Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive May 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ruhrjung (talk | contribs) at 12:43, 5 November 2003 (Schlesien was a redirect and ought to return to be so.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Please read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy before editing this page

VFD subpages: copyright violations -- foreign language -- images

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log -- archived delete debates -- undeletion -- personal subpages -- blankpages -- shortpages -- move to Wiktionary -- Bad jokes -- pages needing attention -- m:deletionism -- m:deletion management redesign -- Wikipedia:Cleanup

October 31

  • Bongle (hardware key realized on a CD) I'm not too happy about this page for two reasons. First, I think Bongle is the name of a specific commercial product from Hide & Seek Technologies. (They don't seem to have a website so it's not easy to tell whether the name is a trademark). Second, unlike "Dongle," I don't believe the word "Bongle" is in general parlance. Since I see that a couple of experienced Wikipedians have edited this page, I'd assume that they think it's a legitimate and valid entry, so quite possibly I'm wrong about this. I'm not going to say it should be deleted, but I'd like to see some positive justification or explanation for keeping it. (For example, prove me wrong when I say it's not in general parlance). The results of Googling for "Bongle" on the Web or in Groups are not very convincing. Dpbsmith 17:41, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • How about we just move it to Software copy protection methods, or something similar? "Bongle" could then be mentioned as a term for this relating specifically to the Hide & Seek company. I think the content is otherwise acceptable - there is definitely room for an article along these lines to complement Dongle, IMO. GRAHAMUK 00:20, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • I think that would be the right thing. My issue is solely with use of the word Bongle as the entry term. The article itself is good. (Hey, you know more about this than I do: had you heard this term before? Is it a 'meme on the rise' or anything?) Dpbsmith 13:23, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • redirect as suggested. JamesDay 23:56, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • SIOR - looks like an add Muriel Gottrop 21:31, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep if it is an important industry recognition.
    • Keep, it appears to be real. JamesDay 23:56, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. It feels like an advertisement. Kingturtle 08:23, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • If it is kept, it should be put on Pages needing attention for POV. I know too little about the subject to make an informed decision on keeping or deleting.

the start of the following item has been moved by me (Camembert) from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/foreign language, since these pages aren't actually in a foreign language

  • Greek names of states/Greek names of nations - i dont think it belongs in this wiki. Muriel Gottrop 21:24, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • And Greek names of islands - Greek names of European cities
    • Keep. Reference tables are acceptable. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • This will be kept. There is going to be a list of Arabic and European language forms of cities. This discussion is on hold. It will not be removed from other non-English wikis like Greek-French names of European cities on fr.wikipedia.org and Greek-Spanish names on es.wikipedia.org Pumpie
      • I'm sorry, but french/latin/etc are readable by english speaking wikipedians. Unfortunately, for 99% of them greek characters are just symbols... jeia hara Muriel Gottrop 21:53, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Think again, click on Greek alphabets to know the alphabet. I'm the expert on this alphabet. I'll will put the Latin Alphabet beside it.
        • So? About 1/4 of the Greek symbol column in that table is blank squares. That is not very useful - Marshman 02:14, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Dear expert 67: in wiki good maners are essential whatever the language. Please bear this in mind... You can sign with four ~. And lets wait for other opinions Ok? Muriel Gottrop 22:03, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
          • A page consisting only of translations is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Maybe Wiktionary would like it? They do translations. This is no more useful than something like Greek names of fruit or whatever. It doesn't provide any encyclopedic information. Angela 22:12, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)
    • It looks like the "Greek names" of these nations are mostly are just transliterations of the nations name into the Greek alphabet. I don't see much use to this page -- and it's certainly not a good encyclopedia topic. Maximus Rex 22:17, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, this is a reference table as Lir said. Aplank 22:22, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • What if it is a reference table? Lists of foreign words still have no place here. Angela
      • Whats the harm? Lirath Q. Pynnor
        • The harm is that either every language in the world is covered, in which case that's a lot of almanac-style raw data, or else only some languages are covered, in which case it's incomplete, patchy almanac-style data. Does the benefit compensate for this? Don't the arguments here that it's interesting apply equally to any list of Greek vocabulary? If so, then the counter-argument is to do with the fact that Wikipedia is not a Greek-English dictionary. Onebyone 14:53, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I found it interesting. Some are just transliterations. The one for Finland actually looks as if it came from English! Aγγλια was interesting. I know just enough of Greek to know that the double "g" corresponds to "ng", but this particular instance would not have occurred to me if I hadn't seen this list. Michael Hardy 00:01, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC) Interesting that the Greeks call France "Gallia"; if that's just a transliteration, it's from Latin. Michael Hardy 00:02, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • If these really are the names of these places in Greek (as opposed to transliterations), then I think these pages are useful and good (could be useful when consulting maps, for example). --Camembert 00:53, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • These are indeed the actual names used in (modern) Greek, not transliterations. Where they are transliterations (as in Finland) it's just because that's what Greeks actually call Finland. --Delirium 09:06, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
  • This is similar to the problem with the various lists of Latin names of things. Sometimes those ones are just an interesting academic exercise...seeing if "Kansas" or whatever can be made to fit Latin forms, even if Latin would never have had a word for such places. One justification is that modern ecclesiastical Latin uses them (but that's kind of sketchy I think...). I think it is the same case here, except that Greek is still a normally spoken language. I'm not sure whether I want to keep or delete these lists, but they do seem kind of useless overall. Adam Bishop 01:41, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. --Menchi 02:48, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. But if it is decided that Wikipedia is the right place for a list like this, I'll be happy to provide a list of Dutch names of countries. Eugene van der Pijll 11:32, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary. We used to have similiar tables in the encyclopedia, and they were also moved. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:14, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are worse lists we could make. Wiwaxia 06:02, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete/move to Wiktionary. Translations are clearly dictionary work. Andre Engels 11:43, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 1

