Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Siroxo (talk | contribs) at 03:02, 12 July 2004 (→[[JIRC]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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:

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

See also Guide to deletion | Alternative outlets | Undeletion policy | Deletion guidelines for admins | Deletion process
Archived delete debates | Speedy deletion policy | Category:Pages for discussion


11th 10th 9th 8th 7th 6th - 5th 4th 3rd


Template:VfD frontmatter

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

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

Decisions in progress

July 6

Nadia Cohen — Add to this discussion

Looks to me like a hoax by User:81.155.239.29. Can't find evidence to support it. Moriori 01:04, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

If she was born in the lower East Side, and whored herself out in Chinatown to pay for her studies, then how was her hometown Zona? There's no town of Zona in New York, and it's not a neighborhood of NYC. Also, none of the names of books or people have any hits on Google. Delete. Pyrop 01:41, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • There is nothing as insidious a a bogus article disguised as fact. Speedy delete if possible. - Lucky 6.9 02:09, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • And it gives an irrelevant, dumb porn site as a reference. I am going to pretty much blank it (for simple reasons of Wikipedia's credibility) because I'm not sure it's OK to speedy delete (though I'd be for it). Same name was also a victim of another hoax, deleted a few weeks back. I figure the only reason to look at this is for this discussion of deletion. If you want, you can still see the page before I blanked content, at least till it gets speedy-deleted... -- Jmabel 03:22, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • I foolishly checked the link in the article before I saw Jmabel's comments. Ick. What a weird hoax article. Delete it a lot. Geogre 03:33, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably hoax. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - link from contributor makes it a hoax or nonsense - Tεxτurε 17:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Guess what? It's back, and by the same user! I've posted it as a speedy. - Lucky 6.9 23:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Derek Austin Thomas — Add to this discussion

14 year old actor, "hasn't had MANY roles" ... "was also in various other camcorder recorded programs". No google hits for "Derek Austin Thomas". Delete, vanity. -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Vanity plus micronation divided by inadherance to the rules equals delete. - Lucky 6.9 02:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • delete - for the above reasons - dramatic 02:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: "Ladies and gentlemen, Maxell recording artist Derek Austin Thomas!" Geogre 03:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow, has his own micronation as well. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I want my own micronation. Maybe I'll name it after myself... "Tεxas"? - Tεxτurε 17:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I love the name, but then we'd have to vote to delete your article about it. :^)) - Lucky 6.9 18:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if I think it is unfair for his dog in North Carolina... --Alexandre 21:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Considering that I had previously, yet erroneously, believed that the Dominion of Langley WAS NOT a Micro-Nation and that Micro-Nations WERE real countries, this article has revolutionized my views on two subjects. Delete nevertheless. - Nat Krause 09:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've decided I'm going to start my own micronation, so that I can have a wikipedia article of my very own. I'm going to call it George... Can you tell it's 3am and I haven't been to bed yet...? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Conflate — Add to this discussion

Dicdef. Unsalvageable. Ambivalenthysteria 03:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Not even worth sending to Wiktionary. That etymology sounds kinda questionable, and the "definition" is just a list of synonyms. Isomorphic 05:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (I added the vfd-tag.) Lupo 11:48, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: The etymology in English is correct, but they give the wrong Latin (con+flatus, against/with + wind/blow). A subpar definition. Geogre 12:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless waffle. JFW | T@lk 00:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Chigga — Add to this discussion

Dicdef and summarization of a Crank Yankers sketch. Pyrop 03:23, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Even though it is slang, this isn't even the primary definition of the word :) See [1] (if link fails, look up 'chigger' at [2]) Delete -- Chuq 03:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Someone is writing an article about a word heard exactly twice on a single episode of a single television show on cable TV in the US. Geogre 02:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Koi photo with six types — Add to this discussion

This article was created as a way to have a "click here for a larger image with caption" link on the Koi article (see old version: [3]). I have just copied the caption over to the Image:Six koi-700px.jpg page and used thumnail markup to achieve the same thing, so this page is now an orphan whose function is redundant. Bryan 03:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Delete. (I actually think the image description page is reader-unfriendly and shouldn't be displaying both reader-helping captions and reader-mystifying editor aids, but I seem to be alone in that concern.) Stan 04:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That should have been a speedy delete. Deleted it. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personal Cinema — Add to this discussion

Article Personal Cinema listed on WP:VFD July 6 to July 14 2004, consensus (barring anonymous votes which do not count towards consensus) was to delete. Discussion:

Oh, joy! Rapture! Another ad! - Lucky 6.9 04:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Lucky: Hey, I'm sorry if you see it that way. I added the site because it is a description of an organization that is doing some really exciting work with artistic adaptations of video games. Here are some further URLs that you can peruse to see what I'm talking about. Perhaps you read one of the earlier drafts without seeing where it was going? User: Andy 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wrong! This is totally germane to the category Artistic_computer_game_modification unsigned comment from User:66.114.67.118, who is both the creator of the article and the author of the comments signed "Andy"
  • Looks like personal promotion. No evidence of any notability. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The work shown in Madrid and more recently at the City Museum of Skopje, Macedonia, is more interesting than the game-patch work that was shown in this year's Whitney Biennial. Suppress this if you like, but I'm sure it belongs here. Andy
  • Aw, nuts. Why am I the only guy that gets called out on these things? Andy, Cyrius has it right. There has to be a certain degree of notability to be included here. It's subjective, to be sure, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. And, there has to be a certain degree of encyclopedic content with history, usage, impact and the like. What you've written comes off as an ad. Ironically, this may not help your cause since this is an ongoing general reference work, not an advertising repository. Nothing personal, and I wish you luck with your project one way or the other. - Lucky 6.9 05:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Google doesn't turn up anything that marks it as encyclopedic to me. Nifty project idea, but I still vote to delete. Mindspillage 05:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've refined the historical aspects of the entry, in case anyone wants to review. I wasn't aware that Google was the arbiter of history. The Greeks will certainly be amused to learn that!
  • This still reads like a press release. Unless it rewritten, delete. Morwen - Talk 08:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Thou dost protesteth too much. Delete. Ambivalenthysteria 09:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert - good luck - Tεxτurε 17:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • As Terry Pratchett once said: oh deary deary me. Delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:02, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I am sure that it is a difficult matter to choose what is knowledge and what is not. I like the "google" empiricism this is the right way to search for the truth of the linguistic networks .Great work -- Do not delete -- alex


Nutella banana toast — Add to this discussion

Almost-recipe. Entire content is a picture and the sentence "The name and the image fully describe the ingredients and the receipe of Nutella banana toast." SWAdair | Talk 04:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. (We don't have — or need — entries on, say, peanut butter toast, or butter cinnamon sugar toast, or toast with butter and jam, or what have you.) -Branddobbe 04:24, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. btw it has already been speedily deleted once. Oh, and the picture is ludicrously huge (2560x1920, 1273661 bytes). —Stormie 04:32, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this is my favorite new article, probably because I'm hungry. My wife and I are each considering the possibility of a run to the store soon for the "receipe." Though I vote delete, this shall live on in my gut, though in very limited quantity. I've lost twenty pounds and counting and I don't want to put it back on. :^) - Lucky 6.9 04:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I love Nutella. Delete anyway. Odd. Isomorphic 05:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Even though this has prompted me to go get Nutella later, delete. Mindspillage 05:33, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • If one person can come up with a reason, why we should keep french toast and delete banana nutella toast, then delete all toast articles. All toasts are created equal, or are some more equal? 2nd: You voters have to be more careful with the feeling of people who make an effort to submit their knowledge. A person may choose to never submit anything ever again. 3rd: Is there anything untrue about this article? Anything incorrect? It's real and true. And all such things should be in an encyclopedia. Knowledge is power! Inventor and creator of the Banana Nutella Toast and its article Fri Jul 9 11:05:47 HKT 2004
  • Yes, it is. We thank you from the bottom of our carbohydrate-craving hearts for the idea which, quite frankly, sounds utterly delicious. Especially since I happen to be of Italian extraction and Nutella is arguably the national spread of Italy. The difference is this: No one will come to a general reference work looking for "Banana Nutella Toast." Try ordering that in a restaurant sometime. You're going to get one weird look. French toast is widely known...and widely eaten. There are also a bunch of variations of the theme, therefore making it worthy of an article in any encyclopedia. We're having fun with this, to be sure, but the consensus is that it doesn't belong here. Still, thanks for the terrific idea. - Lucky 6.9 05:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • My personal favourite is banana and toffee toasted sandwiches. I can't stand nutella so delete with a vengeance. (If you want a real reason it's becasue this is unencyclopedic). -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:05, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Cannot verify if bread is actually toasted, looks like plain white bread. --Buster 22:09, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC) (Vote moved here from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk)
  • Delete - Cannot verify if bread is actually toasted, looks like plain white bread. --Buster 22:09, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Programmabilities — Add to this discussion

Looks like an ad -- and not a very good one, either -- for a site with an Alexa ranking of 5,586,796. Mindspillage 05:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. —Stormie 05:51, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Advert - Tεxτurε 17:09, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • No, wait! A company "that provides information for programmers and webmasters", this is a new and brilliant idea! No? Oh well. Delete, then. --Alexandre 21:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Ghastly. Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete. You are a bunch of Microsofty snobs. "Programmabilities" is a real word and thus belongs in an encyclopedia. It is also the name and domain of a corporation - like the name "microsoft" which is in the encyclopedia. You can delete your encyclopedia but you can't delete a real word. I am managing this word. And when I get time I will improve its encyclopedic entry. User:programmabilities
  • Delete. Same advert posted by User:programmabilities to his userpage and usertalk page. Maximus Rex 03:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • As we've said, if it quacks like an ad... - Lucky 6.9 23:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ad. - Szabo 01:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Boden (family) — Add to this discussion

Boden (family) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was m:transwiki to Wiktionary. As of 16:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), the article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk) 16:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

and similar pages - non-enc. jimfbleak 06:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Commenting on receipt of message -

"User talk:82.145.213.10 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Hi - I have been deleting some of your family name articles on the basis that they are not encyclopedic. I realise that they are posted in good faith, which is why I'm contacting you. If you are not happy with this, please discuss it on Votes for Deletion. jimfbleak 06:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

Reply - As the contributor to Boden, obviously a definition of encyclopedic would be helpful before I dedicate any more of my time to this Wiki project, (a definition I understand to mean broad in scope or content). Do you mean the project is not broad in scope or content, or do you require the entries to be broad in scope or content? The reason I ask is that my entry did not appear to be any different from a number of other pages I came across during browsing random pages, hence my decision to contribute (prompted by the major feature on BBC's "Click Online" on BBC World).I had considered adding the bullet point that it was also a family name to the Boden (place in Sweden page), but that appeared to be inappropriate.

Perhaps Jim could also kindly clarify what he has deleted of my contributions as a guide? I have submitted new items and amended typos and other errors in some items I had browsed. Thanks - Mark Grace

  • Delete: On this entry, the author defines the name, which would make it a dictionary entry, rather than an encyclopedia entry. (I also think the derivations are off, but that's another matter.) On family name entries in general, the problem is that these duplicate myriad genealogical sites on the Internet and serve a different set of interests from those of encyclopedia readers. They list, rather than contextualize. They set up a strictly hierarchical organization of human generations, rather than a taxonomic, lateral and vertical, organization of human knowledge. Thus: Boden should be deleted for being an etymology/dictionary entry. Genealogy in general should go to one of the sites that serve those interests. Geogre 19:55, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Try wiktionary where I believe they are looking into surname entires (though this wouldn't cut the mustard there either). -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article's changes make it a better Wiktionary entry. I think it will be helpful there, but maintain my vote to move to Wiktionary (delete here). Geogre 02:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

Congress Hall — Add to this discussion

All the information currently on this page is about Independence Hall, which already has an article. Furthermore, Congress Hall and Independence Hall are seperate buildings in Philadelphia. I'd also like to note that it is copy-and-pasted from the public domain site, http://www.nps.gov/inde/indep-hall.html. Chris N. 07:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: The name should be preserved, and there needs to be an article on Congress Hall, but the content here is insufficient for an article on Independence Hall and doesn't even attempt Congress Hall. Perhaps "Congress Hall" should be put on the list of most-wanted articles after this is deleted. Geogre 12:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • What Geogre said. Delete. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why Canada sucks — Add to this discussion

  • Should be deleted immediately. utcursch July 6, 2004
  • Totally unencyclopedic. Was tempted to speedy-delete this soapbox rant. andy 08:22, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • With a title like that, do I even need to look at the article? Isomorphic 08:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's also a copyvio [4]. Speedy delete if you wish. Fredrik | talk 08:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, certainly. Charles Matthews 08:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the thing, by all means.
  • All thumbs up. Delete this. yaz0r 08:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Fatal problems of style, substance and NPOV: remove quick. Adhib 08:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Kenny TM~ 09:59, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Why wasn't this immediately deleted? Now we have to go through the torment of seeing it for a whole week. It's blatant racism, and the contributor should be blocked. Deb 11:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Um... "racism"? The Canadian race? Maybe "countryism"? - Tεxτurε 03:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Obvious whining, vandalism, and the postings of an anacephalic. Geogre 12:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Either delete, or rewrite and change to Anti-Canadian sentiment. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 12:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've speed deleted it as patent nonsense. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:09, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I remember nominating a copy of this article for a speedy delete a while ago. Probably the same little bugger, who vadalised a few pages too. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Canada does suck. The 51st state is the scum of the nation. BJAODN --Jiang 22:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey Hey watch the language, I'm french canadian Personally, I believe that canada has no right to be country! 

 The United States should be able to claim what is rightfully ours!  We need a place to store all of our crap!  And canada fits that perfect cuz its all ready full of crap!

Bostock — Add to this discussion

Article Bostock listed on WP:VFD July 6 to July 13 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Surname page. Nonencyclopedic. Ambivalenthysteria 09:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: As a word definition, it belongs in Wiktionary. As a family trace, it belongs to another project. (Hmm, bo-stock from boef stock (a doublet, possibly meaning stockyard)? Onomastic etymologies are weird.) Geogre 20:00, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cottrell — Add to this discussion

Surname page. Nonencyclopedic. Ambivalenthysteria 09:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but there's quite a famous old estate in the Vale of Glamorgan called Cottrell, so I would like to change the article accordingly if I can find some info on the subject. Deb 12:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete if not remade into estate article - Tεxτurε 17:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: At this point, the article is still a surname definition, and I'm doubtful about that (but that's just because names are really weird eytmologies). Perhaps Cottrell estate as a new article? Geogre 02:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dentsu — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dentsu

AEGEE — Add to this discussion

Untitled

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 6 to July 14 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

  • I think this looks like a vanity page? — Timwi 12:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • AEGEE is a pretty big organization in european universities, so I think it's a good idea having a page on the organization. I've been working in 3 different universities across Belgium an the Netherlands, and AEGEE was very present at all three of these, gathering hundreds (maybe thousands) of students across Europe. I thus vote against deletion of this page. Maybe you could explain why you think this is a vanity page --Anthony Liekens 15:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. AEGEE is big enough to deserve an article in Wikipedia. However, it is not very encyclopedic in its current form. Cleanup needed. --Alexandre 22:00, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • i suggest to keep it. I therefor vote against the deletion. I will propose another version of the text so that it will be more academic. --[[User:adrian.pintilie|adrian pintilie] 19:27, 7 July 2004 (UTC)
  • i suggest to keep it. I therefor vote against the deletion. AEGEE is almost a historical organization concerning european student exchanges.

End discussion

Requested move

  • I think AEGEE would be a more concise title, and there isn't any other acronym that conflicts with it. The title is too long, and it isn't meaningful for English speakers. The full title is normally only used to explain the acronym. Sharcho 02:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's already a redirect from both AEGEE and European Students Forum to this page, so anyone typing those into the search box would still find this article. Per the naming conventions, pages shouldn't normally be named with an acronym unless it's already world-famous, and so far I don't think AEGEE is. Moyabrit 13:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AEGGE logo.svg

Image:AEGGE logo.svg 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 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 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of AEGEE

Currently there is a logo of AEGEE-Europe in the article. I think the logo should be changed to a logo without Europe (so just AEGEE). Van der Hoorn (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the change of the logo. The article is mainly about AEGEE-Europe and thus the logo of AEGEE-Europe should be there. Next to this, the logo represents an ideology (having the shape of a key and so on). Using a logo without "Europe" in it would take away this meaning. next to this, the operators manual states that teh AEGEE logo should not be used without the name of a body (Either Europe, a local or a working Group).
patrick (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AEGEE-Europe doesn't exist; you won't find it in the statute anywhere. Formally it's called AEGEE, hence the logo should represent this. Van der Hoorn (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zivot Je Cudo — Add to this discussion

  • I think I fail to see the relevance of this article even to its title? — Timwi 12:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's an advert for a movie, and a copyvio: [5] -- I'll post it on the copyvio page. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is an article about the movie.Avala 10:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kerridge — Add to this discussion

Advert. Not even relevant to the village of Kerridge, so no merit in even keeping as a stub. Noisy 13:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Paedophile Scoutmaster — Add to this discussion

Sorry, Forgot to log in before I put this up for deletion.

No band known as Paedophile Scoutmaster listed on google. If it exists this entry mey be personal advertising. Gratuitous use of foul language under the guise of song titles in my opinion. Possible Troll. --Martin TB 14:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Speeedy delete as patent nonsense/vandalism. AMG does not know a band by this name, although there is a DJ Paedofile. [6]. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Meishu Sama — Add to this discussion

Article Meishu Sama listed on WP:VFD July 6 to July 14 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Obvious vanity page (first person POV religious rambling is a slight clue). Possible speedy, but it is almost BJAODN Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Takes all kinds, doesn't it? I thought for a moment that this was a Nigerian advance fee scam! Delete, delete, and delete. Send it to the light, brothers. - Lucky 6.9 16:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - and delete any other article that starts "I am a yogi" unless it ends in "... bear". - Tεxτurε 17:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Or "Berra." :^P - Lucky 6.9 21:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Aha! Did anyone catch the references to other VfD candidates "Johrei and Reiki?" Her (enlightened) colon demon was cured by them. I wonder if this "not recognized as a religion" Reiki is mounting an organized infiltration. Delete on the grounds that Wikipedia already cures (enlightened) colon demons, except those in the bodies of medical interpreters. The article amounts to an ad. Geogre 17:08, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • "Tufts University School of Medicine Faculty member "? Remind me to check the diplomas of all doctors I visit to make sure they didn't get their degreees from Tufts. Delete. RickK 19:51, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
Comment: the article is being rapidly edited. I think the "Tufts faculty" means that she was a medical interpreter for the Tufts hospital. I may be wrong, but that's what I got from the first iteration of the article. Geogre 20:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Decided to add that to List of diploma mills... Rhymeless 23:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It may have been edited, but it sure as shootin' isn't any better. My colon demons compel me to maintain my vote to delete this enlightening bit of puffery and to enlighten all of you to the possibilities deletion will bring, such as increased disk space. So shall it be done. - Lucky 6.9 21:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Get thee behind me, Colon Demons! 'Recto Me, Satanas!' - delete. DS 18:09, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

O-Zone — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/O-Zone

The lies that men tell — Add to this discussion

This appears to be a vanity page about a six minute long film by students. Looking more closely, there have been several other POV edits to Fabio Burch Salvador, and Building of Horrors including one by User:Fabioburch and several others coming from the IP range 200.175.XX.XX. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC).

Let's see:

  • Delete all - also delete Fabio Burch Salvador who lists in his accoplishments this film along with a "fake electoral campaign" and showing his "movies" on channel 6 and Building of Horrors - another of his movies listing most of his family as cast and crew. - Tεxτurε 17:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all: What's the point? Wikipedia is not a free web host, not an advertising medium, not a bulletin board, not a jobs service. The channel seems to be a community access channel. Geogre 17:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I´m coming in this discussion to say some words. Well, first: I wrote about myself. Just because people write to me and sometimes ask me if I exist. My fake campaign makes people email me to ask if I do exist! And, well, my movies have some relatives in the cast list. Of course they have! They are trash home-made movies. But Channel 6 shows those home-made movies, and there´s an Orkut community to discuss those masterpieces of home-made trash movies (the community: "Os filmes do canal 6" - or, in english, it would be "the movies of channel 6". It´s a city-wide channel. And the funny part of all this is that our movies are REALLY BAD ONES! All movies there have relatives of director and producers in the cast. Some examples: "Fatman and Robada", "The Reflex", "Anumatus Immaturus", and more. In fact, "Animatus Immaturus" has only one name: the same guy is the director, writer and actor. His older brother was the camera operator.

Then why not set up a user page? Let people find all that information there, quench their curiosity, and learn important things about you? The student film is not, at present, a notable contribution to the world. Geogre 17:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. In the US, we call this "public access cable." PAC shows nothing but programs produced by local residents. The cable system where I live loans equipment and studio time to those who wish to contribute. They aren't broadcast outside the service area. Yours sounds like a fun project, but it simply isn't notable enough to be in a worldwide cyber-encyclopedia. - Lucky 6.9 17:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fabio again: Well, I tought that WIKIPEDIA was supposed to have ALL knowledge in the world to anyone who wants to read about any thing. And I tought it would be nice if people of my town could read about those things.

Oh, and I almost forgot to say: Some one sai that THE LIES THAT MEN TELL was "another movie where cast crew are most of my family". Well, let me ask you something: where did you find a relative of mine in "THE LIES THAT MEN TELL" ? Let´s see: Script: Isidoro GUGGIANA Director: Fabio BURCH Actor: Otavio ABUCHAIM Actress: Carol MILANEZ

The list of crew members includes surnames DEXHEIMER, SANTANA, LERMEN, and others. Teachers who guided us during the work: Anibal DAMASCENO and Glenio POVOAS. Where are my relatives?

