Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004

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

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

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

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

More information.

Things to consider:

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

AfD etiquette:

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

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

30^th 29^th 28^th 27^th 26^th 25^th - 24^th 23^rd 22^nd 16^th 15^th 14^th 13^th 12^th

Template:VfD frontmatter

VfD was archived on 28 May. If you need to look at old history please see the history of Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_May_2004.

Decisions in progress

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

June 25

Mei Senniang — Discussion

Not notable and/or fiction. 2 hits for "Mei Senniang", one of which is a mirror of the Wikipedia article Battle of Chang Ban, which is also the only article linking to the "Mei" article. Clicking on google's suggested "Mei Sanniang" still only gets 50 hits, most or all of which seem to say the person is a character in a video game (the name of which only gets 9000 hits, which seems kinda low for a video game). "Mei Senniang" liu gets it down to 15 hits, all the video game. Also note this name is not mentioned in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms article. Nor in the related, lengthy Zhuge Liang Guan Yu Liu Bei Cao Cao articles. Finally, Talk page has comment from someone saying they don't remember the character being in the book. Niteowlneils 02:19, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That was me in the talk page. She was a character in Kessen II, but that was only loosely (very loosely) based on Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Unless the author can come up with a reference from the book or change the article to just talk about her role in the game, this should be deleted. --The demiurge 02:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. At best, useless pseudoinformation abouta video game character. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:13, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho-fascism — Add to this discussion

Belongs on meta, or something. No evidence of the existence of a political movement terming itself "Anarcho-fascism". - snoyes 11:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well sure there is, you just have to know where to look: "Whilst the first GAndalf trial was on and signatures for the Alternative Media Gathering solidarity statement were being collected, the Neoists held a meeting on "anarcho-fascism" at the October 1997 Anarchist Bookfair and launched yet another pamphlet, Anarchist Integralism. This argued all anarchists are fascists because Bakunin once supported pan-Slavism." This passage describes the existence of such a movement by a third party, and its activity at the 1997 Anarchist Bookfair in which they hosted a workshop by that name.

Or there is this forum from last year in which an individual describes herself as an anarcho-fascist: "I consider myself a 20 year old anarcho-fascist"

Indeed, many anarchists are aware of "national-anarchist" movements claiming to exist in several places on the internet (an external link to one such site was recently place on the anarchism page). This philosophy is often interchangably refered to as "fascist anarchism". And while the history of this particular name might only be between 5 minutes and 15 years old, the philosophy itself is much older, possibly predating all other forms of anarchism. Kev 12:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This is obviously a case of trying to prove a point with a dramatic illustration of it, rather than just discussing it. I've been tempted myself. This article was never intended to be encyclopaedic, and the author knows that no such movement exists. — Chameleon 11:53, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not only have I supplied evidence for the existence of this movement, but I challenge anyone to supply evidence that it is not one of the largest anarchist factions in modern times! Kev 12:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Challenge accepted. It gets 81 hits on Google, while Anarcho-syndicalism and Anarcho-capitalism get more than 10,000. Even Anarcho-communism (surely not a mainstream anarchistic subdivision) get over 2,000. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Anarcho-communism (surely not a mainstream anarchistic subdivision)" -- Hahahahahahaha. WHAT THE FUCK are you talking about? Why do so many people who obviously know nothing about anarchism feel the need to get involved in this debate? Spleeman 00:56, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is the same fuzzy logic being used by those damned anarcho-socialists to discredit anarcho-capitalism as a major player in the anarchist movement. Just because nearly all newspaper articles published on anarchism refer to anarcho-socialism of one form or another does not mean that anarcho-capitalists are anything but a majority! Clearly, what you should be searching under is "fascism" and "anarchism" separately and count all those links, after all, this would be parallel to the claims of our capitalist brothers that the numbers of objectivists and members of the Libertarian party demonstrate the vast ranks of anarcho-capitalists. It is true that not all fascists are anarchists, but there is an "uneasy relationship" between them and it needs to be documented on wikipedia, just like the uneasy relationship refered to on the anarchism discussion page. Kev 21:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Decision to vote delete very easy when the words "Wikipedia gave birth to..." are near the beginning of the article. Saves me the trouble of reading the rest. Isomorphic 12:47, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You shouldn't have stopped there. You missed gems like: For the past 300 years many anarcho-fascists argued that the phlogiston found inside the monad particles of Proudhon's decaying corpse prove that anarchism means only "without state". It's funny but delete it anyway. MK 04:46, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, really anarcho-fascism has existed for thousands of years in its current form. It is true that it hasn't been called that by name until more recently, but clearly if our anarcho-capitalist brothers can claim a tradition extending 100 years before Rothbard first used the term (again, this claim can be found on the anarchism discussion page) then we can claim one about 2000 years ago. Kev 21:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia apparently gave birth to POV ranting. Postdlf 12:48 25 June 2004 (UTC)

The page describes a political point of view, so obviously it is going to be POV and should be left in tact. Our anarcho-capitalist brothers declared the same thing of their own page in the anarcho-capitalism discussion page in order to save themselves from a horrible bunch of qualifiers that would dilute their message. Kev 21:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• All I can say is it's fucking hilarious. A work of art. Suggestion: Delete it after the anarchism/anarcho-capitalism dispute has been resolved. Spleeman 13:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• A few bloggers seem to be using the expression, and maybe some offbeat polotical commentators, but the term is hardly widespread. Meanwhile the article is clearly way off base. Unless someone replaces it with a well-thought-out article before the end of the deadline, delete. DJ Clayworth 15:16, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep, but provide little doubt as to the questionableness of this term, the questionableness as to what it means, the suspicion of many individuals that it is an oxymoron, and note its extreme obscurity. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:36, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Hilarious, almost insanely so, but delete as original research, conjecture, neologistics or all three. BTW, I was a bad boy and disputed the sanity of the article. - Lucky 6.9 16:48, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho-fascists are very proud of their insanity, though they tend to call it either logic or economics interchangably. Thank you for adding that dispute, it better describes their philosophy! Kev 21:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete it as soon as possible. Anarcho-fascism is a logical impossibility. About the dumbest thing I've ever come across. --Tothebarricades.tk 17:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• This does exist - as internally contradictory as it may sound. The world does indeed have national anarchists, national bolsheviks etc. Move to third position and write a general discussion on them. Secretlondon 18:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• The sanity of this page is disputed.? LOL! I don't think Wikipedia has given birth to any political movements, hm? Delete. RickK 19:02, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
• "new (and yet very old, even ancient)"? Okayyyy. Hey, wasn't this concept a gag in Ferris Bueller's Day Off? Delete. -Sean Curtin 22:35, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But if you delete the anarcho-fascism page on such a silly justification you would have to delete the anarcho-capitalism page for having declared that their tradition spans far beyond the date of their origin. I object! There is clear evidence that both politics existed before they were labeled such. Kev 23:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• This page is the product of a number of POV warriors who are seeking to make Anarchism better suit their personal views of anarchism. (You can pretty quickly figure out who they are by the fact that they're supporting the page's maintenance here.) Delete the page with extreme predjudice. Snowspinner 02:17, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. We might be able to salvage it as an article based on what other anarchists think about the "national anarchist" movement, hence calling it "anarcho-fascism" would be very appropriate. Or we might turn it into a "left-anarchist critique of anarcho-capitalism" (like the anarcho-capitalist critique of left-anarchism, but with a milder sense of humor than the current version, and a warning msg) with a re-direct. millerc 04:10, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Somehow I doubt that would help return this site to some semblance of sanity and NPOV. We don't need separate pages for people to rant against rival philosophies. Such pages to little to help inform readers. What we need is for people to restrain their opinions and approach the writing of articles with the highest standards of neutrality and intellectual rigor. Thorough research, careful writing, logical organization, correct classification, and of course, careful adherence to and respect for NPOV will make this possible. My vote it still to delete it, despite its endearing humor. Spleeman 05:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well then, would you vote to delete the anarcho-capitalist critique of left-anarchism page? If so, maybe we should list it on VfD as well. Anyway, I'm sure my positive vote will be far out numbered by the votes for deletion. millerc 06:02, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes I would gladly vote to delete the "anarcho-capitalist critique of left-anarchism" page. Solidarity. Spleeman

• Send it to best of BJAODN. —No-One Jones 06:29, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Spleeman
    • Agreed! Although I was thinking of just archiving it on something like talk:anarchism/anarcho_fascism page as well, since it was a part of the conversation, and, therefore, should be archived for future reference. millerc 06:02, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, please. Or I'll send you to the nearest "exist". -- Cyrius|✎ 06:37, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• "Their philosophy is a blend of capitalism, authoritatianism [sic], and phrenology." Therefore, "anarcho-fascism" is a misnomer. Move to anarcho-phrenology. On second thought, move to BJAODN. JamesMLane 07:57, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• When I wikilinked the term I didn't realize that it could lead to the this mess. In its current form the article is a joke. But I think there is room for a serious encyclopedic article about the topic. G-u-a-k-@ 12:43, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Please. Don't be ridiculous. There is no room for a "serious encyclopedic article" about "anarcho-fascism". Come on. -- Spleeman 22:24, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Why not? There is room for an article about anarcho-capitalism :) G-u-a-k-@ 00:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Hehe :) Spleeman 00:52, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: No social phenomena so described exists. Fifelfoo 14:24, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: outright fabrication, or insignificant splinter group, or both. Even if there was a workshop at a bookfair once, it wouldn't rate an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. As impossible as a blonde redhead. Denni☯ 02:51, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)
  • What about a strawberry blonde? :) Spleeman 06:03, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Your point is oddly compelling. :P I vote delete anyway. Lord Bob 14:30, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
• delete--XmarkX 15:43, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep I found it very interesting -ZeroFuzion
• Delete. Mathematically impossible. -- Viajero 22:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

delete--XmarkX 15:43, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep I found it very interesting -ZeroFuzion

Yob

Dicdef - possible redirect candidate, but where to? Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Antisocial personality disorder perhaps? Proteus (Talk) 12:50, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, I'd say delete it. I'm the one who put in on wikipedia, but I didn't mean to. I was working on wikitionary and didn't realize I had switched back to wikipedia CGP 12:59, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

What about a redirect to Thuggee? It's kind of relative. Or you could redirect to Boy which is (as far as I know) where the word 'yob' came from (it's boy backwards). -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Perhaps there should be an article about yobs, neds, and other subspecies of insular hooligans, and their contributions to local colour and culture in the misty isles. Living, as I do, on a vast continent, I'm not sure which word is the most general; that's probably where the article should be. Smerdis of Tlön 16:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • There it is; we have an article for hooliganism. That sounds as good a place as any to redirect yob to. And ned, for that matter, which currently redirects to Ned Flanders, a character from The Simpsons. Smerdis of Tlön 18:30, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• First, there was "eep." Now, we have "yob." If it's a real term, move to Wiktionary. Eep. - Lucky 6.9 17:56, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's real, common in England & probably some other Commonwealth countries. Move to Wiktionary (along with synonym "yobbo") and both words should be redirected to hooliganism. -- Jmabel 19:24, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Ah, I've heard of "yobbo" and have used it myself. Move content to Wiktionary, make into redirects here. - Lucky 6.9 21:42, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to hooliganism. -Sean Curtin 22:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

X-ist — Add to this discussion

POV Advert for a Swiss church service. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:21, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) -- and also Image:X-istlogoswitzerlandbaselbietklein.jpg

Delete. -- Grunt (talk) 15:12, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

• Delete: Still, there's this little bell ringing in my head that suggests that "Xist" is becoming a catchphrase for a Christian (the X is a chi) sectarian development and might therefore have real content possibilities. Not like this, though. --Quasimodo, er...Geogre 15:56, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've reduced the POV. I can't see anything wrong with it in of itself, though it is a bit small time. 400 people isn't that many. OTOH, I'd guess that order of magnitude or so people are actually bothered about π day. m:Wikipedia is not paper. Mr. Jones 17:58, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Everyone knows the X-ists are part of SubGenius mythology, anyway - David Gerard 20:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

History of the Beatles — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/History of the Beatles Keep. There's information on the page that doesn't really belong on the main page for The Beatles, though it does merit inclusion.Thephotoman 04:57, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nzinga Malika Adams Jones — Discussion

Vanity by new user. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Of the worst kind. Someone give this chick a noogie for not following the BOLD FACE instructions regarding vanity pages. Delete. Please. - Lucky 6.9 16:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Vanity. Delete. DJ Clayworth 20:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Straight up vanity. At least this one looks like an encyclopedia article and not like some of the junk people try to post about themselves. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Not vanity. anthony (see warning)

  I think Cyr and anthony are saying the same thing here. I hope we start up a m:Wikifamily project soon, so there will be a place for articles like this. +sj+ 18:43, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  Actually what I'm saying is that we should keep these articles here, because they're not harming anything. anthony (see warning)

• Delete, vanity. Are you serious, Anthony? This is one of the most straightforward vanity articles I've ever seen. —Stormie 04:25, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem like vanity to me. This is useful historical information. Needs to be wikied, but that's a job for cleanup. anthony (see warning)
• Delete. --Gary D 08:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Let her register and move this to her User page. JamesMLane 06:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -- pne 11:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Yo, Anthony...this site is adding one server per month to keep up with the demand. This would be fine in a "Wikifamily" project as suggested. Why take up space with a person that is totally non-notable? This is not, IMO, "useful historical information." - Lucky 6.9 18:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • there is no connection between needing extra servers and space - we are not short of disc space - disc space is cheap. Secretlondon 22:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 22:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Incka — Add to this discussion

• Delete - advert for two-month old company - Tεxτurε 16:49, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • After VfD tag references were added to claim that it is famous. It includes references to using Wikipedia content but does not follow GFDL and reference Wikipedia on those pages. - Tεxτurε 16:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I've now fixed that problem. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
• Keep - as the company is not selling any products and the article is fully informative then I see no reason to delete it, deleting the article because it is a two month old company is not professional, as the company is similar to other companies that have articles here such as JALIC 17:57, 25 Jun 2004 (GMT)
  • Above user is the anon creator of this article. - Tεxτurε
  • That is correct. I do feel that if companies of similar size such as Jalic can have an article about them that my company is intitled to one too. My company can not get any business from wikipedia, and I was only trying to expand it's base on knowledge by including an article about my company. I agree with your policy of deleting articles about un-famous people, but I feel all companies deserve a listing as long as it is not invented as an advert for their products or services. (Comment by User:81.152.33.255)
• spam ad. delete Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:26, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The purpose is not to advertise but to inform. Alot of people search encyclopedia's such as this one for companies to get non-biased information on them. The article was not promotional and just explained what the company did and what companies it had links to.
    • When someone puts their own site up as an article it is generally referred to as a vanity posting or an advert. Since the site is two months old both concepts are supported. - Tεxτurε 17:36, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • If it is policy to delete articles that are promoting small companies in the website publishing business may I suggest you delete the article on Jalic LLC and Wikipedia's founder's company which is called Bomis.
        • You just cited Bomis' claim to fame. And Jalic is five years old, not two months. I have no objection to listing Jalic on VfD. I haven't looked at it yet. - Tεxτurε 17:53, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • Bomis is seperate from Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is a seperate foundation. The only link is with the founder both.
• Delete. Newborn companies that try to promote themselves through an encyclopedia, for crying out loud, are spamming, pure and simple. Who would come here looking for "Incka," anyway? - Lucky 6.9 17:46, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe we should list JALIC on VfD, too? --Gary D 17:49, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. New company founded by a 14-year old? Please. RickK 19:06, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I am 14 an I founded the company. Don't belive me? Go to www.companies-house.gov.uk and look at the records (director information part). I do not like people prejudice against my company for it's young age either. Jalic hasn't been a company for 5 years, but it has been in business for that long. My company was in operation for several years before it became a company.
    • Well you are too young to be legally a director of it. Secretlondon 22:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, we believe you. But to get an encyclopedia entry here you have to be a pretty major company. I know plenty with hundreds of employees and twenty-year track records that don't get an encyclopedia entry. Also there is a rule about not publicising yourself (or your own companies) here. DJ Clayworth 20:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. DJ Clayworth 20:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Small companies that make small websites are a dime a dozen. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:25, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with JALIC. anthony (see warning)
• Delete, orphan page, not nearly notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. —Stormie 03:49, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I think companies with "hundreds of employees and twenty-year track records" would qualify for articles, but Incka is still too insubstantial to be notable. JamesMLane 06:53, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Meriwether Lewis Elementary School — Add to this discussion

Article Meriwether Lewis Elementary School listed on WP:VFD Jun 25 to Jul 1 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

