Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jiang (talk | contribs) at 04:47, 9 June 2004 (→[[Template:NAMm]], [[Template:APECm]]). 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. 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

Individual debates older than five days

May 22

Mew glitch

This is a game guide entry. It can probably be fixed up and be transwiki'd to Wikibooks and deleted. Guanaco 17:01, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. This goes along with Mirror Coat - it, and any other relevant Pokemon articles could be transwiki'd to Wikibooks and merged into one Pokemon strategy article, then deleted here. PMC 18:11, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Wikibooks Pokemon game guide keeps sounding like a good idea. -- Cyrius|&#9998 07:01, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the sound of that. 16:18, May 23, 2004
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, but worthy of Wikibooks. The Wikipedia Pokémon Team has plans for a Pokémon section at Wikibooks, last time I checked. Some of it seems to be covered in Missingno.. kelvSYC 02:28, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


May 23

Ambiversion

Relatively obscure dic def. Anything encyclopedic about it could probably go on the introversion and/or extroversion (which are barely more than dic defs themselves, mostly redeemed by being myers-briggs typs). Niteowlneils 20:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • There could be an article on this, but this isn't it. Work on, else delete - David Gerard 22:58, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, that's why it's marked "stub". Many other stubs aren't articles yet either. Should those be deleted as well? I'd say keep, if only because I think stubs give more initiative to improve it to a good article than an empty page does. Besides, listing it in "votes for deletion" less than 50 minutes after the page was created doesn't give it much change, does it? Abigail 12:36, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • True. A week should be enough time for it to become something worth keeping. - David Gerard 13:05, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Is this the only stub you are willing to give a week, or do you want to delete all stubs older than a week? Abigail 13:54, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not speaking of "all stubs," and didn't say I was. I'm speaking of this one. If you're so attached to it, you could edit it to make it better ... - David Gerard 14:15, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • I could understand someone who likes all stubs to be removed within a week. But you are focussing on this stub. Why do you want to delete this one, but not others? What makes this so special? And no, I'm not attached at all to this stub. But I'm not attached to most of the content on Wikipedia - that doesn't mean I support deleting it. Abigail 15:06, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • Not all stubs are equal by a long shot. And in any case, I've changed my mind about this one. - David Gerard 15:37, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. VfD is not Cleanup - Lee (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, you're right - this one should go to cleanup. - David Gerard 15:37, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Move it to Wiktionary and delete. If/when someone has more content to write than this sub-stub, they can easily recreate the article. Note that the two far more relevant articles introversion and extroversion are themselves still stubs. Rossami 21:56, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move it to Wiktionary and delete. The only stub whose deletability is relevant to this discussion is this one, for which no one has rebutted the argument that it cannot rise above stubdom. Even if it can, it will resurrect when introversion and extroversion have risen above stubdom. (They may take a long time to do so, but they clearly deserve the time, unlike this one.) --Jerzy(t) 05:27, 2004 May 28 (UTC)

Political terrorism

Either a copyvio or original research. RickK 23:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not an article, merely some observations. Use whatever is useful in other articles, then delete. Wyllium 23:45, 2004 May 23 (UTC)


    • Wikipedia is not a place for original research. RickK
  • Seems like "Political terrorism" could be a title for a genuine article, but that's something that this isn't. it's unformatted, unwikified, ugly, and uninformative. Either major cleanup, or delete. blankfaze | &#9835 01:47, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, you are right. Delete it promptly.
      Wishes. ODM.
  • Under the heading of don't bite the newbieWikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers, I'd like to suggest (and I will try myself) stubifying this article for now and thanking ODM for an honest first attempt. I found it a very interesting read, though very POV to be sure, and in need of wikifying. ODM, I hope you'll take the time to develop this into an encyclopedic form. Denni 01:24, 2004 May 25 (UTC) [Markup by Jerzy(t) 06:10, 2004 May 28 (UTC)]
  • I think too little consideration has been given to taking ODM at face-value. He says he wasn't trying to post an article, and that this is largely a misunderstanding. Are we so stove-piped now that we can't do anything but VfD decisions here, even if common sense requires we go a little off-topic? I request "unanimous consent to suspend the rules", and extension of this discussion for up to a total of 10 days (instead of the standard 5-day cycle), with the goal of finding an article-talk page that may not be perfect for his "notes", but will be more suitable than this page and Political terrorism. It may be interesting to see what it will lead to. ("Exhibit A" for this proposal is MediaWiki:VfD-Nalgene, where, about 30 hours ago, i spewed all sorts of crap that wouldn't belong in Nalgene onto that page (in lieu of Talk:Nalgene), which crap then morphed into a (so far) uniformly praised edit of the article.) I don't expect much to come out of the first 30 hours after the current contents of Political terrorism land on a suitable talk page, but 30, or 90, days may do wonders. --Jerzy(t) 07:46, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
  • Since my first comment was not a vote, this one is: Keep. It needs work, but the basic concepts are worth retaining. Denni 18:14, 2004 May 28 (UTC)