Fabio once again: Ah, thank you for saying our communitarian Tv is a funny idea. this is ho it works: The Communication Law of brazil states that every Cable TV company must give one channel to communitarian activity. In Porto Alegre, it´s Channel 6. Well. There are some shows in this channel. One of those shows is "Curtas Gauchos", or "Gaucho Short Movies". If you want your movie to be shown, you must send the tape to the Tv administrators. They will select the movies and put them on exhibition.

My movies are really bad, because they have cheap effects and unexperienced actors. But they are funny to watch, so the Tv guys selected them.

Do I have to overthrow the president to enter Wikipedia?

I did not like when a guy said "Wikipedia is not a free web host...". I do not intend to use Wikipedia as a free web host. I worte the article about Count Orlock, I wrote some other articles (one about Joao Goulart, and others). I have contributed, and will contribute a lot more, with all knowledge that I have. You, who wrote that "free web host" thing, who do you think you´re talking to? I´m not going to tolerate such offenses. You´re protected by distance, because you would not be man enough to tell me that in person.

  • Fabio, our broadcast laws regarding cable TV are similar in that regard, although most of our programming, at least in my area, is community service-related. No public access program would be considered for inclusion here. They are not of broad enough interest. One local example of ours is a talk show hosted by a delightful acquaintance of mine named Patti Caruso. Patti happens to be the mother of MTV's Carson Daly. Carson was a radio DJ here in the Palm Springs, California area for several years before hitting the big time. BTW, I'd only met Carson a couple of times before he moved to San Francisco, and then only briefly. Does Patti's "Valley Views" program merit inclusion here? IMO, no. Your other contributions are appreciated and we share your frustration, but you're not going to win many supporters with an attitude like that. - Lucky 6.9 17:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • No matter how much you contribute (and we do appreciate it) you don't gain the right to create pages about yourself and your work. Please continue to make this a better encyclopedia. You get credit in the page histories and get to talk about yourself on your user page. - Tεxτurε 17:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fabio says: once again you did not understood what I just wrote. i am not saying that by contributing I get the right to put anything I want on Wikipedia. I said that i contributed with some articles, and was just making anothe contribution when i wrote about my own movies.

I did not know that a subject needed to be "important" to be in Wikipedia. i tought that Wikipedia was going to have ALL knowledge possible. So, if one man, in one town, wanted to read about a very obscure subject, he would find it here.

Of course, I was wrong, Wikipedia is only for "important" subjects. So, delete the pages about me, and if somebody comes searching for them, I will have to tell the people that there are some things that Wikipedia just won´t have a text about. I´m not looking for propaganda here. Let´s see: My movies are in portuguese, no one of you would watch it. I am not looking for greater fame on those movies, because they are underground ones, I do not want to remembered for them in the future. It´s just for play.

But I am concerned that this "World Wide" encyclopedia has some obscure subjects located in USA, India, England. Some subjects that I never heard about. And I am not asking them to be deleted.

And bout my attitude not getting many supporters... well, I am not going to play the good guy just to get some supporters. I never played the good guy. And I will never do so.

  • OK, let's try once more. Take a deep breath and relax. Better? Now that we're calm and collected, please reread the comments Texture and I left for you. No one is trying to deny you anything and no one is asking you to play the "good guy." Your contributions about general information are appreciated. And, no one is out to destroy the articles up for debate. The information would best serve you and the project on your own user page. If you want to tell the world about your public access work, then by all means please do so, but do so within the context of the site. Friends? - Lucky 6.9 18:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to store all the knowledge in the world. We have the Internet to do that. DJ Clayworth 21:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Continue this discussion in the talk page for the account that I hope the contributor will create. Andrewa 21:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is this film of any importance or note? If not, and it is not deleted, what is to stop me posting articles about fictional essays that I wrote whilst at school? David Thrale 21:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Good evening, Fabio. Please consider creating an account so that we can all discuss in more detail without cluttering up this page. (If you have an account, please sign your comments with four tildes.) Briefly, you are not alone in thinking that Wikipedia should try to capture all knowledge. You are, however, in the minority. The current standard set by the majority of the Wikipedia community who chose to express an opinion is that we will choose to restrict our encyclopedia to "notable", "verifiable" and/or "useful" information for reasons that have been discussed at length at What Wikipedia is not and its archived Talk pages. While that decision should be periodically reevaluated, the discussion should probably be started on Village Pump, not here. Based on the current standards, delete. Rossami 22:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Though I am part of that small minority that (may) believe that all knowledge belongs in Wikipedia, I still vote delete. I'd say there may be a time for such things, but the time is not now. Rhymeless 04:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fabio´s words: You may be thinking why did I left the discussion board earlier today, and returned now. Well, I just had to go to work. In fact, I have been thinking about all those questions, and, when I calmed down from being offended by some messages left here, I just figured out that it´s not the right time for me to be on Wikipedia. The time will come when I will get a place on the list of world notable persons. But this time is not right now.

So, just to finish, I would like to vote for deletion of articles "Fabio Burch Salvador", "The Lies that men tell" and "The Building of Horrors".

You must be thinking: "Why is he deleting his own stuff". Well, I tought Wikipedia had ALL things on it. Now I know Wikipedia is only for the world wide important things, I must say: I´m still not world wide important subject. I recognize that, and I´m asking you to delete it.

You may not believe that I´m really Fabio and that I am writing this, but I am. I have an account but I don´t know how to sign with my account name yet.

With no further opposition, it´s a consensus: delete the 3 articles.

I just wanted to add one thing: My attitude was not writing about school work or something like that, as som one said. We have almost no mainstream cinema in Brazil. We have no Hollywood here. So, university movies are most of our "mainstream" production. There´s real space in our society to such almost-amateur movies. Because, without them, the country would almost not have any national cinema production at all.

In fact, I just deleted the entire text of the 3 articles right now.

It was a nice discussion. Apart the few offensive messages that some people wrote about me, it was a fair discussion. Now I must work on a new text about one of our historical movements: Integralism, the doctrine of the sigma. Good night to all of you.

Fabio - user: fabioburch

Building of Horrors — Add to this discussion

Vanity from same stable as The lies that men tell. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Fabio Burch Salvador — Add to this discussion

Vanity from same stable as The lies that men tell. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Plum television — Add to this discussion

We now move our discussion of public access cable from Brazil to New England. This is for the PAC channel itself. - Lucky 6.9 18:09, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - as above in The lies that men tell - Tεxτurε 19:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Too minor to have affected the world or be a subject the world will seek information on. Geogre 02:53, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Rocket Arena — Add to this discussion

Untitled

Shouldn't rocket jumping be mentioned? O_o

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 6 to Jul 24 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

  • Delete - advert for one server's implementation of Quake - Tεxτurε 19:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) Relisted due to deadlocked discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:06, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am not sure why you consider this an advert? There are others like it, see Mod (computer_gaming). If you do not allow this kind of addition, then perhaps you should consider deleting the others like it, like Counter-Strike Paitum 19:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I was bordeline on it. It is clearly just being used on one server of many that are on the same web site. I figure if it is considered valid it will get a vote to keep. I don't mind if it stays if enough are convinced it is more than a single server's rendition. - Tεxτurε 21:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • What do you mean "single server's rendition"? Do you mean that there seems to be only one website supporting this, and therefore does not constitute a large enough community, making it not significant enough for Wikipedia? Paitum 22:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes. I have my own rewritten wiki (perl based) and my own modified doom server (VaDoom). Should I get an article too? - Tεxτurε 03:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • If your Perl-based Wiki became used by thousands then yes. Do you believe that there is only one server running Rocket Arena? If so, you are mistaken. There are many servers, in fact Rocket Arena has several ladders on the Online Gaming League and others. I will admit that Q3 is getting old and as people move on to newer games, that Rocket Arena will becoming less popular. However, I wouldn't be surprised if a Rocket Arena mod is released for Doom III and/or Half-Life 2. (Texture, please see my post at bottom as well). Paitum 16:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And, if you let us know where they are, all the others like it. DJ Clayworth 21:00, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe material for an article on Quake mods? If not delete. Ianb 21:09, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe the issue at hand here is how encyclopedic is this. Undoubtedly mods as well known as Counter Strike deserve to be included, while the mod I made last summer does not deserve such acclaim. The question is where do you draw the line? I would argue that Rocket Arena has survived long enough (through all three versions of Quake) that it deserves its own page. It is still being supported as is shown by the last release, being April 2004. Paitum 22:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've heard of Rocket Arena, and I have a deep loathing of the Quake series. No vote, I just want to make it clear that this isn't some no-name game mod we're talking about. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I used to play Quake and Rocket Arena was a famous, major mod, used by probably thousands of servers. This is certainly not an advert or personal vanity page. --Shibboleth 14:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Current tally 3 delete, 2 keep at time of relisting. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:06, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I've never played Quake, but this name rings a bell. 39,000 google hits for "Rocket Arena", 26,000 with Quake thrown in. Planetquake has a forum dedicated solely to rocket arena. Keep. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:51, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notorious mod for Quake (especially) that shaped mods like it up until 2004, and was important in bringing mod-multiplayer to the forefront. It's substantial, notable, and interesting. Keep. --G3pro July 18, 2004
  • Keep. There's very few Quake modifications which are terribly significant, but Threewave-CTF and Rocket Arena certainly are. It's had considerable influence on subsequent FPS games. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • (not a vote) I've rewritten the article (perhaps rather more radically than I'd intended; sorry if I've stepped on anyone's toes), including making RA's popularity and influence clearer. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, please. This is a major mod in the Quake scene with a lengthy history. -- Solitude 01:47, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Solitude said. Ambivalenthysteria 07:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep OR merge into an article about Quake mods (if one exists) Chuq 04:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think we are at a point where we can close this issue, and remove it from the deletion list. Several people have contributed to it and expanded it into a clean wikipedia entry. (Yes, I am the person who created this entry, so I am biased, but let's go work on other things.) Paitum
  • Keep. Rcoket Arena is a well-known mod (I have heard of it, and was only briefly a serious Quake player), and the entry in Wiki is well-written. People need to keep in mind that, since a lot of computer geeks edit Wiki, we'll have a lot of articles that are only of interest to geeks. Samboy 06:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ianb 09:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rocket Arena has been around for nearly 11 years now and is still played by thousands. It would be mindless to get rid of it. 207.172.197.71

End archived discussion

Interesting facts

I don't quite know where it fits into this article, but an interesting fact is that David "CRT" Wright filed a Trademark on the name "Rocket Arena" (serial number 75935528) which can be found in http://tess2.uspto.gov/ - though it is no longer a live trademark.

Also, Quake Live has incorporated the Clan Arena gametype into the game itself (but not Dual Arena, or any of the RA maps). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.104.222 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1 (Constitution of Malaysia) — Add to this discussion

Part 1 (Constitution of Malaysia) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

  • Delete - not linked by Constitution of Malaysia and main article references external links for actual text instead of this copy. - Tεxτurε 19:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) Relisted due to deadlocked discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikisource, which already has a bunch of constitutions. - Mustafaa 02:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this article and all articles having to do with the Constitution of Malaysia. The whole thing is in Wikisource already. --Ardonik 00:44, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hasn't this been here before? (Delete and Wikisource anyway). DJ Clayworth 02:13, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:57, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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


Ontological distinction — Add to this discussion

  • This article reads, to me, as complete nonsense. I don't believe the term is in widespread use. I did some googling and the non-mirror content I found don't read much like the article. I can't fix it and doubt if anyone can, and suggest deletion. UninvitedCompany 21:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Almost BJAODN. Author has to get some points for originality for bouncing between existential questions and binary code. Definite (but kinda fun) nonsense and definite delete. - Lucky 6.9 21:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid topic, see also Ontological distinction (computer science). The talk page and history show a sometimes hilarious saga of love, war, and the associated phenomena. Hey, what's new? I wouldn't wish this on cleanup, perhaps we need a special page and a boilerplate for this sort of thing. Suggestions? Andrewa 22:05, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know how to vote on this. Ontology is a cornerstone (or a dark corner) of philosophy and theology, and an ontological distinction is straightforward enough (if ontology is knowable), but, well, this article is a mess! Cartesian dualism codes directly into F=ma? There are about twelve steps of intellectual history innuendo that just got glossed over. Ontology is such a barely discussed section of philosophy that, well, I'm not educated by this article, not convinced that empiricism's naive ontology and empiricism's naive idealism are fittingly described here. I don't think I'm showing my ignorance when I say that this should be deleted as much as I am showing, I hope, how the article fails in its duty of informing me. Geogre 00:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The phrase "ontological distinction" is in widespread use in metaphysical philosophy. Try searching for the term with Heidegger and you'll get better results. From what I can tell, however, this widespread use is simply that of ontological as an adjective modifying distinction, and I'm not aware that it's a special term of art that wouldn't be covered by the term ontology. I have studied a little Heidegger, and I wouldn't be able to come up with more than a dictionary definition, though I'm certainly no expert. The existing content is an idiosyncratic personal essay that doesn't belong here and doesn't seem salvageable. Trying to pair "ontological distinction" with "operational distinction" is a mistaken mixture of metaphysical ontology with computer science concepts. We could delete, but I've redirected to Ontology instead. --Michael Snow 00:39, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pre-redirect version of the article isn't useful. Let's just start over. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, that is, leave as it is now, a redirect to ontology. --Gary D 00:43, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Guided by Voices — Add to this discussion

Former featured article candidateWikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Wikipedia milestones
DateProcessResult
August 25, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted

VFD

Article listed on WP:VFD July 6 to July 14 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Re: Guided by Voices

NPOV mess, repeated target for vandalism, is this an encyclopedic article? RickK 21:07, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Perfectly encyclopedic and largely factual/neutral (which obviously wasn't the case a week or two ago). What is there to object to in this article? --rbrwrˆ 21:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Uh, keep, real and famous band. Everyking 23:43, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • What Everyking said. Why is this here? Ambivalenthysteria 03:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - needs a little NPOV and TLC, but not deletion. -Sean Curtin 05:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP. Not sure why this has been repeatedly been targeted for changes and deletion... especially with recent changes in place. This entry remained wacky for months and months until a flurry of recent interest (including that of RickK).

End discussion

GbV versus GBV

Isn't the spelling Guided By Voices?

I don't think prepositions are capitalized in titles. Deleuze 02:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The band's name appears as Guided By Voices on Do the Collapse, the only album where the name isn't in either all capital or all lowercase letters. QuentinJamstar 01:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How the name is capitalized on album covers is mostly irrelevant. Wikipedia policy is to normalize capitalization of band names. See WP:NC#Album titles and band names. --PEJL 09:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i changed "bestselling" to "legendary" because Bee Thousand was not a bestselling album. Sommeone else can change the adjective if they think of a better one. As long as it's not bestselling.


One tends to think that "influential" would have taken care of it... I haven't dug out my case for Bee Thousand lately, but i'm willing to bet it's Guided by Voices, hence the GbV. iamandrewssoul

"Influential" is a bit more... what's the word... encyclopia-ish, in that it can be referenced that the album influenced a number of artists. I don't know of any sources that prove that, but I'm sure they're out there. --JerryLewisOverdrive 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former band members

The list of former band members is a little short, isn't it? :-)

Incorrect number of albums?

Half Smiles of the Decomposed is supposed to be the 15th album, but on this article I count 16? - Maarten (Talk) 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think Tonics & Twisted Chasers is counted (considering that on their respective pages it says that Under the Bushes is the 9th and Do the Collapse is the 11th, and Mag Earwig! and Tonics & Twisted Chasers fell between those two) QuentinJamstar 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New photo

I think we need a new photo of the band, as Bob is barely featured in it, and Bob has been the only constant GBV member - ZEROpumpkins 08:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's really strange to have the GBV picture not featuring Bob. QuentinJamstar (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any new photo is fine, as long as it's free license. I recommend looking through Flickr. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a year and half later?! I know nothing about sorting out photos .. surely someone does? --Nickhh (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GBV

GBV is also the abbreviation of the northern German library consortium. Kdammers (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Guided by Voices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Guided by Voices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Guided by Voices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jellyfish Reflector (Live Album)

Guided By Voices does not mention this album, which was a 1996 semi-bootleg release and live album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.41.249 (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guided by Voices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Band Timeline seems broken or messed up

All references to the band begin in the year 1983 but the timeline currently begins in 1975 and the first members beyond Pollard join in about 1978. Not sure what's up with it but I don't know enough about the band to attempt to correct it. TheoGB (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the band's first recording is Little Jimmy The Giant heard on Suitcase: Failed Experiments And Trashed Aircraft and it was recorded in 1975. There has been different variations of the band named many different names until 1986. Freefalling660 (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should be made clear then. Right now it's an apparent contradiction, as TheoGB indicates. I started listening to the band in the early 90s and don't know enough about the very early days to write it up accurately. 2604:2000:EFC0:2:4DF6:6328:1154:9482 (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More Timeline The timeline ends in 2005. The band did not. All sorts of lineups have come and gone since then. Would be great if someone with a good grasp of the detail could update things. RobotBoy66 (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of What?

The timeline cites GBVDB, but doesn't point to a specific piece of research. It appears to be a random compilation of (1) people who have been official members of the band (especially in the later period), (2) people who have been credited as performers but never band members (e.g. engineer Steve Wilbur, who contributed some guitar while recording the band, or Bruce Smith, who played on some early tracks and played drums in the pre-GBV metal band Anacrusis, but was never in this band), and (3) what people play live over what they do on record (e.g., ignoring Bob's contributions to records in favor of his sole live role as singer).

The bigger questions is what is this a timeline of? Official members? The live band? Contributors to recordings? They're all different things. If you went by officially credited band members by release, for example, you'd see Peyton Eric and Kevin Fennell switch back and forth for a few years, and oddities like GBV having only three members in 1993: Bob Pollard, Jim Pollard, and Tobin Sprout. Dionusios (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: This seems in part to actually be based on the GBV Family Tree prepared by a graphic designer for Jim Greer's book, but this is a wholly unreliable source. Here are just a few glaring problems with the family tree: it includes Steve Wilbur as a band member; Ed Jon is misidentified as Ed Dwyer; Bruce Smith is credited on bass for Anacrusis when he actually played drums; the Needmores are listed as a 1987 side project, when we know through live recordings and other testimony that the Needmores date to 1984 and possibly 1985 with a different lineup; Tobin Sprout's band fig. 4 is marked as ending in 1985 but they were active when they released their lone LP in 1987 as part of the Gotham City Music Collective along with GBV and the New Creatures; Coyote Call is given as a 1982 band but their unreleased album, Pissing in the Canal, was recorded in 1984. (They probably just confused Coyote Call with the Crowd.) Dionusios (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gooey Butter Cake — Add to this discussion

Untitled

Article listed on WP:VFD July 6 to July 14 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Re: Gooey Butter Cake

Move to wherever recipes go? Or else delete outright. RickK 21:24, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Local speciality foods are encyclopedic. jengod 21:37, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic and delicious. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - its a description, not a recipe. Secretlondon 01:18, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • KP, for Secretlondon's reasons. Check out Lutefisk for evidence of the principle. --Jerzy(t) 21:30, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although I gained 10 pounds reading that stub and have a mysterious urge to visit St. Louis. Davodd 01:53, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Shoot. I'm now up to twenty-five pounds of avoirdupois melted away...and I too feel this article put five pounds back on by my just reading it. Interesting regional concoction. Keep. - Lucky 6.9 20:56, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Yellow Cake?

I don't think the link to yellow cake is what was intended. Lars T. 18:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pic and replace?