High schools stay, elementary schools go. Right? Take away the name and address and you're left with a gushing description of nearly every grade school in North America. - Lucky 6.9 17:40, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Oh yes, I concur, I had been a bit of a twit and presumed it was secondary despite its title. delete Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:42, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• That's for sure... Delete Ilyanep (Talk) 17:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's also not a unique search term. How many Meriwether Lewis schools are there in the US? At least this name wouldn't be so common in the UK, Aus., NZ, and India, but still. Geogre 17:47, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• This appears to be a copyvio from [1]—or is that kind of stuff in the public domain? No vote. —Lady Lysine Ikinsile | Talk 22:17, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
• I would say keep ordinarily, but that this was just copied and pasted from the school website and may be a copyvio doesn't make me feel generous. Delete unless rewritten soon. Everyking 00:55, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, probable copyvio, not otherwise notable. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:21, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Cleanup & expand or Delete. BTW see Talk:Meriwether Lewis Elementary School -- User:Docu
• Delete: not notable. BTW doesn't appear to be a copyvio as author has claimed ownership of text at lewiselementary.org. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:20, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Wrong. Keep. anthony (see warning)
• Delete. Schools have websites for a reason. The content is not needed in an encyclopedia. Isomorphic 08:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Gary D 08:55, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. In addition to good reasons noted by others, the language is so promotional as to verge on advertising. Dpbsmith 18:59, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Mug shot — Add to this discussion

dicdef. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:48, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think this could actually grow.. you could add info about historic mugshots, the smoking gun, etc etc..Rhymeless 03:41, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• This one has potential. Keep for now. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:16, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Agreed, keep. It's certainly notable as a social phenomenon. —Lady Lysine Ikinsile | Talk 06:25, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
• Definite potential. Keep. SWAdair | Talk 08:03, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. "The Smoking Gun" is full of fascinating mug shots. Agree that this has potential. - Lucky 6.9 00:10, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Cool as is, could be much better. --ssd 00:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Image Database — Add to this discussion

Article Image Database listed on WP:VFD Jun 25 to Jul 1 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Spam ad. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:48, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Advertisement. --Diberri | Talk 21:13, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Spam. --Xeroc 03:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - spam ad Patrick L. Goes 16:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

June 26

Differences between Brazilian and European Portuguese varieties — Add to this discussion

I ask the deletion, because I copied the content to Brazilian Portuguese like pages under English varieties is done. --Pedro 00:32, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect, do not delete. Merge and delete destroys page history we are legally required to keep. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:15, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It has info not in Brazilian Portuguese, and the info should be either at Portuguese language or in a separate article (which is how it is right now). I believe it should be pruned from Brazilian Portuguese instead. cesarb 19:54, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• We have an article on Differences between British and American English (though I can't find the exact title right now). Keep. RickK 21:18, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Differences blah blah is unciclopedic, I never saw an Enciplopedia artic about differences between dialects, it doesn't make sense, it makes sense in the dialect article and compare it to the "main" dialect what we call pattern. It makes in Brazilian Portuguese, to contrast to the origin dialects. And that article was and still is full of nonsence! I'm trying to correct it. And in Brazil there are two big dialects, influencing the rest of Brazil. The Rio's and São Paulo's, that are very different, because some particularities of Rio are seen has "regionalism". I'll add that in Brazilian Portuguese. For me it doesn't really make sense a "differences" article cause for me it's superfulous and trying to find differences and deceiving the public. I believe redirect is best. But you decide it. -Pedro 23:33, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • (Neutral) articles which compare languages even have their own category! Nikola 06:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • they are not two languages to be compared. And that category has only 3 items and only 1 article that is a language comparison. We cannot have the same info in several different articles (when these will be completed): Brazilian Portuguese Portuguese dialects Portuguese language etc. -Pedro 12:29, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • There's also Portuguese personal pronouns. You don't have to stuff everything in a single article, you know. Articles tend to grow and them split into other articles, and trying to put everything back in a single article will either lose things or get too big. cesarb 01:02, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • yes, there is, and it is very good to learn (even to speakers), even if it is not wikified. But that is reasonable for an encyclopedia article, maybe because of its extremely difficulty. The Brazilian Portuguese is all about that "differences" to make sense has an article, cause we are dealing with dialects here, and not languages, so we have not much to talk. And the rest of the info there is for Portuguese dialects, even if I'll not use that, because of many incorrections. -Pedro 13:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect. This should be under Brazilian Portuguese. — Chameleon 16:18, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • As Cyrius said, it shouldn't be deleted, it should in the worst case be emptied and turned into a redirect. It has relevant history which must be kept. cesarb 00:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - this sort of information is interesting to linguists and language learners. Secretlondon 22:52, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

English Catholic Parish Histories — Add to this discussion

I hate to see Wikipedia articles that are barely more than a list of links. Rmhermen 00:39, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

• I was going to remove the links from this and leave the text, but the title seems to imply it's meant to be a list of links. Is there an existing article on this topic that the text could be moved to? —Lady Lysine Ikinsile | Talk 04:14, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
• I think this article is fine in principle, but the links should be all be replaced with links to articles History of the Catholic Parish of Herford, etc, with the existing hyperlinks after each wikilink. Keep, but alter. Mr. Jones 07:23, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Alter.--Samuel J. Howard 14:30, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
• My first controversial article! I'm afraid I don't understand how the alteration would work. Could someone please explain it?--JASpencer
  • I think what's being proposed is that separate articles be made for each parish. A stub template could be made for them, linking at least to the towns and shires, and the date of each founding; perhaps a brief summary of the externally linked history could be added, which would then sit on a single page rather than all collected at once. This would remove the apparent æsthetic annoyance of having a page of mostly external links; though pending these changes I see no harm in keeping it all at one place, and I would vote to keep the article. Smerdis of Tlön 03:38, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If as the creator I am allowed a vote. I've added some explanatory text to some of the counties to flesh it out. JASpencer
• Keep. This sort of thing is useful to historians, genealogists, etc. -- orthogonal 03:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[[Wûnseradiel]] — Add to this discussion

Found this one on Special:Lonelypages. Content duplicates Wûnseradiel. Attempted to make into redirect, but editing attempts end up editing Wûnseradiel, not [[Wûnseradiel]]. Kevyn 02:07, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Page is probably the result of a bug anyway. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:13, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1024×768 — Add to this discussion

This page was placed on Votes for Deletion in June 2004. Consensus was to keep as redirect; discussion follows.

---

Please do not redirect to XGA.

Outback Inn — Add to this discussion

This looks to be an advertisement for a bed and breakfast establishment. It is one sentence long and gives no indication why the Outback Inn should be in an encyclopedia. Nothing links there. --Lukobe 07:27, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I just did the late night thing cooking up a new and hopefully useful article about old U.S. Highway 99. This, on the other hand, is nothing but a blatant attempt at free advertising. I'm certain that this is a lovely place, but delete. - Lucky 6.9 07:45, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I noticed that when I categorized the article and was planning on adding it here myself. Nothing on its website would seem to indicate that it's at all important. ShadowDragon 07:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I don't believe that lack of importance in and of itself is reason enough to delete an article. That said, the non-importance of the Outback Inn makes me doubt that this article will ever be expanded beyond a sub-stub. If someone were to write a few good paragraphs about this place, I'd be perfectly fine keeping the article. ShadowDragon 23:54, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Kind of an easy one. Glad the link was de-wikied. Geogre 12:08, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. Andris 12:53, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. anthony (see warning)
• Delete: advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Gary D 08:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -- pne 11:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 22:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Rerun Hell" — Add to this discussion

Listed as a candidate for speedy deletion by User:Duncharris. No vote. Guanaco 18:39, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: slang dictionary entry at best. Do we assume that in India, New Zealand, and Hong Kong this is an important thing? Geogre 18:58, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I though it was nonsense; I thought that boob tube is a type of garment [2], so I thought it was talking about breasts :). Merge into rerun, under a new title. I suppose Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Both terms are common slang in my part of the world, but I can't see this ever being more than a dicdef. SWAdair | Talk 00:11, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Slang dicdef, delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:31, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as is. This is quite interesting history. If we don't include this information, what's the point of calling it an encyclopedia? Paul--205.213.164.194 04:36, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Title is inherently POV. Current content is certainly badly POV. Article is an orphan. Topic is already covered in rerun. Rossami 04:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - dicdef - Tεxτurε 22:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Moving poor metals here

I think that the labeling poor metals is at least confusing. I am also pretty sure that post-transition metals is the term used allover academia. Therefore I think we should switch all the legends also away from poor metal nomenclature. Nergaal (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about moving the content of Poor metals here but I do agree that we should deprecate the use of the term from our infoboxes and lists. 'Post-transition metal' seems to be a good replacement but let's wait for others to comment before anything is done though. --mav (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Support merge. The term poor metal can refer to different groups of metals that, for the most part, overlap the same group of metals in this article. Even this article points out that there are differing definitions of "post-transitional metals", so I don't see why poor metals couldn't be worked in. It's also a subtle way of depreciating the term "poor metal". Wizard191 (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of notice has been given. I consider the issue closed in favor of a merge and think that anybody can go ahead and do it. --mav (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am 3 years late, but I am wondering how one can call aluminium a post-transition metal when there are no transition metals before aluminium. Or have I missed something? Double sharp (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Count me in too as being confused about why we call aluminum a post transition metal. I'm also somewhat confused about why the term 'poor metal' was deprecated. What we call the post transion metals are better called poor metals, which would include aluminum. The post transition metals then become a subset of the poor metals. Sandbh (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Plaigarism?

The first paragraph of section one is copied word-for-word from http://www.chemistry.patent-invent.com/chemistry/poor_metals.html Jhalkompwdr (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, first, the first sentence is different. After a small bit of research it appears the second sentence is completely legit. The oldest copy of your weblink is from January 2007 (here), so the last edit before January 2007 of the Wikipedia article has the sentence (here). That means the webpage copied it from Wikipedia. The third sentence looks like it could have been copied from the webpage, because it was changed in February 2007 (here). So, if perhaps the last sentence ought to be reworded. Wizard191 (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Zinc, Cadmium, and mercury are transition metals

I think you should remove Zn, Cd, and Hg off of the side, unless... there is a reason to leaving it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Poor and post transition the same, so

Since poor and post transition metals are the same set now, we could get rid of the second graph right? -DePiep (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Reason for naming? -poor metals

Anyone know Why they are called Poor metals and the history behind it? --B. Srinivasa Sasidhar 01:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bssasidhar (talk • contribs)

Article move

On 17 August 2013 I moved Post-transition metal to Poor metal, as part of a technical move request. Due to WP:Parallel histories the move was not simple. The old content of Poor metal has been preserved in Talk:Poor metal/Old article copy and the old talk page is at Talk:Poor metal/Poor metal old talk page. A couple of paragraphs of content were taken from the old article to the new one by cut-and-paste in 2008 and these old copies should be kept around to maintain attribution. The {{Copied}} template is sometimes used to flag these cases of copying within Wikipedia. The details of the cut-and-paste move can be seen at [3] and [4]. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The move was part of "option 10" changes (diatomic and polyatomic nonmetals) WT:ELEM#Implementing_option_10. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge- was it an improvement?

Personally I think not. Post transition was a well defined group of metals (unless of course you get confused by the idea of post being after!) The lede is a brave but unreferenced and probably unreferencable attempt to classify these metals by their properties. Aluminium stands out as being further from the lede definition than the rest. For example it has a close packed structure and good electrical conductivity, but the unusually high interatomic distance does not indicate covalency. According to Chemistry by Holman and Stone aluminium is called a poor metal because its oxide is amphoteric. This isn't a good criterion either - the wikipedia article on amphoteric oxides says "Some other elements which form amphoteric oxides are chromium, gallium, copper, antimony, bismuth, indium, silicon, titanium, vanadium, iron, cobalt, germanium, zirconium, silver, tin, and gold" and some of the metals in the list aren't usually considered to be poor metals. I can see why IUPAC deprecate this grouping. Axiosaurus (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As a sidenote: wikitechnically, it was not a merge. Before, poor metal redirected to the content page post-transition metal. Today, it is the other way around. A redirect has or had its own section in the content page. This does not resolve the point Axiosaurus makes. As I understand it, the two are defined differently (e.g. wrt Aluminium) on this one page. In the periodic tables we have, today we only use the category "poor metal". That does not declare them the same; it's just you won't find the word "post-transition" in the PTs. -DePiep (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole article was suffering from underdevelopment and neglect. I expect the lede will be referenceable. Aluminium is pretty poor although perhaps, as you noted, not the poorest of the poor metals. (But this happens in the other subcategories too, each showing a spread of applicable properties, resulting in both more typical members and outliers). 1. Yes, Al does show evidence of directional bonding. 2. When pure it is very soft, so much so that people who handle it are surprised to learn that it is aluminium. 3. It has a low melting point and a high thermal conductivity which makes it unsuitable for use in e.g. military ships—should a ship burn, the low melting point results in structural collapse; the high thermal conductivity helps spread the fire. 3a. 'Fire: The strength of aluminium is halved from its ambient value at a temperature of 200° C, and for many of the alloys is minimal at 300° C.' (Lyons A 2007, Materials for architects and builders, 3rd ed., Elsevier, Oxford, p. 170) 4. For other nonmetallic properties associated with its poor metal status, plus citations, see its bio in the metalloid article, noting also that Al has the highest appearance frequency in the list of metalloid lists, after the six recognised metalloids, and Po, and At. Sandbh (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Updated with the addition, for reference purposes, of 3a. Sandbh (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a point on the directional bonding. The evidence seems to be based on behaviour under shear. I am just a litle sceptical about the applicability to the unstressed crystal which is regular. Your points on aluminium structural issues are well made, however other structurally weak metals (group 1 - yes I know buildings would spontaneously combust when it rained!) do exist which are not classified as poor metals. Anyway I shall leave you to it. Axiosaurus (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't access my references so will have to take on notice some aspects of your observation re directional bonding in Al. From the metalloid article I can see (however) that Boyer et al. (2004) say that 'Aluminium presents a greater challenge to empirical potential description because of the directional nature of its interatomic bonding' and, a little later, 'Aluminium has been shown to exhibit anisotropic electron density, which is closely associated with directional bonding.' I can remember Russell & Lee (2005) (see metalloid article for ref details) say that on the metal side of the periodic table, the closer you get to the metal-nonmetal dividing line the more often you will see evidence of directional bonding. And the literature on Al is consistent with that. Yes, the unstressed crystal is regular but the electron density isn't which leads to the peculiar shear behaviour in Al. Same thing happens in polonium, as I recall from Russell & Lee (2005): regular crystalline structure but showing anisotropic electron distribution.

As I further recall, there was some scepticism about the alkali metals when they were first discovered given they floated on water(!) and were soft. Because of these properties it was initially proposed to call them metalloids. Chemically, however, they were super-metals so that, in the event, they were admitted to the true metal club. Pure aluminium is a structurally weak metal. Its extra burden is that chemically it is also a weak metal, given its amphoterism, covalent bonding tendencies, and anionic aluminate formation—unlike any of the alkali and alkaline earth metals (except for Be and, to a lesser extent, Li). The combination of the two weaknesses, physical and chemical, and the proximity of Al to the metal-nometal dividing line, explain why it is sometimes classified as a metalloid, which I think is a step too far given its ductility and electrical conductivity, but poor metal—that's reasonable, noting there is a spread of properties amongst the poor metals and some are more or less poor than others.

Next week, all going well, i'll update the poor metal article along theses lines. Sandbh (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen this paper? The Bonding Electron Density in Aluminum, Nakashima et al, 2011, doi:10.1126/science.1198543 - a bit more recent than the other ones- confirms the idea of a subtle anisotropy of electron density.Axiosaurus (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I had a look at it. Interesting paper. I rechecked Russell AM & Lee KL 2005, Structure-property relations in nonferrous metals, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken NJ, to see what they said, which was: "Al's partially [italics added] directional bonding gives it a high stacking-fault energy..." (p. 359). I presume they describe it as 'partially' directional given there is nothing directional about Al's close packed FCC structure, and that directional bonding only occurs at the nanoscale level (which, even so, has a mechanical consequence). Sandbh (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

p-block metals as synonym?

Does the term p-block metals have significant usage as a synonym for poor metals? If so, we could mention this synonym in the article. Dirac66 (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is an expanded proposal to include group 12 (d-block) into the poor metals. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Make_the_group_12_elements_poor_metals.3F. So the synonym is in doubt. Then there is also the "post-transition metal" group to keep in mind. -DePiep (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, near-synonym then. I think that whatever is decided for poor metal, the relation between the three terms (poor metal, post-transition metal, p-block metal) should be explained. Now the relation between poor metal and post-TM is explained although they are not exact synonyms, and this is good since it will reduce reader confusion, but the third term p-block metal is ignored at the moment.Dirac66 (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dirac66. I believe the relationship between p-block metals, post-transition metals and poor metals has been covered in the proposed rewrite of the poor metals article. If not, please let me know, before the 'p' key on my poor keyboard pops out from being pressed so many times. Sandbh (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this rewrite is a much improved version of the article which does include my point. Thank you. Dirac66 (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Why the name change from poor metal to other metal?

I updated the content of this article today. It used to comprise a redirect to poor metal. That redirect is gone and replaced with new content about the other metals. The content that was previously in the poor metal article been replaced by a redirect to this article.

Basic reason for doing so is that there is no widely recognised label for the second string metals between the transition metals and the metalloids. Wikipedia should reflect this, with individual writers and teachers being free to use more specific names of their choice, multiple examples of which are given in the article, as is the rationale for the descriptive phrase 'other metal'. See also here. Sandbh (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Other is an undefined word here.

My dictionary defines the word other as meaning Not the same as one or more of some already mentioned or implied .... Here the word is used as the first word of an article title, so nothing has been already mentioned or implied, and the word is meaningless in this context. Wikipedia does not have articles entitled Other molecules, Other reactions, Other countries, Other presidents etc. etc.