May 24

Chinese cannibalism

see also Talk:Chinese cannibalism

The page tries to justify the sporadic, isolated and fictitious occurences of cannibalism using grossly generalising indicative adverbs, such as "often", "in general", "mostly", "not uncommon" and sentences as "Unlike other civilizations, China has a rich history of cannibalism...relatively common in China" [intro]. . Readers will be induced to accept that cannibalism is a common practice in China. Ktsquare (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Double-plus-yuck. It's not accurate, Marco Polo reported that the Chinese of the time held the Japanese in contempt as "cannibals", and the practices described, except for a few of the (probably unnecessarily) gory details, all appear in other cultures. This could be NPOVed and verified if anyone has the stomach for it, but I very much doubt that we'd have an article worth keeping at the end of the process. Most likely we'd just then merge it into a sentence or two of History of China. So MWOT and delete. Andrewa 21:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it into sentences of History of China and a small paragraph of Cannibalism. History is a mirror, isn't? ---yACHT nAVEL 22:24, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, sentences of Cannibalism, that's my stand. Why do we always care what other people think of China? ---yACHT nAVEL 23:39, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but merge with history article if any accurate and sourced info. Right now that's not much. The history of the original author leaves one doubtful of the intent. Fuzheado | Talk 00:17, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For reasons others have given. Reliability of what's there is too questionable to merge into other articles. Anyone wanting to include this material has got to do fresh research starting from scratch, this isn't trustworthy even as a starting point. Dpbsmith 01:09, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • The orginal author of the article seems to leave aside crticial information from Kuwabara Jitsuzo's journal article which the article IMO seems to base on. Take a look of my commented article on the corresponding page. However, I still support the idea that the article must either be NPOVed or deleted. Ktsquare (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV and verify. If there is no progress within one week, then delete. If there is, then keep. --Jiang 02:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Opinions of just one Japanese historian don't deserve an article, for reasons Dpbsmith has given, until they are carefully justified by the academia and the public. Please refer to rule 10 of What_wikipedia_is_not#What Wikipedia entries are not Ktsquare (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know your presumably unusual definition of "primary research," but if you claim that Chinese cannibalism was only dealt by Kuwabara Jitsuzo, it's a total fallacy. There are numerous accounts, from academic papers including 支那人人肉ヲ食フノ説 by 神田孝平　(『東京学士院会雑誌』, 1881), to popular books like 呪われた中国人 中国食人史の重大な意味 by 黄文雄 and 食人宴席―抹殺された中国現代史 by 鄭義. I'm not familiar with western research, but Kuwabara Jitsuzo's article was to prove that an account of cannibalsim by muslim merchants Solayman and Abu Zayd. And Lu Xun even made cannibalism the symbol of Chinese legacy to be abolished. Did your remark come from a strategic reason, or don't you really know that? --Nanshu 03:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anythign can be salvaged merge to cannibalism and not anywhere else. The Land 15:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chinese cannibalism is an interesting topic for Wikipedia to deal with. There are numerous records of cannibalsim in official documents and fiction. It deserves an independent article. --Nanshu 02:46, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think it's a major part of history;it's more of a personal insult, like "I'm gonna eat your heart and liver"Wareware 03:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it as a paragraph of cannibalism. -Poo-T 26 May 2004
  • Keep. This is an intriguing, well-documented fact. It merits an independent section when someone could provide a lengthy, detailed information thereof. And stop deleting my vote. That's not fair. May 28, 2004. Hermeneus
    • IP w/ this as first edit. Do not count this vote. --Jiang 22:04, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh? I've been using this place at least for three years now. "Learned cannibalism in China is different from cannibalism elsewhere. It is unique in the sense that it is an expression of love and hatred, and a peculiar extension of Confucian doctrine." "We need to remind ourselves that the Chinese people are not particularly different from the other races of the world as far as the practice of survival cannibalism is concerned. When it comes to learned cannibalism, however, its practice is quite different. Worthy of note here is the fact that some types of learned cannibalism are found only in China." (Key Ray Chong, Cannibalism in China. Longwood Academic: Wakefield, NH. 1990.) It's an established, traditional culture of China.
      • Sign for it? Wareware 04:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Your vote" was not deleted, because what was signed as Hermeneus was actually done by 222.1.42.161. I only asked that the real Hermeneus make the Hermeneus edit. Fuzheado | Talk 16:17, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge it into another larger category. So far, the "facts" mentioned in the article could only be minor incidents -- which, I believe, can be found in the whole human history. The famous cannibal criminal who ate his girlfriend in Germany many years ago, he happened to be a Japanese. But I won't conjure up an article and say "cannibalism is common in Japan." Also, the author's understanding of acient Chinese phrases is arguable -- many of which were actually fictional way of decribing things, not necessarily facts. However, I respect the work, so it should be under a sub-category of cannibalism and stop saying "it's common." Also, references, please. Djyang 15:31, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who complain that this article contains only minor events forget that the two sections "cannibalism during famine" and "cannibalism in besieged cities" are to be filled. Those minor incidents are adopted as examples chosen from numerous incidents. And cannibalism as a filial devotion to parents wasn't trivial. It was an established custom. Also, people's reactions to cannibalism (e.g. classifying Wang Ban into 孝義伝) say much to you. --Nanshu 03:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, what do you mean? You state that Wang Ban burn up the bones of his enemy and drank it - does that signify cannibalism? For your info cannibalism involves the eating of human flesh. Not that I'm in favor of either practice, but you do have a muddled impression. Mandel 02:08, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Iraq Liberation Act