Should we delete this pic and replace it with a pic of a GB cake that isn't "atypical"? Just a plain GB cake? YellowAries2010 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should. If I ever bake one, I'll take a picture of it. Seems really bizarre to have an atypical picture here. What were they thinking?--James (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Ultra 64 Sound Format — Add to this discussion

Article Nintendo Ultra 64 Sound Format listed on WP:VFD July 6 to July 14 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Wikified press release about as-yet-unreleased software of questionable legality. The link goes to a vanity page. - Lucky 6.9 21:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wait until release - and of course the developers link goes to their own page.... Secretlondon 01:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Beta releases are available and working, USF page was added when clarifying PlayStation Sound Format and adding Portable sound format pages, both based on the same principle. Should they be deleted, too? --Hcs 07:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Not at all. What you're doing, as opposed to the articles you've mentioned, is posting the equivalent of a press release. This is an encyclopedia, not a billboard. We all wish you luck on your project, but I honestly think that posting a message on a general reference work such as this one will not help boost your sales. - Lucky 6.9 23:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've definitely been waiting for a program like this (going to download it right now...) but yeah it doesn't really belong here until (and unless) it becomes established and notable (so delete). DopefishJustin (・∀・) 05:28, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: advert for an unremarkable project. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:01, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree and also move for deletion Hcs 16:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)



FuckFuck/Fuckfuck — Add to this discussion

Nonsense dictdef. RickK 22:02, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • And it's back as Fuckfuck. I've posted it for speedy delete. Why don't people get a clue? - Lucky 6.9 00:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Why don't you stop biting new users? It appears to be created in good faith; I've recreated it, so it can be voted on here. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a real esoteric programming language, and didn't have a page yet, so I made one. I apologize for the name, but hey, I didn't name it. And, eh, how do I stamp this with my name and the date? ^^; -- Ben-Arba
  • You sign with 4 tildas - and it certainly doesn't look like a speedy deletion candidate at the moment. Secretlondon 01:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge into Brainfuck and redirect, I don't think it adds enough to the language to justify its own article. Ben - to sign, type 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~. —Stormie 01:15, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with the merge idea; if it's as similar to Brainfuck as it sounds, it doesn't need a separate article. (I am one who speedy-deleted it; seeing the note about the previous deletion and reading it quickly, I thought it was nonsense - my error.) (But what an assinine name; looks like a 'clever-geek' equivalent of getting a dumb tattoo that embarrasses you royally when you grow up!) - DavidWBrooks 01:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've had to restore this as well - can I suggest that people read the speedy deletion criteria next time? Thank you so much. Secretlondon 01:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've updated it with more explicit information. (pun intended) I disagree with the move to merge... adding its specifications to brainfuck would only degrade BF. (: Is it safe to assume the vfd is negative? Ben-Arba 02:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this one - the last one I saw was a candidate for deletion. It didn't have the lengthy info this one does. - Tεxτurε 03:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable. Esoteric programming languages are the computer nerd equivalent of micronations and antipopes. I'm sure somebody had a good weekend's entertainment making up FuckFuck. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:29, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal: bias. Deletion of an entry should not be based on a preconceived notion of whether "the computer nerd equivalent of micronations and antipopes" is notable or not. Go get rid of Micronation or Antipope. (: Ben-Arba 03:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert for website. No useful content. Remarkable only for its use of naughty words, and people fall for it. I might have too, at the age of five or six. The mind boggles. Andrewa 10:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I found some other sites on the internet that discuss it. newkai 11:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Insignificant. Vanity. Let's play spot the sockpuppet. Ambivalenthysteria 13:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redir to Mindfuck after merge. Most of any useful article would be redundant to the other, so being more than redirect is counterproductive: even if content is kept (consider this on Talk:Mindfuck, not here), its slight chance of being useful shouldn't be obstructed by having to jump back and forth between pages to make sense of it. --Jerzy(t) 18:50, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)
  • Another vote for merge + redirect, for same reasons previously stated. Mindspillage 18:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I maintain that it should be documented, despite its being a poorly-created replica of brainfuck. I've edited the note to that effect. I would also argue that, once one has learned brainfuck, there is no need to jump back to the brainfuck page to make sense of FuckFuck. Perhaps your confusion arises from your link to mindfuck? (: Ben-Arba 18:54, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. although a merge and redirect to brainfuck is ideal due to similarity, and notability issues. Also the article basically is about how it relates to brainfuck. —siroχo 01:37, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Deletion before merge/redir. :P Ben-Arba 04:22, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Simply renaming Brainfuck commands does not constitute reason for a new article. Denni☯ 01:07, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Atomiswave — Add to this discussion

Article listed on WP:VFD July 6 to July 18 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Vanity? Who's Sammy? RickK 22:51, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • I've heard of them. They're a Japanese arcade game manufacturer. Most of the Sammy games I've seen are aimed toward small kids. Think "Chuck E. Cheese." The author should have made that lots clearer than s/he did. - Lucky 6.9 23:12, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Regarding their games being kiddie-oriented; Sammy Corp's most popular games are the Guilty Gear series -- the violent 2D fighting games that invented mid-fight fatalities. They DO make a lot of "skill crane"-like games as well, but the Atomiswave is a WHOLE different thing. An article on Sammy Corporation should definitely include the kiddie games, but I don't think that discussion belongs in the Atomiswave article. Luvcraft 17:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't call most of Sammy's games kid-oriented. At least not the one their Sammy Studios branch is making [7]. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Ooh, me like. I've been out of the arcade loop a long time. - Lucky 6.9 00:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's the primary focus of a large arcade hardware manufacturer. Sammy's big enough that they bought controling interest in Sega back in May. It's definitely not vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Is the Sammy that you're talking about, the same as the NES era company American Sammy? Rhymeless 03:03, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • No. Sammy Corporation is not related to American Sammy. Luvcraft 17:29, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So, is all of this considered enough justification to keep the page and take down the vfd? 64.234.149.20 20:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I've also heard that this arcade game platform is also the future home of The King of Fighters and other Neo-Geo games... Keep. --kelvSYC 03:14, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion


The article seems ripped off of the linked System 16 page. Sentences such as "Notes: This is a standard dreamcast type spec, so has less power than the Sega Naomi. Inputs: Supports various types of input such as joystick, light guns, and track balls via a common interface." are stolen verbatim. Ken Arromdee 07:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hokuto no Ken

"A Guilty Gear-like fighting game?" Come on, guys...

Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies

Logamnesia — Add to this discussion

Dicdef. Wikitionary or delete. blankfaze | •• | •• 00:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: It does seem just like regular aphasia. Redirect, if there is a fuller discussion elsewhere. Geogre 03:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect to Receptive aphasia, of which it is a form. Davodd 08:49, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
Seconded - make the thingy point to the other thingy. DS 18:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 7

User:Tim Starling/Password matches — Add to this discussion

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled User:Tim Starling/Password matches. Further comments should be made on the talk page rather than here as this page is kept as an historic record. The result of the debate was to KEEP (23 votes against 11 to delete).

Re: User:Tim Starling/Password matches

Not only does this page contain false accusations; not only does it represent an abuse of Tim Starling's administrative powers; but, it can be used to find out the passwords of various users. Lirath Q. Pynnor 00:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • This article is not helping to fight vandals; it gives the incorrect impression that I have a number of different accounts -- I do not. The page is wholly inappropriate. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Why should we believe you? Snowspinner 04:52, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Taco Deposit 02:41, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Makes fighting vandals that much easier. - Tεxτurε 03:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Invasion of privacy and abuse of admin powers. ☞spencer195 03:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I can see why you might say that. Perhaps you'd have more chance of getting it deleted if you got the other 33 accounts with the same password as you to vote here as well. -- Tim Starling 01:39, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Erm - Spencer195 isn't listed on the page... Secretlondon 15:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. →Raul654 03:38, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nice try, Lir. Ambivalenthysteria 03:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. An excellent service for tracking pests like Lir. Adam 04:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems useful --Jerzy(t) 05:39, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)
  • No reason to delete. (But no reason to believe this will work much longer, either. It's astonishing it wasn't foreseen by Lir or our Norwegian friend.) Ruhrjung 10:39, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)
  • Keep. -Sean Curtin 17:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • If my assumption is correct and this is a list of vandal's passwords, by all means keep! The "vandalism in progress" page is far too long and if we can cut some vandals off at the roots, fantastic! - Lucky 6.9 19:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Seems like a keeper already, but I'll put my keep in just for the heck of it. Cheesing off trolls is always a worthwhile endeavour...Fire Star 20:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. While this may be evidence of vandals making use of sockpuppets, it may also be coincidence. I recently ran a security scan of my company's LAN passwords. About two percent were the same or very close variants of one word (and, no, it wasn't "password"). If even one account was included in the list by coincidence, you have just exposed a valid user's account up to abuse by that vandal. To me, the risks outweigh the benefits. Rossami 23:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I was considering checking for weak passwords by running the hashes through a standard password cracker. I couldn't find one that would accept plain MD5 input, though. Perhaps I could write my own and run a few dictionaries through it. As noted on the page, at least one of the passwords was indeed weak, namely "Troll". -- Tim Starling 01:29, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Nice try, fucker troll. -- Schnee 02:30, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like a handy tool for identifying sock pupputs, particularly if their editing patterns also match. Not that sock puppets usually fool people anyway, but this saves time. Isomorphic 02:52, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very interesting. Maybe expand a little and nominate for featured article? (;-> Maybe not. Anyway, keep up the good work, Tim, I'm a bit surprised it worked so well. The VfD nomination above, on the other hand, should be archived to BJAODN. Funniest thing I've read in ages. Andrewa 05:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I tried to see how it can be used to find out the passwords of various users as alleged above. My mental powers must be entering the much-anticipated long dark night because I can't figure it out. --Phil | Talk 09:37, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep and comment -- Let's say you happen to choose the same password that UserABC uses. Your username would show on UserABC's list. UserABC would then know your password and could edit under your login until you realized the situation and changed your password. While technically possible, this is actually quite unlikely to happen. Even in this unlikely case, the only potential loss of private data that I can see is the "valid user's" e-mail address. SWAdair | Talk 10:06, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Comment: It's not a problem IMO, but it's theoretically possible, see the talk page. Andrewa 12:17, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Both theoretically possible and a problem. See the talk page. Rossami
    • Yes, this did tell all account holders in each group the password of all other account holders in that group. Worth recalling that Tim has ample additional tools to confirm relationships between accounts before choosing to make a list like this available. Jamesday 06:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Snowspinner 15:38, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't know anything about the user(s) in question, but I know a little about computer security, and I think this sets a dangerous precedent; if even one of these accounts is not actually a sockpuppet, then at least two users have had their passwords revealed to each other. If this "outing" becomes a regular tool for analysing sockpuppetry, then it seems likely that a legitimate user is eventually going to be listed by mistake. If we're comparing MD5 hashes, we then don't know how common the password is, and users have a habit of choosing common passwords. (Also, don't we salt (cryptography) the passwords?) — Matt 15:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: No problem. Please see the talk page and feel free to debate me there, I thought the reference above was clear but it seems we must clutter VfD a little more. I have 20 years professional experience in computer security, just BTW. Andrewa 20:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aforementioned security reasons. (But note that I don't spend much time vandal hunting,m myself.) General Wesc 12:13, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)
  • Delete, for the same reasons. -- pne 15:08, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, if only to keep Tim Starling from being falsely accused and receiving negative publicity he certainly does not deserve. — Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the page. — Timwi 15:13, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. First, this is a user subpage, and it would be sheerly by accident a non-knowledgeable user got here, second, the names I recognise on this list are well and truly vandals, and having ready access to commonly-used "back-door" passwords will help keep them in check. Moreover, the disclosure of these passwords is likely to render them ineffective, forcing said users to create new acounts. Denni☯ 01:27, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • Get rid of this!! I can't believe any of you are OK with this. If Wikipedia had a privacy policy--and its lack of one appears to be a matter of laziness more than anything else (see here)--the existence of this page would be so clearly over the line that those responsible ought to be drawn and quartered. It seems likely there are legitimate users listed on the page whose passwords happen to be identical to sock puppets', and if--WHEN--they find out about this page, they certainly aren't going to be happy that their passwords have been compromised. This kind of thing makes me uncomfortable just having an account on Wikipedia, if site administrators like Mr. Starling are going to play this fast and loose with user information. Be more responsible, for Chrissake. Wikisux 12:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Do remember that Tim also has the tools to check the internet proximity of the accesses to the site by the accounts. Jamesday 06:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • See below. Wikisux 06:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep page. Delete trolls. Cribcage 22:25, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Identify vandals by their vandalism, not by their passwords! Spectatrix 00:56, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Hephaestos|§ 02:12, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete! I am aghast — the stated goal is good, but this is totally not the right way of handling it! Jeeves 04:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • And just what happens to a user that might innocently and coincidentally have the same password as one of these people? If two different people have the same password, and that fact is posted here, they just found out that they can fake being each other, and the less scrupulous is likely to do so. Please, please, please delete. -- Jmabel 06:02, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • It's probably safe to assume that Tim was aware of that and did other checks. Jamesday 06:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a useful tool to identify possible relationships between accounts but does need cross-checking to eliminate bogus matches (which I assume Tim did). Jamesday 06:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I hope you assume right, but Tim's comment above (about not having filtered out weak passwords) suggests otherwise. In any case, password equivalence between different accounts should never be public knowledge. This bears repeating: This information should NOT be publicly accessible. Either find a way to make it private to administrators, or kill it entirely. This is the kind of thing that will expose Wikipedia to lawsuits. Wikisux 06:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep in this instance, but publishing this kind of information should be done as reluctantly as disclosing IPs of logged-in users. --Michael Snow 00:10, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This MUST stay as PUBLIC information. I suggest everyone on this list should be banned from the site for about a month. Its trolls like them that ruin the spirit of Wikipedia. Also, keeping this would give a chance for everyone on Wikipedia to protect the encyclopedia from these "weak-passworded" trolls. As Wikipedia grows, so will the number of troublemakers. Updating a public list like this will give an ordinary person to track down all these trolls and stop them before they terrorize Wikipedia and its contributers. If I had more free time, I would go through everyone on the list and leave a message on their talk to quit Wikipedia or suffer the consequences for trolling. Cody The Blue Bomber 03:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure that everyone voting to keep this page has fully thought through the implications. As Rossami notes above, "If even one account was included in the list by coincidence, you have just exposed a valid user's account up to abuse by that vandal." It is both prudent and reasonable to expect such a vandal to discover the existence of this page before the innocent and unsuspecting user, thereby gaining access to that user's account. This is bad enough on its own, but consider that the vandal will now be in the possession of somebody's password and email address (by going to Preferences)--opening up infinite possibilities for abuse both on and off this site.

And this is not just theoretical. Different people choose identical passwords all the time, as earlier comments show. To formalize this process of matching passwords, in public, as a regular activity would be an appalling misuse of users' private account information. Even condoning it as an appropriate use of the user database is irresponsible, at best. In fact, there is no way for us to be certain that this page hasn't already compromised a legitimate user's account information. It is absolutely vital, therefore, that the information contained on this page is hidden from those who would abuse it--i.e., the vandals listed on it. If we can't take it private, we should delete it. Either way, we need to email the accounts listed on this page to notify them that unless they're one of the vandals Tim was intending to catch, their passwords have been compromised. Wikisux 06:24, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Comment: I believe the ends justify the means in this situation. Suppose that a few valid users do end up getting their accounts taken by trolls. Eventually, those trolls will be blocked from Wikipedia. The only real loss is the valid users rebuilding their reputation, which isn't hard to do since Wikipedia is so addicting. Overall, Wikipedia would have cast out tons of trolls along with their sockpuppets, lies, and daily annoyances which are only detrimental to the encyclopedia. The only real loss is the valid users starting over. Besides, they were dim enough to choose such easily guessed passwords they deserve to start over and they might even learn to choose their password more carefully next time. It seems the minor disruption caused FAR outweigh the benefits of keeping Wikipedia free from trolls. Cody The Blue Bomber 17:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I disagree. Wikipedia is not that addictive. Frankly, if it happened to me, you'd lose me as a contributor. What makes Wikipedia attractive is the sense of community. Losing my reputation means that I lose all my sense of connection with that community. The assertion that I would somehow deserve this because my password was matched is insulting beyond belief and degrades the sense of community all by itself. Trolls have been a manageable problem up till now without risking the exposure of my password. What is it that you think has changed which justifies taking these risks with my password? Rossami 18:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - This info may be useful for an administrator in conjunction with other logs in building a case, but should not be published, innocent wikipedians may get blacklisted. --Buster 17:40, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC) (Vote moved here from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate up to the point of deletion and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the new method of assessing voting, should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

  • Delete - This info may be useful for an administrator in conjunction with other logs in building a case, but should not be published, innocent wikipedians may get blacklisted. --Buster 17:40, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Apocrypha Discordia — Add to this discussion

This brilliant piece of BJAODN along the lines of the Discordian Public License has been listed as needing cleanup. Twice. I moved it to BJAODN last week, but still it keeps returning. Can we just delete this? - Lucky 6.9 00:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Made up cults are fun. :-( When I was two and twenty, I did such things. Geogre 01:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: fabrication. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:03, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • What about a redirect to Discordianism, moving the text there, particularly if it keeps popping up? Mindspillage 16:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Consider it done. BTW, how does one go about becoming a Discordian? - Lucky 6.9 21:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've been discordant all my llife... - Tεxτurε 21:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, as long as in BJAODN. This is a candidate for The Very Best of BJAODN, and should not be lost. Denni☯ 01:42, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • Almost forgot: I pasted it to the Discordian article and BJAODN. It shall live on! - Lucky 6.9 23:16, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Street Fighter Alpha 2 — Add to this discussion

Untitled

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to keep following improvements. Discussion:

Must be seen to be appreciated. The IP brings us this incomprehensible little tome that's little more than his opinion of the game play, or so I gather. No content whatsoever about the game itself. It was listed on cleanup, but there is absolutely nothing here to work with. - Lucky 6.9 01:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • A mess, delete if not rewritten soon. Everyking 02:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: He'll grow up and out of it, but I'm not sure an article by this title can be much rewritten. Is it alpha code, or was it really a game found on shelves by such a title? Seems a little too minor, and then there's the matter of the text, which seems like a transcript of an IM. Geogre 03:00, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It was a game found in arcades, one of the many strangely named games in the Street Fighter series. Delete if not rewritten, Wikipedia is not a review site. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's real, see [8]. I too say delete if not rewritten into a proper article. —Stormie 04:01, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • It has now been rewritten into a proper article, so keep. —Stormie 05:37, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A stub with the information from the voters here would be more informative than what's there now. --DMG413 04:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Rewritten. Keep. -Sean Curtin 05:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Now that's comprehensible. Keep new stub. Maybe even keep it on cleanup so that someone familar with the game can pad it out some more. Nice work, all. - Lucky 6.9 17:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. Geogre 00:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I added a bit to the article, it's good enough for now. Keep. --kelvSYC 03:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ten (heck, =five=) years from now, this article is not going to be worth a boiled rodent pellet. Denni☯ 01:48, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • Ten years from now it will still be in plenty of third-rate hotel arcades. Keep as changed. Rhymeless 04:58, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's fine now. Jamesday 05:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Not a sequel

SFA2 is not a sequel of SFA, it's a remake, hence why all of the returning characters have the same (though sometimes expanded) endingsWinterdenni (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are very few endings in A2 that are remotely similar to A1 endings (for example, in Guy's ending, he defeats Bison and jumps away in A1, while in A2 he fights his old Master). Canonically, A2 replaces A1, but that's neither here nor there in terms of real world context. JuJube (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So by that logic, 2nd Impact replaces the Original Street Fighter III? In any case it's best to describe it as a follow-upUser:Strykie-boy (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.238.17 (talk) [reply]

First of all, it is a sequel release, capcom chose to say later that alpha 2 is the cannon final version. But some endings are not equal, for example Sagat, in Alpha 1 he is recruited by Bison, but in Alpha 2 he's already at Shadaloo and decides to leave for some time, you can see this at the ending, so... 189.4.120.236 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Street Fighter Alpha 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Street Fighter 30th Anniversary Collection

I'm assuming that since it isn't a port, this edition shouldn't go in the infobox under Platforms and Releases? HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 20:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Zito — Add to this discussion

Article Andrew Zito listed on WP:VFD July 7 to July 13 2004, was deleted as a recreation of an already deleted page through the vfd process. Discussion:

vanity page of User:Andrew Zito. Previously moved to the user namespace, has recently be posted back into the article space by what is probably a sockpuppet account. Maximus Rex 03:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vanity page of an abusive self-promoting user. older≠wiser 04:02, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't delete and address the subject matter on the merits (if that is possible as you appear to be acting like book burning fascists) not your egos when you speak of vanity (you have not to date addressed many issues on the merits of contents but arbitrarily unfairly treat contents on the basis of your pleasure not value)Richard Sorge
  • Delete. No evidence of notability, reads like a vanity page or a joke. This was deleted once before, and may possibly qualify for speedy delete on that basis, but I'm not sure whether it went through the full VfD process then. So let's do so now. Andrewa 04:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This article has been voted for deletion and deleted according to policy, and can be speedily deleted any time it is recreated. —Stormie 05:08, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • And it has been promptly deleted. i vote to keep it deleted. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 07:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Paul finnegan — Add to this discussion

Doesn't appear to be notable. Zero hits for "money shot" "paul finnegan" and zero for "money shot" "gutter snake" and zero for "gutter snake" "paul finnegan". Also, allmusic.com doesn't recognize any of the names. Niteowlneils 04:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: We delete fragments of subjects when they are not substantial enough to need a separate article, and so it is with members of bands: when the bands are notable enough that their articles are huge, or when the members are so complex that they need separate treatment. Not this time. Geogre 12:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, non-notable, mini-stub. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is it even a question? --Timbo 05:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mark Kingwell — Add to this discussion

Warning: Default sort key "Kingwell, Mark" overrides earlier default sort key "Guided By Voices".

Untitled

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Kingwell is in fact a philosopher; seems to teach at a college somewhere. Has written a book. This article Probably not written by him. I leave it to the community to decide if this should stay or go. A Google search gets 686 hits for +"Mark Kingwell" +philosophy. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 04:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Good stub. Can't see any reason for this listing. Am I missing something? Andrewa 10:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • At present, the information here is no more than what you'd get at University of Toronto. All this substub says is he's a professor who has books. What's the notability? The author doesn't tell us, and we have to find out if there is sufficient notability to warrant an article. The random professor has to have some description, doesn't she? Delete, but a full article would be great. Geogre 12:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Clarify--when I found this, it said "Philosopher, has brown hair". I did a quick google search, and this article is the result of that. I'm not sure he's nonotable. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:57, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as written - If that's the extent of his notability I request Texture (author) be created immediately with identical text. - Tεxτurε 21:59, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Current article has no explanation for notability. Delete unless improved in the next few days. Average Earthman 22:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've expanded it a little. Any better? Andrewa 11:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a newspaper and t.v. commentator he's become fairly well known in Canada (if that is'nt an oxymoron).Dhodges 14:10, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep revised article - Tεxτurε 14:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is a well known public academic in Canada - SimonP 20:39, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • BTW.,there are two entries. One for Mark Kingwell and one for Mark kingwell. Strikes me as needing a redirect or something.Dhodges
  • Keep. Kingwell is a well-respected cultural theorist with several notable books and many articles in major Canadian media.
  • Keep now. Geogre 13:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Page was previously orphan; have provided some context by linking from List of Canadian writers, University of Toronto and This Magazine. Bearcat 06:15, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article could be cleaned up and expanded quite a bit; Kingwell has written a lot more than just books, and his essays and such should be listed. He also appears somewhat regularly on Canadian TV, his appearances could be listed. 69.194.35.109 23:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

who wrote this? "well known" for appearing in the Corporation? really? that's the highlight of the movie? didn't even notice that he has two brothers -- sean and steven... why should anyone care?

a lot of this article is pointless and just inflates his "notability" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.148.98 (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human-readable — Add to this discussion

Re: Human-readable

  • dicdef BeakerK44 04:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - there are dicdefs and then there are dicdefs that don't use more nouns and verbs than can be found in the name. - Tεxτurε 22:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: what Texture said ("Hmm, if it's human readable, I wonder what it is? Oh, I see that it means that it's human readable."). Geogre 17:02, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've expanded this a little but there's a lot more expansion due for this rather stubby coverage of the subject of human-readable and human readability requirements. Jamesday 04:13, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this is an important term in computing and it is being encountered more and more frequently. I have expanded the article yet more and fixed up the existing text. Jeeves 06:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep revision. Geogre 14:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep revised article - Tεxτurε 17:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Information Ecologist user pages -- Add to this discussion

User:Information Ecologist, aka User:Information Habitat, User:Information-Ecologist, and User:Information-Habitat, contributed some original work before moving on, to Wikibooks, I believe. I have attempted to find all the user space pages left behind by User:Information Ecologist. I recommend these all be deleted, as I don't see material that can be used by other articles. Some related pages were deleted back in April or May. -- I have also looked for images contributed by User:Information Ecologist. I'll list some of them at Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See also previous discussions: 1, 2, 3. Let's try to clean it all up this time so we don't have to revisit.

