying as encyclopedic sourcing in congressional testimony - the session is just too time-limited. Any sources backing up the testimony would be in supplemental filings if the congressional audience allowed it at all. Rossami (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work on this section and now all the examples should have several properly formatted citations. Wingman4l7 (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bradley Amendment. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bradley Amendment. 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:

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) 12:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chi heorot -- Add to this discussion

Psi Upsilon Zeta Chapter -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Psi Upsilon Zeta Chapter

August 29

Postcodes: New South Wales -- Add to this discussion

Postcodes: New South Wales 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. (6 delete, 9 keep, 1 ambiguous) Rossami 05:13, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

co-listed: Postcodes: New South Wales A-M, Postcodes: New South Wales N-Z A list of 2610 (!) postcodes. Unencyclopedic-Nabla 21:17, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Other Australian postcode lists :
  1. Postcodes: Australian Capital Territory
  2. Postcodes: New South Wales A-M
  3. Postcodes: New South Wales N-Z
  4. Postcodes: Northern Territory
  5. Postcodes: Queensland
  6. Postcodes: South Australia
  7. Postcodes: Tasmania
  8. Postcodes: Victoria
  9. Postcodes: Western Australia
[[User:Krik|User:Krik/norm]] 21:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I propose colisting List of ZIP Codes in the United States and sections thereof, as a very similar page. That being said, I vote keep on everything. Postal codes are certainly notable. {User:Yelyos seems to have forgotten to sign. Niteowlneils 22:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)}
  • I vote delete on all. Tabular data like this is not encyclopedic. It's something for an almanac or gazette. It's a flat record, with no commentary or contextualizing of the information. It is, therefore, not fitting into declarative sentences, not encyclopedic. Geogre 21:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I doubt that these lists will be maintained for changes. Mikkalai 22:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. De ja vu all over again (see Wikipedia talk:Do lists of postal codes belong on Wikipedia? from VfD less than 5 months ago). As I said then, "According to Wikipedia:What is an article, "A Wikipedia article is defined as a page that has encyclopedic or almanac-like information on it ("almanac-like" being; lists, timelines, tables or charts)." Almanacs do have ZIP Code lists in them, although in a slightly different presentation (numerical only within state). ...Finally, I don't believe there is anyway to find out what city a certain ZIP Code belongs to on usps.com, so there is value to the lists."I hardly think mapsonus.com is common knowledge, but since this point seems to be a distraction, I'll remove it to focus on my main two points: 1) I don't think ANY article should be subjected to VfD anything less than six months apart, and 2) Wikipedia, by definition includes "almanac" lists, and ZIP/Postal codes are included in almanacs. Niteowlneils 22:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Sure you can find a city with a zip code. Go to http://www.mapsonus.com/db/USPS/, put in the zip code, and click on Find MyPostOfficeTM. Delete all Zip code articles. RickK 23:11, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you want to find beginning of the postal code for a city, just search on the city in Google and look at any address in that city. If it's a reasonably sized business you are looking for, you can usually find the exact code that way. Bad use of technology. Jallan 01:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep all. -Sean Curtin 02:45, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. As much as I'm not a huge fan of this kind of stuff in an encyclopedia, it has been long-standing policy (at least on VfD) that we do not delete information of this type (besides, postal codes don't need updating, at least in the short - ie, decades - term) Denni☯ 21:48, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)
Comment: Postal codes in Canada are updated to some extent every month and a new postal code data file issued for address correction purposes and postal sort purposes. I believe it is every three months for zip codes in the United States. I have no idea about Australia. Jallan 03:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps a short explaination of the postcode format and an off-site link to http://www.auspost.com.au/postcodes/ on the Communications in Australia article would do. Also see Talk:List of Australian post codes -- Chuq 05:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Alamanc type information. Similar to a large majority of Wikipedia. Wodan 00:09, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid data. Changes to codes are rare, so maintenance is not an issue.--Gene_poole 02:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not a big fan of almanac-type data in an encyclopedia, but since a virtually identical article (topic) survived VfD less than six months ago, I have to vote to keep this one. SWAdair | Talk 04:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Postcode: New South Wales since it only contains links to two other pages, but Keep the actual postcodes. No less encyclopedic than "Lists of". ··gracefool |☺ 10:01, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless someone wants to make a wikibook of world postal codes, in which case move thither. Valid and possibly even useful information. Dukeofomnium 02:41, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all postal codes. Other sources cover this more thoroughly and more accurately than WP. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:47, 4 Sep 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.

Field name -- Add to this discussion

Dicdef, doesn't look expandable. —siroχo 22:25, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge/redirect to record. — Gwalla | Talk 01:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't agree with a redirect at all, and therefore not with a merge. The reason is that "field name" is at least as common in botany and ornithology and entymology for living critters, and the last thing I expected to find, when I clicked on the link, was a definition for computer science. Geogre 02:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: what about a disambig page? — Gwalla | Talk 05:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Possibly so, yes. I suppose the disambiguation would be to the various fields, so to speak. Geogre 12:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to record, on its own it can never be more than a stub. ··gracefool |☺ 10:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Along with Geogre, I expected to find something different to computer science, only my expectation was for something on field names in the UK: every single field (bit of land with a fence around it) has a name and some of them are quite fascinating how they came about them. Turn into disambig page is my vote. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:08, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

August 30

The Mitre -- Add to this discussion

Article listed on WP:VFD Aug 30 to Sep 22 2004, consensus was to merge and redirect. Discussion:

  • Delete. Non-notable. RSpeer 04:32, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • At least Merge into University of St Andrews. A publication at a very notable university. I can't tell be reading this whether the publication is notable enough to merit its own article: can someone from Scotland weigh in? -- 05:06, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree, this needs to be Merged with the Uni website. It's fairly interesting, but doesn't deserve a page on it's own. Besides, isn't a Mitre a kind of hat that Bishops wear? Saint will 11:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is a one year old paper, so it's not the student newspaper. It seems like this is the St. Andrews version of The Dartmouth Review: a counter paper. Further, a redirect of this term to University of St Andrews is going to be iffy, because it is an ecclesiastical item. Geogre 12:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • To clarify: I would merge without redirection. Yes, the analogy to The Dartmouth Review seems spot on. I see we don't have an article on that. We should. If this paper has even a fraction of the same impact, it deserves at least discussion in the article on the Uni it is attached to. -- Jmabel 16:27, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • The general opinion I've seen is that merging without redirection violates the GFDL. RSpeer 17:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, the ecclesiastical item would be at Mitre or Miter. RickK 19:07, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
      • Righto. Just thinking of who-knows-what that could grab the title (the Freemason's newsletter? the BPO Elks meeting hall? dunno). Geogre 19:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The author has written quite a few lines on the subject. It would be too big just to shove it in the uni article. Trilobite (Talk) 02:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I would recommend a merge, with a dab link to the uni from Mitre... if the vote ends up to keep this article, though, I recomment moving to The Mitre (periodical). We also need to do some disambig work for Mitre vs MITRE. -FZ 13:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • What FZ said. Incidentally The Mitre is also the name of a pub in Oxford. Highly unnotable bar the fact that it's a decent pub, just thought I'd mention it... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hey, managing to find a decent pub in Oxford is notable. -FZ 16:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Trilobite said. ··gracefool |☺ 04:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a worthy article! -- Crevaner 05:47, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio, County Auditor and Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio, County Commission -- Add to this discussion

Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio, County Auditor and Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio, County Commission 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. 9 delete, 3 clear keep, 6 keep with a strong recommendation to merge and 2 ambiguous votes. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the articles are kept for now. Rossami 05:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please? RickK 21:04, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