Full text of a US law. Move to Wikisource. grendelkhan|(blather) 18:31, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

SchneersonQuotes

Delete. A set of quotes of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, late leader of Chabad Lubavitch. Or merge with his biography. Or move to Wikiquote (doubtful) JFW | T@lk 19:12, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


May 28

Heck

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Heck

Miscible

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-debate miscible




May 29

May 30

Aqua_Maria

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Aqua Maria

The_Bells

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-The Bells

Battling_companion

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Battling companion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria

I put this on yesterday (with its old name) and it got deleted from the VfD page. It has been moved to a more appropriate place now, and I would withdraw the objection. It still has the VfD header on the article, it should go through the appropriate waiting period before deleting from VfD, however; and why WAS it deleted from VfD? RickK 21:23, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I promise, I don't know why, but I'm going to look in the history and try to figure it out.--Ingoolemo 06:20, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
Okay. I checked out the history, and the only thing that I can find between when I added my comment to the original VfD request was a change made by PlatinumX. My scan of the article seems to suggest that the changes made by PlatinumX may have included deleting the article (and their edit summary also points to this. However, since my skills at analysing such things are quite deficient, and my 'investigation' incriminates PlatinumX, I think someone more experienced should go in and investigate further.--Ingoolemo 06:31, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
I have gone to some effor to repair the main things RickK objects to.--Ingoolemo 20:15, 2004 May 31 (UTC)

Template:Table Sort Algorithms

  • No longer needed due to category system. I originally speedy-deleted it, but apparently some people don't like the category system as a replacement for these, so I'm putting this up here for discussion and vote. — Timwi 23:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I'm the some people). The table provides useful information that the category system doesn't. I'd like to see all MediaWiki hacks replaced with semantically proper alternatives eventually, but I oppose removing useful content until the category implementation is able to actually provide equal or superior presentation. Fredrik 01:36, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the grouping is sensible, I'd keep the list somewhere in article namespace, e.g. as List of sort algorithms. -- User:Docu
  • Go with Docu's suggestion and then delete. --Jiang 20:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I just noticed there's a table at Talk:Sort algorithm. This should be in sort algorithm, and would solve the issue completely. Fredrik 22:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (see my comment below for List of programming languages) Dysprosia 02:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete once categories are created, references to it are deleted from all the articles, and something is done about moving the table back into the article. --ssd 01:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


May 31

Template:NAMm, Template:APECm

Pointless and ugly decorations. If a country is a member, just say so in the relevant section. there's no need for us to give it a ribbon. --Jiang 20:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, right, Avala's other boxes. Yes, these are even worse than the original boxes. Delete. Snowspinner 20:56, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually i think they are pretty ribbons. But if we put one for every association a country belongs, the articles are going to start looking like Idi-Amin's general coat. So delete. Muriel G 15:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Template:PeaceLaureates, Template:EUc, Template:NATOm, Template:LiteratureLaureates too. --Jiang
  • Keep. We only delete unused templates. Strive for an editorial decision to not use the banners in articles. When the templates are unused, we can delete them ✏ Sverdrup 14:25, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • where does it say that we delete only unused templates? it's been virtually decided that these are no good. did you check to see if these were orphaned? all of them are. --Jiang 04:37, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 1

Full Nice Handbag Co

Company, not sufficiently known to be in Wikipedia. 4 google hits. Andris 06:09, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