If I understand correctly, this name was chosen because it was felt that none of the other synonyms considered is entirely satisfactory. My solution would be to choose the least unsatisfactory synonym and to mention its shortcomings. My own choice would be P-block metals, which also means Groups 13-16 of the periodic table. Dirac66 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Dirac66: Sorry I missed your post. Nergaal is talking on this topic, here. He has already changed the article from other metals to post-transitional metals without prior discussion. I think my response there covers off on your quite interesting suggestion. Happy to chat right here or at WikiProject Elements. Sandbh (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that Sandbh is rewriting this article in their sandbox as post-transition metals. Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Some problems with article

• Specifics: Inclusion of group 11 is based on Demings 1940 text book. No modern reference is given. The statement "Chemically, the group 11 metals behave like main-group metals in their +1 valence states" is unreferenced and simply wrong. The statement about silver "The chemistry of silver is dominated by its +1 valence state in which it behaves like the main group metals potassium or thallium." is attributed to Rayner Canham but I can't see it in the 5th edition. If they said it then it is at best an oversimplification.

I'll add some modern references to group 11 as post-transition metals. I've copy edited mention of the group 11 metals behaving like main group metals, and added a citation. My attribution to Rayner-Canham was laziness; I have a much better reference but need to (and will) check its publication status with Rayner-Canham. Sandbh (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The more recent work by Rayner-Canham is not quite in press so I've added two other citations noting the similarities in physical and chemical properties of Tl(I) and Ag (I) compounds. Sandbh (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• General points:

The article is massively over-referenced.

This will get worse before it gets better. Sandbh (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the references seem odd e.g Sorensens, Metal poisoning in fish is the reference for the statement "There is an abrupt and significant reduction in metallic character from group 11 to group 12", surely there is a better known and more accessible inorganic chemistry text that could have been found. (But maybe not as other writers may not have this POV)

Good descriptive chemistry sources for the elements are hard to come by. I've clarified that the reduction in question was referring to physical properties. Sandbh (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is missing some key points e.g. chemistry of Au is heavily influenced by relativistic effects, d-block contraction isn't mentioned at all.

Relativistic effects are mentioned in the Rationale section; d-block contraction is now included in the same section. Sandbh (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Axiosaurus (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Elements Silicon and Sulphur are swapped in the periodic table excerpt

Can the author of the periodic table excerpt or the maintainer of the article correct the position of Silicon and Sulphur? Silicon has the atomic number 14, situated in the group of semiconductors between Carbon and Silicon. Sulphur has the atomic number 16, situated in the group of chalcogens between Oxygen and Selenium. It should also be verified if similar pictures in other articles contain the same blunder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pia novice (talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Great point, thanks. Author Sandbh will surely correct it asap into ₁₄S sulfur and ₁₆Si silicon. -DePiep (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Aside from correcting the picture (or even "instead of"), I would suggest asking WP:Graphic Lab to vectorize the image (that is, to re-draw the image as a .svg file, which can be done for a table like this and is generally considered good for such pictures).--R8R (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

So Nergaal agrees, then? Or are you speaking for yourself/by yourself? -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this comment is necessary. Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It may be not necessary, but clarifying it is. It separates an edit request from a command to edit. And also from the afterward, backward, backhanded editwar. -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I fixed ₁₄Si and ₁₆S. Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Sandbh (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Double sharp (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures

Forgive my unencyclopedic edit summary here. We cannot compare temperatures like this unless they are absolute temperatures. --John (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi John. Steel often melts at 1370 C = 1643.15 K. Al melts at 933.5K = 56.8% of 1643.15. Does this not support saying the mp of Al is just over half that of steel? Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Phew, so it wasn't as bad as I thought. This would only be of use if we were in the business of heating metals up from absolute zero until they melted. For most purposes, we are starting off around 298K. I think either give the temperatures or say "much higheJust over half the temperature doesn't seem to add much to me. --John (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that using multiplicative terminology like 'twice' or 'half' with temperature scales is inherently misleading to the reader, even in the one case where it would make sense - the thermodynamic behavior of gasses. For melting points, it makes absolutely no sense at all. I think it would be helpful to have a WP:MOS policy forbidding the use of multiplicative terminology with temperature scales. YBG (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead hardness

I added the observation that anybody melting pure lead have made "(but hardens close to melting)". Is there anybody who know the reason?Seniorsag (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

According to this article, a proposed mechanism is that temperature produces a "ductility trough" and a ductile to brittle transition behaviour in the solid metal. If so, this phenomenon may be observable across all of the post-transition metals, given their relatively low melting points. Nice pick up. Sandbh (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Colour group 12 as post-transition metals

I am seeking comments on a proposal to color code the group 12 elements as post-transition metals in the Wikipedia periodic table, rather than transition metals as they are currently color coded.

The RfC can be found here. Sandbh (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Blurbs on the transactinides

I have added these; references are to follow. Many of them are listed on WT:ELEM#Meitnerium through oganesson and in the element articles themselves. Double sharp (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alkali metal which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Further additions

Strictly speaking, boron and silicon should be added as they are often treated as "metals" in organometallic chemistry. Double sharp (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 00:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals → Post-transition metal – This title is a description of what post-transition metals are, but not what it is. Interstellarity (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Provisional support.

The lede image makes things more complicated than they need to be.

The metals between the transition metals and the metalloids go by quite a few different names none of which are widely accepted. The most common technical one of these is “post-transition metals.” This is also a good descriptive name.

Most commonly the PTM are the metals in Groups 13 to 15.

Zinc, cadmium, and mercury are sometimes not counted as TM in which case they would be counted as PTM. They merit a 50:50 colouring.

Aluminium is occasionally not counted as a PTM given its absence of d electrons. Colour it as a PTM but add a footnote. Ditto Po which is sometimes counted as a metalloid but does not number among the elements most commonly recognised as metalloids.

Astatine is widely regarded as either a nonmetal or less often as a metalloid but has been predicted to be a metal. Colour it a halogen but add a footnote.

There a few other elements counted as PTM in isolated cases and that is all that needs to be said in the article. Colour these as their normal types. Sandbh (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. As the article shows, the two things are not necessarily the same, and there is not a standard name in the literature for this somewhat vaguely defined set of elements. Consequently a descriptive phrase seems to be the only possible neutral title. Double sharp (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Support. Data presented by Sandbh is convincing that "post-transition metal" is the most common term for this inherently fuzzy set. Double sharp (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

@Double sharp: could you please consider withdrawing your oppose in light of the following information?

"Post-transition metal" would seem like a good descriptive phrase and more convenient than “Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals”, given the transition metals occupy groups 3 to 12 or sometimes to 11. It is the most common technical term and could sustain an article on that basis, at the same time noting the range of alternative names for the leftover metals and their sometimes or occasionally varying membership.

Nyholm, a leading figure in inorganic chemistry in the 1950s and 1960s, referred to the properties and structure of transition metal to post transition metal covalent bonds (1966).

Kepert & Vrieze, in chapter 47 of the classic Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry (1973, p. 313), refer to bonds between transition metal and post-transition metal atoms.

Greenwood and Earnshaw (1998, p. 548) mention that "bismuth is a typical B sub-group (post-transition-element) metal like tin and lead."

Driess and Nöth, in their book Molecular Clusters of the Main Group Elements (2008, p. 19) write that, "Extensive definitive structural information on anionic post-transition metal clusters was obtained by Corbett only in the 1970s."

FA Cotton in Progress in Inorganic Chemistry, vol. 8 (2009, p. 115) refers to eight-coordinate post-transition metal radii.

Kalantar-Zadeh et al. (2021) refer to the use of low-melting-temperature (LMT) metals and alloys based on post-transition metals.

A search of Google Scholar for post transition metal/s yielded about 9,000 hits, of which 6,000 date from 2013.

Until today I wasn’t aware of how extensively “post transition metal/s” was/is used.

I suggest that if the term was used by such luminaries as Nyholm; Greenwood & Earnshaw; and Cotton, and it has appeared in notable chemistry-related publications, and numerous other publications, then it is good enough for an article title.

Thank you, —- Sandbh (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

One equally finds in notable chemistry publications "p-block metals" to talk about roughly this set, e.g. one, two, three, four, five, six. G&E doesn't even say "post-transition metal" but "post-transition element" and "B sub-group", according to your quote. It does not seem clear to me if "p-block metal" or "post-transition metal" is more common (or if they are actually singular terms as opposed to intersections of "p-block" or "post-transition" with "metal"), and the area being talked about is strictly speaking wider than either of those suggest: p-block raises questions about group 12 (sometimes included comparatively), and post-transition raises questions about aluminium. So they do not quite correctly delimit the scope of the article. Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Double sharp: thank you.

None of the authors of the six PBM examples provided have the reputation of a Nyholm or a Cotton; or Deming who first used the PTM term AFAIK.

G&E’s reference to Bi as a post-transition element is quite accurate; the nonmetals in the p-block are likewise post-transition. The set “B-subgroup metals” is a redundant expression following the introduction of the 1-18 group numbering scheme in 1988.

Searching Google Books and Google Scholar for post transition metal/s or post-transition metal/s yielded about 15,300 hits, and for PBM about 6,500 hits.

Searching ACS Journals and RSC Journals gave 1,541 results for PTM and 845 for PBM.

I hadn’t previously appreciated these metrics.

p-block metals by definition, and as you note, cannot accomodate group 12. Post-transition metals can accomodate the group 12 metals given IUPAC notes the transition metals are sometimes regarded as finishing at group 11.

Post-transition metals accommodates Al, as a group 13 metal. Excluding Al as a PTM raises the question of what sort of metal it is and results in less-used sets such as pre-transition metals.

p-block metals can be regarded as a subset of post-transition metals in a manner somewhat similar to the refractory metals being a subset of TM.

I’m not asking you to support the proposal; I’m only requesting you to withdraw your oppose.

—- Sandbh (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Your third-last paragraph operates on the assumption that these categories have to somehow cover every element. This is certainly not the case. (And it's not so long ago that I had to explain that point.) The 2011 Principles of Chemical Nomenclature (p. 9) from IUPAC no longer mention the possibility of excluding group 12 from the transition metals. And finally, it's not about what only the biggest names said (noting also that Deming is hardly evidence of recent usage), but of what chemists as a whole say, which you thankfully (albeit self-contradictingly) get at by counting Google hits. Roughly 2-to-1 ratios do not seem that decisive when G&E prove that sources might very well use multiple terms for roughly the same set. Double sharp (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Double sharp: No, these categories do not have to somehow, necessarily cover every element—unless an individual author chooses to do so, as some do and some do not.

The Principles of Chemical Nomenclature: A Guide to IUPAC Recommendations 2011 edition that you mention, are guidelines only. As noted at p. 4, the colour books remain the principal nomenclature documents. The Red Book comment that the transition elements span Groups 3 to 12 or 11 thus remains extant.

I mentioned Deming since he appeared to be the originator of the term. His reputation does not hurt.

At no time have I claimed that post-transition metals is a “decisive” categorisation.

I have instead claimed that post-transition metals is the most common term for the metals in question and could sustain an encyclopaedic article on that basis, at the same time noting the range of alternative names for the subject metals, as per the G&E example, and their sometimes or occasionally varying membership. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your first paragraph. But that means that your argument Excluding Al as a PTM raises the question of what sort of metal it is and results in less-used sets such as pre-transition metals doesn't necessarily hold: an author might well decide that Al is out of scope, or that it should be treated with some other set (possibly not even given a name).

True, but it's nonetheless somewhat interesting that IUPAC does not seem to think that the exclusion is worth mentioning in its guidelines (despite the fact that it would only have taken a single sentence to mention it), even if it is technically still on the books.

The originator of the term "transition metal" (Charles Rugeley Bury) didn't think Y–Tc and Lu–Re were transition metals. So I do not think looking at the terms' originators is a strong argument; we now know more than they did, and today's chemists naturally sometimes differ in usage from them.

Nonetheless, checking Ngrams does agree with your statement that this is the most common term for this inherently fuzzy set. And although it makes somewhat of a contradiction, some authors do after all include Al as a PTM. So I have withdrawn my oppose and replaced it with a support !vote. Double sharp (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Updated image in lede

Further to the previous discussion (above), and as flagged, I' ve updated the image in the lede showing the location of the post-transition metals.

Some adjustments to the main body of the article to follow. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It turns out, unless I have missed something, that I will not have to make any adjustments to the main body of the article, since this is where all of the extras have already been mentioned. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Meg Duluoz — Add to this discussion

Vanity. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:38, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC). Meg has minimal Google hits [5], top one is a book review written by her for Amazon.

• Also Street Generation term coined by Meg. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:41, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Also Beat Nouveau term coined by Meg.

• Delete as neologisms unless it is documented that they are established. Thue | talk 21:51, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the Meg Duluoz page. anthony (see warning)
• Delete all, clearly nobody. Maximus Rex 22:27, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:27, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Not only is it vanity, it is drek. Delete. Kevin Rector 02:20, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. I hope "beat nouveau" catches on, I kind of like it. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Please delete all. If possible, block her IP address. She keeps trying to write herself into history on the Beat_Generation page. Doom 02:36, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. --Gary D 08:32, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all 3, Duluoz is not notable and her neologisms are not encyclopedia-worthy. —Stormie 09:16, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
• User:68.225.103.51, author of pages added Legitimate article. Have heard of this author before. Keep :) page historyDunc_Harris|☺ 11:09, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all 3. Posting reviews at Amazon doesn't make her a notable writer. JamesMLane 07:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - speedy if the circumstances warrant - and block IP if she's trying to write herself into legitimate history articles. - Lucky 6.9 17:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 22:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Love fact — Add to this discussion

This page doesn't appear to make any sense. I can almost grasp what the author is getting at, but it really isn't Wikipedia-worthy in its present state. It might be folded into another article, but I don't think it would ever be a standalone article. jdb 22:03, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• This guy clearly doesn't speak English as his first language - perhaps this is a poor translation of a native proverb. Delete and tell the user to try better next time. Ed g2s 23:15, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• nonsense, delete. --Jiang 00:01, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Like this, it has to be nonsense, but if the author was trying to talk about emotional education, sensitivity training, and a philosophy of caring and therefore establishing that, in this scheme, there are 'love facts' to correspond to the 'facts' of regular discourse, then he needs to be explicit (and write with a different title or just outline the whole philosophy in a single article). Geogre 03:10, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is like a conversation with a guy who's just had a fight with his girlfriend and had a few to celebrate it. Fire Star 14:32, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC). This is the second time I've posted this vote, but the first one seems to have disappeared. If for some unforseen reason my original vote shows up again, please only count me for one deletion vote. Remarkable. Fire Star 03:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template:PeaceLaureates, Template:EUc, Template:NATOm, Template:LiteratureLaureates — Add to this discussion

Idiotic ribbons that weren't deleted after the first time i posted them here - it is not wikipedia's job to decorate people's coats. --Jiang 22:20, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Most of these are a job for categories. Delete all. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Agreed, categories suffice. Delete —siroχo 23:52, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Stephen Emanual Poulos, Angel L. Juarbe, Jr., Anna Williams Allison, Thomas Pecorelli — Add to this discussion

Dying in a major terrorist attack along with thousands of others is not in itself worthy of inclusion here. Move to wikimemorial and delete. --Jiang 22:28, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Yes it is. That's why these pages survived the first time they were nominated here. Keep. Again. anthony (see warning)
  • Only Stephen Emanual Poulos was listed on this page, and that we 8 months ago. The rest were posted before the creation of wikimemorial. When was the last time 9/11 victims as obscure as these folks failed vfd? --Jiang 23:56, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Wikimemorial and delete. SWAdair | Talk 00:15, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Memorial and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:25, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Wikimemorial and delete. —Stormie 03:13, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Gary D 08:35, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Stephen Emanual Poulos has a wiki memorial page, the others need one, and then Delete. If wikipedia had existed in 1944, would every man killed at Dunkirk get an entry? SkArcher 19:09, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• If they didn't achieve anything of encyclopaedic levels of notability prior to September 2001, wikimemorial and delete. Average Earthman 14:11, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Wikimemorial and delete. DJ Clayworth 14:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Wikimemorial and delete. Also delete redirect page Stephen Poulos. Rossami 04:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - move to memorial - Tεxτurε 22:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Why was one of them deleted on the 28th - it is 5 days on VfD remember. There is a lot of this going on at the moment. Secretlondon 21:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Canada and U.S. currency compared — Add to this discussion

Nonsense. RickK 22:37, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

• What's nonsense about it?? 66.245.13.154 22:39, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• delete, trivial --Jiang 22:41, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's null. It's about on a level with noticing that socks go spare. Geogre 23:39, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm also triyng to delete an article about differences between dialects, see above. Now we have the crazziness of comparions, my God! Keep with the "Lists"-mania at least they are funny. -Pedro 23:44, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Somewhat better now; does anyone still think this should be deleted?? 66.245.117.101 23:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • this is not wikitrivia. --Jiang
    • Agree with Jiang. Still trivia of no importance as an encyclopedia article. RickK 00:00, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete trivial trivia. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:23, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• It's good info, not trivial, but I don't know if it deserves an article of its own. All the info could be easily covered elsewhere, and probably already is. Everyking 01:49, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • "Both have coins as well as bills." isn't trivial!? -- Cyrius|✎ 02:33, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, my point was that the information itself is not trivial. Certainly the forms of currencies that exist in different nations is important information. Everyking 02:56, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Almost every Canadian news channel, every single day, compares Canada and US currencies. I have added a section to that effect Thesteve 03:16, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The problem with that is that the news channels I've seen (perhaps I've missed an economics show of some variety on this) compare only the value of Canadian currency relative to the U.S. dollar, which is the international monetary standard. They don't say, "In other currency news, the United States had a two dollar bill while Canada does not." Lord Bob 14:37, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
• I think we should have a page highlighting all forms of currency, perhaps even with a few pictures. Of course there is no need to "compare" them, but an overview of the forms they all take would ceratinly be good information. Falcon 03:23, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Yath 03:27, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• If we kept this, we should logically have "comparison" articles for all kinds of things. I don't see the point. Isomorphic 07:50, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• How about a redirect to Canadian and American economies compared, which is a much more in-depth article? Thesteve 13:19, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Vote to redirect. -Sean Curtin 19:59, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Redirect. Lord Bob 14:37, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
      • Redirect. Fire Star 20:43, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - it may be trivial but the version I just read is an article - Tεxτurε 22:17, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• There might be an interesting article on this subject, but this isn't it. Delete if there isn't major improvement. MK 04:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - the US and Canada are not the only countries with currencies called dollars. Secretlondon 22:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• This debate has gotten so large. With current knowledge, a re-direct to Canadian and American economies compared is perfectly fine and I'll go with it. Any objections still?? 66.245.22.133 15:35, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Are you planning to merge the information from this article into that one? - Tεxτurε 16:54, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • That is Thesteve's decision. Go contact him if you have any comments.66.245.106.175 16:56, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • No, it's not. Anyone can merge. No one owns an article. We can decide here. I do not vote to redirect if the content is lost. - Tεxτurε 17:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

delete--XmarkX 15:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

PLO and Hamas — Add to this discussion

• Merge and delete.