As the author of the page, I'm wondering why this has been nominated for deletion. Which category do you suggest makes it inappropriate for Wiki? Indeed, I'm still working on this article, and a number of other related articles, on Montgomery County government. If you find something inadequate -- let me know -- I'm either working on it or perhaps it's something I've overlooked. In short, I vote against deletion. Acsenray 21:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • At what granularity of trivia do we let Wikipedia go? Where are the dog warden election results from every municipality in the world? RickK 21:33, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
    • What official deletion reason is being cited? It is a key municipality in a key swing state in the U.S. that may be interesting for voting trends purposes. Wikipedia has short articles on every municipality in the country, even ones that don't exist as jurisdictions except in the books of the Census Bureau. These are simple facts, not opinion or pontificating, that I myself have taken much trouble in tracking down. Is "no one is interested in this" a listed deletion policy? I wouldn't be averse to merging this information into other information about Montgomery County. Acsenray 21:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Officially, I would argue for deletion on the grounds of notability. While election results on the county level matter to the county, they do not go beyond that. We do not note journalistic items of local import. Geogre 21:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: there's a whole lot more of these under Montgomery_County,_Ohio#Government --Ianb 21:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • The problem I have with these entries is whether someone will be around in 2006 to diligently update them. Does Montgomery County Ohio have a website with this info? If so a link there would serve everyone better (Still, gimme some nice dog-catcher voting statistics against information on Star Wars fighters which weren't even in the films any day... )--Ianb 21:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Second the county website link idea. As for the updating concerns, that's not a valid reason to delete. • Benc • 16:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Simply not notable enough, I'm afraid. Delete. Lacrimosus 21:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, if the tide is turning against me, I'll have to keep in mind the boundaries of minutia. And then wonder how it compares to using a separate page for each of the (fictional) rulers of Numenor, most of who were never mentioned in the actual text of the work in question. Hmm. Acsenray 21:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Yeah, delete those too! Terrapin 15:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: If you think those are not notable, please tag and nominate them for VfD. Geogre 00:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Result of these elections is not significant enough. Appropriate for 1-liner in an article about Montgomery County, Ohio. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And if there are separate pages for every ruler of Númenor, put most of them on this page for deletion as well. I hate cleaning up after that kind of mess myself. Jallan 02:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • You may want to check out the information on the ruler of Numenor articles. They're rather more extensive than the stubs we're discussing here. RickK 04:17, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment - It doesn't matter how extensive the article is if it is about something of no importance. We've deleted some very long vanity articles in the past. Average Earthman 10:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
        • An article about a known fictional character in a known universe read by millions of people is not vanity. Do we really want to start this downward slide? Because if the Numenor articles start getting deleted or merged, I WILL start doing the same thing with the thousands of Pokemon articles. RickK 19:24, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with RickK, this is just too far down for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a simple compilation of election results. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's next? School treasurer? Parks superintendent? For all 10000 counties in the U.S. (or however many there are)? Terrapin 15:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I've just been told that encyclopedic means comprehensive in reaction to my proposal to limit excessive detail copied out of works of published fiction. Does that have any bearing on this discussion? Acsenray 16:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • For the curious, this discussion is located here on DP. • Benc • 16:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This is borderline notable, but consider that Montgomery County, Ohio has over half a million people living in it. Also consider that this is really a subpage of the main county article. It would be in the article itself if it weren't too long. Ask yourself this question: would the Montgomery County, Ohio article be stronger without its election data? • Benc • 16:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. I'm actually from the area, and I really truly don't care what the election results were in Montgomery County at any given time. However, the information isn't hurting anyone by being there, and it might be very interesting to someone who is interested in the state of Ohio local politics - it would, however, be more useful if it were all merged into one Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio. Also I would recommend removing the red links. If any of the officials or candidates mentioned merit their own articles at some point, the links can be added later. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, excessive granularity. Also, see Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. SWAdair | Talk 04:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Link to the appropriate part of the county website instead. --Michael Snow 17:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Aranel's suggestion (though I suggest Election Results of Montgomery County, Ohio).
That was User:KeithTyler. [8] --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (though I'd be happy with merging) - Why should we delete this? And what's wrong with granularity, if people are ever to come here looking for, uh, grains? OK, so the odds are fairly long on someone looking for this, but they're unlikely to find it too easily anywhere, and as has been pointed out above, there are plenty of far more obscure articles on the wiki. --DMG413 00:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 06:05, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge --Allyunion 10:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into one election results article for the county. I agree that the red links should be removed—I find it highly unlikely that articles about every mundane Ohio official will ever be created (or should be created). Though then that begs the question of what it gets us to just include data on when they were elected... Postdlf 19:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge as suggested above until a better guideline regarding such articles is drawn up. —siroχo 19:24, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to merge these articles if that's what is determined to be the better route. Acsenray 21:12, 3 Sep 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.

September 2

Nation of Islam anti-semitism -- Add to this discussion

Nation of Islam anti-semitism 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. I count 6 delete, 3 straight keep, 2 keep merged into Nation of Islam and 2 keep merged into Louis Farrakhan. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the article is kept.

  • This article conforms with points 6,9,10 and possibly 11 of What Wikipedia is not. This is a one and a half year old rant by RK that now unfortunately looks too much like a real article because someone decided to wikify it... My objections are: It is original research (see Wikipedia:No original research) and argues a point. It is therefore inherently POV. It doesn’t start with a definition, it starts with a topic sentence. Therefore it is an essay and thus not encyclopaedic. 3/4 of the text consists of quotes, so it is also a particularly bad essay. While the point is probably valid to some degree, it really does not need an article of this length that enjoys flogging dead donkeys so much and any usable parts should be merged with the anti-Semitism, NOI, Farrakhan etc. articles. Please delete. Pteron 13:09, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Pteron.--158.112.84.2 13:14, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • That was my vote.--MaxMad 13:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no merge and delete. Merge and redirect to Nation of Islam.--Samuel J. Howard 13:18, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: You pretty much summed it up. It's actually more than 3/4 quotes. Character counts before and after quotes show that there were 4641 characters in the article, and only 614 of it wasn't quotes. That shows that a nauseating 86.77% is quotes. When you look at the actual text that's left over, it's mostly just a quick synopsis of the quotes to come. How about moving to wikiquote? -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 13:24, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This appears to be factual. If we would allow Antisemitism why wouldn't we allow this? I disagree with Pteron (above) in that I do not see this as either propoganda nor advocacy (#6), if the quotes are accurate. It may be unpleasant to those who belong to Nation of Islam, but just because it is unpleasant does not make it false. Since it is mostly quotes, it cannot be an essay (#9). I do not see it as primary research, either (#10) as there is no scientific discovery here. Nor is it a List repository of loosely associated topics (#11). While it may come close to a "list" of quotes, they are not loosely associated as they are very on-topic and cohesive. Those who support, or belong to, the Nation of Islam may not want to see this here, but if it is factual it needs to stay. We don't delete entries on Hitler because Austrians may object, nor do we delete entries on The Crusades because Catholics may object. KeyStroke
  • If you think the percentage of quotes to original content is small, then follow Wikipedia procedure by helping write more original content on this topic. It is not Wikipedia policy to delete articles for having a high percentage of quotes. Our job is to improve articles we already have, not delete them if early drafts are not up to highly edited standards! RK 14:22, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • There is no "rant" against the Nation of Islams. Why are people trying to hide the NOI's own views? The quotes are necessary, because when NOI positions were mentioned in the past, people denied that NOI held such a position. So quotes were added to show that they indeed have such positions. Yet now people want to remove the quotes, leaving us back where we started...with no documentation or proof. That's is not progress.
Anyone who claims that this article is "original research" is trying to hide facts that make them feel uncomfortable. Ironically, they are violating NPOV by hiding beliefs that the NOI proudly has always held and public preached. We may not like such beliefs, but NPOV policy demands that we report the existence of them. I am not aware of any scholars on the subject who deny any of the views attributed to them; I personally have been to NOI speeches (featuring Khalid Muhammed back when he was in the NOI) who stated precisely such things. RK 14:19, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not NPOV. WhisperToMe 22:45, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge all content into Louis Farrakhan and work out the POV issues there. The current content is exclusively about Farrakhan's attitudes and statements, not the policies or practices of NOI. In this case, I'd like other thoughts on whether it would be appropriate to copy/paste the history page into Talk:Louis Farrakhan so we can preserve GFDL and still delete this page because I consider the title inherently POV. Rossami 00:01, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Rossami's right that this is really about Farrakhan. NOI is led by him, but it isn't just him, and there is a lot of dissent (sometimes violent) within it, I gather. Who and how, though, is anyone searching this article title? I'd also agree with his idea of merge and delete. Geogre 00:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The "Nation of Islam" is virulently and systemically anti-semitic. If this page is not accurate, improve it. But do not delete it. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 File:USA.Flag.20x12.gif ]] 05:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This topic is fine, though I'd rather it was included in Nation of Islam than separate. However, the article as it stands is dreadful. No source is given for any of these "quotations". Where are they from? And, yes, I can read very well thank you; I am saying that whoever put those quotations in the article (this is you, RK) did not take any of them from the sources or events listed after them. They are from a secondary collection. What is it and why should we trust it? --Zero 14:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I knew I'd be accused of trying to 'hide' NOI's anti-Semitism and of historical revisionism and so on... The problem, however, clearly isn't the topic, as Zero says. I never said I disagreed - but this article must go anyway. How can an article called 'NOI anti-Semitism' ever be NPOV? Just because something is ostensibly true, doesn't mean that there isn't an appropriate way to address it in an encyclopedia. And, Keystroke, I reject the argument that this page should exist, as there is also an article on 'anti-Semitism'. You must see the difference between a discourse as historically improtant and far-reaching as anti-Semitism and its implementation by some now-marginalized religious organization (although they did get back into the media through the Michael Jackson case). Also, your argument backfires, because there is an article on 'Adolf Hitler' - but fortunately not on 'Adolf Hitler anti-Semitism', as this information belongs on the 'Adolf Hitler' page - just as 'Nation of Islam anti-Semitism' belongs on the 'Nation of Islam' page. Therefore merge - and get rid of all the quotes. Pteron 15:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Gary D 07:50, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. BCorr|Брайен 14:44, 21 Sep 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.