"Not sufficiently known" is an awkward reason to not have something in Wikipedia. Most of us are probably only familiar with a tiny fraction of the topics covered. 4 google hits probably doesn't mean very much... firstly the website is very new (updated 15th May) and secondly b2b businesses specializing in physical products tend not to have much of a web presence. Keep, unless verified to be an insignificant company by some other means. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Um, I would say that 4 hits on Google "verifies it to be an insignificant company." Delete. blankfaze | •­• 14:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC
Um, did I not just explain in the very comment you are supposedly replying to why 4 Google hits is irrelevant??? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not having a significant presense in Google doesn't mean anything. I'm sure there are a huge number of significant businesses that have no Internent presense, and even then might not come up in Google. Google is not the Internet, the Internet is not the world. I would recommend keeping this article unless it in someway conflicts with Wikipedia operations. --Jeff 23:07, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This is not an ad repository and no one is going to come to an encyclopedia looking for information on a company such as this. - Lucky 6.9 18:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Who are you to judge what people will come to an encyclopedia for? What is particularly ad-dy about this entry, compared with the hundreds (probably thousands) of articles we have about companies? I think you are rejecting something because it is outside your sphere of interest and experience. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I daresay that there are a lot of articles on this site well outside my spheres of interest and experience. There are thousands of articles about companies and their products, but they are companies and products of note, notoriety, infamy, etc. If I was looking for information on a Hong Kong handbag manufacturer, I'd go to Google and find a website. The burden of proof of notoriety in this case should be on the author.
        • It is a leading manufacturer of handbags in Hong Kong (and if you've been shopping in HK, you know they sell a lot of handbags). That is sufficient proof of notoriety. Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I should also mention that many similar articles have been deleted in the past. Let's be honest: Who really would come to a site like this and enter this name? - Lucky 6.9 21:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • If the circumstances are the same as this case, then those deletions were mistaken. People may not come to Wikipedia specifically for this company, but they may come to Google, like most of our traffic. Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Although significantly leaning towards delete, might it have more Google hits in a non-English name? The name sounds like a weird translation, something that only non-English speakers would come up with. -- user:zanimum
  • Keep. Probably reasonably notable in Hong Kong; naturally Google is biased towards companies in English speaking countries. Everyking 20:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless someone can provide results from google.com.hk that this is notable, then it just looks like unnecessary self-promotion to me. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:11, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • I fail to see how this would be considered self-promotion. The article will only be found if someone is ooking for information about this company, or if another article links to it. Another article will only link to it if the conpany has any significance; if not there is nothing to worry about it. --Jeff 23:07, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • For the third time, since when is Google the final arbitrator of anything? A significant proportion of the information I add to Wikipedia comes from books, and can not be found through Google (well it couldn't, until I added it to Wikipedia and hence to Google :-). It is not immediately obvious that this is self-promotion (the IP in question has lots of HK-related edits). Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, strong keep. The article is reasonably NPOV and doesn't sound at all like an advertisement, just a sober statement of its business. I feel Google means little, because many significant companies (for example, established manufacturers in "old-economy" industries) tend not to get mentioned much online. Also, I agree with Pcb21--who are we to judge what people will come to an encyclopedia for? And finally, in any case, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia (sorry, I meant "not a paper encyclopedia"). I can imagine people coming here to learn about the companies they work for, much as they might come to learn about the history of the streets they live on or schools they attended. Who are we to thwart that sort of curiosity? -- Wikisux 23:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • If Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, what is it? Maybe you can help redefine it in the main page. Mandel 16:04, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: wikispam. Demonstration of notability is the responsibility of the author. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Will someone please prove their baseless claims that this is spam. This is a b2b textiles company. There is no reason to call this spam.
  • I can't help but start to see this article as a bit of a litmus test of how deletionist has become in the last X months. I ask those in favour of deletion, which part of the deletion policy are you wanting to kill this under? And why do you see the article's existence as detrimental to Wikipedia? Pcb21| Pete 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • "List pages that you believe have no potential to become encyclopedia articles." blankfaze | •­•
      • The article is already longer than many articles in various printed encyclopedia I've seen in my day (Britannica, New York City, Encarta). -- Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • "List articles that contain no verifiable information." blankfaze | •­•
      • The information presented in this article is verifiable and true, as some cursory internet research will show. --Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete This company has no political, cultural, historical significance. This isn't a accessories catalogue. Who would use this information? It does't have the history required by a commercial company to deserve an encyclopaedia entry. Where is the potential for it to grow beyond a stub? Employee of the month lists? Product ranges? We have to remember that Wikipedia isn't an infinite space where we have space for this stuff. Ask the creator to justify the page at least (if he/she hasn't).--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 23:37, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • The creator of the page was an anon. They easily might not find this debate. I have thus assumed responsibility for creation by proxy for the purposes of defending it. I justify the page by saying that it has verifiable encyclopedic information, and that it doesn't meet any criteria for deletion under our deletion policy. No threshold for how politically, culturally or historically important a particular company has to be is given. The threshold is that the information has to be verifiable and factual, and that someone has to be bothered to write it. Pcb21| Pete 07:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It is an ad, people. Delete it. RickK 23:40, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • If it is not NPOV, edit it. Pcb21| Pete 07:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • What's to edit? This is nothing but advertising, and as such, does not belong on Wikipedia. Are we going to allow articles on every small company in the world, with one paragraph saying what they do and a link to page to buy their products? If so, we might as well start selling ad space. RickK 19:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
        • Firstly, I don't see the problem with allowing people to write articles about small companies, as long as they are factually accurate and NPOV (as this article is.) Secondly, RickK, based on the evidence, I would submit that this article is NOT AN AD; it appears to have been written in good faith. The anonymous user has a long history of edits related to Hong Kong and China. — Wikisux 00:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • We have literally thousands of articles on things with links to commerce. For instance we have thousands of articles on fictional characters, all of whom created for the purpose of making money. The fact that there seems to be a willingness to keep them, but perhaps not this is indicative of a systematic bias. People want this article deleted because it is about a plain old non-western manufacturing company, rather than cosy western computery domain of understanding. But for a lot of readers, this company's existence is more significant than those daft computer instruction articles, or Star Trek, Starcraft, Pokemon... Pcb21| Pete 09:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've got a few friends from Hong Kong. I'll ask them if they've heard of the company--not that it matters--but in the meantime, I'd say don't do anything rash. --Wikisux 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikispam. Shawn Mikula all over again. Ambivalenthysteria 12:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • No, User:130.88.185.84 isn't Mikula, he's made many edits to Hong Kong related articles. What I suggest though is that someone who speaks Chinese goes over to the Chinese Wikipedia and asks them there whether they have or want an article on the subject, possibly on their vfd page. Then, if it's good enough for them, keep if not bin it. Have posted a query at their embassy. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This appears to be the corporate equivalent of a vanity page. Verifiable and even written in a sufficiently neutral tone, but not necessarily encyclopedic. Lacking a policy on corporate entries, I have to compare it to other topics and note that we routinely keep topics which I consider far more trivial (such as TV characters and Pokemon strategies). Rossami 23:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Reference : Replies on this issue on zh.wikipedia.org is Here --Cylauj 15:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • What's there to keep? There are hundreds of thousands of such companies in Hong Kong. The company claims to export to the US and Europe, but I doubt anyone have heard of them. Mandel 16:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Starx 02:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete yesterday. No encyclopedic relevance. And the transparent crusading by a particular individual only solidifies my position. -- Stevietheman 04:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Please explain what you mean by "transparent crusading". Is it better or worse than opaque crusading? Pcb21| Pete 10:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • You're shilling for the article. Why waste one moment of your existence trying to keep this junk article in the wikipedia? -- Stevietheman 14:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I can't speak for him, but maybe he's doing it for the same reason you're spending your time crusading against it--against this short, factual, NPOV article about a real company? Maybe because we all want to see Wikipedia grow and become more useful? — Wikisux 18:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • Very strange response that's highly inaccurate. -- Stevietheman 22:00, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • There is nothing inaccurate (or strange?) about what I wrote. I think you're mistaken that Pcb21 is shilling for 130.88.185.84. Check their user histories; they are obviously different authors, and the anonymous IP has a history of nearly 50 edits on articles related to Hong Kong and China. — Wikisux 22:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