  • Nothing to do with Cheese and Ignacio Lopez - Google returns no relevant hits for either. appears to be self-promotion. Maximus Rex 19:27, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Andy Mabbett 19:33, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • They have also been deleted before (well, NtdwC has). Adam Bishop 19:36, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Don't Delete. I wrote it, I don't see why it should be deleted. It isn't "self-promotion" considering that I am neither "Ignacio Lopez" or "Nathan Carvell". I merely read their comic and liked it. Vincent.
      • Was this something that was actually published? Wondering simply, -- Ifrog
        • as opposed to simply wondering? ;-) Andy Mabbett 10:34, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Vincent, do you know Ignacio Lopez and/or Nathan Carvell personally? If not, this could be a good argument for keeping the article. Wiwaxia 06:02, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Unverifiable. Angela 23:17, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No google hits for the title + writer together. No evidence yet that this was ever actually commercially published or availible. -- Infrogmation 23:44, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 04:05, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete unless some verifiable information can be found. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:17, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • What is "ironic" with "Nothing to do with Cheese"? Is it about cheese? Delete, unless verified that this actually is about cheese (or otherwise is actually about something - Marshman 02:36, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • A google search resulted in about 60 hits on "Nothing to do with cheese", but all of them as simple text, not as the name of anything, let alone of a comic. Ignacio Lopez + comic also gave no hits that seemed relevant. No relevant hits on Nathan Carvell. The article itself says Ignacio is "trying to get his work published". Delete.