September 6

Differences in meaning and usage between "Spanish" and "Castilian" -- Add to this discussion

POV issues, duplicates info in the Names given to the Spanish language article. The only differences between the 2 articles I've listed are the quotes around Spanish and Castilian --VikÞor 04:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reads more like vanity, to me. Redirect, either to Names given to the Spanish language or Spanish language. RickK 05:08, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • Redirect, the VfD was listed incorrectly Aug 23, and never entered into the list. -Vina 00:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Wasn't this VfD'd earlier? Vina, I don't think it was never entered. I think it was listed, received two or three votes, at most, and then was just gone. I don't know what happened to it, but someone appears to have either let it roll off VfD without action being taken or to have removed it manually. At that point, I didn't feel very strongly about the article and didn't vote (and people didn't vote in general). This time, I vote redirect without merge to Spanish language. N.b. I'm voted for a redirect only to prevent or forestall the article's recreation, not because I think it's useful. I would also be content with a straight delete. Geogre 00:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've been going through pages that link to vfd, but do not exist either on the main page or in the archive of the appropriate day. Aren't admins supposed to resolve (and remove) the tags before removing the discussion from the archives? -Vina 01:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, Vina, but I think the items that don't get resolution just kind of roll off. I believe they're supposed to be moved back onto the main VfD page with a note that no consensus was reached. I'm not saying that someone missed this one. It's just a theory. Geogre 02:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Names given to the Spanish language is superior. Apparently, after a debate on the talk page of the same, User:Chameleon or User:200.45.96.86 created this oddly named article. I'm not sure why the anon ended up using it as a soapbox, but since nothing else links there, I don't find the redirect necessary either. Delete, simple delete. --Ardonik.talk() 01:42, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Names given to the Spanish language. Comments: (1) A POV problem is not a valid reason to list an article for deletion. This article could've been redirected without having to have this discussion. (2) Redirect, not delete. Redirects are cheap. • Benc • 09:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The current article, besides defying all sorts of punctuation, spelling and capitalization conventions, complete with a double author identification, is POV and completely ignores modern language classification naming conventions used by the vast majority of modern linguists. Most modern works call the entire language Spanish (even though it is spoken outside Spain...just like we speak French, English and Portuguese in the Americas, too, despite their being named after European nations) and typically reserve the term Castillian to refer to the variety of Spanish spoken in Iberia. It also says "YOU MUST REMEMBER THAT CASTILIAN IS NOT A DIALECT!! IT IS A LANGUAGE, SUCH AS PORTUGUESE OR ARABIC.", ignoring that many (probably most) non-Arabic-speaking linguists classify Arabic as a group of closely related languages of which many types are mutually unintelligible. If only it were that easy to distinguish between a language and a dialect anyhow! (See Chinese language, Arabic language, Scandinavian languages, Serbo-Croatian language, etc.) I could go on, but my comment is long enough; this article is simply irreparable in my opinion and should be redirected deleted as mentioned above. Livajo 15:42, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Note: I have changed my vote after deciding that such an obscure title would not likely ever appear as a link on Wikipedia after its content is removed and is an unlikely thing for someone to enter into a search box. Livajo 03:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I like it! -- Crevaner 21:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV rant. — Gwalla | Talk 01:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not redirect. Title is itself biased, and is too long-winded to be an actual title. Content is done better elsewhere (to say the least), poorly organized, and with little merit. Improv 18:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reads like a letter from some whacko to the rest of the world. Even if it was worth keeping, it would require and extreme amount of cleanup and probably would not even resemble the same article anymore. Also, what would be the point of redirecting it? No one in their right minds would ever type out the whole name of this in a link unless they were a gigantic fan of this article. — Braaropolis | Talk 21:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Redgrave speech -- Add to this discussion

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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

Move to Wikiquote or Wikisource. RickK 00:30, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Come on - the article has been up for all of 2 minutes, and marked VfD. It should go through Cleanup, or perhaps Peer review first, since it is the event that is being described, not just a simple source or quote from a single person. Rather than immediately choose to delete, use editorial solutions first. -- Netoholic @ 01:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Note that not one of the options was "delete". It was "move". RickK 05:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • This is "Votes for deletion", not anything else. You waste our time listing items which are better handled through other processes. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Verbatim text for speeches go to Wikisource (after they've been verified as public domain or GFDL.) Articles about speeches go here. That was verbatim text combined with unencyclopedic commentary; the relevant information is in Paddy Chayefsky already. The choice seems simple enough to my inexperienced eyes: transwiki to both Wikiquote and Wikisource. --Ardonik.talk() 01:36, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote; in light of recent improvements, keeping looks like a better option than transwiki. --Ardonik.talk() 23:00, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikisource and delete: A description of the event would go in the Academy Awards for that year. It is not known so well outside of that context to be sought. The Janet Little Feather acceptance is more famous. Geogre 02:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Remedy
Just to show how easy it is to fix an article you know nothing about nor have any interest in, I've remedied this by making it the start of the 50th Academy Awards page. Really, a little work goes a long way - simply voting for deletion is a cop out. As an example, I refer you all to the original version of the Gettysburg Address, or how about Michael Moore's famous Oscar speech. Noone here can predict exactly how valuable, interesting, or complete an article can become simply from it's first version. -- Netoholic @ 05:32, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is not a remedy. The item is still source text that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. That's what Wikisource and Wikiquote are. I have re-added the vfd header as you have gone outside of VfD protocol by deleting the header.