Ready, Romilla — Add to this discussion

• Vanity. moink 23:18, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. A newly released book is her only real claim to fame. Google gets 841 hits for "Romilla Ready," almost every one of which is an ad for her (only) book [6]. SWAdair | Talk 23:44, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Your link is broken. anthony (see warning)
    • Thanks, Anthony. I replaced it with a working link. SWAdair | Talk 23:51, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Apparently a published author. Not vanity. anthony (see warning)
• delete. being merely a published author is not enough --Jiang 23:59, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Why not? anthony (see warning)
    • Because writing a book is easy and pretty much anybody can do it. That's why there are so many books. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Also, we've hardly got anything about Bandler and Grinder (& nothing about their various works). There is a lot about NLP that would be encyclopedia-worthy & good to have. This is not it, and it's hard to imagine anything but a promotional agenda in adding this when the key figures and key works of the field have hardly been touched upon. -- Jmabel 19:35, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Gary D 08:36, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Being interviewed on local radio doesn't make you worthy (I've been a studio guest on local radio, so it's definitely no big deal). If this 'For Dummies' is her only noticeable book in the field, then I vote Delete. Average Earthman 14:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 22:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Burton, Kate — Add to this discussion

• Vanity. moink 23:27, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Not vanity. anthony (see warning)
• Delete vanity. Co-author with Romilla Ready of the afore-mentioned book. The web knows more about the book than about the authors, and it just barely knows about the book. Taken together, these two entries almost seem like sneaky advertising. SWAdair | Talk 23:52, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • That the web knows so little is what we're trying to improve. anthony (see warning)
  • The web also knows very little about the contents of my sock drawer, but I'm not about to put up a page cataloging the length, colour and darning quality of my socks. Author does not appear to be significant, delete. 14:23, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • "These two entries almost seem like sneaky advertising" is a little off the mark. It's blatant advertising. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:44, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• delete self promo/vanity --Jiang 23:58, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity, advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:44, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --Gary D 08:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Fire Star 03:52, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Blatant ad. Improving this site has nothing to do with self-promotion. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 21:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 22:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Martin Luther King Jr Middle School Band — Add to this discussion

We have, in our infinite wisdom, deemed that every high school in the world is worthy of a Wikipedia article. I'm not sure that there has been a policy on whether every middle school in the world deserves an article. But please tell me that we draw the line at middle school bands? This is probably a copyvio, anyway, but I don't either want to bother to look. RickK 23:45, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

• delete advertisement. --Jiang 23:58, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Dogpile didn't find key phrases and there are too many grammar / spelling errors to suspect it of copyvio. Still, the line has been drawn. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 00:08, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I think we can safely say this is on the wrong side of the line. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:20, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or move to page on the school. anthony (see warning)
• I think we should keep this info (although the POV will have to be taken care of), but I agree it isn't worth its own article. When/if a page on the school is created, merge it there, where it would be quite useful for fleshing out the article; in the meantime, keep. Everyking 02:28, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No need for an article on the school, either. I don't know quite where the line should be drawn, but as others have said, this is on the wrong side. Isomorphic 07:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete.--Gary D 08:39, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If possible, merge vitals (not entire article) into an article about the High school mentioned in this article. —siroχo 00:01, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as an article on its own. Only the most genuinely noted/celebrated/accomplished school bands in the US should be included, and this doesn't appear to be one of them. Average Earthman 14:28, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The line should be drawn here. And how many junior highs in the US are named after King? What about their bands? Uh-uh. This has to go. - Lucky 6.9 17:48, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Do we even have an article about the school yet? If so, that article can say that the school has a strong jazz band program, but that's about all this warrants. --Michael Snow 22:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - just one of many bands at many MLK schools - Tεxτurε 22:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 27

DEAT — Add to this discussion

slang term used on a website. Maximus Rex 00:56, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• DEAT, I mean Delete neologism. Unless someone wants to write an article about the much more common meaning (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism). SWAdair | Talk 02:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. IP has done many edits, it may be worth checking the others too. Andrewa 05:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism with little googlable usage [7]. --Zigger 16:17, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)
• Delete BUT include the information in Jennifer_Government:_NationStates -ZeroFuzion 21:43, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Stuart Chapman — Add to this discussion

Vanity. Can't find anything under Google for "Stuart Chapman" football wales "hong kong". RickK 04:51, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete vanity (same author created Evelyn Lok). Checking his other edits, will leave a note on the user's talk page. SWAdair | Talk 04:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Soundhog — Add to this discussion

Vanity. Most google hits are our mirrors. →Raul654 05:48, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Vanity / self-promo. We seem to be getting a lot of these lately. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 07:15, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be a real band. Is "most google hits are our mirrors" a valid objection? If so I have an article I aught to list here. Sam [Spade] 07:24, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • "Most google hits are our mirrors" isn't an objection, it's used as evidence of non-notability. The tone of this article makes me suspect vanity, or at very least a rabid fan posting about a little-known band. Isomorphic 07:44, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Um, no - if you Google on "soundhog bootleg", you get quite a bit that isn't us. Looking through those sites, he seems to have some attention within the scene, including in languages other than English. We'd need someone more familiar with the scene in question, but I see no reason not to keep for now - David Gerard 11:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain: The article was on CU for about a week. It seems that the person is real and notable within that scene. The question, to me, is whether that creates sufficient notability, especially when what this person does is to take other songs and spin them in a particular way. This gets us dangerously close to having an article on every way kewel club DJ who can rip a CD. Outside of confirming the DJ activity, it gets impossible to document anything else: place in community, influence, history, favored techniques, etc. Geogre 13:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: promo, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: a few people in "the scene" have heard of him, doesn't make him notable. There's thousands of small-time alternative musicians, should an encyclopedia have articles for all of them? It's crazy. Brendanfox 11:22, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Too damn many forgettable bands. Did the 1911 Britannica have an entry for every organ grinder and every organ grinder's monkey in Greater London?orthogonal 22:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Eh? What happened to this article? "Soundhog" gets more non-Wikipedian hits (3460) on Google than "Go Home Productions" (2740), who has been feted by The Village Voice, and who is currently David Bowie's producer du jour. It gets a couple of thousand more hits than "Miss Kitty Fantastico" (959) and "Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet" (1170), whose deletion no-one has lobbied for. The Bastard Pop scene has been courted by Madonna, Kylie, and The Sex Pistols; it has produced a number one single in the UK, and an industry-shaking album in the US. Deleting this article on one of the genre's few signed artists, and one of its most critically acclaimed, was a provincial mistake. chocolateboy 04:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Soundhog — Add to this discussion

Vanity. Most google hits are our mirrors. →Raul654 05:48, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Vanity / self-promo. We seem to be getting a lot of these lately. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 07:15, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be a real band. Is "most google hits are our mirrors" a valid objection? If so I have an article I aught to list here. Sam [Spade] 07:24, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • "Most google hits are our mirrors" isn't an objection, it's used as evidence of non-notability. The tone of this article makes me suspect vanity, or at very least a rabid fan posting about a little-known band. Isomorphic 07:44, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Um, no - if you Google on "soundhog bootleg", you get quite a bit that isn't us. Looking through those sites, he seems to have some attention within the scene, including in languages other than English. We'd need someone more familiar with the scene in question, but I see no reason not to keep for now - David Gerard 11:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain: The article was on CU for about a week. It seems that the person is real and notable within that scene. The question, to me, is whether that creates sufficient notability, especially when what this person does is to take other songs and spin them in a particular way. This gets us dangerously close to having an article on every way kewel club DJ who can rip a CD. Outside of confirming the DJ activity, it gets impossible to document anything else: place in community, influence, history, favored techniques, etc. Geogre 13:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: promo, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: a few people in "the scene" have heard of him, doesn't make him notable. There's thousands of small-time alternative musicians, should an encyclopedia have articles for all of them? It's crazy. Brendanfox 11:22, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Too damn many forgettable bands. Did the 1911 Britannica have an entry for every organ grinder and every organ grinder's monkey in Greater London?orthogonal 22:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Eh? What happened to this article? "Soundhog" gets more non-Wikipedian hits (3460) on Google than "Go Home Productions" (2740), who has been feted by The Village Voice, and who is currently David Bowie's producer du jour. It gets a couple of thousand more hits than "Miss Kitty Fantastico" (959) and "Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet" (1170), whose deletion no-one has lobbied for. The Bastard Pop scene has been courted by Madonna, Kylie, and The Sex Pistols; it has produced a number one single in the UK, and an industry-shaking album in the US. Deleting this article on one of the genre's few signed artists, and one of its most critically acclaimed, was a provincial mistake. chocolateboy 04:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Too damn many forgettable bands. Did the 1911 Britannica have an entry for every organ grinder and every organ grinder's monkey in London?orthogonal 22:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

C plus plus examples — Add to this discussion

This article doesn't appear to serve any purpose other than listing several permutations of if/else. It could be expanded, but should it be there in the first place? Maybe move to wikibooks or something. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 07:03, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a carry-over from C plus plus. Wikipedia has an entirely flat namespace by convention. Sometimes that leads to slightly convoluted solutions like this. However, as long as wikipedia maintains the current convention, this article is relevant, correctly named, and correctly located. Kim Bruning 12:52, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I never mentioned anything about the location of this article, and I don't think the solution is particular "convoluted". I do, however, find that listing several permutations of if/else does not produce an amazingly useful article. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 13:22, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)
    • I did though, since it's my opinion :-P Hmmm, if you disagree with content of an article, how about trying to edit mercilessly instead? Let's keep this here as an extremely short set of examples (and let's get some nicer examples!) , and someone else can write a comprehensive "The Art Of Programming (In C)" at wikibooks. :-) Kim Bruning 07:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. anthony (see warning)
• Keep: has potential. Existing text is weak but eventually someone will replace it. Obquote: "When I invented the term 'object-oriented' I did not have C++ in mind" -- attributed to Alan Kay. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:04, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I wonder if this should be on Wikibooks, instead? I reserve judgement until more people respond. —siroχo 02:06, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • It should probably be at C plus plus/examples (not a real link), but that's Not Done anymore on Wikipedia. Kim Bruning 07:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Some things just aren't easily explained (or understood) without examples. Languages, programming or natural, are such things. orthogonal 19:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Tεxτurε 22:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

training manuals and training manual examples — Discussion

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion June 27 to July 12 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

transwiki to Wikibooks I think. Could the article be tidied to be made encyclopedic? Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This page was originally on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old but moved here due to a deadlocked discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 10:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Training manuals. Not sure what to do with Training manual examples. SWAdair | Talk 01:56, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Cleanup for Training manuals. The Introduction part may be an OK stub. The rest of the article describes how to write a manual and should be deleted or rewritten. Part of Training manual examples may possibly be incorporated to Training manuals, then delete. Brona 15:06, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • That's probably what I was thinking. Transwiki the second half, and then rewrite. hmm. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:02, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Internal — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The same argument apply to External. Thue | talk 15:44, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• No pretensions at anything other than a dicdef whatever. Delete. Fire Star 03:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete both dicdefs, as fast as possible. Speedy? SkArcher 08:41, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Not grounds for speedy deletion. Secretlondon 22:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Expedicion — Add to this discussion

Article Expedicion listed on WP:VFD June 27 to July 10 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Orphan. This band doesn't have a page, so I don't see why one of their albums does. I'm not entirely sure what a band has to do to qualify for an entry, but I'm sort of doubting "Dune" does. If they do and someone wants to write a page for them, I guess we can keep this, otherwise I think this should be deleted. -R. fiend 16:40, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This page was originally on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old but moved here due to a deadlocked discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 10:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Allmusic.com has at least heard of the band, and notes that they do have an album by this name, but has no information on it except that it was released in 1996. A track listing and a couple of quotes does not make an article. Delete, but I'm explicitly making no statement on any potential article about the band "Dune". -- Cyrius|✎ 22:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - i'm sure wikiprojects albums can adopt this article. Remember that allmusic.com is a US site as well.... Not having an article is not a sign of non-encylopedicness. Secretlondon 22:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I agree with Cyrius. A track listing and a few quotes are pretty much useless in an encyclopedy. Could be cleaned up, but do you really think anybody will bother doing it? Delete. --Alexandre 09:31, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:55, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Untitled

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion June 27 to July 9 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Confused unwikified glump of text, has been speedily deleted before but the same text keeps coming back to haunt us. Please delete (and hope the poster gets the message) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This page was originally on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old but moved here due to a deadlocked discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 10:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Unwikified ungrammatical mess. Perhaps someone who knows the subject should write a real page? Googling for "man of many faces" + Manga gets some 11k hits, but most of that is gratuitous fanboy service. Delete or complete re-write - or both to erase this mess from history. SkArcher 18:49, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete and try to keep it from ever coming back again!Hayford Peirce 00:08, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and block user. Posting this once is bad enough. Posting it twice is grounds for exclusion. - Lucky 6.9 17:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Someone who knows something about it should write a real article. Thesteve [[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]](t) notes apparent time stamp: 06:25, 2004 Jun 29]
• Delete: useless pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it:this manga is readily available domestically and there's someone out there bound to clean up and revise this entry.In fact,I actually did some revisions/clean up and added some further useful information.Hopefully,I fixed at least some of the bad grammar by the original contributor. User:Ranma9617
• Nice new stub. We sure have been getting a lot of this manga stuff lately. - Lucky 6.9 21:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• The rewrite actually makes sense out of what I took to be utter lunacy. I'll withdraw my "delete" vote and change it to "neutral".Hayford Peirce 23:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I've withdrawn my nomination of this article because it has been vastly improved since it was originally listed. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:38, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Fair use rationale for Image:Manofmnyfaces gn.jpg

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Worth linking to other article?