November 2

  • Viviparous, Oviparous, Ovoviparous no sententences, articles refer only to sharks, but should cover all animals. Probably retrievable, but not by me. jimfbleak 08:19, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Tried to update, did not know this was common for other animals than sharks. never heard it mentioned for anything but sharks. For my info what other type of animals 'use' Ovoviviparous reproduction? Anyway delet if you wish, just trying to help. Stefan 08:37, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • For sharks? I've always associated the words with snakes. Snakes are talked about as being etiehr oviparous or ovoviparous, since there are species of both kinds in this suborder. The articles on these words should be expanded if they're only about sharks . . . expanded for other animals distinguished within one taxon (oviparous vs. ovoviparous mammals), and distingished as they are useful comparing different taxa (birds are all oviparous, while onychophorans are ovoviparous). Wiwaxia 06:02, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • These stubs are under one hour old! Please allow some time for their development. Andy Mabbett 08:33, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't be better for Wikitionary? --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 09:56, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • probably OK now, keep in Wkipedia, can be developed further, or perhaps merged as a suitable topic jimfbleak 10:29, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep for now. Daniel Quinlan 02:55, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. They need work, not deletion. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:24, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. They merit expansion, not such early deletion. Isn't a wiki supposed to be allowed to grow? JamesDay 00:54, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • List of countries involved in World War IV not entirely sure what this is, seems to be someone's opinion. Maximus Rex 17:15, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. A POV list on a POV topic. One person creating a term doesn't justify one article let alone two. MK 12:24 (EST) 2 November 2003
    • Delete. Irredemably subjective. -- Finlay McWalter 17:30, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete...should there even be a World War IV article? Adam Bishop 18:22, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. But i dont think is subjective. A country either supports or not USA policies - this is very objective. (Mine does, unfortunately.) I just think that WWIV was a term which is not widespread invented by some especialist. I think the WWIV should go to. Muriel Gottrop 18:37, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge with parent article. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Delete, no good basis for the list. Fuzheado
      • On second thought, merge with Coalition of the willing since that page does not have a list of "willing" countries. Fuzheado
        • Delete completely. The list isn't even very accurate. Canada, for instance, did not support the war in Iraq. - SimonP 01:33, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
        • Canada supported the invasion of Afghanistan though...being involved in WW4 presumably refers to more than just Iraq. But, still delete :) Adam Bishop 02:50, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 02:55, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 04:05, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This is an (over-)simplification of information which belongs in War on Terrorism. Onebyone 11:17, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. FearÉIREANN 20:43, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:24, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Tsesungunille
    • Unless any evidence can be found to support this, it should be deleted. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Delete. Somebody's fantasy. RickK 02:17, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC
    • Delete. Daniel Quinlan 02:55, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 04:05, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, but note that the language mentioned is real. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:24, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Talossan language. A stub about the fictional language of a fictional place. RickK 02:33, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • That's a very popular and famous conlang. It's spoken for a large micronation, with many members who create words for it. Talossan is perhaps best known for having probably the largest vocabulary of any non-auxiliary conlang -- well over 10,000 words, perhaps 15,000 if I remember correctly, all based on Romance language word roots. It's well-respected and aspired to across the conlang community for its large vocabulary, and is probably also the best-known example of the micronational language genre of conlang. Keep. Wiwaxia 02:43, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this information (including the fact that it's a conlang, which isn't even mentioned) could be added to the article? RickK 02:45, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Only 2,130 hits on Google, barely even shows up on the net. Daniel Quinlan 02:55, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
      • Put down your crack pipe. 2,130 hits on google->Keep. dave 08:09, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC) - agree Andre Engels 12:31, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Del. --Wik 04:05, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • I've bumped into this numerous times over my web-surfing years. It's a real and prominent artificial language, probably more so than Toki Pona. No reason to delete. -- VV 05:49, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Keep. Just because a language has few speakers doesn't make it insignificant. Kricxjo 23:30, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I've heard of it before; it likely has as many speakers as other minor constructed languages. But please, no longer historic sagas for the so-called micronation... -- Stephen Gilbert 00:04, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 3