Please provide a link to a policy page which requires that all speech text be Transwiki'd. Certainly, this information should be copied to Wikiquote, but to say it should be removed is presumptive.-- Netoholic @ 05:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with RickK. I know you hate the system, but the fact remains that the system is there and it does work. Please do not subvert it in protest. I will also note that Wikisource and Wikiquote are a part of that system, and one of the reasons they exist is to keep the Wikipedia free of articles like this. Why do you insist that the article should stay in this project? --Ardonik.talk() 05:49, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
It is a very early page (VfD'd 2 minutes after creation - literally), contains more than simply quoted text, and has potential. Are we so lazy that we can't keep this article and improve it over some time? -- Netoholic @ 05:53, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If a page seems out of place in the Wikipedia (I'm not talking about bad stubs with potential, but articles that don't appear to belong here) and it can't be speedied, then it should be liisted on VfD. Many articles never see a full day of life before being listed here. Does that come as a surprise to you? --Ardonik.talk() 07:34, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
If that is the case, the discussion belongs on the article's talk page first. Did someone contact the author of this before requesting deletion, in case they can improve it? -- Netoholic @ 07:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ugh, you deleted my second paragraph. It was a statement of my opinion, and was emphatically not meant as a personal attack, although you construed it as such. I would never willingly change your words, however much I did not like them; please show me the same courtesy from now on. (For interested parties, here's the diff.)
You don't need to contact an article's author before listing on VfD--many articles listed here are one-shots by anons, and for regular users, created articles are always on watchlists, so there's no problem joining the debate. There is nothing wrong with transwikifying an article, Netoholic--it's not as if the content of the article disappears, never to be seen again. But you're opposed to a transwiki/delete? You seem to want this speech, verbatim, on the Wikipedia? How come? --Ardonik.talk() 08:09, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should be listed on the copyvio page. Radio and TV transcripts are copyrighted - this text belongs to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Davodd 07:18, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Transcripts of entire shows yes. If anyone owned a copyright on the speech (but a small part of the show), it would be Vanessa Redgrave. Note that there are numerous exceptions to copyright (like any speech by any government official as part of their duties), but my brain shut off before I could determine where impromptu Academy speeches fit in. The Steve 07:58, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Change to no vote. Upon further research, quoting is enumerated in fair use. [9] Davodd 17:28, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Netoholic has convinced me The Steve 07:26, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • So we should then close down Wikisource and Wikiquote? RickK 07:29, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Again, I completely disagree with pasting in any material from this into the Academy Awards. Instead, a person...other than the author...could, if he or she wished, go to the Academy Awards page for that year and make a note of the protest speech. Reproducing it is absurd. Even were that to have been done, though, this article would be deleted. Netoholic would see our servers fill up with redirects, edit wars over redirects, and duplicate material after busybodies have "merged" by their own lights. Wikisource exists for exactly this kind of thing, and the presence of descriptive words around the quote is not a disqualifier. Geogre 12:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Putting in text from the speech is far from "absurd". The import of the speech hinges on exactly what was said, and Redgrave's inflammatory rhetoric is exactly the kind of thing that's easily misreported. If a speech is short enough, including it might well be good idea. My vote on this particular speech is below. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • As a solution to Redgrave speech it was absurd. I do not regard it as a solution to simply copy over the speech. In the context of the 50th Academy Awards, there were a lot of things going on, and this controversial speech, and its response, was the most memorable. I don't think that slapping the entirety of it anywhere inside Wikipedia is appropriate. As I said way back, I think the whole text should be on Wikisource. There can be a soft redirect inside the Academy Awards article to it for those who want the full text, if it's not copyvio, but I object to Netoholic's "everything is a redirect and nothing is ever deleted except speedy delete candidates" actions. Geogre 18:24, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The copyvio problem needs to be sorted out if it is to be Transwikied. If no copyvio problem, the speech should be transwikied as original source. The proposed article on 50th Academy Awards would need to be seriously cleaned up - including the full text of the speech isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Average Earthman 12:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Redgrave speech as a redirect to 50th Academy Awards, particularly since that article has now been expanded beyond the one incident, but I would question incorporating the entire speech in that article. It certainly shouldn't be the first item on the page - news and recap could be kept to a brief description, and the text of the speech is suited to be in Wikisource or Wikiquotes, with a reference to that speech from Wikipedia. Average Earthman 16:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • First research whether the speech text is a copyvio. If it's OK, then keep 50th Academy Awards and put it on the cleanup list. Otherwise delete 50th Academy Awards and recreate as a redirect to Paddy Chayefsky (where the topic is covered without the speech text). Wile E. Heresiarch 16:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I redid 50th Academy Awards in compliance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Academy Awards, in which Redgrave/Chayefsky and/or the substance or full-text of their (relatively short) speeches is appropriate, and in which the speeches are placed in the appropriate context. The Redgrave speech is a big deal in Oscar history. jengod 19:53, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Excellent. Thanks very much. I think the article is a great start and well within standards now. I'm removing the VFD notice, since its just silly to consider this new article for deletion. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes, the article has improved, but I am still going to restore the notice, Netoholic. At this point, it is clear to me that you are trying to pre-empt the community, either because of your dislike of VfD or for some other reason. I'd ask you to stop if I thought you might listen. --Ardonik.talk() 22:50, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! - This was a genuine incident. -- Crevaner 21:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • So what? Does that mean we should publish somebody's quotes on any genuine incident? RickK 00:21, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Netoholic deleted the VfD header again, and I have restored it yet again. RickK 00:21, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

If an article is improved, and especially if it has been moved to a new article name and expanded, removal of the notice seems reasonable. Please point me to a policy page which explicitly says it's not. -- Netoholic @ 00:52, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[Netoholic] stop removing VfD notices. Neither you nor I are above established procedure. --Ardonik.talk() 01:02, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


Unfortunately, I have had to removea number of off-topic comments (per Wikipedia:Refactoring#Remove off-topic comments) and personal attacks from this page. Please keep the discussion here only about the article in question, and make use of user Talk pages to discuss disputes about editor actions. -- Netoholic @ 16:00, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I really think you shouldn't have done that. Irrespective of the merits of removing them or otherwise, if they are aimed at you personally, removing them yourself is likely to antagonise. Average Earthman 16:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Nor should you have deleted my comments, either. If you believe you are under personal attack, put that in a relevant RfC and stop trying to prevent VfD voters from seeing what is being said, especially as these comments go a long way toward establishing the validity of your votes. If you are acting in bad faith, it can be illustrated by a paranoid reverting of VfD votes, an unwillingness to listen to the jury of peers in the votes, and editing of the VfD page. All of these things you have done or are doing. If you believe votes here are personal attacks upon you and do not wish to pursue an RfC, then ask a sympathetic administrator, or even fellow voter, to do the removal, with a link to the diff. Geogre 16:51, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VfD referendum on Redgrave speech, now at 50th Academy Awards:

  • Keep. jengod 18:08, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously 50th Academy Awards has potential, and the speech portion should now be a discussion on Talk:50th Academy Awards. -- Netoholic @ 18:17, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The issue of whether the quotes should be moved to Wikiquote or Wikisource has yet to be addressed. Just moving the information to a new page and adding more information doesn't change the core issue. RickK 18:31, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the new page, but transwiki the quotes. BTW, this vfd page is ridiculously convoluted... --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:43, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • That's because Netoholic keeps rewriting it to match his view of the world. RickK 20:10, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • We have to transwiki the source matter. I have not wavered in this: I support the new article and jengod's good offices, but having this big, disruptive speech messes up the encyclopedic quality of the article. I support reporting on the speech and its reaction, but not a wholesale paste. For that matter, why, after all, are we pasting the speech in, except to justify Netoholic's desire that it be a merge? Is that worth making this Academy Awards article look different from the others, and different from other Wikipedia articles? Transwiki the source, and the article can be kept. Geogre 20:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I object to your characterizations of my intent, and I request that both you and RickK restrict your comments to the article at hand.
Quoted text is very frequently part of our articles, since it give relevance and context to the event. At best, these should be copied to Wikiquote, but not wholly deleted. In any case, this discussion is completely out of scope and belongs on the Talk:50th Academy Awards page. -- Netoholic @ 20:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Minor nitpick: I think it's perfectly relevant. Let's work things out while we're all here. For the record, although I changed my vote from delete to keep and I'm not going to change it again, I think Geogre's suggestion is a good one. --Ardonik.talk() 02:50, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the page and the speech. It's short enough that it doesn't really matter. Why summarize when you can present the whole picture? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

Deep -- Add to this discussion

from VfD:

Seems to be mostly nonsense. The only potentially useful info is about the album entitled 'Deep' but even that has too little info to warrant a page. I vote delete. — SimonEast 01:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, cleanup, improve - Seems like a good start for a proper disambiguation page. Suitable additions can be gathered from Special:Allpages/Deep & Special:Allpages/The Deep. -- Netoholic @ 01:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree--disambig for what? What is there to improve? It's a dicdef combined with an album name, and a redirect to the album name probably isn't the right thing to do. Wikipedia is not a dictionary--that's what the Wiktionary is for, and we need to advertise that more prominently. My vote is to delete (though I'm glad you're making your opinion heard here, Netholic, rather than electing to eliminate VfD altogether.) --Ardonik.talk() 01:29, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • I've done some clean-up. It is not the most complete page, but is far better than some. -- Netoholic @ 03:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Inspired by your edit, I tried to transform it into a disambig page. But there's not enough information--just an album and the obvious dicdef. If it became a disambig page, the {{wi}} couldn't stay, and that would remove half of the article. Linking to depth, Deep Blue, and whatever only serve to increase the word count. My vote remains delete; there's just nothing to salvage. --Ardonik.talk() 05:03, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm impressed by Netaholic's editing, and no longer feel as strongly about deletion. I'm willing for other editors to discuss the options - I don't terribly mind whether it stays or goes. — SimonEast 03:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Let a new article on the album arise when it has an editor. The rest is a dictdef, and it's signed. We do not put dictionary definitions in the Wikipedia, and it is highly unlikely that someone needs such a common adjective explained with a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Geogre 02:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as separate disambig, or merge into the disambig at depth and redirect. -Sean Curtin 23:06, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It only has one actual link, and two 'new' links. Also, to the person who voted just above, how about choosing one or the other?

end moved discussion

Defense Education Enhancement Program

@Olexa Riznyk: MOS:DABRL says that a "link to a non-existent article should be included on a disambiguation page only when a linked article also includes that red link". Neither of the articles you linked make any mention of this program. I did find one after I tried another spelling, so I've recreated the entry based on the description there. Also, could you please share where you're seeing this red link? I can't find it anywhere. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyrael: Sorry, I didn't read MOS:DABRL carefully enough.   Defence Education Enhancement Programme (NATO) is linked from Ivan Kozhedub National University of the Air Force, I thought that this was enough. Could it make sense to just redirect Defence Education Enhancement Programme (NATO) to Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes#Working Groups? Or could it make sense to red-link Defense Education Enhancement Program (or alike) from all the Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes, Ivan Kozhedub National University of the Air Force and Deep? Meanwhile, I'm personally not going to create an article for it (just for clarity). --Olexa Riznyk (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a little confused about the Ivan Kozhedub National University of the Air Force part because I'm only seeing the program name used as part of the title of a PDF source, not any kind of wikilink. As for your question though, yeah I believe you're welcome to create a red link for anything that you believe is likely to have an article created for it, even if you don't plan to do so yourself. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veal with large lima beans -- Add to this discussion

Page has been transwikied to Wikibooks:Transwiki:Veal with large lima beans.

  • delete Davodd 18:32, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • This article is part of the coverage of Albanian Cuisine. Redirect and merge there.--Samuel J. Howard 23:18, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for consistent treatment of all recipes. The articles on Albanian cuisine can easily link out to Wikibooks. Rossami 04:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 23:31, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Although this makes my mouth water, delete. DS 20:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Navid -- Add to this discussion

Dictdef of a foreign word, definition of a personal name. At best, a Wiktionary article. RickK 08:11, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: dictdef, foreign language. Geogre 12:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Duopenis -- Add to this discussion

Unverifiable content by a confessed Slashdot troll now on Wikipedia. The supposed millionaire turns up no related Google hits. Searches for "duopenis" or "duo penis" shows the practice of vertical penile piercing. The biological term is, I believe, "bifurcated penis," and oppossums have them. Very highly suspect stuff. Geogre 13:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete Even w/o the trolling confessions, the google tests I have also tried seems enough for me. BACbKA 14:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think there is such a condition (a very rare one) among humans like that mentioned in the article, but I'm certain "duopenis" isn't the correct medical term. Google also contains no mention of a millionaire adult film star named Jo(h)nathan Whitfield with the condition. Livajo 15:09, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Two minutes of research turns up an existing article at Diphallia. Redirect is in place to prevent re-creation. -- Netoholic @ 15:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • And so you merged highly suspect information into diphallia? Why? Had you found external verification for the "myth" of sharks or pigs? Geogre 16:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes I did find external verification, as anyone would looking at this for more than two seconds . pig shark -- Netoholic @ 20:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • And you didn't feel that you needed to insert any references? You also felt that this was of vital importance to the diphallia article? Have you ever heard of the importance of negative findings? Read many papers about things not being found in sharks? I'm not interested in churlish edit wars with you. Geogre 01:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • We don't link external sources for every tidbit of fact in an article. But then, even if I wanted to, you've protected the page (against policy) to prevent my attempts. -- Netoholic @ 01:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Is it true that plankton do not have diphallia? How about clams? How about coral? Why aren't you including those "facts" that don't need documentation? Is it true that diphallia occurs in most mammals and is usually fatal? Anyone who does more than two seconds of research knows that mutations and birth defects occur in all forms. Why haven't you included that? Could it be that you are so in love with your decision to "merge" and redirect that you cannot listen to the community, cannot follow sane article construction, and would willingly go into an edit war over an irrelevant and unsubstantiated sentence? You keep putting it in, and I'll keep taking it out, without violating the 3 revert rule until someone decides to listen to the community. Geogre 02:33, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to diphallia. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect. Davodd 17:22, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • keep redirect; don't crocodiles have two penises or something? Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • And now for something completely different. A man with three buttocks! [10] -- Wile E. Heresiarch 15:42, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete in any form. Term is not in use. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Diphallia and bifuracted penises are both actual phenomena. The "word" "duopenis", and this article, are non-entities. Delete. -Sean Curtin 23:00, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - original fiction - Tεxτurε 23:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anton Charles -- Add to this discussion

Anton Charles: Vanity from an unpublished author ("currently working on his first story of a five book series that is set to become a international best seller.") and no evident notability. The page contributor might like to look at Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies. --Ianb 14:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: 16 year old author; when he becomes PM, greatest architect, or international best seller, we will need an article on him, but not now. Geogre 16:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 21:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 02:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No notable achievements. Average Earthman 09:02, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is his first published work of fiction - Tεxτurε 23:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zhang Yi -- Add to this discussion

  • Pure vanity - delete Pteron 15:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Seems like vanity, or at least irrelevance. Geogre 16:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; not notable and/or vanity. Psychonaut 16:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; No references, no proof of notability. --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 21:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, non-notable college student. — Gwalla | Talk 02:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Vanity of vanities! All is vanity! (Ecc. 1:2) Delete. KeithH 06:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 23:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would've 'speedied' it. -- PFHLai 23:48, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Susan Stagnitta -- Add to this discussion