              • Yes, it's strange. I'm not the one going around commenting on everyone's vote. So to accuse me of crusading is a totally empty assertion. -- Stevietheman 16:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
              • Another point: You voted more than once. So, you hold no position to accuse anyone of anything. -- Stevietheman 17:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
                • Excuse me? Your baseless accusations are getting a little out of hand--first you accuse Pcb21 of being a shill because he engages in healthy, vigorous debate (isn't that the point of this board?) and now you've falsely accused me of casting more than one vote in this discussion. Sorry, but this is getting a little obnoxious. I'll be in the corner breathing deeply and counting to 10. Wikisux 20:53, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I've just read shill and it is obviously utterly unrelated to what I've been doing here ("A '''shill''' is a confidence trickster's accomplice who pretends to be an enthusiastic customer...") I don't know this company from Adam, I have no idea if their products are good, I utterly can not recommend them. What I have been doing of course is trying to enforce the Wikipedia:Deletion Policy for an article that caught my eye. In months past this article would've easily been kept. But over time there's been a drift towards deletionism, because the participants in vfd who are on the inclusionist side get fed up with the abuse. There are several articles that I could make this sort of stand for, but just don't have the time. The fact that making these sorts of stands is sufficient grounds to get called a confidence trickster's assistant just shows how far vfd has come (in the wrong direction). Anyone who's been around Wikipedia a while would know it is completely ridiculous to call me what you did. Pcb21| Pete 19:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • I stand by what I said. Further, shill is not fully defined in that article. A shill can also be "a person who works energetically to sell or promote something" (Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition). By criticizing so many people's honest vote, that's exactly what you've been doing. -- Stevietheman 17:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • I find your insinutation that I have some sort of profit motive for defending this article disgusting. Pcb21| Pete 20:32, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong neutral. This article falls in much the same category as non-notable secondary schools. There's no very good reason for it to be in Wikipedia, and there's no very good reason for it not to be in Wikipedia. IMHO it is silly to be expressing any strong opinion about it either way, and silly to be getting overly worked up about it. It's too long to be criticized as a substub, it's factual and probably verifiable, it doesn't use any promotional language—the company name says the bags are "nice" but the article itself doesn't make that claim. I wouldn't object to anything in it if the company were notable. Putting a non-notable company in Wikipedia is intrinsically promotional. We're using more disk space for this discussion than the article is taking up. But... there's no earthly reason to have it in Wikipedia other than that it might please the person who created the article. So... I don't care. I vehemently don't care. All be the same in a hundred years, that's what I say. Dpbsmith 19:32, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Would anyone know if this company were to close shop tomorrow? I still say delete. The author may well be eating chocolate ice-cream yoghurt this very moment while we are sweating over this. Give it an ultimatum deadline for he/she to justify otherwise delete. Mandel 21:29, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • I can't believe there are people considering keeping this 'article'. — Chameleon 22:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... This is a tough one. I think I will say keep and delete the link to the company website to make the article less ad-like. Delete the sentence that reads Its range of products include ladies handbags, unisex casual bags, travel bags, backpacks, shoulder bags, cosmetic bags, evening purses, natural & paper straw bags, and sports bags., since it sounds addish and seems to be lifted straight from the website. Maybe replace the final phrase with "...a wide variety of bags". Maybe someone might want to put a note on the author's talk page asking him what else he knows about the company and why he decided to write about it. Maybe a famous celebrity bought a bag from that company or something? Anyway, I don't see tremendous harm in keeping the article around, other than the 1 KB of space it's using on the server. Maybe in the future the article will develop into something bigger. ☞spencer195 01:35, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, reluctantly, as I like the name. If the article returns with details of high levels of employment or production or history or fashion influence or local economic notability, then I'll be happy to support it. --Zigger 03:29, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • Two of my friends who are from Hong Kong say they don't know of this company, but another friend who currently lives there says she thinks she has heard of it. She asked why I wanted to know, so I told her someone wrote an encyclopedia article about it. By the time she got done laughing, I realized how ridiculous this entire thing is. I still vote to keep. Wikisux 08:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And just because another user disagrees with you on deletion is no reason to label them a shill--amazingly, reasonable people can disagree! Meelar 05:09, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • That's not the reason I labeled that person a shill. He is a shill as he has been very very busy criticizing the 'delete' votes of so many other people, therefore deserving the label. It's fair. -- Stevietheman 17:12, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Honestly, I have not been "very very busy" doing this, it has taken only a fraction of my Wikipedia time. (Unlike you, only a very small fraction of my recent edits have been to vfd). I don't really understand why I am not allowed to question the votes of others... how else I am supposed to point out that deletion of this article is not in the spirit or letter of Wikipedia policy that vfd contributors have grown increasing ignorant of? Your original reason for voting "delete" was the very mature reason that I have been arguing to "keep". Your instinct was to "delete", seeing that view was obviously not going to get consensus, you decided to smear me by using a loaded term like "shill" and hoped to get away with it by presenting your own definition of that word. But hey let's continue this somewhere else. Pcb21| Pete 20:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It might not be of the broadest appeal, but it sounds like some people have heard of it, and those who aren't interested needn't read it. Cambyses 13:48, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This is turning into some debate. It might be significant in future trend-setting. Should Wikipedia be generally deletionist or inclusionist? Should we a) Delete unless proven to be significant; or b) Include unless proven to be insignificant?
I tend toward a). Yeah, Wikipedia is not paper, but Wikipedia isn't Google either. Not everything factual needs to be in the encyclopedia, IMO. Mandel 00:03, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps the question when considering deletion, though, is not whether everything factual needs to be in the encyclopedia, but whether anything factual needs not to be in the encyclopedia. Unless the Wiki really starts to struggle under the size of the database, what purpose is actually served by a significance test? Who suffers if there are articles of interest to relatively few people, so long as they are well-written, accurate, NPOV etc? Removing the significance test gets around the problem of defining significant, which I would argue is impossible to do in an objective, culturally neutral fashion. With the number of people in the world and on the net, an article could be of interest to only one person in a million, and still find 1,000 avid readers. Such an article might be on an arcane scientific topic, a variety of tulip, an obscure opera or the manufacturer of one's favourite handbag. Who among us is really qualified to rank other people's interests in order of importance? Best wishes, Cambyses 00:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Seriously this debate will end soon (because of the deadline), but I hope it will be carried off to somewhere else. It is pretty interesting (not on the co. per se) and is of value. Cambyses is firmly in the inclusionist camp. But if we don't practise some sensible deletionist policy won't we end up being something like the world wide web? Mandel 00:55, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
You've rumbled me there - I guess I am an inclusionist <grin>. I think merely being factual and NPOV is quite sufficient to differentiate us from the world wide web as a whole! Agree about carrying on the debate in more general terms. As a pretty new wikipedian I don't know how/where these things happen, but could somebody who knows what they are doing create a suitable discussion page or point me to it if it already exists? Best wishes, Cambyses 01:11, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Misunderestimated