  • Bush dynasty -- all guessing, little basis in fact, no references. -- Mattworld 03:07, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. The consensus on the talk page seems to be the same as well. Daniel Quinlan 03:14, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, we already have Bush family conspiracy theory, FWIW. Fuzheado
      • I don't think that's the right reason to keep or delete this article. The two articles are quite unrelated except that they are about Bush, a favorite target of some. Daniel Quinlan 04:55, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
        • You're right, of course. It was more to say, "We've already got one runaway article as dumping ground for anti-Bush comments, so let's keep it at one." Or, as you've proposed below, less than one. :) Fuzheado
    • Merge with Bush family conspiracy theory Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • For me, whether this should stay hinges on whether it's true that commentators use this phrase. If it really is used by pundits and columnists, it's reasonable to have an entry on the term. If not, not. It's not the same as the conspiracy theory, either. -- VV 05:58, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Unnecessary article about something that doesn't exist. Maximus Rex 06:24, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, moving the tiny amout of useful info. DJ Clayworth 17:49, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. In less than half a page of the 75,000 Google hits I found stories using this by the: New York Times, CNN, Guardian (a major, serious, British newspaper), Village Voice, Cincinnati Enquirer and St. Petersburg Times(FL). This isn't about conspiracy theory any more than the Kennedy family article is. The Bush family actually managed to get 2 Presidents so far and is still going strong. JamesDay 01:41, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Not to nitpick, but Google only gave me 5k hits for the term. Maximus Rex 02:12, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Nitpicking is fine.:) I didn't require the words being adjacent because I was interested in talk about Bush and dynasty, not only the exact phrase. Didn't see too many false hits with the broad search before I got the pieces I listed here, so I didn't refine the search further. JamesDay 07:17, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Move to Dynasties in US politics or the like, put in headers for Kennedy, Daley, Gore, arguably Powell, and lots of historical ones I'm not familiar with (gee, if only there were a wikipedia article about that) and list on Wikipedia:Cleanup. -- Finlay McWalter 02:00, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. unless the slant of the article changes to revealing the holes in the logic and revealing the lies propogated in the theories. Kingturtle 08:23, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • This one isn't about the conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theory one below is. JamesDay 08:36, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Old Granny Sweat Weed -- this item completely fails the google test (no hits whatsoever) as does the name of the person the unspecified species of nettle is allegedly called after. Also, there are no Wikipedia links to this page.Vicki Rosenzweig 04:12, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete -- unverifiable. Maximus Rex 06:24, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, no Google hits. Fuzheado 09:04, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Kricxjo 23:29, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The originator of the article cites History of Rumford, ME as a source; I'd recommend leaving at least for now. Google's not the be-all and end-all. - Hephaestos 23:17, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Does anyone, possibly in the US northeast, have access to this book? It's referenced at [3] as A History of Rumford, ME: 1774-1972 by John J. Leane, but as far as I can tell it is no longer in print, and no copies of it exist in southern California library systems (I've checked both the LA county public library network and the one 30-university library network I have access to). Even if nobody can track a copy down, given that it is a real book, I'd suggest giving the author the benefit of the doubt and keeping the article. --Delirium 08:18, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)
  • Bush regime - YA page on Bush, whether this page is considered "encyclopedic" or not, I don't think it can stand alone as ever being much more than a definition that cites its usage. Maximus Rex 06:32, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Every leader's rule is called the "X regime" at one time or another, so this is non-notable. If the Ted Rall piece mentioned in the article is notable, move that mention to Ted Rall's article. Onebyone 10:45, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. We could just as easily have Thatcher regime, Reagan regime, Putin regime, Kohl regime, Nixon regime, etc. --Delirium 11:37, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge with Bush family conspiracy theory. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • I agree with Lir - merge and redirect. --mav
    • I agree. Regime as a term is normally used to describe (i) pre-modern non-constitution based governmental systems (eg, re-revolutionary France, pre-revolutionary Russia), (ii) non-democratic military-based governments or authoritarian dictatorships, (Nazi regime, Pinochet regime, Vichy regime, etc) etc. Bush may IMHO be an unattractive figure, and questions may exist about the manner of his election, but 'regime' is the wrong word to use about an elected politician answerable to voters. So delete and merge. FearÉIREANN 19:31, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Presidential trivia - trivial. sometimes unfounded. Kingturtle 06:36, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. I suggest that you read the cites in the article talk and the wiki source. Looks as though you object to the Clinton one you removed, saying that the source was inaccurate. Can you support the claim that the author was inaccurate? If you can, I agree that it shouldn't be there. Surprised that you thought the Reagan quote was interesting enough to merit staying in the article on him but the article containing curiosities about the presidents, which is where it came from, isn't worth having around. Thinking the quote worth keeping around seems to suggest the opposite. JamesDay 09:25, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Unattributed oddities makes this article seem ripe for misinformation. Any other articles in this type of format in Wikipedia? Fuzheado
      • The sources are the US Bravo TV channel and a book author, links to the sources in the article source and direct quotes from them in the talk page. JamesDay 17:37, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. I thought the FDR quote happened more like once. --Jiang