The User:Information Ecologist user pages:

User:Information-Ecologist/information ecology -- User:Information-Ecologist/red links -- User:Information-Ecologist/Table of contents -- User:Information Habitat/Collective intelligence agency -- User:Information Habitat/Common code -- User:Information Habitat/Common links -- User:Information Habitat/Contributions -- User:Information Habitat/DataPerfect -- User:Information Habitat/Information ecology -- User:Information-Habitat/Information ecology/Domains -- User:Information Habitat/Information habitat -- User:Information Habitat/Information species -- User:Information Habitat/Light cubes -- User:Information Habitat/Meditations on One Light in All -- User:Information Habitat/Mission -- User:Information Habitat/One Light in All/Meditations -- User:Information Habitat/Red links -- User:Information Habitat/Sandbox -- User:Information Habitat/Seed bed -- User:Information Habitat/Table codes -- User:Information Habitat/Table of contents -- Wikipedia talk:User:Information-Ecologist/Common code discussion / talk page

  • Delete all. As I've said all along, a misguided attempt to use Wikipedia to host something else, something exciting that I support in fact, but here is not the place for it. Andrewa 10:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Noisy 16:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all - Wiki is not your personal website - Tεxτurε 21:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate use of Wikipedia. Delete all. Average Earthman 22:47, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • How is this inappropriate?Mr. Grinch 22:40, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all, for good reasons given by others above. Dpbsmith 00:54, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear. One more delete vote, if I may. - Lucky 6.9 05:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, did we miss some the first time around? Well delete, then. --Michael Snow 00:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

N.B. An Information Ecology Wikibook has already been started. Noisy 16:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Eric Douglas — Add to this discussion

Warning: Default sort key "Douglas, Eric" overrides earlier default sort key "Kingwell, Mark".

Untitled

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, clear consensus was not reached but rough consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Mr. Douglas seems to be an unknown actor. The only reason he's in the news is because of his father. If he hadnt died, would he still deserve a page? saopaulo1

  • Move and incorporate into the Kirk Douglas page. There should be a short section on progeny, as the Douglas family are part of Hollywood 'royalty'. At the moment the Kirk Douglas page is not much more than a stub + a list of films. --Martin TB 10:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I concur. Perhaps the Fairbanks and Barrymore families need their dynasties traced, too. Geogre 13:06, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Two sentences in his father's article is about all that's justified. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:04, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, two of William Randolph Hearst's sons have their own page because, as far as I can tell, he was their dad (and one of them was Patty's dad; what has SHE ever done of any import?!). Same with John D. Rockerfeller's son. That Mr. Douglas was not unlike that of any other celebrities' child who wasn't able to carve out a niche for himself is irrelevant; his death is news.
    • You are, of course, joking about Patty, our beloved revolutionary sweetheart. His death may be news, and it's good that it's noted, but Carol O'Connor's child, Hugh, also died, and he had been on television. Pretty near all the Rockefeller kids did significant things on their own, and their articles should note this. The same is generally true of the Hearsts. They had great wealth, usually positions of great power, and did things other than die. No one is saying the information shouldn't be in Wikipedia, just that it should be in the Douglas entry. Eric wasn't the only Douglas kid to have drug problems. Geogre 00:13, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I was gonna say delete, (which I almost never have said, actually), but I have to agree with all of you above. Eric, sad as his death was (as in any human death, anyways), was not notable. Now if we were talking about deleting a Michael Douglas article, that would DEFO be a KEEP. I say add the information to the Kirk Douglas page. Antonio undeletable Martin
  • Keep. IMDb listing shows he is notable enough in his own right as an actor to deserve a listing -- at least as mush as some of the Star Trek: Voyager and Babylon 5 guest stars who have WP pages. Davodd 01:35, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Keep. --Timbo 05:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. But he did die, and that made news, and was notable enough for inclusion anyway had someone chosen to do so. He was an adult with his own career; merging with his father weakens and sends that article off-topic. Jgm 17:34, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Edits of the article improve it, but I maintain Merge & Redirect. I'm no fan of small articles on the extras in "Stargate SG-1," either. Geogre 17:49, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, two of William Randolph Hearst's sons have their own page because, as far as I can tell, he was their dad (and one of them was Patty's dad; what has SHE ever done of any import?!). Same with John D. Rockerfeller's son.

That Mr. Douglas was not unlike that of any other celebrities' child who wasn't able to carve out a niche for himself is irrelevant; his death is news.

Probably keep, I have a feeling he will go on the List of Actors who Died of an Overdose Williamb 14:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


End discussion (last three comments moved from vfd main space)

Eric Douglas anecdote

I cribbed this anecdote from a TV forum. Can anyone confirm its veracity?

"What is the best heckle you've ever seen?
A: Clearly there is no ‘right’ answer to this, however top points must go to the audience at London’s Comedy Store when faced with a dire routine by the late Eric Douglas, son of Spartacus star Kirk and half brother of Michael.
According to an eye witness, comedian Mickey Hutton, (who mentioned the experience in a Sun newspaper article on 14 May 1999), Eric Douglas ‘lost it on stage’.
"I'm Kirk Douglas' son," Eric screamed in retaliation to the audience’s heckles. In response one audience member stood up and said: ‘No, I'm Kirk Douglas's son!", then another, and another until the whole audience where shouting: ‘No, I’m Kirk Douglas’s son!’. "

217.155.20.163 14:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a confirmation but have also heard this anecdote related by Irish singer/songwriter Brian Houston on his live album 'Content not Volume' from about 1 minute before the track 'Woman out of You'. He didn't cite a source though :-D Nodrog75 (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great story, but I heard in Edinburgh (in the late 90s) that it happened at the Traverse during the Edinburgh fringe. So many people in Edinburgh told this anecdote as "eye witnesses" that unless it was staged every night the Traverse must have had elastic walls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.60.99 (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep, I have a feeling he will go on the List of Actors who Died of an Overdose Williamb 14:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Good Old Days — Add to this discussion

Warning: Default sort key "Good Old Days" overrides earlier default sort key "Douglas, Eric".

Untitled

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

What the? Ambivalenthysteria 11:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Yup. *very* famous and long-running tv programme. Have expanded it a bit (and was tempted to say, in style, "Deletion of such a delectible and definitive delight of dandy derring-do would be a darstardly disease of dismissiveness!" ;-) --VampWillow 11:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep: Very well known programme. Noisy 13:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep. By the way, even if a particular TV program is not well known, it should have its own article. Marcus2 14:08, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Absolutely keep. I added vfd notice, but I suggest we remove this from VFD. Any objections? DJ Clayworth 16:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I removed the VFD notice earlier today because it hadn't been added to this page, about an hour later, and I had already expanded the article. Deb 17:03, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable British TV programme. Average Earthman 22:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a notable television series. Jamesday 05:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Good Old Days. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Good Old Days (UK TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ecymru — Add to this discussion

Ecymru listed on WP:VFD July 7 to July 18 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Ad. Could've been a speedy, I guess, but I'm erring on the side of caution. Ambivalenthysteria 11:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Looks non-notable. Delete probable ad. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:56, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Potential for a good article here. C'mon, guys - convince me past a couple of sentences why you're worth keeping. Denni☯ 01:55, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • I agree with Denni: I simply can't tell how significant it is. It has the potential, but I'm forced to vote on the article as it is, and not what it can become, and have to vote delete. Geogre 14:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't see the problem with this. Yes, it's stubby but consists of facts about a real entity. Keep. Jgm 17:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I won't speak for anyone else, but this is back to voting on what it is vs. what it could be. The article has to establish some notability to stay. I think it probably could be good, but a stub this small that doesn't give the reader a sense of the context of the information is not, I think, going to answer questions of researchers. Will it get added to by a knowledgeable contributor? Sure, but having no article would be not much worse in a case like this. I want to see this article succeed. If you have an indication of notability and think the article should go to Clean Up, please indicate. Geogre 21:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Is there a rule or guideline that supports the particular voting criteria you use (this is a serious question). If the article, current usefulness aside, is doing no active harm and has the potential to grow into something useful, I default to keep. As to notability, this company's mission statement seems unique enough to clear that hurdle. Jgm 00:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Saifullah Khan — Add to this discussion

Saifullah Khan listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to delete if not improved. Was not improved in that time. Discussion:

Could've probably been a speedy, but someone else thought it cleanup worthy. I couldn't find any notable people with this name, so I'm putting it here. Ambivalenthysteria 11:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Incomprehensible substub with no context to work with. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 22:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - the context is easy enough to find, but it says nothing that itsn't already in its parent article. - Mustafaa 04:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm the one who added this to cleanup. I figured that anyone titled "Sword of Allah," who had a city named after him, probably is worthy of an article. Granted, there is almost nothing in English on the web about this person, but a stub might be seen by someone who knows more... Oh, BTW, "Saifullah" is a title and "Saifullah Khan" is part of several notable people's names, but it is highly unlikely to be the entire name. One web site I found [9] says "Saifullah Khan had supported the people of Buner in defending their soil against British expansionist designs, having taken active part in the battle of Sukawa." I'm just researching -- not opposed to deletion until more detail can be added, but not opposed to keeping a stub, either. SWAdair | Talk 06:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Would vote to keep if content were more than just interpretation of title. Will vote to keep if more is added to this subsubstub. Denni☯ 01:59, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's fine as a stub to attract the attention of someone who knows more about the subject. Jamesday 05:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Media file formats — Add to this discussion

Just a list. Ambivalenthysteria 11:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

South River Band — Add to this discussion

South River Band listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Insignificant band. Vanity? Ambivalenthysteria 11:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: I thought I'd heard of them, and then I realized that it's the same name as a local, unsigned bar band. No recordings listed, no external evidence. Geogre 13:18, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Band vanity, delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Insufficient claim for notability. Delete. Average Earthman 22:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • "Band vanity, delete." Agreed. Delete.

Lima Metropolitana — Add to this discussion

Lima Metropolitana listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Oh yeah. "downtown of Peru". Delete: no salvageable content; make space for a real article. Lupo 12:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • If there was any content here, I'd say merge and redirect to Lima, Peru. That article could use some material. Just delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Awful content, may as well start from scratch if needed. Delete. Average Earthman 22:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I did get a chuckle from the main restaurants being McDonalds and Pizza Hut, and the center of a nation being a beach. Geogre 14:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mazda 6 — Add to this discussion

Not even a substub. Incomprehensible numbers, virtually no salvageable content. If somebody wants to write an article about this car, fine, but this isn't it. Delete. Lupo 12:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, somebody has rewritten it. It's now a decent stub. Keep now, and remove this entry from VfD. Lupo 07:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • While it's definitely a substub that deserves deletion (if not rewritten), but I don't see what's incomprehensible about the numbers. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Substub. Delete unless rewritten by the end of VFD. Can always be recreated when someone who knows something about the car comes along. DJ Clayworth 16:15, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • There's nothing here short of the engine's output. Even a "B-Movie Bandit" substub is more informative than this. Delete unless rewritten. These specs are easily obtainable through magazines and the 'net if anyone wants to attempt a real article later. - Lucky 6.9 17:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Technically, this could have been a speedy as a substub (which it was of course), but for Pete's sake it's only a day old. The Mazdaphiliac anon who's doing these is delivering good (albeit US-centric) articles, seems to me even cleanup would have been premature. I have stubified, as 2003 European Car of the Year it certainly should have an article. Andrewa 20:50, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep new stub. Looking great. - Lucky 6.9 21:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep re-written stub. Wikipedia is not paper. --Goobergunch 23:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten stub. Good job, Andrewa. Lupo 07:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Denni☯ 02:03, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • Keep - still slim, but certainly no slimmer than half the other auto pages! --Sfoskett 18:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Benjamin Miller — Add to this discussion

Benjamin Miller listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

  • Delete: I think it's from a TV show's mythos -- Charmed or Angel or something -- so this is fanfic, I think. I can't see having this common name be claimed by this. Someone who watches the shows can say whether this character is in the show or not. Geogre 13:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The term "whitelighter" screams out Charmed, but none of the fansites for that show have heard of him. Looks like some fanfic nonsense. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • fanfic in the charmed vein ... delete WEP --VampWillow 14:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like Mary Sue fanfic for Charmed. Delete ASAP. DJ Clayworth 16:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • delete Williamb 06:22, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note: Creator user:203.88.246.240 removed VfD notice from page and VfD listing on the VfD page. i restored both and invited him to add his comments here. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rod claerbout — Add to this discussion

Article Rod Claerbout listed on WP:VFD July 7 to July 13 2004, was speedily deleted before end of vfd period. Discussion:

Nonsense. —No-One Jones 14:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Both nonsense and vanity in one package. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Could have been speedied (like quite a few lately imho). Putting on VfD will keep it around too long! --VampWillow 14:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Quite right. I'm fed up with seeing things on this page that should be long gone. Deb 17:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Rod's on thin ice, there, with telling the world that he's soliciting an illegal gambling activity. Geogre 17:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Glad he won a bowling tournament in his "eshman" year. Speedy delete, if you would. - Lucky 6.9 17:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Quite frankly, I'm impressed by the marshmallows. Gentlemen, you know what to do. Rhymeless 18:07, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • And for those of you who just tuned in, the marshmallow thing really was impressive. Sick, but impressive. I may never be able to look a marshmallow in the eye again. Wait...marshmallows don't have eyes. Forget I said anything. - Lucky 6.9 01:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Ooh, he's back, this time as Oprah winfrey 2. Including the marshmallows and bowling. I voted (surprise!) for a speedy. Can an admin slap this guy's wrist? - Lucky 6.9 05:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ross Bogenschneider — Add to this discussion

Ross Bogenschneider listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

  • Vanity. Delete. Mike H 17:56, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Funny, but oh such vanity. Besides, I never liked Street Fighter 2 much anyway. It always beat me! Delete. - Lucky 6.9 18:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - the background in Street Fighter 2 was based on my likeness. Where's my kudos? - Tεxτurε 22:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • You mean that you're the one who was beating my head in all these years? I am impressed, grasshopper. Kudos to thee. - Lucky 6.9 22:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • What is it with students? Delete. Average Earthman 22:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow.. He was a 10-year-old "computer programmer" at the time, if he was indeed featured in Mortal Kombat II (released 1994). Rhymeless 04:45, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, after a few days on the Rack of Perdition and a shot or two of the Thumbscrews of Sorrow. Denni☯ 02:08, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Zoran Krusvar — Add to this discussion

Warning: Default sort key "Krusvar, Zoran" overrides earlier default sort key "Good Old Days".

Untitled

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was not reached but only vote made was to keep. Discussion:

Doesnt show up on google, but could be an authentic stub about some (russian?) guy. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:18, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)

Keep - it's authentic, but the name is spelled Zoran Krušvar[10]. - Mustafaa 20:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strathroy Turkey Festival — Add to this discussion

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to redirect. Discussion:

I created this entry after having attended it, but it's not dictionary worthy in my opinion (being from the town of Strathroy at one point).

Internot — add to this discussion

Internot listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

This appears to be a neologism and a dictionary definition. I say delete and move to Wiktionary. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Dicdef. Delete. DJ Clayworth 21:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 22:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Neologism dicdef, delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:05, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alt games final-fantasy — Add to this discussion

Alt games final-fantasy listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to delete.  Discussion:

Tagged for speedy deletion - moved to VfD. - Tεxτurε 21:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - vanity article by and for a few users - Tεxτurε 21:51, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Ah, more and more vanity...delete. - Lucky 6.9 22:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete definitively: If every Usenet group gets an entry...(shudder)...and one getting one will license others. Geogre 00:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. We *do* have articles on Usenet groups, but this doesn't appear to be notable. Ambivalenthysteria 01:28, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not really notable. Anyway, the proper location for this article would be alt.games.final-fantasy. -Sean Curtin 22:59, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppet alert! Naughty! Daddy spank! - Lucky 6.9 01:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Related to several notable FF websites including RPGamer, Dragonfire, FFRPG, etc. Needs expanded information, NPOV. (anonymous vote moved here from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk)

The Navigators — Add to this discussion

Moved deletion discussion to Talk:The Navigators (organization). DJ Clayworth 13:37, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Krishna Singh — add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Krishna Singh

Jimmy — Add to this discussion

Article Jimmy listed on WP:VFD July 7 to July 13 2004, was deleted before the vfd period was over. Discussion:

Quote "Jimmy is a wolverine who was owned by Bart...."

  • Who is Bart? Is he B. Simson, in which case create and add to The Simpsons page.
  • This isn't any Simpsons reference I've heard of. Looks like nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 22:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: this was created after same was added to List of characters from The Simpsons; definitely a Simpsons reference if it's real. -- Grunt (talk) 22:54, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)
  • This makes no sense whatsoever. Even if there was an episode of the Simpsons with this character, it isn't significant enough for an article. Delete. Average Earthman 22:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete after its five days are up. DO NOT delete before that, please. Merge into List of Simpsons characters if verified. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:49, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, patent nonsense created by a frequently-banned user with a history of creating false articles about Hollywood Jam, Simpsons characters, etc. No need to wait 5 days. RickK 04:37, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: There are Simpsons guides out there, and this doesn't check out on any I've found. More to the point, the other names mentioned (Rufus, inter al.) aren't in The Simpsons either. It sure reads like nonsense. For that matter, Wolverine is one of those copyrighted names that The Simpsons would stay clear of. Geogre 01:11, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I knew I'd seen other nonsense regarding "Bart." Take a look at this BJAODN listing for "Freshball." The individual responsible for that mess has already been warned. This should be a speedy, and one BJAODN listing is enough.[11] - Lucky 6.9 18:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, fanfic nonsense. -Sean Curtin 23:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Niggerace — Add to this discussion

Niggerace listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Slang expression dicdef. Listed for speedy delete but brought here, because unfortunately, dicdefs can't be speedied. blankfaze | •• | •• 22:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Delete. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Slang/ephemera. Geogre 01:05, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Matt Deckard 02:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google doesn't even really recognize this word. Abqwildcat 22:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cat-and-mouse game — Add to this discussion

Article Cat-and-mouse game listed on WP:VFD July 7 to July 13 2004, was speedily deleted as a recreation of an article where consensus to delete was already reached. Discussion:

Slang phrase dicdef. Listed for speedy delete but brought here, because unfortunately, dicdefs can't be speedied. Apparently listed on VfD previously and deleted, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cat-and-mouse game. blankfaze | •• | •• 22:45, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Pages already deleted through Vfd and recreated can be speedily deleted, unless substantially rewritten such that their content is useful. I've done so. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah! Right you are. I had forgotten about that glorious rule. blankfaze | •• | •• 23:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Oblivians — Add to this discussion

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 7 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Vanity for a defunct never-was band. RickK 22:55, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Seems to get a lot of Googles, but how notable were they? Rick Straka on foxnews.com uses the term. Might this be more useful as a redirect? - Lucky 6.9 23:24, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • keep - Well I made this one and I have absolutely nothing to do with the band so the vanity claim fails. Easily one of the best garage rock bands of the 90s and are globally available. So the Never was claim also fails. If there's other entries for The Obvlians (although I suspect it would be spelt differently) then The Oblivians (band) is fine. --Iscariot 01:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Absolutely a real band. There was also, though, I believe, a band called the Oblivions from, I think, the 60's -- a Nuggets type of thing (or was it a made-up cartoon band?). Anyway, this one is real. Geogre 00:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. 8000 hits for just Oblivians, (w/out 'the') which is probably where the page should be moved to, based on that, plus the AMG page, and the band's web site [12]. Had material from a 1994 live show released in 2003, which seems decent longevity. Niteowlneils 02:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real. Jgm 17:54, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Ethos — Add to this discussion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashsolares, Nhampton1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modes

This page states that there are four modes of persuasion but the Pathos page states there are only three.67.204.197.252 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odd to have an article by a little-known modern scholar cited immediately after a paragraph discussing Aristotle. Who is Reynolds and what gives her work standing on par with Aristotle? What developments in the understanding of ethos took place in the two millennia between Aristotle and Reynolds? In a lengthy article on the history of ethos, Reynolds might well deserve mention, but in an article so brief as this one R's work should simply be included in the bibliography.--Henebry (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this entry does not resembles the idea that is portrayed through Aristotle's view of persuasion— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.122.189 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 30 November 2010

Rhetoric

The Greek word "pistis" means conviction, belief, or faith. I do not believe it means "proof" as the text states, but the "proofs" are the means by which to induce "pistis", or conviction, belief, or faith. I thinkthat statement should be re-examined and changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.116.45 (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of schools

Hi, I looked up this page because I found the word ethos being used in the context of schools - i.e. that "a particular school's ethos is" this or that. This seems to be a fairly widespread usage, and deserves a mention along with some attempt to trace the origin of the term. I think perhaps the term is also much misused in this context. -Wwallacee (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Wwallacee (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talked about exactly this topic over lunch today - then looked up Wikip and found this thread.