Susan Stagnitta - Non-notable librarian whose only claim to fame is pointing out the blindingly obvious. - 15:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)

  • Well, what do we do about material that would not be interesting except that it relates to the history of Wikipedia itself? Do we already have some kind of place for that? She is one of a number of challengers who have popped up in the last week or so. Wikipedia is now attracting enough notice to be the subject of discussions in the "real world." This article is stubby (and has POV problems). I would not say that she is notable enough to have an article in the main namespace, yet I am not at all comfortable with the idea of simply deleting this. I think it should be a merge and redirect, but into what article? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I think this is a pretty devious article. She's the one quoted by the Syracuse paper, isn't she? I really don't like mentioning her and inviting slashdotting her, which is what seemed to be on the wind earlier. Let's leave her be and let her go back to her work. This is the furore of a moment, IMO. Geogre 16:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; not notable. Psychonaut 16:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia, merge, expand on this: the issue of Wikipedia accuracy deserves extensive discussion there. -- Jmabel 18:29, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wikipedia, merge, expand on it --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 21:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, so she's the one mentioned on the Village Pump who has been performing vandalism "experiments" to see how fast we can catch them, and then proudly reporting her adventures to Slashdot, smarmily noting that the Wikipedia is inaccurate. Pardon my french, but to hell with her. Nobody forced her to use this resource. My POV aside, we should give her a section in Slashdot under ==Slashdot and Wikipedia==, being sure to add Jimbo's reply to her on slashdot. Perhaps we ought to start a new page under Wikipedia:Slashdot and the Wikipedia and then begin listing these and similar events under it. --Ardonik.talk() 02:28, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
No, she isn't that one. Please let's not start confusing things and making things were than they already were. She is a reasonably well-informed librarian who knows a little about Wikipedia, but not quite enough. She said some thingsin the context of "be careful about what you read on the Internet." See this article. There's not even anything inaccurate about what she said. (It just needs a bit of NPOVing). Her main point was, in her own words, "Wikipedia is not what many casual Web surfers think it is." This was in response to a columnist who urged readers were urged to go to the Wikipedia Web site for information on computer history.
Stagnitta put an unpleasant spin on it, but didn't say anything incorrect: "It's not the online version of an established, well-researched traditional encyclopedia. Instead, Wikipedia is a do-it-yourself encyclopedia, without any credentials. As a high school librarian, part of my job is to help my students develop critical thinking skills," Stagnitta wrote. "One of these skills is to evaluate the authority of any information source. The Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It even states this in their disclaimer on their Web site." When it was brought to her attention that traditional encyclopedias are also less authoritative than people think and have similar disclaimers, I believe I read that she acknowledged this and issue a sort of partial correction. What happened is that statement was widely disseminated and is spurring an ongoing discussion outside the Wikipedian community about the reliability of Wikipedia, which in turn has led several jerks to, metaphorically, litter our sidewalk to test whether it's true that people will eventually pick it up. One guy who dropped some test-litter right on our front walk found that it was picked up right away. Another guy who tossed some behind the bushes, reported it was still there a week later (and says he removed it himself). Neither of them was Stagnitta. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
P. S. True or false: when you go to Wikipedia for information, do you apply a) the same level, b) a different level of skepticism and critical thinking then when you go to the Britannica? If someone else cites a) the Britannica, or b) Wikipedia to prove a point, do you consider the level of authority to be equal, or unequal? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. My anger was misplaced and I wasn't being fair; my comment was stupid and I apologize for it. To answer your second question, I haven't really used the Wikipedia as a research tool yet, having only got involved recently. If I did, I'd stick to big, informative articles, and {{disputed}} would be a flag for me to check the history and see whose words were trustworthy. Each article must, of course, be evaluated on its own merits, but my bias for authoritativeness is tilted toward Britannica's articles by default; their encyclopedia is free of stubs and kook-with-an-axe-to-grind contributors.  :-/ --Ardonik.talk() 15:37, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. Nothing worth merging or redirecting. Her "findings" are already well answered in the very first Wikipedia article I ever read — Wikipedia:What our critics say about us. Rossami 04:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 10:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question: I see that "delete" is winning out over "Redirect to Wikipedia, merge, expand on this." Does this mean people think the material would be inappropriate in the Wikipedia article, or just that they don't think her name belongs in here as a ridirect? (For whatever it's worth, I still stand by "redirect and merge": I think if people are looking up her name it will be for this reason and I think the topic (not just her in particular, but the type of criticism she raises) needs to be engaged in the Wikipedia article. -- Jmabel 22:48, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Redirect to Wikipedia:Press coverage. RickK 22:51, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge & redirect to Wikipedia:Press coverage. (Stagnitta doesn't seem to be listed there yet.) Wile E. Heresiarch 03:12, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) Revised vote below. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, I don't like memorializing her. I'm being literal when I say that I think her actual name is beneath comment. This is especially true since Siroxo has had e-mail with her, and she has been pretty apologetic. She didn't write the article. She just answered questions posed by a reporter who wanted to say a particular thing. I hate seeing her name mentioned in a way that's going to anger Wikipedians. Geogre 03:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. In answer to Jmabel's point, I don't think anyone will be looking up her name. I have no objection to engaging the type of criticism she raises but she herself is not a notable person and doesn't raise the point in any unique way. JamesMLane 06:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed w/ Geogre & JamesMLane. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bruce Cundiff -- Add to this discussion

Vanity, no indication of notability. The original poster of the article might like to read Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies. --Ianb 16:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Opinions by analysts at such places as Jupiter Research impact millions of dollars in private and public corporate spending. Also: WP policy on fame, importance and notability - Davodd 17:20, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tentative delete. There is nothing here that would not either be mentioned in any citation of him in an article or instantly available by googling his name. If he stands out from thousands of other similar analysts, there is nothing in the article to say so. If expanded to something encyclopedic within the five days (e.g. some remarkable views he holds, somewhere he has been seen to have influence), I'll change my mind.-- Jmabel 18:33, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability, probably vanity. The people who run the show at Jupiter Research may be notable. The drudges laboring in the trenches aren't. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:16, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - not notable (heck, I get two google hits) - Tεxτurε 23:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How to cook dandelions -- Add to this discussion

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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

How to cook dandelions was apparently transwikied and marked for deletion in the past, possibly with or without a discussion on VFD (there's an archive, but it's in the "User:" space). Let's make a decision and get rid of the notices on the top of the page one way or another. - RedWordSmith 17:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete, if it has been transwikied. Geogre 19:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Do not speedy. I will merge and redirect. Our coverage of food is spotty.--Samuel J. Howard 22:54, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

WHOA!!! Where did this go? I merged the encyclopedic content. Deleting it now violates GDFL.--18:16, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • OK, I brought it back. Dunno whether I did right or not, but I figure we can talk about it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:23, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • sorry if that was a bit strident, I wouldn't mind being able to delete it, but as I understand it, since some of the content was merged with Dandelion it is now not possible under the GDFL to delete it. The redirect was harmless.--Samuel J. Howard 21:18, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the article has been resurrected, I think I can point out that a look at Talk:Dandelion now reveals that the original contents of this page actually started life as a part of Dandelion and were removed from it. Also, I don't see a comment on either history page noting the merge. Even stranger, the comments stating that the How to cook dandelions page was spun off are from 2003, but this article was created in Feb 2004. This is insane! - RedWordSmith 21:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