      • I went with what the source said. No idea myself how often it happened. JamesDay 08:36, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't see any need to have a page like this. If the trivia are considered worth keeping (no statement either way on this from me), move them to the pages about the presidents themselves, then delete. If not, just delete. Andre Engels 11:33, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Gator - is that the only thing GATOR should redirect to? Gator should either be a disambiguating page, or deleted. Kingturtle 06:47, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Onebyone 10:47, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep, though why this is here instead of edited... No view either way on the disambiguaton question. JamesDay 17:37, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Closings and cancellations following the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks - wikipedia is not a newspaper; the article is hopelessly outdated: "Reagan airport (in Washington, D.C.) is still closed one week after the attack." --Jiang
    • Delete, merge if information still interesting. Fuzheado
    • Keep or merge and redirect. It is a valid collection of information about the response to a huge terrorist event. The closings and cancellations caused by 9/11 is unprecedented in US history. The article is also a daughter article of the 9/11 article. Thus it naturally is more focused. Do not delete! --mav 16:10, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge and delete. DJ Clayworth 16:17, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep; merging all of the sub-pages would make the main 9-11 article way too large. I've corrected the tense. JamesDay 18:09, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • No you haven't! The sentence I quoted is still there. I'm not asking that all articles be merged. Some are just not worth keeping. Are we interested in every minute detail? "Disneyland and Walt Disney World were closed." Closed until when? For how long? The article doesn't contain much in fact. Sentences like these don't need to be merged. They can be deleted. --Jiang
    • That edit was initially lost while connecting to the server and never posted. I redid it a few hours later. Looks as though you posted here between the time of my initial attempt to save the change and the time I redid it and it got through. Yes, I do think that there's merit in including quite a lot of detail of how the US shut down various systems and facilities in response to the attacks. Not as much as I'd like to see in this one yet and I'll probably add more once it's off VfD, if its still around. JamesDay 16:28, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Yes, there needs to be more detail, but this article lacks it. The current article just lists a whole bunch of stuff that was closed without saying how long they were closed, the effects of the closings, etc. The details (and significance) should be added for this article to stay. We don't need to know that the Sunnyvale Daycare Center shut down for a day either! So what if Disneyland shut down? How often do they shut down? How unprecedented is this? The flight cancellations could be merged with economic effects...we dont have to merge all into the main article. Another extremely outdated sentence: "As of November 2001, it has been rescheduled to March 2002 and moved to a holiday resort outside Brisbane involving a more restricted program" --Jiang
    • Delete. Anything of historical significance can be merged. -- Minesweeper 02:21, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Relief funds created in reaction to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks - maybe the sentence "Many relief funds were immediately set up to assist victims (personally and economically) of the attacks." is worth merging w/ the main article, but otherwise, the article is useless. Page was created 23 Sep 2001. We're no longer donating. --Jiang
    • Delete, agree. Merge and delete. Fuzheado
    • Merge and redirect. --mav 16:13, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep; merging all of the sub-pages would make the main 9-11 article way too large. JamesDay 18:09, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • See above. I did not propose to "merge" all subpages. The content on this one is just insufficient. --Jiang
    • Sentence above was merged into main article; any other useful info was merged into Financial assistance following the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks (what's the difference?). --Jiang 04:20, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Anything of historical significance can be merged. -- Minesweeper 02:21, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Schlesien It seems to me, that we have 2 different articles abot the same (Silesia and Schlesien are the same.! I think we should merged them together and redirect Schlesien to Silesia or delete. GH
    • They most likely should be merged, but I see no case for deletion of anything, so Wikipedia:Duplicate articles seems like a better place for this. --Delirium 09:46, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
    • "Schlesien" definitely does not have a place in the English Wikipedia since it's not the English name for the place and never has been (unlike Danzig/Gdansk!). Merge it with Silesia. -- Arwel 10:36, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Merge with Silesia, but with care since Silesia is currently protected due to a neutrality dispute. Keep as a redirect. Onebyone 11:00, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. No need of merge, since it seems just that someone get irritated over discussion over Silesia and wrote his own article basde on older version of Silesia article instead. [[user::szopen|szopen]].
      • Are you surprised? Really? A more co-operative attitude could have avoided this. Listing the page here seems rather to be a step in the ongoing German-Polish struggle on how wikipedia should relate to the effects of the Oder-Neisse line. If wikipedia exerts in neglecting and belittling the pre-1945 inhabitants, of which quite few are still alive as ex-pats, where would you expect the supressed POV to pop up? Compare to how wikipedia handles similar areas, as for instance Karelia, Trieste or Northern Schleswig. The deletion of Schlesien would be of no use and do no good unless the dispute be solved at Talk:Silesia. Revert to the redirect instead, protected if neccessary.--Ruhrjung 12:43, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Nothing to merge there. Just redir to Silesia. --Wik 23:04, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
  • Cognitics and cognition theory. Cognitics appears to be a neologism for cognition, I only get 37 Google hits, The cognition theory article may have some useful information, but should probably be merged with cognition or cognitive science, and we already have about 5-6 articles that begin with the prefix "cognit*", I don't think we need another pair. --Lexor 11:52, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • One of these were just listed on Cleanup. Can we give em a few more days? -- Viajero 12:03, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not for original research or speculation. Daniel Quinlan 05:40, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
    • Moved earlier discussion with User:Dessimoz to User talk:Dessimoz. --Lexor 11:41, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. --Wik 23:04, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
  • Spiked - we probably could use an article on this subject, but I doubt this is it. - Hephaestos 22:35, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete, Wiktionary at best. Fuzheado 03:02, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. There is already a good article on this subject at Spindle. This one is dopey - Marshman 02:25, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 4