I suggest ethos is human and not institutional - so the ethos of a school on any one day is precisely the ethos of the collective leadership accountable for school. I think it matters to join those dots. To offload onto an institution (for example a charity or a school) a supposed ‘ethos’ that in reality has behind it only bricks, mortar, etc, seems to me to duck an important issue. Schools are people in this context. A school ‘ethos’ is the collective ethos of the governors. Structuredethics (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Digital Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Austingolt2112 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Austingolt2112 (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Network components and their importance

Network components and their importance 2001:16A4:1A:3E9D:2153:B37:AE24:570C (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current Usage

Should more modern examples of the word "ethos" be included in the "Current Usage" section? Ary.darling24 (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: English 110

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 October 2024 and 8 November 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Weharr (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jengr001 (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

Spread-eagle — Add to this discussion

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 8 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to redirect. Discussion:

Dicdef. Was listed for speedy deletion, but I brought it here, as dicdefs aren't speedyable. blankfaze | •• | •• 01:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: I thought I was going nuts. "Wasn't there a VfD about this before," I thought? I went hunting, went through history, etc. Spread eagle had been deleted, and it was better than this. Geogre 03:24, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Spreadeagle, which survived VfD in mid-June. SWAdair | Talk 03:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merged and redirected to spreadeagle, and recreated spread eagle as a redirect as well. Keep both as redirects. -Sean Curtin 23:39, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Needs to be a redirect (spread-eagle is the form used in the Oxford English Dictionary). I've added some heraldic information to the article 'spreadeagle' as well, which originally was rather reinforcing the old stereotype about the internet... Average Earthman 09:02, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • If the OED uses the hyphenated form, Wikipedia should probably locate the article at that location as well. -Sean Curtin 07:07, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Rind et al. — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rind et al

Spread-eagle position — Add to this discussion

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 8 to Jul 15 2004, was redirected. Discussion:

Copulatory how-to/dictdef. We had a rash of these before. Geogre 03:19, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Copyvio from [13] (page probably not work-safe -- depends on where you work, I guess). Note copyright notice at end of page. Delete, then redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:51, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments transfered from original comment page, not visible on VfD page before - Lucky 6.9 05:20, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Neil g — Add to this discussion

Article Neil g listed on WP:VFD July 8 to July 13 2004, was speedily deleted. Discussion:

Underground rapper eagerly demanded at house parties. Vanity, delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Should be a speedy if possible. Maximus Rex has already warned him about similar behavior on the poster's talk page. - Lucky 6.9 05:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Madoc — Add to this discussion

Placeholder for information on Madoc, a preported Welsh Prince who some believe discovered America in 1170. Delete until we get an article -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep stub. RE: What to list and not list on VfD Davodd 08:39, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Granted it's a short stub, but why delete? - Nat Krause 09:00, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A short stub, but one worth having. Average Earthman 11:08, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. A little info is obviously better than none. Everyking 11:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - being a stub is not grounds for VfD, and this is better than most stubs. -Sean Curtin 23:41, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now a good short article. I'm tempted to remove the stub notice, but it could grow some more. I've added the VfD notice, which should stay there until this is unlisted... What would you say to an early delisting, Chris? I think we have consensus to keep. Andrewa 11:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Added some text.) --Palapala 11:51, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks great. - Lucky 6.9 02:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. At this time, not a bad article. -- llywrch 00:45, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anap — Add to this discussion

Anap listed on WP:VFD Jul 8 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Vanity page and/or vandalism. Zero Google hits apart from copies of this article. Delete. -- Karada 07:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Maximus Rex 07:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable silliness. Someone please explain to them that words have exact meanings. "American" "Anarchist".... (mumble, mumble). SWAdair | Talk 09:56, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds like more student silliness. Average Earthman 11:09, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Specious or non-notable. - Nat Krause
  • Delete: They should put on some clothes, drop the mushrooms, and not use Wikipedia to get their names in lights. Geogre 12:42, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 15:14, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Orgies and animal dissection? Best of both worlds! Seriously, delete. - Lucky 6.9 21:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thorus — Add to this discussion

Thorus listed on WP:VFD Jul 8 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Advert. A "web and software development company" that gets less than 4000 hits. SWAdair | Talk 10:25, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 15:13, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert by anon. Andrewa 20:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't see the problem with this. Factual information about a real entity; there is plenty of precedent for factual articles about commercial enterprises. Keep. Jgm 17:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: No grounds for notability left after the ad. Not all businesses are significant, and this is particularly true of e-businesses, which can make themselves widely known by increasing Google rank by, among other things, listing themselves on Wikipedia (preferrably in several articles). Geogre 03:49, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Marcus cholan— Add to this discussion

Marcus cholan listed on WP:VFD Jul 8 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Orphaned article of dubious authenticity. Deb 12:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Substub, unclear what the intended subject is. Author is an anon, no other contributions, appears to be struggling with English. No google hits for the title. BTW, the link to the discussion in the heading above is broken, and I get database error messages when I try to edit it. Andrewa 21:36, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • User vandalized Votes for undeletion [14]. Delete, unverifiable, possible nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:28, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Very funny nonsense. The Marcus Polo? Delete and BJAODN, in my opinion. Geogre 03:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spoon sex position — Add to this discussion

Another copulatory how-to. Much less objectionable than the others, due to truth in titling, but it is still a sex manual entry. Geogre 13:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • We shouldn't attempt to censor contributions for being explicit, (though warnings may be appropriate); but how about http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Sex_Manual ? Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:52, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • No problem at all with the content's subject, just with its being a how-to. To me, this is no different from a recipe for a food for which I haven't the ingredients at hand. I also think it's not really that necessary an instruction -- kind of obvious -- but it's the how-to that's the basis of my listing. Geogre 15:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, there's more content than just a "how-to" section. I don't see how this qualifies as "explicit". -Sean Curtin 23:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It blathers on too much about a very simple position. It should redirect to some more extensive article or manual. — Chameleon My page/My talk 14:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a how-to with some extra BS padding. The spoon position is popular as it has no power gradient -- that must be why lefties always do it that way. What, they don't? Never mind. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Sexual positions or similar and delete. Info worth keeping, but no need to tie up disambig pages for this. Denni☯ 02:20, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. Jeeves 07:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this gets deleted, what about the dozen or so other articles linked from list of sex positions? -Sean Curtin 07:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No censorship on Wikipeia, please. Andy Mabbett 07:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to have been improved a lot since first listed. Noisy 12:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: It was listed for being a how-to. A description of a position & explanation of what it is is not the same thing as "Lift your leg and turn to the right while...." The article has improved and is less of a manual entry. (Since I did the listing, I don't have a vote to change.) Geogre 13:43, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no particular reason to delete it other than prudity -- and we'd have to delete a lot of pages as a previous commentator noted. Aris Katsaris 12:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Vote moved here from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk)

Barrie Stevens — Add to this discussion

Article Barrie Stevens listed on WP:VFD July 8 to July 13 2004, was speedily deleted. Discussion:

  • Is this person notable? — Timwi 13:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I blanked it, since it was obvious junk and had libelous insults. I'd speedy-delete it, except it's already listed here. - DavidWBrooks 14:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy delete - Tεxτurε 15:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's kind of funny, actually. Still doesn't belong here. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 18:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joke by anon, possibly a vicious one, we have no way of knowing what the target thinks of it. Valid speedy IMO. Andrewa 20:34, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It really would be cruel to BJAODN this. - Lucky 6.9 05:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, it's gone, ahead of normal schedule. I propose to leave this discussion here for the normal period, in case anyone objects. I will provide a copy to anyone entitled to vote on VfD who asks for it, but I'm hoping that's the end of it. Andrewa 10:28, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maynooth science camp — Add to this discussion

Article Maynooth science camp listed on WP:VFD Jul 8 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

  • Personally, I think this should stay, but I'm listing it here because someone else originally marked it as speedy deletion... — Timwi 13:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Where is Maynooth? Why "nerds?" How is this science camp different from all others? What are the "verious" activities? What contributions to the world has the science camp made? I've got nothing against science camps...went to Latin camp myself...but seems not notable. Geogre 14:02, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I nominated it for speedy delete. Its obviously a child having a go at his schoolmates for being nerds. Maynooth Science Camp does exist [15], though I doubt it is encyclopedic. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or we'll end up with a list of all summer camps, extra-curricular activities and school societies, none of which will tell anyone anything they need to know. Enough! Cutler 14:33, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • I kinda like "verious activities." Wonder if this guy rides the short yellow bus to the place? Delete per reasons stated. - Lucky 6.9 21:47, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • delete unless someone actually fills it with relevant information. Eskrima 03:44, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, because it is too short, does not give useful information about the camp, and does not say why it is notable. As with other items of local interest, it is not valuable as a stub because a) it does not point out a topic that is important and needs coverage, b) because it is of interest to only a few people the chances of it growing soon are slim. Dpbsmith 22:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
P.S. I just cleaned it up, but still vote to delete. You know what? It wasn't that hard to find out where Maynooth is... Dpbsmith 22:19, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I was listing questions that the article ought to answer in order to be informative to a reader, not listing questions that were bothering me. An article that cannot tell its readers the context for its subject, including notability, is in need either of Clean Up or VfD, in my mind. I wasn't trying to be mean, just critique. Geogre 01:51, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you, completely. I think we are much too kind on articles that are initially posted in a grossly incomplete state yet are not good stubs. People should wait until they have a least a nice, decent, meaty, coherent paragraph or two with some decent chunks of information in it before they create a page. What's the big rush? Wikipedia isn't trying to scoop anyone. Dpbsmith 16:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Minestrone alla Capucina — Add to this discussion

  • What can I say, another recipe I found. Moving to wikibooks completed. Gentgeen 12:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • And misspelt too. Surely it's alla cappuccina. — Chameleon My page/My talk 13:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Minimal encyclopedic content. Delete as already transwikied. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is part of the encyclopedia's coverage of the Cuisine of Italy. Jamesday 18:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - already transwikied - Tεxτurε 03:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Does this recipe really exist? I can find no references to it in Italian. — Chameleon My page/My talk 08:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 21:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Logic bomb — Add to this discussion

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 8 to Jul 15 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

  • Keep, and move to cleanup it should be expanded not deleted. theresa knott 19:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, an important phenomenon that deserves an article and is a beneficial stub. Cutler 13:50, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Unsure - I see nothing to keep in the current article and no way to expand it from its original direction. However, fall-through code logic that fails to meet any condition and passes through all checkes without an "otherwise" clause creates unexpected errors that are sometimes referred to as "logic bombs". - Tεxτurε 18:22, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Neither FOLDOC nor the Jargon File mentions this use of the word (though it seems reasonable). Do you have any references? I have personally not heard it used in that context. 213.65.52.122 15:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - can easily be expanded, and already has links to it. Rls 21:36, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I waited until the end of the VfD period before voting, because I was convinced that a science fiction fan or programmer would improve it. The idea of logic bombs is common enough in "cyberthrillers," and I think it's possible to make them. As it is an unrepentant dictdef, I vote delete weakly. Geogre 03:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why it was listed here in the first place...It may be a dicdef, but it was a good one and could be useful to encyclopedia readers. Anyway, I have now expanded it and I don't think anyone would suggest deleting it any more. Keep. David Remahl 08:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Much improved. Don't quite get the distinction between it and viruses, but it is much improved, and I vote keep now. Geogre 13:49, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • You guys of wiki, please add some more information coz there is no origin or a longer history. Do it please!Neffyring 10:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)neffryringNeffyring 10:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End discussion

A virus replicates, a logic bomb does not. Although many may viruses carry logic bombs within them. Ld 21:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

worms and viruses being software

"Software that is inherently malicious, such as viruses and worms"

Viruses are not software - they attach themselves to files

Non all viruses do it, most of them just are files. However, the definition "software" means any type of data, no matter if in a specific file or as an attachment or in other forms --Sumail (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted logic bombs

Was the "logic bomb" in Jurrasic Park actually a logic bomb? As Nedry activated it manually via a timer it would appear to be just a specific program that he wrote and activated, rather than a hidden program that activated when specified conditions were met. Cpl Syx [talk] 09:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dig Deeper

Drop all referances to FICTION.

Include "FIRMWARE" as well. Golf War I com links.

Harold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.214.31.132 (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Logic bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

example templates

Some example templates would be nice such as the ones in Fork bomb.

Also project examples and some resources could be of interest.

Perhaps adding Logic Bomb to a malware category may be a smart move.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Supposed logic bombing of the Trans-Siberian Pipeline"

This might need to be cleaned up a little, but it's above my proficiency level to figure out how. In particular I'm concerned about the usage of "supposedly" and "might've been a hoax". Well what is it? it's not like there aren't sources (so I'm not too worried about Verifiability), but it would be nice if those sources were more definitive, I suppose. Or if we could at least separate certainty from doubt better without using ambiguous words like "supposedly"--Macks2008 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

see also: a Manual of Style guideline about this, which I just found by coincidence--Macks2008 (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Successful logic bomb

How about adding the Whac-a-Mole logic bomb? Marvin Walter Wimberly, Jr., employee of Bob’s Space Racers (BSR), added code to his Whac-a-Mole game in order to earn maintenance fees. Full story at Hack-a-mole: Disgruntled Programmer Accused of Sabotaging Arcade Game Classic | Threatpost Jurjen B (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teabagging — Add to this discussion

Dicdef, and a vulgar one at that. - Lucky 6.9 16:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Dictdef, although I'm sure John Waters (whose Pecker got this term out to the world) would be delighted. Geogre 17:24, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It nearly kills me to do so, but the new article is not a dictdef, so I'm changing my vote to a stomach-clenched keep. (Forgot to sign) Geogre 13:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agree with Geogre about Pecker. Is there a mechanism for sending dictionary entries over to Wiktionary.org? Because what is to stop the cycle of post - delete - post - delete - ... Paitum
  • Vulgarity is not an issue, but it seems far too narrow a topic. I've incorporated it into oral sex; delete or redirect. Rls 17:36, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • IIRC, in the movie Pecker, it did not refer to dipping into the mouth, but more placing *them* on the foreheads of the customers. (please correct me if I am mistaken) Paitum
      • I haven't seen Pecker, but the term is in common usage for the oral sex act. It's used more as a practical joke/urban legend rather than an actual sexual act I suspect. With all these references maybe it does need an article ;) Rls 18:07, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Just for clarification, in Pecker a male stripper, wearing his briefs, would dance up and press his testicles against an appreciative client's face. The briefs were apparently the bag. It was a mass culture movie, so it's possible that Waters tamed it. Geogre 04:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, or redirect to oral sex. This article could easily be expanded. theresa knott 19:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, this was a common proposed prank in my college dorm. I'll expand accordingly. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, for same reasons. -Sean Curtin 23:50, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 09:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to oral sex. How many of were first tempted into dictionaries and encyclopedias by looking up vulgarities? Oh, only me then. Valid but doesn't deserve an article. Cutler 14:29, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, but how many have been led astray from the paths of virtue by perusing a dictionary, sincerely seeking information, only to have their innocent young mind inflamed by a prurient definition? Dpbsmith 22:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Now, I never said that this didn't sound like fun. I like the idea of a redirect. - Lucky 6.9 18:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • delete. why do we need such drivel. and why should we redirect a harmless 'safe for kids' term into an obscure adult only fetish? Erich 05:53, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Oral sex is an 'obscure fetish'? -Sean Curtin 02:42, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Worthless comment: Oral sex is obscure to puritans who don't want any fun in their life. :) -- Stevietheman 03:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • errr.. I meant teabagging not oral sex. I'm sure I could tell you a bit about oral sex but now User:Ratgurl is peering over my shoulder so I better not. But why is Wikipedia so happy to be sexpedia? I was editing all day today from the Catholic hospital I work at. The nuns monitor the traffic. I'm sure I'm not the only one that edits from that sort of 'watched' environment. I just question the value of this junk. (ratgurl disagrees) Erich 12:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • She's WHAT?? Oh... you said peering. Never mind. I thought you were going to volunteer to write a related article. Wikisux 12:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • It's been pretty firmly established that the answer to "I can't edit safely from work" is "don't do that then." If your job is so at risk, then what the fuck are you doing editing Wikipedia at work rather than, e.g., working? - David Gerard 13:25, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Well I'm too valuable to sack (as is were) :-) My current rotation has a lot of down time. If screaming ladies don't need me to put big needles in their backs, or there are know cesarians to do, then well... its the Internet... all day yesterday as it happened. But I just don't get why this stuff has any more value to the world than all the recipes. except long lists of recipes wouldn't encourage some schools to remove wikipedia from their 'safe for the kids' list. best wishesErich 20:50, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - So thats what that is called, huh. --Buster 08:43, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • I've heard Howard Stern discuss this practice too. It's a cruel prank, about two steps above farting in someone's face while they're asleep and two below the time-honored hand-in-the-water-glass gag. User:The Iconoclast 18:56, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, do not redirect to oral sex, because usage is more common when referring to the prank. It is a common enough word to merit a keep as well. —siroχo 03:11, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
Comment. Well, query. Well, prurient question. As of 2004, is this really a common prank? O tempora, O Moses! Or, like "mooning," is it something discussed far more often than performed? (Please tell me that as of 2004 mooning is discussed more often than performed). Also, if it is a common prank, isn't the prankster putting himself dangerously in harm's way, should the victim take serious umbrage? Dpbsmith 22:25, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep... we always used to call this activity "braining." Guess I'll rewrite. Wikisux 12:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, been rewritten and now OK. --Lussmu 23:34, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The rewrite looks great. - Lucky 6.9 03:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems fine to me, only read the new version. However, comment about braining- testicles do not look like brains in any way shape or form... :) Graham 05:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Now cleaned up and de-stubbed. Rls 14:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) (one-time non-consenting teabagee)
  • Just another KEEP vote. Eventually Wikipedia will be a million The Encyclopedia of Whatever books rolled into one; no reason not to have The Encyclopedia of Sex as a part of that. jengod 20:03, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Chöön — Add to this discussion

Article Chöön listed on WP:VFD Jul 8 to Jul 15 2004, consensus to delete. Discussion:

6 links on google for "Chöön hamburg", some of them seem to be unrelated. Vanity -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • It may be vanity but its not a candidate for speedy deletion. Secretlondon 02:16, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • That's why i moved it to VfD -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I suggested the speedy only because I couldn't get the discussion page to display properly. Now that it's here, delete as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 05:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: band vanity. Geogre 12:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete — Chameleon My page/My talk 14:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- pne 15:13, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I come from Hamburg and I have never ever heard of them.--80.134.137.37 23:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 9

Touch of My Hand (Spears)— Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Touch of My Hand (Spears)

Age of Shadows — Add to this discussion

A piece of minor history in the fictional setting of a virtually unknown role-playing game. -Sean Curtin 02:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Assuming that the RPG merits an article, this could easily be moved there. If it doesn't, no reason to have this. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 03:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the role playing game it is in doesn't even have an article, how can this be justified? Average Earthman 09:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The same anon, probably a newbie, created Sevras from the same RPG. No Google hits on Athelonar, how significant is that I wonder? Gentleness and tact advised in any case IMO. Andrewa 11:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: With care and tenderness, perhaps. The author does note that it's a fictional universe straight off, so that puts his entry ahead of other VfD-ed examples. Geogre 13:06, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Especially delete Sevras, as it reads like the author's personal character crossed with an adolescent sexual fantasy. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:35, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Does Sevras need a separate VfD notice and listing? It's an unambiguous delete, if not a speedy for nonsense, bad writing, and a terrible glimpse into the fervid adolescent mind. Geogre 03:37, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Probably depends on who ends up evaluating this. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:44, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The author certainly deserves points for originality, and therein lies the crux of the problem. How do you (a) get an intelligent person to contribute while (b) discouraging this kind of behavior? Delete both. And, I agree with the gentle part so far. We'll just have to see how he responds. - Lucky 6.9 06:03, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both Age of Shadows and Sevras. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:17, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Harry and the Potters — Add to this discussion

  • substub, vanity listing for a non-prominent band who's going to have the long arm of J.K. Rowling's lawyers on them in the not too distant future. --Robert Merkel 04:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • You mean sort of like "REO Speeddealer"? -- When I have my own heresy metal (musical genre) band, I think I'll call it "Hairy Pottery". Bet you wish you thought of it first. Rock on, dudes! Wile E. Heresiarch 06:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) PS: delete this advert.
  • Wile E. gets off a beaut! I'm still laughing at "Hairy Pottery." Delete this article and immortalize WEH at BJAODN PDQ! 'Night, all! - Lucky 6.9 08:20, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Avada Kedavra. DJ Clayworth 15:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This might even be doing them a favour, the longer they stay out of the real limelight the longer they can use the name before the axe falls. Andrewa 23:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:35, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- pne 15:15, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Concur. Neutrality 04:49, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete like crazy. Not only is this band not notable, it is horrible. --Jkeiser 05:01, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote delete as well. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 21:14, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hasemalphaginnojinglanaporphomism — Add to this discussion

Dictdef of a word that appears on only one website. RickK 05:29, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • [Del] Another perfectly cromulent word. Delete as just too weird. - Lucky 6.9 05:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I couldn't agree more. Bin it! - Chris Jefferies 09:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Not cromulent. More of a qwydjibo...a duketastrophe, even. User:The Iconoclast 19:16, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hasemalphaginnojinglanaporphoneologism. Andrewa 10:52, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not cromulent at all, just embiggening beyond limit. An anagram, indeed. Geogre 12:49, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • [Del] Indoobabubbly. Gawd, we spend so much time here, don't we?  :^) - Lucky 6.9 17:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • A qwidjibo, "a fat balding oaf?" I am in awe. Geogre 20:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • [Del] Uhh... delete (way too weird) Eskrima 03:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- pne 15:15, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • [Del] hmm - snap anglophile anaphora jingoism, anagrammatically speaking. Delete. Denni☯ 02:33, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if it is a word I scorn and scoff at it. Williamb 14:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is linguisticly, esthetically, gastrically and morally disturbing. Worst--word--ever! Ionesco 02:14, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • [Del] Concur. Neutrality 04:50, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete [unsigned, hence not a vote]: Definitely a duketastrophe.