September 7

"drunken chicken" -- Add to this discussion

Apart from poorly named page title - it's a recipe, move to WikiBooks -- Chuq 00:07, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I must point out that -anyone- can perform the Transwiki process themselves. Please do this first before requesting page deletion. That is the process. -- Netoholic @ 00:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've never used Wikibooks/Wikirecipes, nor am I familiar with the exact process - I've only ever seen them mentioned on this page. I thought I'd leave the moving to someone familiar/more involved with that project. -- Chuq 00:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


  • Delete: It's not an actual recipe. Sometimes things need to be deleted. This is not a recipe and not an encyclopedia entry. Therefore, there is no transwiki, no redirect, just delete. Geogre 01:50, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic, susbtub, bad title. — Gwalla | Talk 02:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is actually a Chinese recipe translated as "drunken chicken" but it's got absolutely nothing to do with this article. Beer is most definitely not used. -Vina 04:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've added the Chinese version in there, and kept the American version in there for good measure. There are other articles in WP about food. Fuzheado | Talk 08:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve - This isn't specifically a recipe per se (no ingredients/amounts). It discusses a dish and is acceptable, could grow into something like Kebab or other entries. -- Netoholic @ 13:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • With quotation marks in the title? With a miniscule name (which is sensitive because of the quotation mark)? I don't see it. It's a greater effort than simply creating a correct article. Geogre 14:17, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The article has already been moved (not by me) to drunken chicken (no quotes), so the name of the article is no longer an issue. -- Netoholic @ 14:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If anyone wants to write a recipe for either of these, I'd love to feature it on the main Cookbook page. Gentgeen 22:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - non encyclopedic - Tεxτurε 17:12, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, potentially interesting, and a real dish. Mark Richards 19:49, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Fuelbottle | Talk 14:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 15:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Broadbandreports -- Add to this discussion

Wikipedia is not web directory. Mikkalai 00:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep and improve. Should we get rid of eBay, Amazon.com, Pets.com? BroadbandReports is extremely notable. -- Netoholic @ 00:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay, okay, cool down, don't overstretch it. That we have at article on J. Edgar Hoover and Doris Day doesn't mean we must have one for each every John E. Doe. That's what voting is for. For me it is not notable even with its 960,000 google hits, which turn out to be as "many" as 513, if "ghosts" are excluded. And the article is more like marketing pitch. Mikkalai 01:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Alexa rank 10,645. Forum alone has 11 million posts from almost 100,000 users. Not extremely ad-ish, but could probably still use some Cleanup. Niteowlneils 02:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Broadbandreports is the first Google hit for the term "DSL". If that's not notability, especially given that DSL is so widely used, I don't know what is. -- Bobdoe 02:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Send to clean up: It's a pretty central site for broadband in the US. (Note the American content, here.) However, Wikipedia is not a web guide. This is notable for being pioneering and an industry leader, IMO, and so needs to be cleaned of its POV and built up for an accurate description of its content. Geogre 02:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Potentially interesting. Mark Richards 19:49, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Related comment (to be moved to Talk after this vote is done)
A couple editors have used the phrase "Wikipedia is not a web directory/guide" -- Looking at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I see nothing which confirms that this phrase is policy nor a valid reason for deletion by itself. "Mere collection of ... links" is mentioned, but precendent (eBay, Amazon.com, Pets.com, Neopets, etc.) says that notable sites deserve articles, if they are expanded beyond "mere links". I propose that we not use that phrase anymore. -- Netoholic @ 04:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Now I recall, the first time I saw this phrase, it was in relation to some kind of List of websites that do this and that. In this context it was perfectly valid. But I agree, the usage of the phrase shifted somehow. Nevertheless it bears kind of truth. "Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages". How about that? one must be somehow notable to be listed here, be it a person, a business, or a webpage. That what the voting here is about. It was silly of me, I admit, to think that Broadbandreports is not notable, but no harm is done: you kicked my ass. Mikkalai 04:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What about the first #4, "Wikipedia is not a link repository." That seems pretty synonymous to me. Niteowlneils 01:37, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It says right after that "See #11, 12, 13 in the next section." which refer to "mere collections of ... links." - hardly true in this case. -- Netoholic @ 01:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; This site originally started as DSLreports.com. It was first launched with the intention of reporting the service quality of DSL providers in the United States. When Cable was brought online, they changed the name to "Broadbandreports" although, "DSLreporta.com" still points to their new site. --AllyUnion 03:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - well-known site (I've never had cause to surf there myself, but I still recognised the name instantly from often hearing it mentioned in discussions of ISPs), and the Alexa rank is imho high enough to make an article acceptable. —Stormie 04:32, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 15:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve --G3pro 17:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Hutchison_effect -- Add to this discussion

This has "crackpot" written all over it. Josh Cherry 03:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That, and most of it looks like copyvio. However I think this thing deserves a page -- Google seems to indicate that the paranormal folks do take this stuff reasonably silly. But a complete NPOV rewrite is surely in order. --Fastfission 04:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy. Follow the link through to the American Anti-Gravity site. I did, and wasted 10 minutes of my time reading nonsense and ads. Speedy for patent nonsense. -Vina 04:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Latest news at Hutchinson's website are from June 23, 2002. Obviously, the hoax run out of gas, but it deserves its place in the history, describen in a NPOV way. Mikkalai 04:33, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If Mikkalai can NPOV it, keep. Otherwise delete. Regardless, it is not patent nonsense according to our very specific definition. Rossami 05:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's true that it's believed and has some history, and if it gets improved by the end of voting, I will change my vote. However, as it is now, it states this "effect" as fact and links us off to (more?) anti-gravity/fringe pages (the space screw comes to mind). Geogre 12:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The rewrite is good. Reportage is always acceptable, to me, as it's NPOV and reports what the other folks believe. I think we could do with a link less on the externals, to keep down page rank boosting, but that's a minor matter. Keep. Geogre 14:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! My first response when I see something crackpottish: check Wikipedia for an unbiased, scientific account. That's how I found this article in the first place. Yeah, it needs work, but just stick a disputed accuracy tag on it for now. - Omegatron 14:02, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And add a point to the deletion policy that any article whose only weblink goes to American Antigravity must be deleted on sight. -- Pjacobi 21:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    "censoring" information is exactly what makes crackpot stuff take off. "go to our website to find out what They don't want you to know!!!" providing a good source of unbiased non-crackpot info is the only way to keep it under control. - Omegatron 14:24, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
    It still has only weblinks to crackpots. We aren't the pseudoscience branch of dmoz. Anyway, I'll change my vote to abstain, honoring the efforts in re-writing the article. -- Pjacobi 19:04, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I reworded it a bit, maybe it is a little better now. --Fastfission 02:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Current version is good, NPOV. — Gwalla | Talk 03:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Potentially interesting. Mark Richards 19:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. As it exists now, it is exactly the kind of thing someone who came across a reference to "Hutchison effect" would like to know. Jallan 19:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep like this - crap but we need to know it's crap. The Land 09:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Either delete it or make sure that is aptly labeled as a hoax. Such as "HE Hoax"Cmin7b5 08:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This side up -- Add to this discussion

This side up 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

Non-notable band. allmusic.com hasn't heard of these names, and I tried several combinations with google, including Ettema birkbeck, and found zero relevant hits. Niteowlneils 04:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Band vanity, no records and no contract, and no apparent performances, so delete (unless Netoholic wants to redirect to furniture). Geogre 12:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have found something about them here, where they claim "me (Sammeh) and Luz have never played any instruments before". --Brona 19:34, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Garage band vanity. Band without records, contract, performances...or instruments! — Gwalla | Talk 03:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - this actually fits the criteria for deletion! Mark Richards 19:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 15:20, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This side up, my thumb down. - Furrykef 15:38, 12 Sep 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.