Neologism. Timc placed msg:delete, which was removed by article author. Doesn't meet criteria for speedy delete, so I'm listing it here. This term is given as an example at Bushism. Google gives 26,600 hits but it is still a neologism / Bushism. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 06:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Vote to keep as a redirect to Bushism. Not sure what info should be copied to Bushism, though. Ideas? siroxo 08:12, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm... redirect sounds good, but I don't think anything can be salvaged from the article. SWAdair | Talk 09:53, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Bushism. Chameleon 13:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Bushism. Misunderestimated is one of the canonical examples, perhaps the canonical example of a Bushism so we can allowing it to be an entry, while not allowing it for every Bushism. Dpbsmith 14:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as a stub linking to Bushism. Much like a redirect, only with a nice quick information filter so that any information one might be searching for on "Misunderestimated" is still presented first. Snowspinner 15:47, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • redirect or delete. not worthy of own article --Jiang 21:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. It's a particularly notable Bushism. - David Gerard 22:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Bushism. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect -- Stevietheman 04:34, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Bushism. Now merged. --Zigger 03:43, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • Delete. What can be written aside from a defination? Falcon 03:47, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dvd to wmv9

Is there a place we can redirect this? Burgundavia 08:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, it could redirect to Ripping, but with a complete loss of the information in this advertisement article. SWAdair | Talk 10:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. All content in article is advertising. Thue 16:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; not encyclopedic. --Jeff 02:40, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Nasty ad. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 22:07, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Written as advertisement. --Zigger 01:34, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • As if more votes are needed: delete. - David Remahl 15:43, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Radiohead Messageboard