[Reformatting by Jerzy(t)]

  • Oh, hell, keep and slap a stub tag on it! </sarcasm> Terminate this sillyness with extreme prejudice. What are we writing, an encyclopedia or a wall of graffiti? We don't need no sillyness, just cold, dead, accurate facts. DryGrain 16:36, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Not cromulent. More of a qwydjibo...a duketastrophe, even. User:The Iconoclast 19:16, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Even if it is a word I scorn and scoff at it. Williamb 14:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fine artist — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fine artist

Crowd — Add to this discussion

Disambiguation

I'm a student in Nancy Darling's Adolescent Development Seminar at Oberlin College. I'm writing an article on crowds in adolescent peer groups. I may delete the bit here, incorporate bits of it into my article, and just add that as another meaning in the disambiguation page. Would anyone have any strong objections to that? Halbereth (talk)

--Well, no one has protested, so I went ahead and did it. Halbereth (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] 


01:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

VFD

Article listed on WP:VFD July 9 to July loco 19 2004, was redirected to The Crowd. Discussion:

Dictdef, and reads like a copyvio. RickK 06:29, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Move to Wiktionary Kevyn 09:34, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've added few usages for a disambig page. Jay 12:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unsure. It's now more than a dicdef, but it's not really a disambig, it's a bit each way and still perhaps a substub. A good stub needs to say what is being described and why it is encyclopedic. A disambig needs to link to more than one article which people would reasonably expect to find under the page name. I'm not sure this can ever be made either of those. No vote yet. Andrewa 23:13, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry Jay, but that's not a disambig. It's a page that points to various articles containing the word "crowd". The movie is the only one that would really belong in a disambig named "Crowd", and I can't think of any others that would belong here. As for the original part, it looks like a copyvio. Delete. Tualha 02:10, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, if someone can write up a decent stub dealing with the basics of crowd psychology and the phenomena of crowd surfing and flash mobs, then we can keep the page. Jay 11:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:52, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Welsh instrument

What about the crowd, an old Welsh instrument? The Jade Knight 06:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article for uk.wikipedia.org?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.2.173.189 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 22 September 2012‎
It's linked at Crowd (disambiguation). --McGeddon (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Propose to merge Angry mob to Crowd, basically this is where it belongs. No reason to have a separate article sizewise per WP:SPLIT, and Angry mob has been POV-tagged since May 2012. Brandmeistertalk 17:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same thing as Mobbing, I will redirect it there. BigJim707 (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Geaves — Add to this discussion

Ron Geaves listed on WP:VFD July 9 to July 18 2004, was listed as a copyvio. Discussion:

I do believe that academicians deserve articles in Wikipedia, but this one is merely a curriculum vitae and a possible copyvio [1]. --Alexandre 07:47, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Looks like a copyvio to me. Content must be replaced if we decide that he needs an article, but I can't find any evidence that he is a particularly notable academic on a quick web search, so I vote Delete. Average Earthman 09:12, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Kevin Rector 15:18, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio/CV. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:17, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Referred on several wikipedia articles.--64.81.88.140 14:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Provides references --168.143.113.138 15:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs cleanup but it is a good reference for articles about NRMs and religion --141.76.1.121 16:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Given that the anons don't seem to respect a copyright violation notice stated here on VfD, I've listed on copyright problems. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleaned up to avoid copyvio. Let's keep as is. It provides references to several articles.--Zappaz

Quantum information channel — Add to this discussion

More from the Tmxxine lot. -- The Anome 09:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete EddEdmondson 09:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I really wonder what they think they're achieving. Andrewa 10:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Tentatively delete unless someone can convince me that said article is actually in English rather than merely containing a bunch of words thrown together; swift perusal of User:Tmxxine does not increase confidence. What is really annoying is that there is probably a perfectly good meaning for this term which has been highjacked by a bunch of weed-stoking nutballs... sorry, rant over Nice eyeballs though :-) --Phil | Talk 13:43, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Evidently trash. [[User:AmarChandra|Amar | Talk]] 14:50, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: They're watching me! Delete for pseudo-science/fantasy/nonsense. Geogre 16:52, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Digging the eyeballs! Those might be going on my user page. But...if this is another offbeat rant disguised as fact, delete it. But not before I get the eyeballs! - Lucky 6.9 00:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless cleaned up. Does this qualify as BJAODN material? --Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quay — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Quay

Rajiv Lather — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rajiv Lather

Biodiesel production/temp — Add to this discussion

This page was blanked so I have reverted to only intelligible content. Looks like someone was working here a while ago. Doesn't look like anything that isn't included in Biodiesel production. Cutler 13:12, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • It's just a cut-and-paste from the original article. Delete this one, send the other to cleanup. It's quite interesting. - Lucky 6.9 01:25, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I already moved the material here to the end of How to make Biodiesel. I still don't think it is very good material, but it is something and I didn't want to lose it. Maybe it can be improved. - Taxman 14:52, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC) (vote added from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk)
  • Delete - I already moved the material here to the end of How to make Biodiesel. I still don't think it is very good material, but it is something and I didn't want to lose it. Maybe it can be improved. - Taxman 14:52, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

David wilkins — Add to this discussion

Looks like a vanity page. Rmhermen 13:28, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • The books mentioned are anthologies of large numbers of stories (101 per anthology according to Amazon anyway). The article is carelessly written (lower case w in Wilkins?) and does not give sufficient evidence of notability. Delete. Average Earthman 13:52, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Can't wait for m:Wikipeople. Cutler 14:18, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Covansys — Add to this discussion

Advertisement cum bragsheet about a not terribly famous company. The link listed in an adverty way also indicates that this is more of an ad-page than an encyclopaedic article. [[User:AmarChandra|Amar | Talk]] 14:44, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Am trying to find the original source of the contents. It's part of a press release that I could see from http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040512/125049_1.html . Am not sure if press releases are protected by copyright. I think the page should be listed at copyright violations until a decision is reached whether to delete. Jay 15:22, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh, they are. Copyvio, definitely. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
They are not. Paranoid 15:57, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Are you sure? I'd kind of appreciate a source. I accept that, in all likelihood, nobody would go after you for publishing it, but I believe they're still covered by copyright unless explicitly released into the public domain. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:04, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Freetown Elementary School — Add to this discussion

Yup, another elementary school. What to do...? - Lucky 6.9 17:03, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: I vote delete on elementary schools. I also vote for renaming schools with common names, so this would be "Freetown Elementary School, Massachussets," ideally, if it were kept. I've got to think that the city of Freetown in Liberia has an elementary school. Geogre 17:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Rearrange the following into a well known word ... DEEELT. Noisy 18:02, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Uh...TLEEED?  :^) - Lucky 6.9 21:55, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly interesting topic. Ambivalenthysteria 23:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why shouldn't schools be included? It isn't a stub either. Eskrima 03:41, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. RickK 04:19, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Deletèd, as Strong Bad would say. Same goes for other schools where nothing has ever happened. — Chameleon My page/My talk 08:04, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Ooh, pick me, pick me! TEEDLE! - Lucky 6.9 08:27, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • ELEETD. Or something like that. -- pne 15:16, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wrong side of the line. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 23:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • TED LEE says "Once you open the door, it stays open." Thanks to all those people who thought every non-notable college and high school deserved an article, we now provide carte blanche for elementary schools. Mark my words - next, we will see daycares and Scout groups vying for space. Denni☯ 02:47, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:09, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Please let's not go down this road. Joyous 17:45, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Acegikmo1 18:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-written, factual article about real entity. Jgm
  • Delete. -Sean Curtin 06:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless you plan to delete every other listing on List_of_schools_in_the_United_States. Otherwise, it seems like this one has been singled out for no apparent reason. User:Sahasrahla
    • There is a reason: it's an elementary school. The "line" has been high schools stay, but elementary schools go, and so do middle schools. Geogre 20:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Going by the decision in October 2003, and again in November 2003, to not delete the List_of_schools_in_the_United_States itself, it doesn't look to me as if there is such a line, Geogre. That list has stayed, and it's choc-a-bloc with redlinks (and a few blue) to elementary schools, that people are asked to help Wikipedia by writing articles for. :-( The subject of school articles goes round and round on VdF: see archive at [16]! (That's not the best way to link, but I don't understand internal linking yet, sorry, I'm new here.) RickK argues the case for deletion there; this time around he seems to be to tired of the subject to say more than "Delete," and I don't blame him. Oh, and I vote Delétè.--Bishonen 21:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Ah, well that's exactly it -- it's dysfunctional to argue about every one of these instances (high schools and middle schools still show up on vfd, by the way) if there is a policy discussion/decision elsewhere. I understand that many might not agree with the policy the way to make that known is to re-open the policy discussion rather than taking the passive-agressive approach of throwing articles which conform to policy (or at least do not violate on established ground) to vfd. Jgm 21:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Very nicely distinguished, Jgm, I totally agree. I change my vote to Delete'Em All. Thanks to Sahasrahla for pointing to the list page. --Bishonen 22:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • There are at least six "Freetown Elementary School"s, so this may be a good disambig page. But I dunno. WhisperToMe 22:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Przepla 15:14, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And I would also support a modification/clarification of WP policy to allow the keeping of all elementary school entries. - Plutor 18:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • All elementary school entries? Cool. I have fond memories of mine, Sundbybergs Småskola, Stockholm. --Bishonen 19:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename to something including the state name and, for the time being, redirect from where it is now Salasks 15:13, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --Starx 19:23, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bluccleuch Scotch Beef — Add to this discussion

Looks like a gramatically sloppy advert. If it's deleted, the reference from the Beef page should be nixed too. 155.91.6.71 18:49, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • It's not only a mess, it's a misspelled mess. "Buccleuch Scotch Beef" gets 521 Google hits. It might be worth keeping once it's held under the cleansing waters of the cleanup page. - Lucky 6.9 21:50, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's weird. The poorly spelled ad gets submitted by a person with a username, and listed for deletion by anon. Something ain't right about that. This guy also created Buccleuch Scotch beef (the correct spelling) as a separate article. Delete both. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Also recommend redirecting this guy's sub-stub Buccleuch to Duke of Buccleuch unless turned into a real article. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:42, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I have cleaned up and expanded the beef page to include other premium designations, leaving a link to Buccleuch Scotch Beef. I redirected Buccleuch to Duke of Buccleuch. I also created a new link to the Buccleuch Group within this article. I think an article about the Buccleuch Group should be written as I have found that it is headed by the largest private landowner in Great Britain. My suggestion is that Buccleuch Scotch Beef should remain and be properly expanded and if not, at least redirected to the Buccleuch Group. The misspelled version should certainly be deleted. H2O 18:31, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a probable misspelling, content is already on the correctly spelled page. Andrewa 01:17, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

James Korris — Add to this discussion

Warning: Default sort key "Korris, James" overrides earlier default sort key "Krusvar, Zoran".

Untitled

Article listed on WP:VFD Jul 10 to Jul 23 2004, consensus was not reached. Discussion:

Looks like a vanity page. Spectatrix 19:20, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC) Addendum: This page was originally on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old but moved here due to a deadlocked discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 14:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well I don't imagine he wrote it. He seems to call himself Jim anyway. Whether he is worthy of an article is a different point. Secretlondon 01:00, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:23, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article isn't even about him, it's about the place he works. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand: "james korris" gets 170 google hits, mostly for him, he has been interviewed by E! and he seems to be spending large sums of taxpayer money. Zocky 03:01, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It sounds like a pretty major project, with some public and technical itnerest; he's been interviewed in Defense Week. Keep. FZ 15:44, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on James Korris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo mattozzi — Add to this discussion

Apparent vanity page. Does poor on Google. Seems to be a little family reunion here: Ivo, Alvise, Lorenzo, and Alvise mattozzi are also candidate for deletion. --Alexandre 21:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete all as a family affair. Speedy if possible. My Italian is admittedly a bit rusty, but only two of the hits I saw on Google even remotely connected. - Lucky 6.9 21:59, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Do not delete one. I don't know about Alvise and Lorenzo, but Ivo Mattozzi is a very important european historian, concerning his field.
    • Comment: Please sign your posts, User:Urizzato, it's normal here and otherwise your votes don't count. Can you expand the Ivo Mattozzi article? What are his most notable fields of expertise, or contibutions to these? Andrewa 23:03, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean: I agree that listing the whole (male) family is probably vanity, but that fact may be putting people in a bad mood. He passes the random professor test, and his publications are listed. A bilingual Italian/English speaker ought to clean the language of this page. If there is importance to those studios, it would be nice if it were added, but that requires a bilingual Italian/English speaker with knowledge or architecture. Geogre 15:32, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Patrick Smith — Add to this discussion

Googling "Patrick Smith" "vector park", which is this guy's claim to fame, gives 7 unique hits. Architeuthis 20:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • "Masterpiece of internet art?" Guy doesn't think much of himself, does he? Delete as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 21:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Ugh, he's one of those people that make those incomprehensible "art" sites? Delete, vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:43, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete weakly: Vector Park is real enough (878 hits), one of many sites for hosting original art on the Internet. "Patrick Smith" is a common name, and this is not a notable enough contribution to the world, IMO; I'd be on the fence for Vector Park, but not for its founder. Geogre 03:44, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough individual. Average Earthman 17:42, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alvise — Add to this discussion

Incorrectly tagged as a candidate for speedy deletion, but it isn't one, so I brought it here. Seems to about a professor/recent recipient of a PhD. Format suggests possible copyvio but the writing is too poor, I would think. blankfaze | (беседа!) 22:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't know who speedied it, but it's part of a series of articles about a family of architects. Check out "Lorenzo matozzi" farther up the page. I've moved to delete them all. Google is practically nil. - Lucky 6.9 23:07, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oups, my mistake! I wrongly speedied it. Won't do it again, I promise. Please don't use Crushing by elephant against me. I still vote for deletion, though. --Alexandre 23:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's not properly named. If he had done notable work in semiotics, it might qualify him, but such work is not listed, except that it's on (gulp) comic books. Not notable. Geogre 15:14, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. J. Random PhD. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sara Helena Lumholdt — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sara Helena Lumholdt

July 10

====Duncharris said he was listing my newborn page on Zeke Hoskin according to the message he left there, but despite the automatic link he did not add it here, so I have no idea where I should be discussing or voting on it. 18:01, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Price Pirate — Add to this discussion

Aargh, mateys! This is a cliche-ridden ad for a single bargain outlet in Florida. One Google hit. - Lucky 6.9 00:10, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Poor advert - delete. Secretlondon 00:43, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Delete, but this is a great name. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:19, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Isn't it, though? I thought for sure it was the name of a chain when I started to edit it from a nightmare commercial to an encyclopedia article. I see enough client-generated attempts to write copy over at work. They generally amount to attempts to try and stuff print techniques into radio commercials. - Lucky 6.9 01:30, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Blatant ad. Delete. And it gets better. [17] -- Cyrius|✎ 02:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, that story makes me more sympathetic to them. Geogre 04:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Ah, you found that too. That article is what decided it for me. - Lucky 6.9 05:09, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: No Iranians here, nosiree! Just some Welsh-Swedes, so you know you can trust them. I don't know if this says more sad things about the author or the people of that part of Florida. Geogre 03:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert by newbie. It may be salvageable but I doubt it, I find the story linked to above interesting but probably not a justification for an article on each of the 18 stores involved. I've left a welcome message, but I didn't link directly to this subpage. Have another look at it and see if you can guess why. Andrewa 04:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comment: A newbie mistake, like not bolding, is one thing, but advertisers who are, essentially, hijacking the project for their purposes, are not, I would think, in anything like the same category. They are subjecting themselves to hostility by an hostile act. People may be too mean to vanity pagers who are really just intending to create a user page, but someone who puts in an entry for a store that's very long, has wiki links, and is POV, is probably not tender. I also think that racism has no cover, and xenophobia no excuse. Geogre 14:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comment (reply): Generally agree, but I'm not convinced that replying in like kind is helpful. Andrewa 21:35, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but the "shady Iranians" bit was cute :) DryGrain 16:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fluur — Add to this discussion

Re: Fluur or version that was VfDed
Top google hits aren't relevant. No evidence given of notability. This is a first article, so gentle. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Being gentle, I still think this about the author or one of their friends. Secretlondon 00:42, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • He'd love it here in Palm Springs. Delete, but in a friendly way. Nice consensus. Really. - Lucky 6.9 01:20, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I won't even say that it's notable to be an American who lives in the United States. We ought to encourage him to make a user page, probably just a mistake. Geogre 03:54, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. At this point, the article consists entirely of the letter "a". While my heart is full of love for newbies, "a" is only a descriptive article, and is very lonely by itself. So lonely it will self-destruct without something to describe. Denni☯ 03:09, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • Comment: Poor, lonely little "a." Here we are, trying to be nice and the whole article disappears. All that's left is a single vowel. Do we stop being nice and just speedy this...letter? - Lucky 6.9 05:53, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be autobiography and now regretted. No justification for speedy IMO. Andrewa 22:05, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Unnotable. --Jerzy(t) 09:17, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
  • Delete simple vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- pne 17:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- kjk

Bunk — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bunk


Brainstorming and Thought Shower — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Brainstorming

Robert Thaxton — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Thaxton

Fuck.org — Add to this discussion

Non-notable website. RickK 05:27, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. The definitive site is The Fuck You Home Page. All others are pretenders and fools. GFY. Denni☯ 03:47, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:25, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotion of non-notable website by anon with no other edits. Andrewa 21:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I like it. It's definitely very New York. But delete. Postdlf 16:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable, but it is very outer boroughs (Manhattan is genteel). Geogre 21:56, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP. I've come across this site a few times before (I do a lot of web surfing, okay? :P). (http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.fuck.org/) --Tothebarricades.tk 08:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Never noticed this editor, but 2 months & 486 edits; clearly eligible to vote, right? --Jerzy(t) 06:26, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)
      • Yes. Only obvious sockpuppets and anons are ignored. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete misleading self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Del, unless [wink] the note on the keyboard is notable. --Jerzy(t) 06:26, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

Nonsense. No Google hits. RickK 05:36, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • A neologism too stupid for words. Speedy delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:54, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. --Samuel J. Howard 07:05, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Oh, what a world, what a world. Seriously, delete for slang/ephemera. Geogre 22:42, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --ssd 05:17, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I guess it was supposed to be funny. Curtisf14 17:20, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Yikes! --Jerzy(t) 06:35, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)


LUEser — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/LUEser

Howard Saint — Add to this discussion

Re: Howard Saint
Be afraid. - Lucky 6.9 08:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Now I can't get that song out of my head (you know the one).  ;-) SWAdair | Talk 08:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I hear "Smuggler's Blues" by Glenn Frey in my head...and I'm getting ready to turn in for the night. Oh, the humanity. - Lucky 6.9 08:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia articles are read all over, and beyond the English speaking World. They are not intended to be a platform for people who are in a global context aspiring small town business men, and politicians: Delete Giano 09:19, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparent vanity by anon, no reason given for it to be encyclopedic. Andrewa 10:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is vanity, and then there is narcissism. This one made me ill. Geogre 13:29, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • lol; Howard Stain of Dorset - one for BJAODN. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Acutely embarrassed to report that a simple google search shows 'Howard Saint' to be a character from a film called 'The Punisher'. There is, however, no mention of Howard Stain of Dorset who is quite clearly a pillar of the community in that area and desearves a page to himself Giano 13:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Uh, can we count that as a DEL?.
  • This is either vanity, or the man needs to find out who his obsessive stalker is. Delete. Average Earthman 17:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or make clear this is the character portrayed by John Travolta in the Punisher this summer. --Claymcc 23:36, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • DEL. If Howard Saint needs a page, we can start from scratch. --Jerzy(t) 15:17, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
  • Delete poorly-written bio of fictional character. And the local politician at the bottom. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Delete or make clear this is the character portrayed by John Travolta in the Punisher this summer. Claymcc 23:36, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Saint Worldwide — Add to this discussion

You guessed it. BE VERY AFRAID! - Lucky 6.9 08:33, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I was browsing anonymously and signed back in just to vote: Delete. SWAdair | Talk 08:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the The Saint Tower could just be a stub. The rest is pure advertising, e.g.'we at.....': Delete Giano 09:08, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparent vanity by the same anon as contributed Howard Saint, and nothing else yet. Andrewa 10:57, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Ewww, I can smell the cologne from here. Extremely obvious hijacking ad. Geogre 13:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. May the "trained team of investment professionals" drown in "appropriately liquid customers" Ianb 13:33, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a hoax. Just checked on Google, he is a character from a film called 'The Punisher'Giano 16:24, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Laugh's on me. I just tried Googling the opening line and didn't get a hit. That's what happens when a rare bout of insomnia leaves me playing "Wikipedia Wackiness" at two in the morning. How about losing this one and sending the lovely and talented H. Saint to BJAODN? - Lucky 6.9 18:27, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Well done, Holmes! No change of vote. Andrewa 20:03, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete fictional business. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.