I was reading up on the article The Monster with 21 Faces and I couldn't help but notice that there are a few superficial similarities between this manga and the MW21F. What really stuck out was that the titles are similar and that both broke crimes and sent letters taunting people. Obviously the nature of the crimes perpetrated by the two individuals are very different, but there's just enough of a similarity to where I wonder if CLAMP drew on this for the manga. I don't know if there's a good way to write it into the article or if the similarities are intentional or not, so I decided to mention it here first. I'm going to try to do a little research on this, but if anyone else knows anything about this then let me know. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

• Researched and answered my own question. The name was taken from a book series by Edogawa Rampo, so I'd assume that CLAMP took this from the Rampo series, just as the perpetrator did. I'll work the whole Rampo reference into the article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
• Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Someone who knows something about it should write a real article. Thesteve

Jason M. Dahl — Add to this discussion

9/11 victim. I'm told on IRC that it's been decided that 9/11 victims belong only in the 9/11 WP, not en: ... so hence, i list this. blankfaze | •• | ••­ 18:19, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Wikimemorial and delete. SWAdair | Talk 01:04, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Since being a pilot/instructor is not otherwise deemed of sufficient note to go in, Wikimemorial and delete. Average Earthman 14:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Abstain. Wait a sec. The (rather confusing) article implies he was the pilot of flight 93 -- not simply another passenger on it. Does that make it more appropriate to keep? -- orthogonal 02:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Not as an article, but as a note in the 9/11 article. SWAdair | Talk 03:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • As a point of comparison, the article on Madeline Amy Sweeney, a crewmember on AA flight 11, was kept because her actions during the event (specifically, being the first to report the event and delivering a first hand report calmly and deliberately while facing certain death) received special note and media attention. If evidence can be provided of notable actions or heroism during the event, then he could deserve an article in the main space even if his life was otherwise non-notable. Absent that evidence, I believe the article is better in Wikimemorial. Rossami 18:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good paste for large pies — Add to this discussion

Article Good paste for large pies listed on WP:VFD June 27 to July 10 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Recipe stub. Transwiki. (Pulled from Special:Ancientpages.) -Sean Curtin 19:55, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This page was originally on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old but moved here due to a deadlocked discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Agree, transwiki. SWAdair | Talk 00:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Neutral. Please also look at Risotto ZeroFuzion 01:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The article on risotto has a brief section on the history of risotto; the article does not have, and probably never could have, a similar section. -Sean Curtin 19:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki, I guess, or just delete. The lemma is pretty opaque, and a dough from 1881? I can't see how the project is much weaker without it. (Not paper, I know.) Geogre 12:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Recipe has no cultural or historical content, and it's not terribly relevant to modern cooking. Just delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally archaic units of measurement render this recipe unfathomable to most of the world. Denni☯ 23:10, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
• Aside: does "two votes to delete, one neutral vote" really count as deadlocked voting? -Sean Curtin 04:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Please pay attention to the timestamps. When this was moved back to VfD, the only vote was SWAdair's. I feel uncomfortable deleting an article with just one vote. Johnleemk | Talk 06:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't blame you. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:52, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• not an article, delete --Jiang 05:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. (Inapporporiate title, too, this doesn't sound very good :P) Pyrop 04:46, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Oh, I don't know...maybe substitute soy flour for wheat flour and you'd have a wonderfully Atkins-friendly pie crust with enough fat and cholesterol remaining to stop an elephant. Seriously, delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Daniel Edward Cerquitella — Add to this discussion

A high school history teacher, from same stable as Jeffrey T. Nomura. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:05, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Oh, my. Delete this ASAP. This shouldn't even be up for debate. I about went into a diabetic coma when I opened this. - Lucky 6.9 23:45, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Seems to have been speedy-deleted already. Just for the record: assuming it was in the same vein as JTN and Daniel E.Cerquitella, I vote delete. Lupo 11:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) ====

Wanderlust — Add to this discussion

Dicdef. expansion possible? Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:40, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I think it has promise. Keep. -Sean Curtin 01:36, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. As it stands (dicdef + etymology) it is already more complete than many of our articles related to Emotion. Normally that wouldn't be enough for a keep, but I think this one has promise. SWAdair | Talk 02:19, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - valid topic: "Wanderlust" also is a title of a UK magazine, which in itself warrants inclusion as a noteworthy publication. Davodd 19:07, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Same reasons as previously given.
  • This unsigned post was by User:24.128.129.57. Sorry, but unsigned votes don't count here. Anonymous votes don't count either (your only edit to the Wikipedia is this vote). You'll have to create an account and sign your posts to vote on this page. SWAdair | Talk 05:50, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Durex — Add to this discussion

Durex is a famous condom brand used for condoms made by manufacturer SSL International plc. It's also a brand name for other things in other countries. This article is a weak joke based on this, rather than an encyclopedia article. At the very most, this should be a disambig page. -- The Anome 23:13, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• This is probably just something written by a bored employee of the Durex company, probably trying to suck up to his/her boss. Maybe some of the info could be moved in the Condom article, if it isn't already there. In any case, delete.Hayford Peirce 00:11, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• It's been rewritten. Keep. the condom brand is well known --Jiang 00:13, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten version. SWAdair | Talk 00:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten article. -Sean Curtin 01:38, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten article. —Stormie 03:11, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Yeah, keep the rewritten article.Hayford Peirce 19:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• This is an old Jasper Carrott joke of many years' standing: that what we call a condom in the UK is the Australian word for sellotape (scotch tape). Anyway the revised version is much improved, definitely keep. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:46, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• keep. Exploding Boy 01:35, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sherry St. Germain — Add to this discussion

3 lines (and a 241766 byte photograph) for someone whose only claim to fame is that they didn't appear on a TV show. Non-notable (and possibly counts as advertising for a career?) SkArcher 23:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Please remember to add the VfD notice to articles that you list here. SWAdair | Talk 00:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, my first entry to VfD. Should I add the image to Wikipedia:Images for deletion as well, or will this one entry sufice (only this page uses the image)? SkArcher 02:51, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Wait until this article is deleted, and if it is, then list the image for deletion as an orphan likely to stay one. Deletion of orphaned images is not automatic. Andrewa 13:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, far from notable. —Stormie 03:11, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Definitely delete. (and the image) DJ Clayworth 13:56, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. If that is the closest to note they can claim, they've led a very quiet life. Average Earthman 14:31, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• OK, so she's cute and withdrew her bid to appear on TV. Whee. Delete article and delete image. - Lucky 6.9 17:33, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 28

Template:Peace, Template:PPROC — Add to this discussion

Unused templates --Jiang 00:09, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Template:Peace looks worthless, but Template:PPROC can't be salvaged? -- Cyrius|✎ 22:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • PPROC is useless. We already have a list of political parties in Taiwan and we could also create a categories tag. The majority of the parties listed there are relatively obscure and hold little relevancy in relation to the others. --Jiang 02:34, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Allrighty then. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Son kaseti — Add to this discussion

In Turkish (?), has spent more than two weeks on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. —No-One Jones 02:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Copy to Turkish Wikipedia & delete. -- Jmabel 02:31, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Code Fairy — Add to this discussion

I am fairly confident that the Code Fairy is a figment of the original writer's imagination, and so is not encyclopedic. It fails the Google test (the "code fairy" is occasionally mentioned but appears to be made up on the spot) and none of the professionals I've spoken to are familiar with the Code Fairy. It should of course live on in Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, since it's rather entertaining. Derrick Coetzee 03:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I have heard this term used by various coder/hackers - possibly should be entered into Hacker folklore or a subsection of Hacker culture? It is also an interesting example of Anthropomorphism. I vote to merge with an appropriate and broader wikipedia entry. SkArcher 05:13, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's cute. The Jargon file will probably have it soon. It's just ephemeral, dictdef, and in use in such a small group as not not qualify for significance. US Engl is currently using -fairy as a joke term in all sorts of fields. A dictionary wouldn't include the term. Geogre 17:23, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Should be merged and redirected to Gremlin. Davodd 19:03, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Cute, but still. -- pne 11:41, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Let the jargon file handle it, if it's real. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep (take another look at it) and link it to BJAODN. - Tεxτurε 22:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hey, it's a lot funnier now. Absolutely send it to BJAODN now. Geogre 12:38, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Now this is funny. Delete it here, but grant it immortality at BJAODN. - Lucky 6.9 18:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• BJAODN for sure, keep if possible. Denni☯ 23:21, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
• Since this is deadlocked (almost), I'll cast my vote to delete and BJAODN it, so we can get this over with. I don't see much, if any merit in this as an encylopedia article. Johnleemk | Talk 10:42, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

SECOS — Add to this discussion

Appears to be imaginary. Google searches for "Thomas Ashworth" AND "Ian Renton" or "Thomas Ashworth" AND SECOS don't find anywhere else that mentions this. The original author maintains that this is real and claims to have been one of the testers. Dan Gardner 04:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Almost impossible to verify. No company names or other solid information to search on. However, the article said SECOS was developed in 2000 and was originally known as A&R Linux. Google gets just 7 hits for "A&R Linux" -- the links that aren't dead are from 1998, before SECOS was supposedly developed. Delete unless author can present evidence of validity. SWAdair | Talk 06:10, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• It is NOT imaginary. There is life outside of Google and other search engines. My Grandad doesen't have any google hits, does that mean he didn't exist. The reason why you couldn't find A&R Linux is because it was a PERSONAL distribution, only two people used it. It was only when SECOS was released did I get told about it. SECOS used to have a website, where the redirect url still exists but it got deleted in the sands of time. If you delete it on the basis of Google hits then you should delete my other articles on legitmate but obscure topics, such as Rubbish, King of the Jumble. If I had wrote this artcle back in 2000 (wikipedia didn't exist then) you would have had plenty of so called "Google hits" about SECOS. Since the website is gone I am preserving the memory of SECOS.
  • Delete- a OS that was only a personal distribution, that was only used by two people, is not famous enough to be included in an encyclopedia. And my signing Lyellin 08:59, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Then how about the many other Linux distributions that have a small userbase??? SECOS was used a lot more than two people, I was one of them. It is notable enough for me to write an article about it, and there are 7,021,647 articles in the wikipedia, all notable to at least the person who wrote it. Wiki is not paper, we can afford to have unusual articles. Multics was famous, but has no users today, should it be deleted under the same reasons? How about early versions of UNIX and DOS, their user base is close to zero as well. Krik 09:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• User:Krik, the author of this page, deleted it from Vfd in a minor edit. I am restoring it. Dan Gardner 17:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I wasn't planning to vote on this, but the author's actions in apparently vandlising VfD to prevent its deletion [8] [9] do not inspire confidence. Therefore, delete. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 17:45, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)
• Vanity page, delete. Morwen - Talk 17:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Comments. I removed this from VFD temporaily so I could fix the article up to keep standard, so please regard votes for deletiton because of that reason as invalid. I also must point out that Dan Gardner has not made any useful contributions for a while, only complaining about these pages. I must stress again that these are real, and notabilty only depends on your opinion. I could post a lot of famous people on VFD because *I* think they are un-notable. Since the concensous is unfair in this vote I plan to repost these articles if they get deleted. Krik 22:11, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Regarding the above: it is true that I have not posted in a while, largely because I was busy with other things. As school recently got out for the summer, I will probably be posting more now. In any case, I do not think that how much I have contributed is relevant here. Please provide evidence for your claims. Dan Gardner 22:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Recreation of validly deleted articles is a valid reason for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. Please provide evidence that this exists. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is not a dumpster, either. Morwen - Talk 23:25, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • But it isn't valid if the voters are biased. The same thing happened to me with Norman Walsh. I have extended the article with more technical information, a screenshot, and a link to the dead website.If it didn't exist I wouldn't be defending this article. Krik 23:48, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Please do not consider my vote invalid. Thankyou. —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 06:10, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Never ran on more than 4 systems. Source code lost, so no longer available. Minor changes from Linux by the sound of it, so not really unique either. Doesn't sound encyclopic to me. If this stays, I want to add my single floppy linux OS I made that is currently running on about 200 computers. --ssd 00:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• As with DNIX, I don't feel this merits an article of it's own, but all of these sort of thing do deserve a topic at Minor *nix operating systems. Individually, these are not notable, but the topic as a whole is an interesting, valid and encyclopaedic one. SkArcher 03:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm all for articles on minor and obscure operating systems, but not for one which was never released or run on any machines other than a few belonging to its creators. —Stormie 04:14, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Recreation of articles that have gone through the VfD process is grounds for immediate blocking, as well. I had no comment on this discussion until I saw that Krik has already decided he/she is going to be a vandal. Delete. RickK 06:13, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• As a friend of User:Krik, I feel I should speak out on this. He told me about SECOS and it existed (note the -ed), but I think Wikipedia should not a graveyard for dead operating systems. Krik has told me he is currently planning to publish information about SECOS elsewhere, where it can't be deleted, and plans to repost it here once there is enough external evidence that it exists. There are thousands of hobby operating systems out there, Microsuck and FreeOS list a lot of them. Most only have a small userbase, but some do make it big. SkyOS for example has got a lot of attention recently. A huge number of hobby os do only run on one machine, the creator. I just feel that Krik may just be a little upset about getting it VFD, he usually is very calm and collected in real life. I have noticed plenty of retaliation on VFD before. Gazwim 09:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This comment is now invalid, I plan to publish it Outside of wikipedia. Krik 12:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• As a friend of User:Krik, I feel I should speak out on this. He told me about SECOS and it existed (note the -ed), but I think Wikipedia should not a graveyard for dead operating systems. Krik has told me he is currently planning to publish information about SECOS elsewhere, where it can't be deleted. There are thousands of hobby operating systems out there, Microsuck and FreeOS list a lot of them. Most only have a small userbase, but some do make it big. SkyOS for example has got a lot of attention recently. A huge number of hobby os do only run on one machine, the creator. I just feel that Krik may just be a little upset about getting it VFD, he usually is very calm and collected in real life. I have noticed plenty of retaliation on VFD before. Gazwim 09:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I have calmed down a bit now. Thanks to Gazwim for explainig things a bit. This operating system did exist, but it feels like that Wikipedia is not the right place for this article, but I support the right for operating system articles to exist. Thats why I put DNIX on here as a test case. I will be reposting this elsewhere, where it can't get deleted.Krik 12:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Krik, I have reverted the changes you made to other people's comments. That is a very serious offense, and could get you blocked from editing. RickK 18:41, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Non-notable, unverifiable, and possibly imaginary. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:02, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - this is supposed to be a working operating system and that is the only screen cap? Obvious hobbiest Linux attempt. - Tεxτurε 22:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Ashworth — Add to this discussion

Appears to be imaginary. Google searches for "Thomas Ashworth" QBASIC and for "Thomas Ashworth" "train crash" find nothing about this. Dan Gardner 04:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Comment: Also unable to verify. I tried Dogpile's advanced search using "obituary Thomas Ashworth" with various qualifiers added to the search. Unable to find obituaries for the proper time frame. It is possible that [10] has better info than I can find, but I'm not a registered member. SWAdair | Talk 06:42, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Also not imaginary. The train crash killed more than him, and it was major news a while ago, In both local newspapers and even a few national ones. Yes He also made good Qbasic games. I had the source code to some of them, but they got deleted a while ago. He also had a pokemon website, that is now dead. Thomas may be dead, but Jonathan and Ian are alive and well. So if this gets deleted, it will be on the basis of lack of google hits and not on facts from a person who knew him well. Krik 08:18, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Facts may be, but was he famous at all? We've already established that unless noteable people have died in an event ( go back to 9/11 memorial debates), just because they died in said event does not mean they are famous. I don't think we should be including Thomas here. Lyellin 09:02, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't this multiple-fatality train crash be listed on [11] or [12] ? I was living in London in August of 2000, and fatal train crashes were big news at that time. —Stormie 04:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • I searched for the defunct pokemon website at the Wayback Machine on the Internet Archive and found nothing. As for the train crash, you say that it was in a few national newspapers. Which ones and on which dates? Dan Gardner 13:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• User:Krik, the author of this page, deleted it from Vfd in a minor edit. Dan Gardner 17:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even slightly famous. Also Ian Renton should be listed. Morwen - Talk 06:21, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • But Ian Renton is more famous than Thomas. Krik 23:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence SECOS ever existed, no evidence Thomas Ashworth ever contributed any Linux kernel patches, and evidence that the train crash did not ever happen. —Stormie 04:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• I can't find evidence for the train crash happening, assuming it took place on the day he died. If this happened and was indeed national headline news, it should be quite straighforward to find it on news.bbc.co.uk Hatfield happened in October 2000. Ladbroke Grove happened in 1999. Potters Bar was in 2002. Morwen - Talk 06:21, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It wasn't national headline news. Not all train crashes make major news. It was published mostly in a few local bournemouth newspapers, which do not have websites.
    • In 2000, local papers had websites. If it didn't make the patrons of http://www.thisisbournemouth.co.uk/ then certainly nobody died in the event. unsigned comment by anon User:82.6.10.139
    • But it was said earlier by Krik that it was 'In both local newspapers and even a few national ones'. Please be consistent. Morwen - Talk 21:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I'm not buying it. A fatal train crash no one has heard of? Delete because, one, it appears to be fake, and two, Wikipedia is not a place for memorials to your dead friends, even if they happen to be real. Sorry. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Checked back through BBC website's travel information pages for relevant period. No train accidents or related fatalities at this time. Neither do I recall such an incident happening and I take an interest in transport policy / activity. Delete. --VampWillow 19:15, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Marcelo Afonso — Add to this discussion

Posted by 201.4.179.37. IP traces to Brazil. Google search returns less than 300 hits for "Marcelo Afonso" + Brasil (note: Spelling of Brazil in Porto - substituting Brazil returns less hits) and I am fairly certain some of them are different people (my Porto isn't great, but I can see that there are different ages attributed). User also altered August 14 to include birth date. The link provided also leads to a dead page. Probably self-promotion/vanity. On the off-chance that someone with better Porto than I contradicts me, I have not reverted August 14 at this time.