Can this not be merged into Radiohead. Burgundavia 10:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete. This has no cultural significance. Does the messageboard have any notoriety or fame? If it plays a role in the story of Radiohead it can get a mention in that article, but hardly its own one.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 10:50, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree; merge or delete. Thue 11:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok, sorry. I've mergred it with Radiohead, so it can be deleted now. :-)
    • Thanks very much. Just a note, it's considered polite to sign your posts on pages such as this. You can do it by typing 4 tildes, like this:~~~~. Yours, Meelar 18:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's just a messageboard. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Free game

This attempt at a dicdef for a possible regional slang term didn't make any sense when it was created and hasn't gotten any more useful as folks have tried to fix it. The current useful content is duplicated at pinball. Jgm 13:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)



Brook

A dictionary entry. Originally, it was POV, too ("best known use of the word in 'Stairway to Heaven'"). Stripped down to a dictionary entry, it surely doesn't need to be in the encyclopedia. Geogre 16:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I guess the only suggestion I have is wiktionary, then delete. blankfaze | •­• 17:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • As above. DJ Clayworth 17:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I have reworked the article for stream to include the definition of a brook. With this change, please see if a redirect is now appropriate. Rossami 19:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Splendid Isolation

There might be something here worth merging elsewhere, but I believe this has no article potential in its own right. -- Jmabel 17:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Well... I think this article might have some potential... might. But it's so ugly right now and so uniformative that I really wouldn't miss it if it was to be deleted. blankfaze | •­• 17:40, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an important historical approach and I think it does deserve its own article, though it needs to be Wikified and linked to other relevant articles. -- Wikisux 18:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Splendid Isolation" +Britain returns 7000 hits on google, including books and major universities. It also appears to be used in current British media (e.g. BBC[1]) as an analogy to current British foreign policy. Andris 20:38, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to cleanup, if it passes the copyvio test. It's a real phrase for a real thing - David Gerard 22:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Article needs improvement. Splendid Isolation definitely deserves one. Chameleon 11:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Krazyletter

  • Unofficial school newspaper, which competes against another unofficial paper, and an official paper. While I've advocated schools related stuff in the past, this is too much. -- user:zanimum
  • Delete. I tried for a speedy delete, but the author reverted the edit. Thanks to Zanimum for re-nominating this. - Lucky 6.9 19:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with above. Andris 20:40, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. My low faith in its value was lessened by the author spamming wikilinks to it all over unrelated articles. - David Gerard 22:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not agree. This article should be kept. If articles on a simple school newspaper can not be kept, then articles about Microsoft or Invision Power Board should be not, too. - 198.104.63.141
    • The above is, of course, by the author of the article in question, who has been spamming links to it - David Gerard 22:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Ban the author if he continually adds spam-links to the article. Mandel 16:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the article itself wasn't bad enough, the attempt to delete everybody else's votes on it makes me want it gone anyway. RickK 23:49, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • There's a big fuzzy line dividing encyclopedic from unencyclopedic, and non-noteworthy unofficial school newspapers are squarely on the side of deletion. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, and move the author's quote equating it with Microsoft to BJAODN. Ambivalenthysteria 12:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I hear you, Ambivalenthysteria Chameleon 11:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Topic unencyclopedic, and article is worthless even if the topic was worthy. Now if the article described the paper even slightly, and mentioned something interesting about the paper beyond what normal papers do (there probably isn't anything though)... --ssd 13:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It looks like its a newspaper created by 10 year olds for a local primary school, it is defintely not encyclopedia material. - Aaron Hill 05:08, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • International Community School is a 7-12th grade school. Thanks you. -Lappy512
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. And ditto to the above BJAODN comment... --Starx 03:17, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Battle of Changsha (1942), Battle of Changsha (1941), Battle of Changsha (1939)

All in Simplified Chinese, all listed since April 23, 2004 at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, but no one has translated any of them. Someone did translate Battle of Changsha (1944), which we should keep. -- Jmabel 19:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete if not translated before their time is up. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll translate all of them. They also need some NPOVing as far as I can tell. -- ran 13:19, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Done. -- ran 13:48, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Phytophagy

Could be put in Wiktionary. (User:Tothebarricades.tk added vfd notice.)