Real analysis the problem — Add to this discussion

Whoever originally put this on VFD didn't give a reason, so i will; it's patent mathematical crankery, based on a misunderstood argument from Newton's time that has already been fixed by Weierstrass in the 1800s. This article has no mathematical validity. Pyrop 01:04, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: nonsense rant. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: crankery. -Sean Curtin 01:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sad. IMO there's some evidence that the author is aware of Weierstrass' work, and they even name-drop non-standard analysis. There are some interesting ideas here, but they are either original research, crankery, or both, and certainly unencyclopedic. Andrewa 06:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I added this one, but then had bad problems with my connection. (Later - oh, reasons - tissue of POV and nonsense about decimals. The comment added below anonymously is from the same IP number as the original page, by the way.) Charles Matthews 22:01, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Josh Cherry 02:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The history at the beginning can be better covered elsewhere, and the rest is just wrong (yes, 0.999... does equal 1.) - Mustafaa 04:27, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is amusing and belongs on a mathematical jokes web page, but not in an encyclopedia. Real analysis is a serious mathematical theory, and a funny, but nonsensical, article stating that real analysis is flawed should not be in an encyclopedia. Curtisf14 17:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE! This article is extremely interesting and appears to have a lot of truth in it. The article makes perfect sense to me. Would those shouting for its deletion, please explain why they want it deleted?
  • Because it seems to me that some of the more academic members of this community question its validity and several of them are labeling this as quackery. Personally, I happen to think it reads like a textbook and original POV research. Let's face it: If you put rouge on a pig in order to make it pretty, the end result is a rouged pig. All the rouge in the world might not save this. - Lucky 6.9 00:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • By the time I got to reading this page, the article in question was gone (fortunately). But it does seem like a missed a good joke. Maybe we should propose a new wikiproject called wikicranks. Any article that is ignominiously rejected gets added to wikicranks. CSTAR 17:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dirty Sanchez — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dirty Sanchez

File sharing comparison — Add to this discussion

The page confuses networks and applications, is incomplete and doesn't serve a useful purpose in the context of existing articles. It should be better to replace it with link (wherever it's relevant in file-sharing articles) to an appropriate external resource. Paranoid 21:52, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: It also boosts itself and is a review. Wikipedia has a different purpose from PC World, I would argue, and feature reviews aren't encyclopedic. Geogre 23:29, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: these features are bound to change as new versions of the software are released. Any features that need to be covered can be in the relevant program articles. TPK 13:08, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, content more suitable for magazine-style sites (or magazines). -- Cyrius|✎ 01:49, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Southern vowel shift — Add to this discussion

From Clean Up: For the non-philologists, there is something called the Great vowel shift of the 15th-16th centuries, where all European languages shifted their vowels consistently in a way described by the Grimms. This article, on the other hand, is original research, alledging that the shift of the ash vowel in Australian toward an epsilon is part of a new shift. Linguistically, this is nonsense. Geogre 23:17, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • If you look at the page history, this was originally an ad for some guy's accent improvement business. (See [18]) If there was any actual information here i'd suggest merging with a page on Indian or Australian accents, but there isn't, so Delete. Pyrop 00:55, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • The original version of this page was signed by some-one who seems to be giving Indians elocution lessons (presumably charging) and assuring them it will improve their business skills if they speak like a 1950s BBC Presenter - I'm foreign, speak perfect English (I'm told)and have no business skills at all: Delete. Giano 10:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A discussion on Australian and Indian accents is far better covered in other topics. When I searched for Southern vowel shift on google, it came up with quite a few sites talking about the vowel shift in the Southern US. Perhaps it might be better to replace this with a stub detailing that. Jamincan
[ Moved from VfD page; no timestamp, so may be out of order --Jerzy(t) 14:35, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)]
  • Delete. Of course languages are constantly changing all over the world, but even the title of the article is unhelpfully vague and isn't all that indicative of the contents. Southern what? The article is presented clumsily out of context and what is intelligible is badly argued without citation. As well there are two unexplained acronyms which make this whole thing look like a shoddy cut and paste from somewhere else. Fire Star 20:31, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Appears to be original research at best. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:50, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As one whose sub-major was linguistics, I can say that while the Great Vowel Shift has taken on some unique features in Australia, there is no such thing as a "Southern vowel shift." Not that I have heard of, anyway. Not only does this seem to be original research, it is very poorly written. David Cannon 02:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utter rubbish. Lacrimosus 02:28, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A discussion on Australian and Indian accents is far better covered in other topics. When I searched for Southern vowel shift on google, it came up with quite a few sites talking about the vowel shift in the Southern US. Perhaps it might be better to replace this with a stub detailing that. Jamincan

Ascended Master — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ascended Master

July 11

Licence to kill — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Licence to kill

Heron programming language — Add to this discussion

This discussion is now closed, and Heron programming language was kept, as no consensus was reached. In all, I count 15 delete votes and somewhere between 9 and 13 keep votes, depending on which votes are counted; in any event it's clear there was not consensus, neither in the first round of voting nor in the second round. -- Further edits to this page will probably be ignored. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:15, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Heron programming language

Pseudo-ToC (since headings & hence real ToC not premissible in material for transclusion)

  1. Pseudo-ToC
  2. Original Discussion and Voting
  3. Disputed Discussion and Voting, after Time Limit
  4. Isn't this Resumed Voting Illegitimate?
  5. Statement from User:Francs2000 [and responses]


Original Discussion and Voting

Vanity project, nonnotable programming language. Google search for Heron "programming language" yields 915 hits, most of which are for the project website [19] or directories or link lists, as well as many accidental hits (e.g., programs for Heron's formula or computers named "heron"). No evidence that Heron has any programmers other than its creator. Project web site doesn't claim anyone else is using Heron. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re-listed on vfd due to a deadlocked discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. If Heron someday becomes widely-used, Mr. Diggins or another programmer is welcome to recreate the article. Until then, the language's lack of notability warrants deletion of this article. Spectatrix 02:46, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • NeutralDelete. Appears to be a real language, and I'm not sure that this language is any worse than many of the other dubious entries in the List of programming languages. Agreed however that it appears to be new and the author is possibly using Wikipedia for advertising. It's a toss-up for me, as it's hard to judge whether a programming language is encyclopedic using the same criteria that would be applied for other articles. Development technologies are just so fleeting. -- Stevietheman 03:42, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The language is completely open source, and could easily be taken by anyone in the future and developed further if they care to. Open source software is in the public domain and can not be removed, thus negating the argument that Heron may be considered fleeting Christopher Diggins 21:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Difficult to tell if it is more that original research. It would not bother me if we keep it, but I can also live without it. --Alexandre 08:53, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It may be marginally notable at the moment but mentioning the author looks pretty pov. Cutler 21:26, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. He created his own personal page, too. Ambivalenthysteria 23:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I support deletion of the Christopher Diggins page, I created it because I could. Christopher Diggins 21:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to keep, with pov-cleanup. Still support deletion of Christopher Diggins until such a time as Heron gains notability. Spectatrix 23:56, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • Keep. Borderline, the fact that it seems to be a good article sways me. Andrewa 02:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It doesn't bother you that the author is the sole programmer of this language? Sorry, I have to ask. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Definitely not. A language can have one primary author and become ubiquitous and used by millions. So can an operating system kernel like a silly penguin-picture vanity project called Linux. Jamesday 04:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • You seem to have missed the point. Diggins is the only author of this language -- no problem. He is also, apparently, the only person who ever wrote a program in this language. Until, of course, he gets his pals Skrud and Kriggs to write "Hello, world". Wile E. Heresiarch 11:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • You don't know that. Heck I don't even know that. I know there has been 10,000 visitors to http://www.heron-language.com so I think a few people may have written Heron programs by now. My response was not dignified and regrettable Christopher Diggins 21:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Programming languages tend not to be ephemeral, and sometime in the distant future someone could run across some Heron code and wonder about the language. The article does need to be expanded, however. Withdrawn. I vote to delete. Jeeves 03:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rebuttal, from originator (who is thus ineligible to vote). I am, of course, using Wikipedia for self serving purposes, as are many other contributors. That should not change the outcome of these proceedings. The votes expressed up to this point have not indicated any special consideration of programming language design, theory or history, nor has any one seem to have done any particular background research on Heron itself. Voting upon a programming language entry in this manner is a joke, and I refuse to participate further. In protest of people forcing their behaviour models on me I also continue to refuse to create an account. Christopher Diggins 66.130.152.126 04:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) I have decided to participate properly by creating a user account and behaving myself Christopher Diggins 21:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • [Moved (along w/ following note), annotated, vote struck thru by Jerzy(t) 05:58, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)]
    • Christopher, if you have evidence of encyclopedic relevance to present to us, please do. I am a seasoned programmer, and I had never heard of Heron until this delete debate. We want to be open-minded here. Further, refusing to open an account as a "protest" smacks as an ego issue in here; that is, that declaration only hurts your cause. Also, don't waste our time with sock puppets--we know who new users are. -- Stevietheman 13:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I did not create sock puppets as Wile has demonstrated. I resent the implication. I suggested to my friends to join and express an opinion. The votes should be based on the value of the entry rather than my personal actions or my disagreeable character, or my large ego. - Christopher Diggins 66.130.167.160 00:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • OK, I will assume no sock puppets. However, like it or not, ego is seen as an indicator in these proceedings--it often makes it clear the intentions of the article author. But that all said, I'd be happy to entertain any information you can provide that supports the encyclopedic revelance of the article above what's already been said by others. I'd be happy to change my vote from 'neutral' to 'keep' if it becomes warranted. -- Stevietheman 15:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • The case for the entry: Heron is more deserving of an entry as a programming language than some of the fake and joke languages listed on the esoteric programming language page. The entry is less self-serving than an entry in list of software companies, as well as the various commercial products references that are scattered throughout the programming language section pages. There have been many discussions of Heron on usenet [20]. There is mention of Heron in Dr. Dobbs Journal [21]. Heron has been discussed on several mailing lists, and I have given two seminars on it so far, with another one scheduled in October. I think the strongest argument for keeping Heron would be that it is open source, and contains some novel approaches to programming language design which could be useful to programmers and researchers looking for information on programming languages. The Heron documentation [22] is a useful reference for people doing comparative studies of programming languages, and interested in alternative approaches to various programming paradigms such as AOP, OOP, DbC etc. Christopher Diggins 22:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • Christopher, let me try to clarify what kind of evidence (speaking for myself here) could make Heron notable. Has Heron been adopted for a commercial project? Has some professor made his/her students do their classwork in Heron? Did someone write their dissertation about implementing some feature in Heron? That kind of active interest would boost the notability -- how far, well, depends. In closing, let me note that I have my own vanity project which I think is wonderful, and, yes, I've given seminars and written papers; it will get a WP article only when it gets enough attention from others (at present, not anywhere close, sadly). Fwiw, Wile E. Heresiarch 03:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
              • This set of rules along, would invalidate a large number of existing programming languages listed on Wikipedia. Should we delete those as well? Christopher Diggins 01:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • Christopher, nothing you presented is convincing. The only two ideas in your presentation worth looking at were the first two footnote links. The first link to a Google newsgroup search shows the top 9 articles coming from you, then the second link points to an article by you. I agree with Wile that while the work you're doing is possibly very valuable, it doesn't hold encyclopedic relevance at this time. Like Wile, I'm also pursuing what I think are great ideas and have a website to promote them; however, we realize our ideas aren't ready for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Further, the first argument you made about other articles less deserving is like the universally unsound argument "others are breaking the rules, so why can't I?". At any rate, I'm still looking forward to seeing some evidence of encyclopedic relevance. I've decided. -- Stevietheman 15:47, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
              • The so-called unsound argument I use about "breaking the rules", was brought up because precedent establishes new rules. If Heron is no less appropriate than many other listed programming languages, then should I start voting for their deletion? This would in my opinion be doing a disservice to the users of wikipedia. Christopher Diggins 01:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote, as I know nothing and care little about programming languages (provided they continue to function properly). Moved this from below the footer section. Rhymeless 04:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm a programmer, I'd previously heard of it, it's been presented at at least one symposium [23] in the field and it's unsurprising that those who don't follow programming language developments don't know what this or something like C# are and why they are of interest. It might fall into insignificance five years from now, in which case it'll be deletable then. Jamesday 04:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote from Neutral to Delete based on this argument. Do a poll of programmers and I guarantee you nobody will have heard of Heron, while a vast majority will have heard of C#. One symposium does not make an idea significant enough for inclusion here. -- Stevietheman 16:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, on advice of several specialists abv: the language deserves it, even though the contributor deserves to be spanked & sent home: "Don't. Pro. Test. At. Wiki. Pedia." --Jerzy(t) 05:58, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
    • I apologize, I accept that the VfD pages are not the correct forum for this kind of debate or protest. Christopher Diggins 21:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perhaps a premature addition to Wikipedia, but I've seen the language and presentations on it, and it's existance is more warranted than it's removal. Kriggs 07:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • First edit by User:66.131.119.242. Presumably the same Kriggs who wrote [24], As a favour to my friend Christopher Diggins, please do me this favour in checking out Heron, a programming language from which I expect great things in the future. This is his main venture at the moment, and he is in need of more exposure. What are friends for, anyway? Wile E. Heresiarch 11:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't know if that necessarily disqualifies me, but if so, fine. But if I am his friend in the first place, it is because I found out about him through his language at a presentation he gave at Concordia university. And whether I am eligible to vote or not, my statement is, as far as I am allowed to claim, honest. Kriggs 20:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Heron has some interesting features despite the fact that it is still in development, and deserves a closer look. DrSkrud 07:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • First edit by User:DrSkrud. Presumably this is whoever hosts a blog which advertises Heron [25]. Wile E. Heresiarch 11:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Naturally, because I'm interested in the language. You'll notice my blog also has various links to Wikipedia. DrSkrud 14:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Albeit minority language, beginning to come across the odd reference to it in various places. Sjc 08:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: The aggressive spamming of the VfD page, the stated goal of the article being "get some exposure," the fact that it's original research, all tell me that this is an attempt to turn Wikipedia into a platform for exposure. This is an ethical violation, IMO, and not much different from someone who repeatedly put up entry after entry for Coke C2 or something: delete this article and start afresh when the language establishes itself and no longer "needs some exposure." Geogre 18:38, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I did not spam the VfD pages. I encouraged my friends to vote , see democracy -- Christopher Diggins 66.130.167.160 00:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to place ads for your programming language. You'll know your work is encyclopedic when somebody besides you feels the need to write about your accomplishments. Until then, you're as unencyclopedic as the rest of us shmucks. :) --Fastfission 00:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree that I am unencyclopedic, and I support deletion of my personal page. I feel as the authour and leading authourity on Heron though I am the most qualified individual to write an entry on Heron. Christopher Diggins 21:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, I think this would go against Wikipedia's policy of rejecting original research. We are only concerned with collecting consensus knowledge in an objective manner. While you may be the "most qualified" person to write about your language, that's what your web site is for. When the language you have created becomes significant in the computer programming world, an article will be written about it. We've thrown out many other articles about the projects of individuals which haven't yet become high-profile enough to warrant inclusion. I agree with Geogre's sentiments above. Jeeves 09:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The language serves as a useful implementation for Object_oriented_programming, Generic_programming, Meta_programming, Aspect_oriented_programming and Design_by_contract. These are all topics that are covered by the Wikipedia for which reference implementations can be difficult to come by. With regards to spamming the VfD page, if a post on the language weblog can generate enough response to constitute the description 'spam,' doesn't this contradict the idea that there is not enough interest in the language? Disclaimer: I am not a 'friend' of Christopher_Diggins and I do not know him in any other capacity other than as the creator of Heron. Ged Byrne
    • Sole contribution by Ged Byrne. As with Kriggs and DrSkrud, this vote shows an interest in Heron but not in Wikipedia. Lest you think I'm picking on you, single-issue voters get this treatment on a regular basis. Fwiw, Wile E. Heresiarch 03:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It is worth noting that the vote above (signed, not forged, by Ged) was not struck thru by Wile, but by the same IP who a few minutes later, made a(forged) sig (just below this entry) as Ged. I.e., the IP (whom i assume to be Ged being careless about signing on, and later forging his own sig to compensate, rather than Chris impersonating or inventing Ged) was responsive to the thrust of Wile's "sole contribution" complaint. I earlier read him as saying "so what?" to Wile's complaint; i think that i and probably others misjudged him to that extent. --Jerzy(t) 14:48, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)
      • No problems, everybody was a sole contributor once. I am, however, interested in Wikipedia and have made minor anonymous edits from time to time. True, these have all been in support of languages that interest me, such as adding Eiffel to the list of OO languages, but surely the whole idea of Wiki is that people can contribute to issues they are interested in. Isn't it this democratic process that separates Wikipedia from the traditional encyclopedias? Ged ByrneUser:193.129.160.2
        • I have struck thru and replaced the preceding signature, per the history diffs output, which indicates that formally it amounts to a signature forged by an IP. While i see no reason to infer effort to deceive, i think ignoring it would undercut the integrity of our records. --Jerzy(t) 08:15, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. There are countless programming languages with only one author, so far I have not seen any indication that this deserves mention above the hundreds of others. --Starx 19:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Disputed Discussion and Voting after Time Limit

Current tally (at time of re-listing) 5 keep (excluding suspected sockpuppets), 7 delete. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comment: I dispute Graham's count of the number of deletes and keeps. I didn't count the first time contributors. I still strongly dispute the characterization of these people as sock puppets. It is rude and incorrect.

  • delete -> WileE
  • delete -> StevieTheMan
  • keep -> Cutler
  • delete -> Ambibalynsteria
  • keep -> Spectatrix
  • keep -> AndrewA
  • delete -> Jeeves
  • keep -> Jamesday
  • keep -> Jerzy
  • keep -> sjc
  • delete -> Geogre
  • delete -> Fastfission
  • delete -> Starx