Delete. Not noteworthy; link in article not valid. (I went ahead and deleted the reference from August 14 as well). Ianb 22:22, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Looks like vanity. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I got the link to work - the site doesn't look very good. Delete unless anyone in Brazil knows better. Secretlondon 21:22, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wigzell — Add to this discussion

useless stub. --Tothebarricades.tk 06:45, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Linkless stub. Possibly leftover from deletion of a Vanity page? BTW - please always ensure you include a link for discussion. SkArcher 07:05, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems close to the original contribution, but contradicted by [13], and Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary. --Zigger 14:59, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)
• Delete all of these as bordering on vanity. I could go on and on about the origin of my surname, but who would care? - Lucky 6.9 17:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • 6.9 is a number between six and 7. Is that what you wanted to know? Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:24, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• LOL! Or between 6.8 and 7.0. If I ever have my car overhauled, I can take it up all the way to 7.3, but I'd have to take out a second mortgage. - The perpetually broke Lucky 6.9 21:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Timepunk — Add to this discussion

This article describes the terms Stonepunk, Bronzepunk, and Sandalpunk, as its primary thesis, but these terms are not in general use. The article therefore is primary research (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, # 10) - proposing theories and defining new terms. Oliver Crow 08:36, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: Original, fractious, and only people who already know what it is will search for it. Geogre 12:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: original research, term "timepunk" not in general circulation. Delete sandal-punk and clockpunk for the same reasons. However, steampunk and cyberpunk are widely used, so they should stay. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to try defending the stuff I made up, but I wonder about Clockpunk and Sandal-punk. I didn't make those up, and I think that they are starting to enter general circulation (thirty something results on Google for Clockpunk). I admit that Wikipedia is not the place to make things up (I'm sorry, I won't do it again) but Sandal-punk and Clockpunk are holding their own on the outside world, and as such have earned the right to be archived here. -Litefantastic 18:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Timepunk, sandal-punk, and clockpunk. Neologisms of limited usage, and why does everything need its own "genre" anyway? -- Cyrius|✎ 20:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Article purports to discuss science fiction, which preassumes some authorship, yet (except for Jules Verne) no authors are mentioned. Delete as at best incomplete, at worst as original research. Denni☯ 23:45, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
• Apparently these terms were coined in a 2001 GURPS rulebook. Not widely used (Google turns up no results for clockpunk that aren't directly derived from GURPS Steampunk or Wikipedia), so delete (but, again, keep cyberpunk and steampunk). -Sean Curtin 04:42, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Philip Attard — Add to this discussion

Vanity page, non-notable composer. --Yath 11:32, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete EddEdmondson 11:34, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neither the article nor his home page nor anything I've googled show 'pedia-ness yet. --Zigger 14:44, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)
• He's a composer, so what? Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

SMDS — Add to this discussion

A sub-stub about a virtually unknown (and proprietary?) computer system. DJ Clayworth 15:52, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Valid topic. Keep as per: What to list and not list on VfD Davodd 18:53, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Krik 22:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• At present SMDS is a disambiguation page. Strike out the link to Self-managing distributed systems: no evidence of notability. Make SMDS a redirect to Switched multimegabit data service. Just because someone once sold, or tried to sell, something called "an autonomous middleware concept" doesn't mean it needs to show up in WP. I've been a bit player (har har) in several unremarkable commercial projects myself; I can't think of any that deserve an article. Well, there was the Intel Hypercube, I guess; an interesting scheme to sell chips by the gross. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Pasted on vfd notice, wasn't there before. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Just delete it. Vote changed. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's bizarre to have a page disambiguating between two articles none of which has been written yet. And Self-managing distributed systems do not appear notable. Andris 02:57, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Both are proprietary, Data Service was proposed by Belcore, but has never been implemented. Lou I 21:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adriaan Pels and At Ease — Add to this discussion

I just don't think that this Dutch Radiohead message board, or the guy who runs it, is signficant enough for an article. Be sure to remove links from band article if deleted. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:29, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete both on grounds of non-notability. - Lucky 6.9 17:35, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. —Stormie 23:38, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Message boards are as a rule, non-notable. Writing an article about the webmaster is just vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sizzla — Add to this discussion

• Keep. good job on the rewrite Thesteve 06:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Rukmini (astrologer) — Add to this discussion

This is an orphan, is poorly written, and I can't find this person on google. Article makes unsubstantiated POV claims such as that this woman is the equal of Nostradamus. If someone can confirm that this person is real, it definitely needs to be cleaned up- none of this article links out, and looks like it was loosely translated from a copyrighted spanish source. Otherwise, it should just be deleted. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:53, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

• I don't get anything on Google, either. The only hits for the name revert to a figure in Hinduism. Patent nonsense? - Lucky 6.9 23:33, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's totally fake. The books mentioned return no Google hits with Rukmini's name, and a search on Rukmini only returns references to the Rukmini of Hinduism, and some random people named after her, none of whom are astrologers. Derrick Coetzee 03:01, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Not fake. I remember her being very popular during the seventeen years I lived in Puerto Rico. She was on television, magazines and newspapers there. Send to cleanup for wikyfiyng and NPOV, through. Antonio Nostradame Martin
• Another mumbo-jumbo maker, but if a locally famous mumbo-jumbo maker, do a thorough clean-up to remove POV puffery. Average Earthman 11:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete in either case. Local TV personalities number in the tens of thousands. In Savannah, GA, we had a funny TV weatherman who was a cultural touchpoint for anyone within a 60 mile radius, and yet the transience of his medium means Cap'n Sandy left no lasting documentary effect on the world, and no major events happened because of his funny song. The local astrologer would be along the same lines.

Geogre 00:14, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • • Geogre, Puerto Rico is a country|state (although slighly more than half of all Puerto Ricanscall it a "nation" but thats a whole other discusion. Savannah, Georgia, on the other side, is a city. You can't compare Savannah to Puerto Rico, where four million people live at. "Antonio Maried women taker Martin"
• Delete. Agreed w/ Geogre. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:25, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • This needs NPOVing - but if they are famous in Puerto Rico or in other Spanish language media then keep. It's not quite the same as being famous in nowhere - and I, for one, have no idea how popular astrology is in Puerto Rico. Secretlondon 22:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Berberphobia — Add to this discussion

"Berberphobia" is not an English word; it gets two Google hits. The content of this article - to the extent that it can be salvaged and NPOVed, which, given the translationese it's written in, will not be easy - would better be placed in Imazighen. - Mustafaa 20:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• If it's a real term then redirect to -phobia, if not then delete. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. The guarantee about phobias is that there is zero obvious link between the name of the phobia and the phobia itself unless you are a Greek or Latin scholar. Denni☯ 00:14, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
• Delete: I know people with barberphobia, but that's another matter. (Beards...fear of beards.) Geogre 01:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Salvage and merge oppression of Berber minorities into Imazighen (see Mustafaa's argument above). The article's title is a literal translation of the (existing) French term "amazighophobie" (fear of Berbers). --Palapala 07:31, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
  • You see this is where European relations take a step towards the sublime. It is quite rational for the French (or the Spanish for that matter) to have a fear of the Berbers, but the only reason this word would be used in English would be to describe the French and Spanish fear of the Berbers! I think Denni hit the nail on the head calling it a neologism. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:21, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Caelestis — Add to this discussion

No links, no formatting, and not much sense, either... is this word actually used in this sense at all, and if so is the usage common enough to merit an article? I found nothing suggesting as much using Google, but maybe I'm out of the loop. Mindspillage 22:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Fire Star 22:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Patent nonsense; definitely a candidate for speedy deletion. Smerdis of Tlön 01:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• "Used and unused chips," eh? Complete patent nonsense and too incredibly stupid to live on at BJAODN. - Lucky 6.9 01:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete speedily & mightily. Seems like a kiddie slam at some long forgotten screen name. (Not blading, no t-shirt, no IM.) Geogre 01:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Update: speed deleted as patent nonsense. For the record it started like this: "active chatroom and IM-ers, Caelestis' are those eternally 16 year old inhabitant of the United States that are rumored to actually be a fat,blading, greasy, slobby middle-aged men ..." and only went downhill from there. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Leo Cobatt — Add to this discussion

This is an obvious attempt at melding fanfiction creation to canonical fact. Delete DrachenFyre 23:04, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)DrachenFyre

• Damned fanfic. This has happened before with "Xena" and "The Simpsons." Kill it quick. This is worse than vandalism. - Lucky 6.9 23:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Fans are great. Fans who can't tell fiction from reality are some other kind of creature. Geogre 03:32, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• So, you're saying Leo Cobatt isn't a Power Rangers character really? If not, then definitely delete. —Stormie 04:06, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • p.s. I feel so dirty for cleaning up and wikifying that article! —Stormie 04:09, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• There, there. You meant well, and we still love you. Treat yourself to an extra helping of dessert. :^P - Lucky 6.9 06:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Do we really need this gubbins? Even if it is a genuine character from a genuine childrens TV programme, I can't see why on earth Wikipedia would need this info. Average Earthman 11:33, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Because no one needs the wrong information, Average Earthman. No one. DrachenFyre 11:42, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) DrachenFyre
• Delete. Even the name is wrong - it's Leo Corbett. The information is also patently false, if you pay attention to Power Rangers. -- kelvSYC 05:38, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 29

Nick Berg conspiracy theories — 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 no consensus, therefore keep. moink 01:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Nick Berg conspiracy theories

Summary to help guide admin decisions:

• Delete 7: Walkingeagles, Master Thief Garrett, Megan1967, Texture, Isaac R, android, Rossami
• Keep 7 (includes votes such as "rewrite completely"): Firebug, Westifer, ShadowyCabal, zellin, Striver, zen master, Deco
• Unclear 2 :TenOfAllTrades (Delete or merge), Mgm (Delete unless revised),

No significant article changes since nominated.

---

Unencyclopedic speculation and strange things like questions

• PRESERVE The truth is a vibrating quantum blur- the viewer and the view create it. Let the truth be alive.
• Delete The whole basis of this article is original research or speculation including choice sentences like "Nick Berg visited Israel which lends credence to the idea he was an Israeli spy. I visited Canada once, does that make me a secret Mountie agent? And that is just one of many examples. The article asks a series of questions which I can only assume doesn't really fit in any article. It seems to be stream of consciousness. Walkingeagles 23:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I need to give this a closer read, but at the very least, it needs some serious cleanup. For one thing, rhetorical questions don't belong in an encyclopedia article. No vote for now. android↔talk 01:54, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete *unless* hugely revised. Concerns much the same as those voiced above. Master Thief Garrett 02:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: what are the criteria for judging notability of conspiracy theories? "Nick Berg" "conspiracy theory" gets 3700 googles. Meelar (talk) 02:39, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV, speculation. Megan1967 04:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite completely; 3,700 Google hits means that these theories are somewhat notable, but the article as written is a mess. Firebug 04:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • In principle, I agree with you. But who would write an NPOV article about the conspiracy theories surrounding the death of a single individual? All the people interested in those theories are true believers in Nick Berg conspiracies. A more neutral observer is likely to be interested in conspiracy theores as a general phenomenon, and not be interested in focusing on this particular area. ¶ If I thought anybody was likely to step up to the plate, I'd suggest stubifying the article. (The existing article is really a conspiracy tract, not an article -- there's nothing worth saving.) But I don't believe anybody will, so we might as well delete it. ---Isaac R 22:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless revised. This is complete speculation and most of the so called "suspicious" things about the video are easily explained by the captors killing Berg before his decapitation. And "the Islam forbids men wearing golden adorements" doesn't prove a thing either. Islam forbids killing too. Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. We have an article on Nick Berg; we don't need an article on conspiracy theories to act as a POV fork. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - All these claims are moot now that they have turned out false. Delete it. - Tεxτurε 20:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a conspiracy tract, not an article. ---Isaac R 22:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, based on compelling arguments made by various others in this discussion. android↔talk 00:11, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, Rewrite. This article being separate makes it a soapbox for conspiracy theorists. Yes, there are bad arguments, but there are many good ones much accredited by research and people spent a lot of time accumulating these. My argument is to reduce the data here to the most important bits, reference the links (especially to the videos), and merge it with Nick Berg. Yes it is speculation, but so is the Kennedy Assassination, and that is a better known and more popular discussion. Plus there is plenty of space on the Nick Berg page. Westifer 16:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I do not consider most conspiracy theories worth keeping and see nothing in this set to change my mind. Delete as unverifiable. Rossami (talk) 06:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep conspiracy theories are a huge part of wikipedia's appeal. We have a chance to separate the facts from the internet nonsense. Brittanica would never tell us about this. Clearly, anyone who wants this deleted is a Rosicrucian. ShadowyCabal

• Definitly keep The theoires exitst, who cares if they are true or not. If that is the case for deletion then why not delete all conspiricy theory pages?
  • You're right, we should just document conspiracy theories without passing judgment on them. Except the author of this article does pass judgment. He believes certain theories about Berg's death are true, and he wrote this article to promote them. Sorry, that's soapbox stuff. --Isaac R 03:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this article, it was a good read. Maybe cleanup a bit. zellin 16:12, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Definitly keep The theoires exitst, who cares if they are true or not. --Striver 16:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Dude, take the time to read the previous discussion. This is not about whether or not there's any truth to the theories. ---Isaac R 18:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename. zen master T 00:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Stubify or Rewrite. It's a good idea for a topic, and even an accurate stub is better than an unrecoverable soapbox rant. Rewrite is ideal of course. Deco 01:24, 7 May 2005 (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.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Page name — Add to this discussion

Looks like a misedit. cesarb 00:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Hmm. How bizarre. Delete. blankfaze | •• | •• 01:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Yeah, delete. Heck, it's probably a speedy deletion candidate. Krupo 02:44, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Probably an accident created by someone who doesn't understand the VfD listing directions at the bottom of this page. Correct request by same author is here Davodd 08:49, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Might be worth adding a note to that page to say "someone has made a mistake, plase go back and check Wikipedia:Votes for deletion" or somesuch. I'm sure this won't be the last time a mistake will be made. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• There is something strange about this video. Nick does not bleed when they cut his head off, and this means he was not alive any more when they did it, and this shows the video does not show all the truth.
• And there is something strange about the Nick Berg general page too. Everytime I try to edit something, somebody restores the page to the previous state few time later.* So, if you delete the conspiration theory pages about Nick, plesase delete all what is about Nick too.
• I don't like the general Nick Berg page. I find disgusting the way it states that Nick is a jew, and I hate the comments about the Muslim-Arab world condemnations of that act.* Delete the whole Nick Stuff, this is not yet a topic for an encyclopedia. L.
  • And all of the above, which is about a completely different page up for deleion, is why we need to have some sort of content on this page pointing out that a mistake has been made somewhere along the line... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• The only thing worse than a sockpuppet is a pathetic, cowardly, paranoid weasel of a vandal who should be banned for life just because of indisputable evidence of wanton ignorance. Someone please adjust this buttbleed's medication. I've listed his sorry carcass on the "vandalism in progress" page because of this and because of vandalism to the Nick Berg article. Someone please overstrike these bovine feces properly as I seem to be having a bit of trouble blanking it out. Oops, did I just type all that? Damn. Another thought bubble got away. Lucky 6.9 04:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

PurePanties.com — Add to this discussion

Advertisement. Joyous 01:31, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete SkArcher 01:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I do not believe this is an advertisement, because I don't believe the original user who wrote it is affiliated with them. However, it's not a well-known website, so not encyclopedic. Derrick Coetzee 02:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need an article for every porn site on the web. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Delete - Delete - and again I say Delete Kevin Rector 02:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Yup. Krupo 02:45, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's an ad. - Aaron Hill 07:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - For all of you who think its an ad, I have been writing for two years here, I dont go for that. I only write about what I like, to keep this site fun for me to come back. Read the Profanity word bit, does that sound like an ad to you??? Ive seen less encyclopedic articles here, like Sarah Marple-Cantrell (and I think that one is worth of being here). - Antonio Kiss my ... Martin
  • Just because the firm itself didn't write it doesn't mean it's not an ad. DJ Clayworth 17:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence it's a particularly notable site. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Andrewa 13:10, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not present any notability. --Zigger 14:12, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Not really an ad, but this is a non-notable soft-porn website. As stated, this isn't a web directory nor should it become one. Big guns like eBay, Drudge Report, MoveOn, Google, MSN, Yahoo! and the like are notable, to name a very few. Dis don't ring da bell. - Lucky 6.9 16:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Alexa ranking well below 100,000 + non-notable = delete. -Sean Curtin 17:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Ad for porn. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:21, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Oh my... Delete. Fire Star 20:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

DELETE!