Phase gun -- Add to this discussion

Phase gun 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

Is this necessary? An article about the type of gun used in a computer game? --SeekingOne 03:56, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Looks like fancruft, and no other pages link to it. Delete. KeithH 06:35, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Info can be merged. Redirect. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 06:41, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)
  • Fancruft, from an apparently not particularly well known game. Delete. Average Earthman 09:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: If the info can be merged, that makes me sad. I don't agree with a redirect, here, because it could also be a redirect to phaser. Geogre 12:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Information is so trivial that there's nothing to merge with Star Ocean. It's a weapon that one character starts with. Redirect makes no sense either, as there are innumerable games, books, etc. featuring "phase guns": just a generic sci-fi weapon. — Gwalla | Talk 03:58, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect to whatever the more common name is. If there are innumerable games, books etc featuring them, then surely an article can be written. Mark Richards 19:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are not unnumerable games etc. using this. That an article can be written on a topic does not justify keeping the article that has been written. If someone wants to expand Star Ocean they can do so at any time. Jallan 19:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merge any useful content. Possibly redirect. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 15:21, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page needs a phase gun taken to it. - Furrykef 15:40, 12 Sep 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.


K-Hill -- Add to this discussion

K-Hill 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

VFDed by User: Lucky 6.9 on June 4 probably for band vanity and ad, but no archive or discussion pages in VfD exist. -Vina 04:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Ah, I remember this little number. I still vote to delete. Thanks, Vina. - Lucky 6.9 05:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising. It's the press release, and it's trying to get bookings. Geogre 12:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert for non-notable rapper. — Gwalla | Talk 03:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - this person has a record out, and there is NPOV stuff to say about them. Sure, it needs work though. Mark Richards 19:55, 9 Sep 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.

Spurl -- Add to this discussion

Spurl 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: advertisement, and seems to be a website of no particular importance Bitt 21:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • No Vote, this was posted by the above user on August 11th, but no archive exists, this does seem to be an ad, but I'm not sure that the statement "a website of no particular importance" is true. -Vina 05:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia isn't a web guide, even if that's not the name of the policy, and this is advertising. Geogre 12:21, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert for web service. — Gwalla | Talk 04:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 17:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep if it is a genuine webservice, and NPOV. Mark Richards 19:56, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --Yath 22:40, 12 Sep 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.

Theriak -- Add to this discussion

Theriak 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

VfDed on June 30th by User: Poccil but no archive or discussion exists. Page looks like an ad. -Vina 05:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I agree and vote to remove this although I don't know who does it or how it is done. Nuggehalli 06:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

    • You just did (vote).
  • Delete for advertising. Geogre 12:22, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 17:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • If the thing exists, then keep and de-'ad' it. Mark Richards 19:57, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Yath 22:41, 12 Sep 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.


Iranian Contributions to World Civilization -- Add to this discussion

Iranian Contributions to World Civilization 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 but merge into the appropriate article(s) of Iran. Rossami 06:53, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pointed, non-Encyclopedic title. Should possibly be merged with other articles if there is any new info in the page. roozbeh 13:07, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Move. Change name to List of Iranian contributions to world civilisation, and maybe tidy and so a bit, don't see much trouble with it, I'll just go ahead and do that. Kim Bruning 13:08, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Page Moved to the appropriate title for this kind of thing. Vote Keep Kim Bruning 13:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • keep. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm still not a big fan of the title, seems POV and vague--what exactly constitutes a "contribution to world civilization"? Can this be merged with History of Iran or some such? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:46, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)
  • Either merge and redirect to History of Iran (which has plenty of room for this content) or use it as the basis for the requested article Culture of Iran. As written, the title is just an invitation for accusations of POV. Rossami 15:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll support Use as basis for Culture of Iran also. In any case content needn't be deleted. Kim Bruning 15:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The current list is useful, but I agree about the name being questionable. I think that History of Iran or History of Persia would be a suitable place for this data. Average Earthman 16:43, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The content is good. Merge with History of Iran. Can be kept as a separate list of contributions, but incorporating the content into History of Iran is more important. Antandrus 17:14, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The content is good, the title is somewhat POV. Merge with History of Iran or Culture of Iran. Andris 17:23, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Certainly merge and redirect to History of Iran. Keep the redirects in place as harmless. -- Netoholic @ 18:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge, but delete the redirect, which is POV. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:44, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing wrong with the name. No reason why other countries shouldn't get such an article either. DJ Clayworth 20:27, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to History of Iran. Good content, POV title. — Gwalla | Talk 04:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Ambi 12:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, move, merge, redirect, cleanup, something - shouldn't be on VfD. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 15:27, 12 Sep 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.


Toejam Jawallaby -- Add to this discussion

It's been suggested on the talk page that this is a joke entry. Reading around, that seems likely ([12]). -- sannse (talk) 21:53, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In that case, also Zil Banthrop, Pesmard Vandigor, and Natoli Brothers. Adam Bishop 22:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as joke/parody. Do not redirect it to anything. Yes, really delete it. That's not a merge. That's not a merge and redirect. That's not send to clean up. Just delete the pranks. Geogre 22:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Recommend Wikipedia:Pages needing attention and more confirmation. If this a long-lasting prank, the article could be renovated from that aspect, describing the hoax and it's origins. I'm no expert on music, and I can't tell if this is notable, so let other editors have a pass at it. -- Netoholic @ 23:20, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The really amazing thing about this is that somebody went to that much effort. "Retroactively influenced Louis Armstrong"...sheeeeeeeesh. Delete. No redirect (what would one redirect it to?) Bearcat 00:12, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Now that I think about it, while it's still an obvious hoax, it appears to be a hoax with enough of a life of its own that I could also support keeping the article if it's rewritten as an article about the hoax. (ie. "Toejam Jawallaby is a fictional guitarist, created by a humorist yadda yadda...") Bearcat 16:52, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I can also support this idea. Hoaxes can be worthy of inclusion, as long as they are 1) notable and 2) clearly labeled as hoaxes. Antandrus 16:55, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all (Toejam Jawallaby, Zil Banthrop, Pesmard Vandigor, and Natoli Brothers): pranks. Look for other stuff by same author(s), also check the what-links-to-this. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 04:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote: Keep article about the hoax. Apparently a bit of an in-joke among jazz fans, but one with a life of its own. — Gwalla | Talk 19:29, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete apparent hoax. Lacrimosus 08:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC).
  • If this is a hoax, it's the longest running realest hoax I've ever seen. There is actual recorded material by this guy. There are discussions dating back twenty years in reputable (not bogus) newsgroups like rec.music.bluenote and rec.music.classical. His name appears in the Definitive Jazz Lover's Jokebook under "You might be a jazz fan if..." He is mentioned in a review of a collectable anthology album. Perhaps we need to distinguish between a real hoax and a fake hoax. I think this is the real thing.
    • I think the entry in the joke book is actually confirmation that this is a hoax (geddit?) -- sannse (talk) 17:13, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Do yer research, anonydude. The guy who created Toejam Jawallaby admits on his webpage that he recorded the Vegetableland song himself. Bearcat 17:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Hilarious, but nonsense. Delete. Hoax, hoax, hoax, hoax. Did I mention hoax? Look at Sannse's link. Antandrus 16:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I've taken the liberty of rewriting the intro to make it clear that he's fictional, though I didn't attempt to radically rewrite the whole page. If the consensus becomes that the article might be worth keeping because of the semi-notability of the hoax qua hoax, it's a start. I've also categorized him under "Internet memes" for the time being. Bearcat 17:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't think an article on Toejam Jawallaby as a notable hoax is warranted. Googling for "Toejam Jawallaby" yields 122 hits, of which 7 are unique and the other 115 were captured entirely from a "new pages" infobox on pages at explanation-guide.info, a Wikipedia mirror. Let's not give this hoax more attention than it deserves. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, since it's been changed to a well-written article about the hoax. RSpeer 19:30, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old&oldid=5854025"