This adds up to 7 deletes and 6 keeps as of July 17, is there contention here? Christopher Diggins 01:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Ok I missed one, 6 keep it is. Hardly surprising one was missed considering the mish mash of discussion above; besides I would encourage any sysop going to decide consensus next time to recount all of the votes anyway and decide for themselves whether the three in question are sockpuppets or not. Incidentally the reason why these are suspected sockpuppets is because new users don't generally make a vote on this page their first edit here. It's a possibility, which is why they're suspected sockpuppets. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Did Wile E not already make the point that Skrud and Kriggs were clearly not sock puppets? As he pointed out they are people who link to Heron from their personal web pages [[26]] and [[27]]. They learned about Heron at a seminar at Concordia and started discussing Heron at Skrud's forum where I found them and started a new discussion group [[28]], GedB is also a regular at Joel on Software forum who got interested in Heron as a result of a discussion at [[29]]. Nonetheless this is all moot because isn't the policy to not count first time contributors? The reason they came here was because of the following posts I made at [[30]] Christopher Diggins 22:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Hmm? Skrud and I are long time fans of wikipedia, and I for one have made contributions to wikipedia. The only way I could be called into question is if you linking me here gives an unfair leverage for the "Keep" side. Kriggs 05:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't think it is particularly notable but there are a lot of programming languages of similarly low notability with articles, I don't want to delete them all and I don't want to vote for a precedent that would justify deleting them all. —Stormie 02:09, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Stormie brings up a good point. I would be completely justified and supported with historical precedent if I took follow-up actions upon a delete vote to challenge the rather large number of languages using the same arguments presented here. The debates surrounding Heron arose for several reasons: I mistakenly created a false user page, I ignorantly created a so-called vanity page, I expressed criticism of wikipedia, I was argumentative and protestive. My point in protesting, and being uncooperative was that an encyclopedia should be built upon a fair and consistent application of rules towards each entry, rather than an emotional reaction.Christopher Diggins 01:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I feel that a programming language needs a history and impact in the field in some way. Heron has neither. -- Solitude 02:26, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Christopher, Kriggs, Ged Byrne, and DrSkrud: if the Heron programming language is significant, others will come later and add it to the Wikipedia. But this is not the right place to advertise your project. It's not aggressive self-promotion that makes a language popular, but utility. If your language has it, then it'll get an article here one day, written by some engineer who used your language to implement some mission-critical functionality and would be glad to tell the world why Heron was so cool. Please stop doing this. --Ardonik 04:00, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Please stop doing what? I am contributing to a conversation. I made an entry, and I am allowed to dispute the arguments put forth towards its deletion. The mission-critical argument would invalidate the large majority of current entries in the list of programming languages. Christopher Diggins 01:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Stop doing what? Obviously, I'm asking you to stop the agressive self-promotion and Wikipedia-equivalent of carpetbagging that you've done here on the VfD, discussed extensively above. My advice is to let this whole thing go; Heron will survive without a Wikipedia article. --Ardonik 03:42, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
        • It is unfair to characterize me as a spammer and being "aggressively self-promotional". Contributing to this discussion does little to promote Heron. Christopher Diggins 18:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It doesn't seem unlikely that someone would hear about Heron in the "real world". Several sources referring to it have been noted. It is also reasonable to think that someone hearing about the language would come to Wikipedia to learn more about it, owing to our good coverage of programming languages (and tech topics in general). The article needs more editors apart from the creator, but that is true for many articles and does not warrant deletion. David Remahl 08:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. After a second review, I agree that the language is neither mature nor notable enough to warrant an article. David Remahl 12:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As of now the language is not established. When the language has been used for production, teaching, or research then somebody other than the author should and will probably make an entry. Thue | talk 14:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • production, teaching, research as requirements would invalidate a large number of previous articles. Christopher Diggins 01:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not that selective, and has plenty of room. --Ezra Wax 04:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - clicking through various links, the blogs mentioned above, etc etc, I must commend the author of the language for writing it, and continuing to work on it. On the other hand, I don't see it as noteable (YET), and thereby I do not see it as deserving an article. And just to counter the already breathed arguement "but lots of non-noteable languages have articles". Bring them on. I'll vote to delete. Lyellin 10:20, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Frankly there is a lot more stuff worthy of deletion than this, over and above minority programming languages. I think we could probably, for example, remove any number of articles about Middle Earth and its confabulated ancillary bs as being less worthy of note than what looks to be an honest and serious endeavour to create a new programming language and to bring it to public attention. If, however, over time, the Heron programming language dead ends, then it will no longer require an article, and it will die a quiet death in any case. As a subject this probably isn't worth the amount of time and attention that is being paid to it. Live with the article in my view, and move on, maybe revisit the situation in a few months. Sjc 10:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Sjc has already voted. Christopher Diggins 18:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Lol, so I have; that would be my wife (who is my reverse sock puppet, i.e. we frequently share my account). Mea culpa Sjc 04:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Reverse sock puppets are IMO a bad idea even for editing, and too confusing to consider in the case of voting. She should get her own acct, or vote anon. --Jerzy(t) 23:58, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)
  • Comment: The following are some programming language listings that are also deserving of being included in the VfD according to the arguments presented here, which should in all fairness be put under the same scrutiny as Heron: A plus plus, BuildProfessional, ChucK, Escapade, Frink, F Sharp programming language, Godiva programming language, Groovy programming language, ICI Programming Language, Io programming language, Joy programming language, Joule programming language, Kogut programming language, Kvikkalkul programming language, LYaPAS programming language, Malbolge programming language, Mercury programming language, MOO programming language, Nice programming language, Nosica programming language, Nial programming language, Nemerle, Pike programming language, Pizza programming language, [[Processing (programming language)], Q programming language, Revolution programming language, Scala, SuperCollider programming language, Unlambda, Var'aq, Whitespace (programming language), XOTcl, Z programming language, ZZT-oop Christopher Diggins 18:16, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Just FYI, several of these languages you mention are good examples of why yours shouldn't be included yet. ZZT was widely-known and distributed in its day, and its OO language was very interesting at the time. Pike has been used in a number of projects, including DreamSNES, the SNES emulator for the Sega Dreamcast. Thousands of people have seen the Pike logo from that project alone. MOO code has been around since 1990 and has had various successes and failures; LambdaMOO remains the major testament to its power. I have heard of Godiva in the context of Icon as well. Those are just off the top of my head. I haven't actually looked at any of those links. Jeeves 22:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. See Wikipedia:No original research. You can nominate the other languages for deletion as well, if you like. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:17, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Is it original research, though? The information in the article is available in the official language documentation. David Remahl 21:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Gary D 23:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, promotional, vanity. Unless much better evidence is provided that the language is of encyclopedic importance--e.g. that the language is in actual use for significant non-experimental projects, or is currently being taught in academic courses, or has been the subject of papers in recognized journals. I've just been Googling and looking for hits that did not obviously refer back to the http://www.heron-language.com/ site. I finally thought I had hit paydirt with polymorphism without class inheritance beginning "I am presenting a talk at Concordia University in Montreal next week, on how the Heron programming language provides object polymorphism without class inheritance through the use of interfaces..." It turned out to be a talk by Christopher Diggins. The argument that we have other articles that may merit deletion does not seem to me to be a weighty reason for keeping this one. Wikipedia has no interest in being the first to publish something or in "scooping" other sources. When and if Heron catches on the article can always be resubmitted. Has Heron ever been discussed in Slashdot? (Click, click) Apparently not. If the author were to submit an article on Heron to Slashdot and it were to be published, I'd change my vote to "keep." Dpbsmith 23:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this Resumed Voting Illegitimate?

This and the next pseudo-section have been moved to become the start of Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Specifics Moved from VfD Discussion of Heron programming language, a page dedicated to policy issues like those that have been raised here. --Jerzy(t) 07:35, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Statement from User:Francs2000 [and responses]

This and the preceding pseudo-section have been moved to become the start of Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Specifics Moved from VfD Discussion of Heron programming language, a page dedicated to policy issues like those that have been raised here. --Jerzy(t) 07:35, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

The force of further discussion of this page's topic, possible deletion of Heron programming language, is in some doubt.

Expressions of concern about such doubt are more appropriate withinWikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Proposed/Evolving Policy for Exceeding 5 Days on VfD than here.

Notice should appear here once any doubt ends.
--Jerzy(t) 07:35, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

  • Please keep. It is nice to have comprehensive information on programming languages in Wikipedia. But for the god' sake, do not delete articles on historical programming languages mentioned in the discussion. For example JOSS article was very usefull to me and I was very happy when i found it in Wikipedia (by mere chance, if i had remembered the name, i could google for it)--Kyknos 23:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC).

Christopher Diggins — Add to this discussion

Christopher Diggins listed on WP:VFD July 11 to July 17 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Nonnotable author of the Heron programming language. Also delete User:Christopher Diggins -- it's not an ordinary user page, as there is no user named "Christopher Diggins"; the page was created by the same anonymous editor who created Christopher Diggins (and Heron programming language). User:Christopher Diggins expresses some skepticism about Wikipedia, although I notice this person thinks WP is useful for free advertising at least. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:03, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, as per "Heron programming language" mentioned above. Spectatrix 02:47, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a no-brainer in comparison to Heron. -- Stevietheman 03:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • If consensus is to keep Heron programming language, redirect there; if not, delete. -Sean Curtin 07:33, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Premature proposal: redir cannot be decided until editing shows whether his name survives in the article. If not, it is a confusing and improper redirect. (I propose below to make this a deletion w/o prejudice, so link could be created de novo after text of Heron programming language stabilizes.) --Jerzy(t) 07:07, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. Heron programming language is not so notable we care who wrote it. Cutler 21:28, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambivalenthysteria 23:42, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Uncertain on both the article and the user page. Ideally, move the article to the user space and change the redirect to point to the Heron Language, but we need him to create an account first. I'm emailing Christopher Diggins, we'll see whether he responds. He seems reasonable enough from his contributions, assuming it's all as it seems. Andrewa 03:28, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can't be bothered to argue. Mind you I will bite back later on when someone tries to publish something on me in the future as the inventor of Heron programming language. -- Christopher Diggins, who continually refuses to create an account as a protest 66.130.152.126 04:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[Moved from VfD page by Jerzy(t) 07:07, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)]
  • Keep. Having several articles published in trade magazines, presenting apaper on a new language you've designed seems like an intially sufficient threshold. If he falls to insignificance in five years, it's deletable then, most likely. Perhaps this should redirect to the language, though.

Jamesday 04:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Redirect the article to Heron programming language, delete the user page. I've had an email reply. Christopher is fully aware of how things work, and chooses not to be a registered user, so he doesn't get user space (if I were running the shop he wouldn't even see an edit button for the user and project namespaces, but I'm not). But this should not affect the choice of what to do to the article. Andrewa 06:11, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Clearly creation of user page, tho a good bet and justified, in now shown to be an error. Can it be quick-del-ed? If not, should have its own VfD page IMO. --Jerzy(t) 07:07, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
    • Hopefully i am the only one who understood "move the article to the user space" to mean "move the article to the user page, and thought that had been done. The existing user page (if not eligible for quick deletion) requires its on VfD page, now at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Christopher Diggins.-- Jerzy(t) 08:48, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
  • Delete both, and double-delete fraud "user" page. Non-notable vanity. Postdlf 06:13, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Del, without prejudice. Unfamous. But if Heron programming language survives (as seems likely), and if his name survives the process of editing that article (which is IMO entrirely a different question), then recreate Christopher Diggins as lk to Heron programming language. --Jerzy(t) 07:07, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only claim to particular significance is via the Heron programming language, and therefore should be merged with that article (assuming that the vote for that is keep). Average Earthman 12:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promotion, especially in light of the "protest" and the vfd discussion above for Heron Programming Language. While User:Jamesday above has a good point, I think it should work in reverse. Delete now, and if/when Mr. Diggens comes to prominence, a better article will be created. Jeeves 01:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm neutral in Heron Programming Language, but the inventor is not notable even if the invention may be. -- orthogonal 03:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Josh Cherry 22:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, vanity. --Starx 19:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Project for a New German Century — Add to this discussion

Project for a New German Century listed on WP:VFD July 11 to July 17 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

I don't think this exists (or if it does, it is not notable). Gzornenplatz 13:57, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - it'll not get far without a website. Cutler 21:31, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Looks like some sort of attempt to send up the American one. Ambivalenthysteria 23:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very strange indeed... --Palapala 15:03, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless evidence is shown that this exists. Andris 18:17, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)


Shashi Warrior — Add to this discussion

Warning: Default sort key "Warrier, Shashi" overrides earlier default sort key "Korris, James".

Article listed on WP:VFD July 11 to July 17 2004, consensus was not reached however article was changed sufficiently after listing to invalidate original reason for nomination. Discussion:

Sub-stub which doesn't convince me author or work are significant. Google and co only return Wikipedia clones, and I couldn't find the book in any book databases. Birla Institute of Technology and Science does not list him on its alumini page (see: [31], framed site and hard to link; I looked under "Alumini / Birthday" and "Alumini / Acheivements (sic)"). Note: I accept more detailed information on the subject may not be available online; however unless this article can be expanded with a little more context / background information, I fear it is going nowhere. Ianb 07:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Someone who knows about him will write an article later. Jay 09:44, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: If the community can't verify, it's up to the article itself to establish notability. This one doesn't. Geogre 12:34, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment : "Shashi Warrier" is a columnist and author of some repute - the name is misspelt in the title of the article. Ordinarily this would be a candidate for a relink to the correctly spelt article, but since that article doesn't exist yet ... I'd side for a delete at the moment. [[User:AmarChandra|Amar | Talk]] 12:47, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • aha - there's a name to work on. Thanks. Even a brief search reveals some useful info, e.g. http://www.bitsaa.org/sandpaper/authors/authors.html; haven't got time right now but if no-one else does I'll add a few lines in the next couple of days. Vote changed to keep.Ianb 04:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Moved to correct spelling. Will grow to a proper stub and article IMO. Andrewa 01:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Text Ode for the birthday of Queen Anne — Add to this discussion

  • Move to Wikisource. RickK 19:53, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikisource Cutler 21:43, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • For once, I have no problem with seeing no explication of a poem. It's Ambrose Philips, after all (enemy of Pope, some fine pastorals for a little while). I wikified the thing. It would be nice if it had the date of composition in it. Move it to Wikisource. Geogre 22:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I do think this page has right to exist. Wikepedia is an Encyclopedia and this Ode, as many other poems and classic canata's, has a clear and distinct historical meaning. Maybe a rename to Ode for the birthday of Queen Anne would be better!
    • Please sign your posts. It is Wikipedia policy to move source text to the Wikisource. RickK 20:11, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Whoa Whoa! Should be moved to an article on the Handel piece of the same name. Keep excerpts and Wikisource the rest, with a link from the encylo article.--Samuel J. Howard 05:53, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that the header of it be moved over to the Hanel piece, as a link to the Wikisource of the text? I do think there are a couple of things to say about the text, but not many, so it's left as kind of flat text. I'm in favor of having a link from the Handel piece, but not moving it all there. Geogre 00:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikisource the source. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • As their were a number of links to the article (it's a relatively important secular cantata) i've moved it to a proper article name (Ode for the Birthday of Queen Anne) and fixed the other articles Handel, Queen Anne, and Ode to point to the right place. The text remains in the history, though I will have in a moment removed it from the article. If someone would transwiki the text that would be appreciated.--Samuel J. Howard 08:05, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Move to Wikisource. RickK 19:53, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

List of Macintosh software — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Macintosh software

As the article says, there are over 12,000 software packages currently available for the Macintosh. Are we really going to try to keep this up to date? What about software that goes out of production? RickK 21:01, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment. It's actually a sort of historical overview and it does include software that has gone out of production (e.g. MindWrite, MPW, MacApp, OpenDoc), identified as such. Obviously the contributor did not intended it to be a list of current Macintosh software. Dpbsmith 22:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rainforest amethyst python — Add to this discussion

Rainforest amethyst python was listed on WP:VFD July 11 to July 17 2004, was deleted. Discussion:

  • Delete, I'm not sure what this is about except a animal activist who has smoked way to much prime sensimillia. Williamb 08:56, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) (xfer from main page by Noisy 09:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC))
  • Delete. Correct name is amethystine or scrub python. [32] - follow link to Morelia, then Molelia amethistina. Noisy 09:41, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Amethyst python" seems to be in common usage for the amethystine/scrub python, if the number of web pages I examined on the subject are any indicator.Kevyn 10:34, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As Australia's largest python, the scrub python probably does merit its own article -- though, obviously, this article is not it. (I have to admit I got a chuckle out of the sentence about things the python attacks, which reads, "where it has been disturbed to the extent that it has become stricken agog by puppies, kittens, rainbows, and cute little children.") Kevyn 10:34, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds like it was written with the intent of being sent to BJAODN. "beneath the scaley exterior... lies a map to some treasure," "over 12 feet long in it's stockinged feet," etc. SWAdair | Talk 11:34, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's definitely a joke, no doubt about that. A vegetarian serpent with a vibrating zeitgeist, eh? No hits for "Dr. Conscience" as a comedian/prankster. Geogre 12:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joke or test by anon with no other contributions. Not BJAODN material IMO. Andrewa 20:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've speed deleted it as patent nonsense. Did you see the part about Elvis & John Lennon? Ho ho ho! When someone wants to write an article about this creature, great, til then we don't need this garbage. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of common misspellings — Add to this discussion

Um, what? RickK 22:09, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Surely if you just revert all edits by User:66.14.154.3 the page is fine? (that's a keep vote by the way) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 09:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Reverted. Keep. -Sean Curtin 23:03, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah. OK, keep now. RickK 23:20, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. I keep a good dictionary and a Roget's beside my computer. I do not expect (nor would it be practical for) Wikipedia to provide these. Which is why we have Wiktionary, for instance. If I where a pore speler, I would have a misspelling dictionary as well. Though a sister project might be the place for it, this article does not belong here. Denni☯ 23:41, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is not an article, see my comment below. Andrewa 03:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictionaries and spell-checkers exist for a reason. Spectatrix 00:34, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very useful project page for some. Sure it doesn't fit everyone's style of editing, but do we really want to set a precedent of imposing this sort of control? Surely not. Vive freedom! Andrewa 00:43, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's just not encyclopedic. Geogre 01:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Please note that this is a project namespace page. It's not an article, and the question is not whether or not it's encyclopedic. Rather the question we ask about project namespace articles is whether they are helpful in building the encyclopedia. Andrewa 03:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I missed it in my blear, and I therefore have no vote. Geogre 03:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • keep - this is fine. Secretlondon 01:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep project page. Niteowlneils 03:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This isn't supposed to be an encyclopedia entry. The Wikipedia: namespace is for items useful in constructing the work. This assuredly is. Jamesday 03:58, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page is usefull too aviod comon misspelings :-) andy 07:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Given that this has been delisted because the utter destruction of the page was reverted, this comment is unnecessary, but there's something everyone here has missed. The entries on this page are used by the currently non-updating MediaWiki spell checker [33]. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:10, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bev Oda — Add to this discussion

First Japanese-Canadian Member of Parliament in the House of Commons, elected in 2004. She represents the constituency of Clarington-Scugog-Uxbridge, in southeastern Ontario. Oda won the Conservative Party of Canada's nomination in the riding, and currently sits as a member of the Conservative shadow cabinet, as the critic of heritage. Her background as commissioner of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), as well as a position she had as adviser to the Secretary of State on multiculturalism, will help her in her role.

JIRC

Is this article-worthy? RickK 23:17, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • It's as article-worthy as any of the other IRC clients there are articles about... Keep. Spectatrix 00:10, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
  • I agree, although it does seem a little like an advertisement for the client. Or maybe it just needs some clean-up. But other than that, I don't see why you'd delete it. Keep. kmccoy 00:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I cleaned it up a bit, its still a littly "flashy" sounding, although I'm convinced its not just an ad, there are too many disadvantages included. Anyways, i'll give it a keep. —siroχo 03:02, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Sunshade

Original research. Unlesss somebody can give us some idea as to some scientists who are actually proposing this? RickK 23:23, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • The idea isn't made up, though I know not the accuracy of the details presented in that article. The idea of an orbiting sunshade is mentioned in this CBS News article. Spectatrix 00:18, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)

Proanoia — Add to this discussion

Proaboia listed on WP:VFD July 12 to July 18 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Dicdef. Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Neologism with exact 1 Google hit. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:36, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It appears to have insignificant use. Jamesday 04:21, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Seems to be a witticism, which explains why someone would want to spread it in the spirit of sharing a joke. Geogre 13:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to "Pronoia." Not a neologism; it's actually in fairly widespread use, though misspelled here. Google returns 6,340 hits for "pronoia". Strangely, Pronoia is already an article about... Byzantine land grants? Certainly, in my experience, the word has wider currency as the definition given here. Though the article could certainly use some expansion. Wikisux 07:37, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Even if it were spelled correctly, it's a dictionary definition; belongs elsewhere. Bacchiad 05:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sexual slang — Add to this discussion

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

This page is making our encyclopedia look like a respository of silliness. Andy5 00:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's vulgar and a bit silly, perhaps, but it is informative. Spectatrix 00:29, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete except that it is a list about sex. Hyacinth 00:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. David Remahl 00:45, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - our pages on sex are remarkably popular. Secretlondon 01:22, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and Keep: The first paragraph is encyclopedic. It explains what sexual slang is and how it functions. That's fine. The rest of it, though, is a Wiktionary Blue. A catalog of dirty words (where people can go to learn more of them in a Roget's Blue) just isn't encyclopedic. Meaning no offense, but I think it's just a question of dictionaries/thesauruses/encyclopedias. Geogre 01:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep--the list could be split off into "list of sexual slang terms" and perhaps sent to Wiktionary", but no worse than any other list, really. Really, the most offensive thing in that article is comparing George Carlin with Andrew Dice Clay. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:30, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I meant to indicate in my "keep" vote above, people only want to delete this list, rather than edit it, because it is about sex. WORSE: A list about sex, and some wikifolks oppose both types of content. Please edit content (or lackthereof) that you have an objection to so that it no longer causes the objection, please do not simply delete articles. For instance, much of "Sexual slang" was duplicated more appropriately on List of sexual slurs. Hyacinth 02:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep--it would be better if this page wasn't deleted. Cclarke 03:32, July 12 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it all here. It's an encyclopedic topic and would be significantly less so without any of the details. Jamesday 03:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep. List of sexual slurs at least provides some context for the words listed. Also, at least a few listings are factually incorrect. -Sean Curtin 04:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. ("Meat curtains"...tee hee hee...) Postdlf 06:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The other problem with this article is that it's almost impossible to verify that some of the terms have actually been used, and if the context in which they were used is important enough to merit their inclusion. If the person who added one of the terms to the list invented it himself and its only use was with with three of his friends, how would we ever know? Andy5 07:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Because people trained in sexology and sexual health work (like me) are here to verify as much as we can. Not everyone in the world works in an office, you know. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 09:54, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, certainly. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 09:54, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I really wish there was more context, when and where these are used. A fair number of these are probably crudely witty but short-lived adolescent inventions unknown to any significant number of people. Everyking 10:19, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like the above comment says, if we addedd origin of the slang word and in which situations it is used, this would be encyclopedic indeed. Just wanting to delete it 'because other encyclopedias do not have this kind of article' is silly, that's what makes Wikipedia great, that you can find well written articles that won't find in other ones. Wanting to delete it just because it talks about sex is utterly closed minded, I think the disclaimer is enough. xDCDx 11:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Silly, but legit. And, there are some real guffaws to be had! - Lucky 6.9 18:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Have you looked at our other articles? Among many other things, we are a repository for silliness. Snowspinner 20:46, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Exploding Boy 09:35, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or keep it but delete most of the content. The problem isn't that it's silly; it's that its a list, not an article. Were there a couple good case studies in there of how terms like "beating the bishop" or "snatch" make it into the language, I'd say keep it. The list is better handled with external links. Also, should be titled "Sexual slang (English)". Bacchiad 05:21, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's both useful information (haven't you ever looked up a "bad word" in a dictionary?) and (potentially) "encyclopedic" in nature. As I see it, the only real reason someone would want to delete it is that they find it offensive. But that's what the WARNING at the top of the page is for. If someone with delicate sensibilities doesn't have the self control to stop reading there, that's no reason to prevent others from seeing it. - dcljr 06:58, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The only reason anyone would have to delete this is that it is slightly vulgar and offensive. But that's why we have the Warning at the top of the page. If other people don't like it, they don't have to read it.--Ty Hal 18:29, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No censorship on Wikipedia. We have plenty of other lists. Andy Mabbett 22:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it looks to me like it could use some formatting, like make bulleted lists and alphabetize the terms, and verification. Maybe pop them into Google or something? ...no, I ain't volunteering. ^_^ --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 22:32, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, this ain't paper. Bbpen 07:38, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's real-world info, and besides, it's fun. :) -- Stevietheman 03:12, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand more about the origin of some of these terms, where, when and why they are used, and much more about the history of sexual slang.--Samuel Wantman 08:52, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's legitimate and somewhat interesting information. There is no need for us to censor content especially when we claim to document a great deal of human knowledge and culture. It's culture. Keep it. -SocratesJedi 19:45, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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.

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:Wikip&eacute;dia:Pages &agrave; supprimer]] [[sv:Wikipedia:Sidor som b&ouml;r raderas]]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_September_2004&oldid=4573347"