New page — Add to this discussion

An article on a nonexistant word 'hyebeh' (neither dict.org nor google knows it). Besides, the article has nothing to do with what it's entitled. -Frazzydee 01:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• My entry was somehow changed to an article I had already listed as a Speedy deletion candidate. It's discussion can be seen here (the two articles contained the same contents). Yes, it should be a speedy delete candidate, but I've already listed it here :( -Frazzydee 15:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I think you may have inadvertently just cut-and-pasted the template without filling in the name of the article for deletion in place of "New page." - Lucky 6.9 16:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think so...I looked at the old version, and it points to the correct article. Oh well, both articles have already been deleted anyways :) thanks -Frazzydee 23:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alan Mycroft — Discussion

Fellow academic (apparently in the UK a "reader" is akin to an assistant professor) with Arthur Norman, whose biggest claim to fame is apparently co-leading a project to create an obscure CPU (jcn processor -journal -"corporate news network" -"JCN newswire" gets less than 500 hits, and many are about other topics)--this is the main creation the article mentions--and university compiler (norcroft -minnesota -guest -equestrian -summit, -palmerston gets only 2500 hits, many of which are still about other topics) "Alan Mycroft" only gets about 2000 hits, half of which are about somebody else. (If the article is deleted, the links to it should be removed to reduce the chance of it reappearing.) Niteowlneils 02:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• It's not the quantity of hits that matters, it's the quality. Some of the weblinks are news articles naming him as one of the signatories to the petition to the EU parliament protesting the patenting of algorithms. In terms of research publications, he doesn't appear to be in the top 1% in his field judged by the ISI highly cited threshold (79 papers over 10 years in computer science) as his research papers list only has about 30 in that period judging by a quick scan. He does appear to do a fair chunk of teaching, judging from the google hits. Not sure that lecturing, even at a top university, is encyclopaedic though. I'm currently leaning towards delete.
• Delete, unless explained why he is notable. I checked Citeseer, a search engine that indexes online papers in computer science and it returned 197 citations [14]. This means that he does not make Citeseer's list of 10,000 most cited computer scientists. So, based on article and citation statistics, he would not be notable. If there is some other reason why he is notable, please, tell me. Unimportant remark: UK "reader" corresponds to US associate professor. US assistant professor would be UK "lecturer". Andris 20:56, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arthur Norman — Discussion

Fellow academic (apparently in the UK a "lecturer" is below a "reader", which is below a professor) with Alan Mycroft, whose biggest claim to fame is apparently co-leading a project to create an obscure CPU (jcn processor -journal -"corporate news network" -"JCN newswire" gets less than 500 hits, and many are about other topics)--this is the main creation the article mentions--and university compiler (norcroft -minnesota -guest -equestrian -summit, -palmerston gets only 2500 hits, many of which are still about other topics) "arthur norman" -prior -remodeling -baldwinson only gets about 3000 hits, only about 500 of which seem to be about this person. (If the article is deleted, the links to it should be removed to reduce the chance of it reappearing.) Niteowlneils 02:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • But readers are generally described as lecturers. Not a vote btw. Secretlondon 22:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Same reasoning as above. Citeseer returns 57 citations [15] of which only 10-15 belong to this Norman. Andris 21:02, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Debbie Dewart — Add to this discussion

• Seems to be pretty non-notable person. The fact that this person is a Christian fundamentalist and disagrees with someone doesn't seem to warrant an article. But I could be wrong. Kevin Rector 03:01, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Search for Debbie Dewart Christian gets 325 results on Google, for anyone who's curious. Unless anyone can provide some evidence that she's significantly more notable than the millions upon millions of "Christian fundamentalists" in the world, I vote delete. blankfaze | •• | •• 03:51, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. At first I thought she'd done nothing except post a rant on the internet, but it seems that she has actually had a book ([16]) published by a Christian publisher. Even so, not nearly notable enough for an encyclopedia article. —Stormie 04:04, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • One book by a niche publisher? Not that notable. Delete. Average Earthman 12:24, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I used to be a guest columnist in the local paper which, in a sense, makes me a published writer. I don't have my own article nor do I want one. There. Now that I've said that, we've been innundated with vanity press authors and the like far too much as of late. Delete this one as well. - Lucky 6.9 06:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. Also remove parenthetical mention in M. Scott Peck. For purposes of the Peck article, just put [17] (from the Dewart article) on the list of external links. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ian Renton — Add to this discussion

Non-notable uni student whose only claim to fame appears to be a contribution to the unreleased SECOS operating system, which has also been listed on VFD. —Stormie 04:47, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• As I've said, college students are the most notorious vanity posters here. Add to that a questionable claim of creating an operating system whose existence is also questionable is worthy of a big ol' delete. - Lucky 6.9 06:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Any information related to secos should be merged with SECOS. Gazwim 10:09, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The "Mad marmablue web portal" (sic) refrenced in the article contains references to Thomas Ashworth (under his nick name tash), but after the time he supposedly died. I think this is a delte for Thomas Ashworth as well.
    • I just checked, that is not Thomas Ashworths words. Krik 12:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity Yath 08:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Michael F. Cammarata, Dennis O'Berg, Francis Henry Brennan, Melissa Harrington-Hughes, Neil D. Levin — Add to this discussion

More 9/11 victims whose articles are better served in Wikimemorial. Rossami 06:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Levin - notable state public figure before 9/11. Delete rest. Davodd 09:05, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded. -Sean Curtin 17:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Levin - Delete allothers and move to memorial - Tεxτurε 21:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Memorial ALL. According to 'what links here' on the Port Authority article, we don't have any other articles on people just because they were directors of it, so if we keep Levin, it seems to be more for 9/11 events than previous achievements. Niteowlneils 17:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tara Creamer, Patrick Currivan, Edmund Glazer, Charles Edward Jones, Barbara Keating — Add to this discussion

Also the redirect Charles Jones. More 9/11 victims whose articles are better served in Wikimemorial. Chuck Jones was a close call for me, but I think the current content belongs at Wikimemorial. Rossami 06:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd say to keep the Jones article. Few people so strangely linked with both the Challenger disaster and the Sept. 11 attacks.--Samuel J. Howard 08:29, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Jones - notable astronaut before 9/11. Delete rest. Davodd 09:10, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• I'm sure Jones has been through before. Note that he didn't actually fly, his scheduled mission was cancelled due to the Challenger accident. Even so, I vote that his getting on the Astronaut list for NASA and being scheduled to fly is noteworthy enough. The rest of the articles are wikimemorial material, as they make no particular claim of sufficiently encyclopaedic levels of note. keep Jones, Wikimemorial and delete the rest. Average Earthman 12:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: Barbara Keating: I've copied the text of this article, which I worked on earlier to correct some errors, to the September 11 Memorial Wiki, and I fully agree it should be deleted from the main Wikipedia. Opus33 14:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Jones, transwiki rest. -Sean Curtin 17:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Jones - Delete others and move to memorial - Tεxτurε 21:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Jones. Memorial rest. Niteowlneils 18:10, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sonia Morales Puopolo, Pendyala Vamsikrishna, Garnet Bailey, Mark Bavis, Graham Berkeley — Add to this discussion

More 9/11 victims whose articles are better served in Wikimemorial. Rossami 06:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Bailey - notable athlete before 9/11; delete rest. Davodd 09:13, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded. -Sean Curtin 17:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Bailey and Bavis - delete the others. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Bailey and Bavis - Delete others and move to memorial - Tεxτurε 21:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Bailey and memorial the rest. RE Bavis: I'll change my vote if someone can point out any other person who has an article just for being a pro scout--any sport. Niteowlneils 17:57, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Touri Bolourchi, Robert LeBlanc, Kathleen Shearer, Timothy Ward — Add to this discussion

Also the redirect Touri Balourchi. More 9/11 victims whose articles are better served in Wikimemorial. Robert LeBlanc is a judgement call, but the current article does not appear to present evidence that passes the "more than average professor" test. Rossami 06:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete all. Davodd 09:15, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Insuficient claims to notability. Wikimemorial and delete. Average Earthman 12:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. DJ Clayworth 17:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki all. -Sean Curtin 17:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Memorial and delete all. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - move to memorial - Tεxτurε 21:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Memorial all. Niteowlneils 18:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• memorial and delete. --Jiang 03:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

John Joseph Murray — Add to this discussion

This article was previously voted on (I believe in 2002) but the decision predates the current thinking about Wikimemorial. Rossami 06:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Transwiki and delete. -Sean Curtin 17:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Talk page says December 2003. I think 7 months is long enough to wait for reevaluation. Memorial and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - move to memorial - Tεxτurε 21:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• memorial and delete--Jiang 03:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Madeline Amy Sweeney, Peter Burton Hanson, Sue Kim Hanson — Add to this discussion

Also the redirect Madeline Sweeney. I believe these were previously discussed and that the concensus was to move to Wikimemorial but I can not find a record of the discussion. And, obviously, the articles are still out there. Rossami 06:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Finally found the discussion of Madeline Sweeney's article - cleverly hidden in plain sight on the article's Talk page. Concensus was keep. Rossami 07:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Minor businessman and scientist/technician. Not of sufficient note prior to 9/11, wikimemorial and delete. Average Earthman 12:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. DJ Clayworth 17:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Move and delete the latter two. Support the consensus to keep Sweeney. -Sean Curtin 17:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Memorial and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:21, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - move to memorial - Tεxτurε 21:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Borderline keep Sweeney & redir. Memorial the Hansons. Niteowlneils 17:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Crab Quesadillas with Mango Salsa — Add to this discussion

This is a recipe, and has been moved to the Wikibooks Cookbook here. Gentgeen 07:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Davodd 09:21, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Quesadillas are significant and encyclopedic, but this recipe is just a recipe. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Daniel E.Cerquitella — Add to this discussion

This is another article from CML about a non-notable high school teacher. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jeffrey T. Nomura for related information. By the way, after Nomura was deleted, CML recreated the Nomura article, which was speedily deleted. Chris N. 09:43, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. See also the entry for Daniel Edward Cerquitella, an article that apparently got speedy-deleted already. Lupo 10:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• CML doesn't appear to be getting the hint. I notice messages have been left for them since 22 Jun on this matter and they're still doing it: I would call that vandalism and would support blocking this user if they continue to upload this rubbish. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• "11:07, 29 Jun 2004 Theresa knott deleted "Daniel E.Cerquitella" (This is a recreation of Daniel Edward Cerquitella, which has been deleted twice as a nonsense article)" -- Cyrius|✎ 19:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Daniel Edward Cerquitella has also recently been speedy deleted once before (see above).Woggly 10:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Daniel Edward Cerquitella has also recently been speedy deleted once before (see above).Woggly 10:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Galatico — Add to this discussion

Stublet on non-notable auxlang, documented only in Italian according to the article. Google finds lots of hits for the word but most are unrelated since apparently "galatico" is "galactic" in Italian, (Brazilian) Portuguese, and possibly Spanish. -- pne 11:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. We havve many articles on obscure languages. Some even have Wikipedias. Krik 11:41, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • We have exactly two Wikipedias for constructed languages. Documenting obscure natural languages is fine by me, but everybody and his dog can and does produce conlangs, some with delusions of auxlang grandeur. I don't think that every one-man conlang should have an entry here. -- pne 11:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Possible vanity by anon, and unencyclopedic in any case. The article gives no evidence that the Italian-language "novel" in which this artificial language is described exists in printed form rather than just as a file downloadable from the website link given, or that it has any form of fame or recognition. Andrewa 12:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Obscure natural languages are still of notable cultural and anthropological importance. Modern invented languages are only of any significance if you get enough people joining in, even if it just large numbers of rather obsessive fans dressed as sci-fi aliens or hobbits. But with no multi-generational science fiction series or massively successful novel/film trilogy backing it up, this language is of no importance whatsoever. Average Earthman 13:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, a language needs a present or past community of speakers to be worthy of inclusion. Everyking 15:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with the reasoning above. Andris 23:24, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Asot Corporation — Add to this discussion

Quote: "The Asot Corporation is a largely fictitious organization founded by two Pennsylvania kids in search of a label to apply to their activities." Quite endearing, but utterly non-noteable. Maybe a suitable topic for the family chronicles of the families Seaman and Troutman in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, but not for Wikipedia. Delete. Lupo 14:42, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: also not verifiable, and it's breeding categories now... Lupo 14:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This isn't the way to get your name in lights. Geogre 16:01, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, along with any associated trivial categories. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 16:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Tried to get that speedy deleted as nonsense. Delete all and consider blocking user. - Lucky 6.9 16:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Loaded up the now-deleted page. It's vanity, bordering on nonsense. What is with 20-year olds making stupid vanity pages? -- Cyrius|✎ 19:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• This is what was e-mailed to me... - user:zanimum
  • "I have thoroughly read the "What Wikipedia Is Not" guide a few times, and I have found no guideline which would exclude the rather neutral entry that I wrote covering this topic. In fact, the entry does fit into the “Not a Paper Encyclopedia” category. The entry is objective and non-promotional. I understand that the appeal of such a discussion may be limited, but of course, Wikipedia is not paper and is a source for all types of obscure information. Wikipedia has been a great educational tool for me, and I generally pick up all kinds of “useless” information. Why the harsh anti-Asot rhetoric?"
• This is what I responded... - user:zanimum
  • "I've posted this on vfd. Only you and your family have interest in such a company, whereas other so called "useless information" is of interest to hundreds, thousands, millions of people. More than just you family of five, or whatever. Give me an example. - Nick"

Mercedes Divide — Add to this discussion

• Delete due to utter triviality. This is an "article" "about" a one-line quip made by the FCC chairman, Michael Powell, as a play on "digital divide". That's all. No showing that this phrase has had any additional cultural currency aside from Powell's one-time use of it in a press conference. At most, keep as a redirect to either Powell's article or digital divide. Postdlf 18:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, delink, and possibly purge completely (haven't looked at what the text of the stuff linking there is). We do not need a page about every phrase that comes out of a bureaucrat's mouth. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• 517 google hits, for what it's worth. Might merit a mention in digital divide, might as well redirect. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:43, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's still a neologism, even if it came from someone famous. Geogre 01:10, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NJAMD — Add to this discussion

Blank. Neutrality 19:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Not a vote. Content has been restored. --Michael Snow 20:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 21:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. Andris 23:22, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:41, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Paid off — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Neutrality 19:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - could easily have been speedy delete - Tεxτurε 21:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Breeding season — Add to this discussion

The entire content is "During the breeding season Newts live in ponds, the breeding season for the newts is between February and June." I can't imagine that anyone wanting newt information would type in just "breeding season." There's already an article on Newts, and I put the "seasonal" information in it. Joyous 20:06, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete as lacking content. Badly. Even the name doesn't make sense. If the info is already under "newt," that's where it should stay. This is just kiddie-wiki. - Lucky 6.9 21:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• But let's keep it. I'd very much like an article on comparitive breeding seasons noting that humans don't have a breeding season. orthogonal 21:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - no reason to keep a non-article. Later anyone can start the article or, if you wish, you could improve it now to a state that warrants keeping. - Tεxτurε 21:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Redirected to Reproduction, until such time as we have a proper artcile on this resonable subject. Andy Mabbett 21:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: As it is, it's an obvious delete, but the lemma is important. An article on the periodic fertility of fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and only some mammals, and the way this may or may not link to resources for rearing young and presence of predation, would be good, but that would amount to blanking all the contents of this article & sending an empty placeholder to Cleanup. Geogre 00:25, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect until someone is inspired to write a proper article. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Methinks the redirect should have been to Mating season. Its a stub but its more appropriate. Jay 16:09, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The grade three teacher says "Let's write an article for Wikipedia." (Astute him/her, but fails to realize Wikipedia is NJAWS.) Eager students comply. Nine-year-old writing results. Wikipedia is not a pride board. Denni☯ 00:11, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)
• Mating season now redirects to estrus, hence redirect to there. Jay 20:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of future nations — Add to this discussion

This is silly. The intended content already exists at List of unrecognized countries, list of disputed or occupied areas, and List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. --Jiang 19:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This information should be merged to the appropriate articles given by Jiang —siroχo 20:12, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• This could just have been merged with those and a redirect made. Morwen - Talk 20:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Is the author of this article an attested psychic? I for one don't believe Wikipedia has forseeing the future as one of its functions. Fire Star 20:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• If there is any information not contained in List of unrecognized countries, merge. Otherwise, just delete. Andris 20:41, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• A merge is not appropriate. The information is already duplicated. A redirect will be misleading - these are in some cases already "nations" or de facto sovereign states. It is not wikipedia's business to make predictions as the word "future" does. --Jiang 21:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: pure supposition, no fact. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I hope it's just a case of someone accidentally creating a new article without knowing that its contents were already present under a more logically named entry. List of future lottery numbers is the article I'm holding out for. Geogre 00:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The muse is coming over me now... OooooOOOoooOOOoohh... 2... 5... 16... 33... 42... 48... If you win you owe me a million bucks -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:42, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Cool! Drop me a line on my user page when that happens. In the meantime, delete this one as speculation. - Lucky 6.9 05:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - There is no reason for speculation Gangulf 06:38, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -- pne 07:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation, not fact, and therefore inherently POV. Average Earthman 12:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

BDv TrekMUSH — Add to this discussion

It's an advert for a new MUD. Secretlondon 21:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. It is the only running and active MUD of its kind. Several other muds also have listing here, with links at the bottom of the MUD page.64.136.27.227 22:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If this warrants an article then so do I. Delete. Morwen - Talk 14:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Custom code bases are not that unusual. Should every entry in MUDconnector get an article - no! Secretlondon 22:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. Andris 23:19, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A completely unambiguous ad ("Take a look!"), and who is going to search Wikipedia for it? Other than pagerank, it's not even useful as an ad! Geogre 03:59, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• "Take a look?!?" Ooh...adspeak! Delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:12, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Being different isn't significant if it doesn't work. Too new to be considered noteworthy, and hence the article is merely an advert. Average Earthman 12:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Early_National_Socialism/draft — Add to this discussion