  • Cory Hall - I don't see what's so special about this building. --Jiang 06:04, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Hm, there's also Soda Hall and Evans Hall. And, further away, Badock Hall. -- VV 07:29, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • The last building in the series is That's Hall. Andy Mabbett 17:37, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I dont support deletion of Soda Hall and Evans Hall (but dont oppose either). Those buildings are a little bit more well known. --Jiang
  • I think they can all be redirected and merged to the main UCB article. Cory Hall is probably the best one known outside of the campus as the site of two attacks by the Unabomber. --Minesweeper 02:21, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • These kinds of "stubs" are not worth anything. If the person adding these really wanted to do something useful, they could have put listeed the buildings on the UCal Berkeley article. My guess is, that in the world there will be a dozen buildings (or rooms) with each of these names. Delete until someone serious can build the UCB article (or one about its campus) -- Marshman 02:25, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Global warming hypothesis - This seems to just be about some random lecture given eight years ago, and has no information of the kind I would expect (such as something about, say, the global warming hypothesis). Maybe this was a super-important lecture, but if so it doesn't indicate so. -- VV 07:22, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • UKLOM. Three Google hits for United Kingdom Learning Object Metadata and 1 relevant one for UKLOM. Just a draft proposal. Angela
    • Keep. Does an article need a lot of google 'hits' to be in the wikipedia? Although this is a draft proposal, it is going forward to be a standard for tagging in the UK. User:Kabads
    • Definite keep. Bmills 16:03, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. >400 hits for "UK LOM", moved page to that name. Maximus Rex 21:34, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • But most of those 400 have nothing to do with this article. Try searching "UK LOM" + "Learning Object" and it's only 75. I don't think a draft document warrants its own article. Maybe once it is published it could have, but not before. Angela 22:03, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
      • So is Angela proposing that we delete this and then re-write it when this schema becomes a standard? Surely this is a waste of effort?
    • I suggest merging (and perhaps paring down slightly) content with metadata, under a section "Proposed standards" or somesuch. That way the content is not lost, but we don't have an entire article on it either. --Lexor 00:47, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Merging with Learning Objects, which needs to be case-fixed, and redirecting seems best to me until there's more content. I'm doing the merging after saving this; I'll leave it to the VfD result to put in any redirects... JamesDay 07:26, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

November 5

  • Abek - another of User:SmartBee's pages. No confirmation found on google, and the mere existance of 'ancient Basque explorers' must be considered minority POV, let alone them having established a city in Brazil and made a mixture of languages there. Andre Engels 12:38, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_May_2004&oldid=1677062"