  • Have moved from adjective phytophagous to phytophagy, (please use nouns folks!) but I think this just needs cleaning up - its the kind of technical dicdef that we need. Put in Wiktionary too of course ;) Dunc Harris | Talk 20:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • probably be best to merge content with an article on phagy, which can discuss polyphagy and other types of phagy. Dunc Harris | Talk 21:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • agh! what a mess. Right first there's eating, which is essentially duplicated by nutrition which is extremely POV towards nutrition in H. sapiens, and not well written. Dunc Harris | Talk 22:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Poor design

Over-the-top POV and/or non-encyclopedic. - Lucky 6.9 21:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep; real argument, against intelligent design. POV-neutralize and wikify. Fredrik (talk) 21:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: incoherent babble at the moment. The topic might work in some other context but way too wooly and undirected at the moment. --VampWillow 21:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. Or merge into intelligent design. It's not a very good article but I don't see anything wrong with it. Googling on "poor design" evolution turns up thousands of hits, and quite a lot are relevant, suggesting that this phrase is really in use. The article is an adequate description and explanation of the way in which the phrase is used. The article characterizes "poor design" as an "argument," labelling it as a point of view, and notes that it "opposes intelligent design," so other points of view are acknowledged. The main reason for merging it into intelligent design would be to unify the range of points of view in a single place. And it's a legitimate argument. Opponents of evolution state—correctly, I think—that it is hard to understand how the human eye could have evolved through a process of small continuous modifications. But it is just as hard to understand how any sort of "intelligent" designer could have gotten the retina of the eye the wrong way around, with the blood vessels in front of the receptors—as if a digital camera ran wires across the camera's field of view—when the cephalopods get them the right away around, showing that getting it right is not biologically impossible. I don't want to discuss which argument is stronger. I'm saying a) based on Googling, "poor design" or "the poor design argument" is a real phrase in actual use; b) that it is a serious argument (having been made in various forms since the time of Darwin) with at least a trace of merit to it; c) that the article does not assert "poor design" as truth but identifies it as a point of view, and d) identifies and links to the opposing point of view. C and D make it acceptably NPOV, I think. Dpbsmith 22:43, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
(Ah. I see I was commenting on an improved version. The original really was within VfD territory. Thanks, Fredrik)
  • It looks great the way it's been rewritten. Keep new stub. - Lucky 6.9 22:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has the potential to become a good article and doesn't seem to merely be an invention of the article's author. (See this) Acegikmo1 02:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This one could be fun - something to bite into once the interface settles down. Denni 03:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks encyclopedic. →Raul654 03:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, what Dpbsmith said. Abigail 10:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to intelligent design. (And Dpbsmith's example is better than the current content.) Rossami 23:37, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into intelligent design and redirect. The int.des. article briefly mentions the poor design argument (though not by name), might as well fully expand it into a section and not fracture the topic unessicarily over multiple pages. --Starx 18:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, by a hair. I can see potential. -- Stevietheman 04:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The South End

Unremarkable student newspaper. Dunc Harris | Talk 22:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, but clean up POV (e.g. opinionatedly racist conservative slant, etc.). The history and development of this paper is probably relevant and interesting to thousands of people. I'd like to think Wikipedia could be the source for such information. -- Matty j 22:52, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't really care for these kind-of articles, but it seems to be a fairly well-written NPOV article about something that has a modicum of significance. Keep, I guess. blankfaze | •-• 23:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Classifying the newspaper as "unremarkable" is POV. I'd vote delete if the content was wrong - but if the only reason is "unremarkable newspaper", I vote keep. It doesn't hurt Wikipedia to have articles about subjects not everyone already knows about. Abigail 10:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - The paper is popular and established and the article contains information not easily available elsewhere. - TB 11:15, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've done a basic NPOVing of it. Plus, this is my father's alma mater and it's nice to see the article :-) BCorr|Брайен 11:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Del arte 19:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an established university student newspaper, and it's achieved some apparent infamy. --Zigger 03:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:36, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fire Star 00:41, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)



Beatrice Portinari,

The main article is Beatrice Portinari, while this article has an extra comma in the name. The text of Beatrice Portinari, has been copied to Talk:Beatrice Portinari. -- Micha 23:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old&oldid=3995402"