• This proposed article has no factual or historical merit and should be deleted. The creator and returning contributor of this article has not answered pointed questions at Talk:Early_National_Socialism/draft and instead dodges the issue with irrelevant replies. The POV of the article itself, ie that "National Socialism" emerged from Socialism is merely a ridiculous sentiment popular among uninformed right-wing circles and without credibility. -- Simonides 23:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Everything is referenced and taken from many sources. There is information there not covered anywhere else unless Andy l has stolen it. It is an Ideology just like Marxism is. Hitler nor Mussolini defined it, named it, or created any of the concepts there in.WHEELER 23:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just so everyone understands, 1) Wheeler is the article creator mentioned above; 2) "National Socialism" is not an objectively confirmed ideology known or accepted by any serious person, apart from the German version, on which there already is an article (there were extreme right-wing parties before Nazism and Fascism but they have only tenuous connections with Nazism itself); 3) Wheeler's "information" consists of random quotes and unsubstantiated conjecture. Please see article. -- Simonides 23:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. If the article is wrong, correct it. The topic is important and interesting; I mean, National Socialism did not spring fully-formed from Hitler's brow, it had origins running back in some cases to the Middle Ages. Let's document those origins. orthogonal 23:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Orthogonal, talking about the origins of an ideology is quite different from saying the ideology existed previously. There is no consistent, documented and widely known ideology known as National Socialism with the exception of 20th century Nazism. The article is not just wrong; it is baseless. -- Simonides 23:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then re-write it by examining the Freikorps after WWI and Viennese anti-Semitism from the 1890s on (that mayor of Vienna, whose name escapes me) and the German pogroms of the Middle Ages and the Church's ban on usury and the formation of Jewish ghettos. -- orthogonal 23:41, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Orthogonal, you are talking about the origins of Nazism, only one of which is anti-Semitism, which has its own article (there's also History of anti-Semitism.) This article purports to be about previous manifestations of Nazism, which do not exist, and is based on the claim that Socialism gave rise to National Socialism, because the word occurs in the latter - a farcical suggestion without an iota of scholarly merit. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote 'the suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists... We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.' -- Simonides 23:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Everyking 23:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I agree that there should be an article on the origins of Nazism. However this article isn't it, and I don't think it can become the article that we want. So delete this draft and wait until somebody writes a keepable version. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Recover if possible, else delete. As enthusiastic as I am about coverage of Nazi topics (sunlight does wonders for clearing up infestations of the stuff), there is an article to write about this, but this isn't it. Someone would have to do the hideous heavy lifting of reading Mein Kampf (it's a bloody awful book). I see no loss from deleting and someone starting over again. OTOH, if there's anything to recover from this mess, it may be worth doing so, because just deleting it will encourage its continued recreation - David Gerard 00:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The Nazism article and the Fascism article are already too large. Do not be stealing my material either. Hitler did say, "We are the full counterpart of the French Revolution".WHEELER 00:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not 'stealing' it when you released it under GFDL the moment you hit 'submit'. You may have greatly misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. - David Gerard 00:41, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I respectfully disagree with you. I think you have greatly misunderstood the GFDL. WHEELER is still the Copyright holder of the text he posted, and does have the legal right to be identified as the original author of his work. This is why maintaining page histories is so important. The GFDL is a copyright license - without an attributable copyright holder, the text cannot be shown to have been released under the GFDL. The relevant wording from Wikipedia:Copyrights is "if you incorporate external GFDL materials, as a requirement of the GFDL, you need to acknowledge the authorship". SkArcher 05:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • It's not from an external source - it's an article posted here. The entire purpose is to make stuff usable across the project - David Gerard 06:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • If (what SkArcher writes) were true than others would not have the right to alter one contributor's "property" or move parts of it to other, more suitable articles. WHEELER accuses me of "stealing" for taking a paragraph from the /draft and putting it in the main article (ie the part on Austrian National Socialism) and he presumably would think it stealing if someone were to take a passage from this article and put it in the main Nazism article. If individuals remain "copyright holders" under GFDL it would open so many problems as to make wikipedia unworkable. If WHEELER wishes to "own" what he writes and have control over it then he should get his own website, post his own material and copyright it rather than post it to an open source project such as Wikipedia. AndyL 05:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • No, he still owns his work - but that's different from the complete control he's claiming - David Gerard 06:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • He cannot stop you from adding the material as you see fit; but you must cite WHEELER as the original author of anything you take to add to any other article with a back link to the original and attribution to his User: page, at the very least. Individuals do remain copyright holders for their entries - otherwise the GFDL has no legal force whatsoever. External Source means any source external to the document you are working on - Wikipedia being made up of a large number of documents. So if you do use any material originally authored by WHEELER, you have to link back. A simple entry in the Edit Summary will be sufficient to comply with copyright law. GFDL is not equal to public domain - and even public domain material has to be correctly attributed, hence why Wikipedia includes all those pages with attribution to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brit. SkArcher 15:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • Come on, this is ridiculous. Can you cite any instances where material has been moved from one location on Wikipedia to another location on Wikipedia, in which this has been done? Or can you cite any basis for your claim that "external source" "means any source external to the [article] you are working on [including other articles on Wikipedia]"? john k 06:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
              • From Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License Section 4D: Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document. Section 4I: Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. Section 4J: Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. - That is directly from the license text. You have to do it or the work violates the GFDL. Sorry, but it's true. SkArcher 13:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                • If this were the case, Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and Lawrence Lessig would have drummed up a lynch mob and razed the Bomis offices to the ground by now. I believe your theory is what judges call "novel" - David Gerard 15:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                  • It would be what is called "correct". You have to maintain notification that WHEELER is the author of the pieces of work in question. This isn't a debate however, so I suggest we end this. Just make sure you maintain the author and version history. There are reasons other than the authors rights for this as well. If an article was plagiarised, and then you moved info from that article to another article, the real owner of the copyrighted material would think that you had directly plagiarised his work, without being able to see the intermediary source. This is particually important when we are discussing deleteing articles, which would erase that trail of attribution. Always cite your sources. SkArcher 17:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, absolutely. The idea that Nazism had anything to do with socialism, other than semantics, is an absurdity propagated by the naive right. The origins of fascism may go to D'Anunzio and the Italian Futurists, and they might have been socialists, later, but that's like saying that the Cultural Revolution was a development of Buddhism. It's extremely annoying when these propaganda points get written as fact. Geogre 00:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Distorts arguments from sources, or cites extreme right-wing sources (including one that advocates the return of monarchy.) This doesn't reflect any mainstream view, only those of the author and a few far right commentators. The author presents arguments as facts by citing the opinions of these right wing writers as references, not presenting them as the viewpoint of said individuals. This is a personal essay, not an objective article. Completely rewrite or delete. --J.S. Nelson 01:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, or at least as "original research" (I use the term research lightly). If the author does wish to work on a draft, he can certainly move it to his user page, and see what it amounts to. —siroχo 01:57, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep if accurate. I think perhaps a change of title might be in order, and if it is proven to be overwhelmingly innacurate (I havn't the time/resources to verify this) WHEELER should at least be given a copy in his user name space. If the problem is one of POV or sourcing (which I doubt, I've only known WHEELER to be meticulous w his sourcing in the past) than provide alternate interpretations or sources. If someone can prove it is a fraud, I'd likely change my vote, but I don't see any proof of that. Sam [Spade] 02:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam, it would help to look at the article and the relevant discussion, which has ample proof, before you vote on it. -- Simonides 03:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • If you have no better response than the pomposity and ad hominem you present here, and the foolish manner in which you present your opinions as fact (with no other citations and verifiability than sites designed sheerly to present your POV) in the talk, than I'm not sure how useful it is to talk to you. The way your haranguing WHEELER about his page is simply awful. Next time, try civility. Sam [Spade] 03:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Sam, I see why I touched a raw nerve - you have just posted a link on the article's Talk page linking to a right-wing wacko who doesn't known the first thing about Socialism and claims Hitler was Socialist on the basis of a single instance where he claimed to be so. Guess what - reading for comprehension and citing context helps, which your author clearly doesn't understand. That opening line of the speech was made at a May Day celebration and was a deliberate parody of Lenin. Maybe you should look up the relevant pages in the book quoted. Secondly, the difference between my POV links and Wheeler's random quotes, lack of context and leaps of logic, is that my links offer explanation, historical facts and substantial quotations that confirm each other - not one-off remarks. Thirdly, it's a tad ironic when you demand civility, humility, and research when you attempt none. -- Simonides 07:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly defined topic, no useful material. IMO the author is trying to broaden the term from the established and generally understood use, and while the content includes some good encyclopedic observations, there are also some insights that belong somewhere that encourages original research but not here, and some very questionable stuff too. They are all mixed together and it would be easier to start again than to try to sort them out. Andrewa 04:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 05:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Article isn't ready for main article status yet, but is a worthy topic for an article. Don't confuse the labelling of a phenomena or philosophy with it's invention - NS existed as an opinion before it was called that. I also question the correctness of putting draft articles on VfD. This is also not the place to talk about the content, only the topic itself. SkArcher 05:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. WHEELER is conflating pre-existing parties or movements called "national socialists" (such as :"French National Socialism") with Nazism and fascism when, in fact, all that is in common among these groups is the name "national socialist". Prior to the Nazis most people or groups who used the term "national socialist" or described themselves as "national socialists" were referring to concepts completely different from Hitlerism. This may be an argument for a "national socialist" disambiguation page but the article itself is quite useless and I was in error in moving WHEELER's material from National Socialism where he originally put it to "Early National Socialism" - it seemed to me at the time that was what he was trying to write about and it was simpler to rename the article than try to merge it with the Nazism article but it's clear now that an article on "Early National Socialism" is not what WHEELER is trying to write - rather he's attempting his own particular thesis on what natioanl socialism is. WHEELER's article is in parts redundant of material in other articles and in other parts completely POV and idiosyncratic. The part on Italian fascism is an attempt to convey opinions WHEELER couldn't get into the fascism article and the parts on German National Socialism that are not POV belong in the article on the Nazi Party. There is an Austrian National Socialism article (whose creation WHEELER both suggested and attacked) which makes that part of the article unnecessary Putting the material on "French National Socialism" in this article incorrectly suggests that it has a relationship to or was a precursor to the German Nazi Party which it was not. This isn't really a "does Nazism have anything to do with socialism" debate but a "does this thing here called national socialism have anything to do with that thing there also called national socialism"? AndyL 08:12, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What WHEELER is doing is akin to having an article on Republicanism that deals with the US Republican Party and the Irish Republican Army as if they were related to each other and part of the same movement. AndyL 09:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good simile. 172 10:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I second AndyL's comments above. 172 08:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are judging the National Socialism through American Eyes and perceptions of socialism. National Socialism is a *phenomena* of Europe of those who rejected international socialism. What you also fail to take into account is that Proudhon, a socialist and founder of "anarchism", stated that he wanted to KEEP PRIVATE PROPERTY. He was against speculation of property, He was also against financiers. He wanted to keep business competition alive. This is the thought of Proudhon and of National Socialism. National Socialism absorbed the thought of Proudhon. Americans are judging European National Socialism of the 1930's with modern American prejudices and concepts. You have to look at it through THEIR eyes not yours.WHEELER 13:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia is about highschoolers learning concepts and of foreigners reading articles. National Socialism now is directed to Nazism. Hitler did not invent the idea nor the concept. "What is National Socialism?" is not answered by the Nazism article.WHEELER 14:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. AndyL puts it relatively clearly and fairly, I think. I have encouraged WHEELER many times to find a site that will allow him to post essays, which is really what he wants to do. The conclusions he draws are so original and unexpected that they have to be considered original historical research. Even if valid (and in my experience I rarely find his conclusions valid), they are not part of what Wikipedia seeks to do. He should be commended for his desire to investigate and explore ideas, but his application of that energy here too often results in the production of controversial essays. This article is one such essay, and does not belong here. Jwrosenzweig 16:07, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Prof Sternhell and Prof Schapiro, and Prof von Kuehnelt is original research? I think not. Prof Sternhell wrote of this material in 1976. New?WHEELER 14:29, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find it funny that American Academia will throw this stuff away. while Prof Schapiro quotes SEVERAL NAZI writers as calling Louis Napoleon and Proudhon has the basis of Fascism. But I should know better American Academia know better than the Nazis and the Fascists themselves. What Arogance!WHEELER 14:32, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Though I wish more contributors...myself included...would cite their sources as well as this author did, it still comes across as an essay and is therefore non-encyclopedic, original research or both. - Lucky 6.9 16:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This page says little else than that national socialism existed before hitler, grew out of socialism, and lists obscure facts. firstly, it's a bunch of bull. Secondly, national socialism is a term so closely related to nazism, that your page will most likely confuse anyone who reads it. wikipedia is meant to be a place where people can come and find information in an easy manner. and last of all, note that topics on national socialism and nazism already exist, making a revised page from this pov superfluous. --naryathegreat

There seems to be a consensus to delete the article. Can any admin delete it now or should we ask someone who hasn't participated in the vote to do it?AndyL 20:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is typical Andy, you never want to follow the rules. You want to break the rules to suit yourself, yet demand that I follow them but you don't have to. This is a good example of your mindset.WHEELER 14:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deletion policy says that the lag time is 5 days for VfD - it was submitted less than 24 hours ago. Secretlondon 20:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks very much to me like crankism masquerading as pseudo-scholarship.Hayford Peirce 01:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well put. 172 06:23, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. What Andy said. john k 06:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that Zeev Sternhell and Prof Schapiro are cranks. I also find it very hypocritical and unprofessional that some will call for deletion of this article and then take what I have written and use it. WHEELER 14:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I won't repeat since so many have made thecase so well. BCorr|Брайен 18:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This is just misrepresentation cherry picking. jallan 03:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hitler did not create the concept, party name, nor ideology of National Socialism. To direct all enquiries of National Socialism to the Nazism page is an Academic Crime. Because this is not the truth. The people here want to obfuscate, obscure and delibrately mislead and keep the misleading going. We are not interested in the truth. We are interested in keeping up appearances and protecting a "false interpretation" and the "Current idea" of American Academia. This article undermines their false conclusions.WHEELER 14:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, it is not acceptable for you to try to cirumvent the deletion of the Early National Socialism/draft page by moving the info to National Socialism. AndyL 19:48, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You may argue with my definition of it. But you can not argue with the facts. I am moving the facts over. Let the page then be a list of facts.WHEELER 15:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seeking truth from fact — Add to this discussion

Seeking truth from fact is hard, so is trying to fathom the reason for this article. Rmhermen 23:42, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: This is from Celebrity Farm Film Philosophy? Wow. It's not nonsense, nor original research, I guess: it's an obvious statement uttered in complete sincerity and obliquity. Geogre 00:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Lethe 03:49, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Reads like pop psychology and is totally unencyclopedic. I, as a duly designated human being, hereby vote to delete. - Lucky 6.9 04:57, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Sophomoric philosophy. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete (or redirect to Epistemology?). Original research. Wikipedia does not concern itself with truth, but with facts. Fact, fact, fact! Wikipedia is a work of realities, a work of facts and calculations. Wikipedia proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and is not to be talked into allowing for anything over. Wikipedia, with a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in its pocket, sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic. You might hope to get some other nonsensical belief into the text of the Britannica, or Grolier, or Encarta, but into the text of Wikipedia—no, sir! Ironic joking aside, delete. Dpbsmith 23:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Precising definition — Add to this discussion

Confusing and short, it's been sitting in cleanup for three months. If you understand it, expand it. :-) If not, let's get rid of it. Jwrosenzweig 23:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete or move. Precise is not a verb in English. It is so used only by French-speaking people whose English is in that regard deficient, and perhaps some others who do not speak English natively. Michael Hardy 00:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I've encountered "precising definition" used in a course on logic in this sense: Types of Definition; it does belong with the other types of definitions listed in the definition article. I've made a stubby attempt to rewrite it to match the term as I've seen it used: I am not familiar with it in some of the contexts the previous author had in mind, or at least, I don't think I am, but can't tell from the way it was written. Mindspillage 02:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Come to think of it, would this and all the other types of definitions be better merged with the main definition entry? Most linked from it don't even have articles yet, though one (operational definition) is fairly lengthy. Mindspillage 03:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mount Buffalo Chalet — Add to this discussion

Advertisment. Is it a notable chalet? Rmhermen 23:49, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. It is notable, but the mention in the article on Mount Buffalo National Park is quite adequate. This is pure advertising copy from an anon and possibly a copyvio. Andrewa 03:59, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• It is a copyvio from [18]. - Lucky 6.9 16:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pure psychic automatism — Add to this discussion

While valid and encyclopedic, it seems too small to merit its own article. Suggest a merge into surrealism or André Breton —siroχo 02:49, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect to surrealism. Postdlf 14:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If it is not to be kept I think it should be merged with surrealist automatism instead. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with that merge —siroχo 05:27, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Clan LMBR — Add to this discussion

Internet gaming group that only recently regrouped. Very vanity-ish. - Lucky 6.9 04:52, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. The article makes no sufficient claim to notability for the clan, indeed it even admits it has already disbanded once due to lack of interest. Average Earthman 12:15, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Maximus Rex 05:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

June 30

The Solo family

Incorporates information from fan fic, apparently. It certainly doesn't come from the movies. RickK 04:58, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

VfD Footer section

This section describes how to list articles and their associated talk pages for deletion. For pages that are not articles, list them at other appropriate deletion venues or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases. Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers.

Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. (Autoconfirmed registered users can also use the Twinkle tool to make nominations.) If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process.

You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.

• To nominate multiple related pages for deletion, follow the multi-page deletion nomination procedure.
• To nominate a single page for deletion, you can use Twinkle, or follow these three steps:

I – Put the deletion tag on the article. Insert {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the article. Do not mark the edit as minor. If this article has been nominated before, use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} or {{subst:afdx|3rd}} etc. Include in the edit summary AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. replacing NominationName with the name of the page being nominated. Publish the page. The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)

II – Create the article's deletion discussion page. The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear. You can do it manually as well: Click the link saying "deletion discussion page" to open the deletion-debate page. Insert this text: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ Replace PageName with the name of the page, Category with a letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done. Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion for [[PageName]]. Publish the page.

III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions. Open the articles for deletion log page for editing. At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:{{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}} Replace NominationName appropriately (use "PageName", "PageName (2nd nomination)", etc.) Link to the discussion page in your edit summary: Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. Publish the page. Consider letting the authors know on their talk page by adding: {{subst:Afd notice|Page name}} ~~~~ If this is not the first nomination, add a second parameter with the NominationName (use "PageName (2nd nomination)" etc.): {{subst:Afd notice|PageName|NominationName}} ~~~~

[[fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer]] [[sv:Wikipedia:Sidor som bör raderas]]