Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SimonP (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 28 July 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

See also: Wikipedia:Archived delete debates

Ongoing discussions

Needing Transwiki — Transwiki log

Individual debates older than five days

July 21

Portland Linux/Unix Group — Add to this discussion

I believe that this page should stay. Entries like this are what make the wikimedia much more current and relevant than any printed encylopedia could ever be.

Today it's been micronations, vanity pages, college radio stations, non-notable schools, patent nonsense, the usual vandal bot and now this. Do local/regional computer clubs get an entry? - Lucky 6.9 02:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • If high schools can get an entry, why not Linux user Groups? (Note: I am the webmaster for PLUG, so consider this a question, not a vote against VfD.) -- llywrch 03:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there something particularly distinctive about the Portland LUG that makes it any more notable than a typical representative of the thousands of other LUGs out there? --Robert Merkel 04:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I dunno. Was there anything distinctive about the Homebrew Computer Club that would qualify an entry in Wikipedia? -- llywrch 05:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's simply a case of numbers and uniqueness. Geogre 13:57, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Does the group number a thousand active members, or any significant individuals in the Linux/GNU community? If not, I currently vote delete. Besides, the current page has more external links than text... Average Earthman 14:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Bacchiad 18:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I added the PLUG page. My belief is that PLUG is more than just a "computer club". It is representative of the culture of Portland Oregon. We're a bit different out here (see the FreeGeek and PersonalTelco links).

Since the focus of this discussion seems to be on things that differentiate PLUG from other LUGs, I'll innumerate them:

  • PLUG has been in continuous operation for ten years. That's centuries in Net years.
  • The Linux Fund and FreeGeek were started by PLUG members. Both projects have significant national visibility.
  • PLUG for Education created a thin client system called K12LTSP, that is being used by schools world wide.
  • Notables who participate in PLUG include: Randal Schwartz, Randy Dunlap (USB kernel drivers), Phil Hughes (Linux Journal), members of IBM's Linux Technology Center, and members of the Open Source Development Lab. Ward Cunningham, another local, has participated to a limited extent.

The page may be a bit link heavy. I was trying to demonstrate the things that make PLUG unique and to show how PLUG fits in with the community. If the page isn't deleted, we may be able to get llywrch flesh it out. --Rasp

    • Who are you? Please sign comments in VfD. Average Earthman 21:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, fixed. --Rasp 00:10, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have to admit that Rasp has been a little too enthusiastic about the influence PLUG has had. No, Schwartz, Dunlap, & Hughes are not core members of PLUG (although Randal does participate on the PLUG mailling list). However, we have encouraged a few further developments in Open Source/Free Software: the Personal Telco Project is a spin-off from PLUG, & our group has influenced other LUGs in Oregon & southern Washington. And there are a few local developers (like Zach Welch) who look to us as a place to express their ideas & share their work before it gets published.
I want to be neutral about this discussion, but I have to wonder if the line for inclusion in Wikipedia is being drawn fairly. There are articles about high schools; articles about porn stars; articles about American cities with fewer than 100 inhabitants; and countless articles on telecommunication or computer technology. Is it fair to include all of these, & to exclude a "computer club" that I consider is in the top 20 or 30 of this category?
        • Well, it's not as if there's a fixed editorial body judging Wikipedia, it's whoever comes along to do it. If you find articles in Wikipedia that are clearly wrong or irrelevent, you're free to nominate them for VfD. I just vote my personal opinion on what is presented in front of me, and at the time of nomination, the page didn't give me a strong impression of notability. I think the page needs a major rewrite at the least, I'd rather any important information was on the page than on the end of a link. Average Earthman 12:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
At the least, I feel it is unfair to lump PLUG with "micronations, vanity pages, college radio stations, non-notable schools, patent nonsense" or "the usual vandal bot". I don't know who Rasp is, or if he even attends one of our meetings, but unlike the rest of this collection of fringe groupings, PLUG will survive, grow & even thrive without an article in Wikipedia. Despite my obvious interest in this article, I really don't care if it passes VfD or not -- but it will make Wikipedia look foolish & capricious when one of our members develops the next big thing in Open Source/Free Software, & some overly critical types vote an article on this group off of Wikipedia. -- llywrch 05:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean to sound as if I was lumping you in with anything else. Your article was posed during a rather stressful time here. Lots of very unusual articles were being posted. A delete vote isn't a personal attack, and it's often difficult to express that in text. - Lucky 6.9 06:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I appreciate the clarification. --Rasp 21:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not clear who it is who is questioning the relevance of Randal et al, but I don't think I said they were "core members". Phil Hughes founder and former editor of Linux Journal has helped us out in a number of ways over the years - but most of it was behind the sceenes. Randal and Randy have at times been very active on the mailing list. --Rasp 21:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I wrote that, Rasp, & it is based on my experience with the group. Unfortunately, we seem to be somewhat at cross purposes -- can you email me offlist (there's a link to a form on my User page), so we can provide a better defense of this article? -- llywrch 04:46, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Significant to enough people. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:10, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pezzetti di cavallo — Add to this discussion

Pezzetti di cavallo 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 transwiki to Wikibooks, cookbook section. Rossami 21:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A rather bad recipe. Wikibooks or delete. Lyellin 13:14, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • I nominate this for BJAODN - and send it to the glue factory. -FZ 15:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, yum. One look at the title was all it took for me. Delete, but not before opening a bottle of chianti. Everyone knows that red wine goes marvelously with pezzetti di cavallo. - Lucky 6.9 17:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • BJAODN & delete. No doubt about it: this one's a joke. Add a liter of sauce for every *kg* of horse? Is this for your army? Geogre 18:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Not a joke: see this Italian web site. The horse article states that eating horse meat is more acceptable in some parts of the world. Move to Wikicookbook or whereever it is that lost recipes find their home. "Difficoltà: minima." Great! Even I can make it! Wile E. Heresiarch 23:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, the cooking is easy. It's getting Mister Ed to agree that's hard. Geogre 04:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Cool! Dinner's on Wile E. tonight, and he's making his famed "Gelding Fettucini!" I'll bring the wine. :^P - Lucky 6.9 23:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki this distasteful-to-Americans recipe and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:46, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki and delete. But I'll know what to do with the next pony who pisses me off. Dukeofomnium 13:53, 26 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.

Meggers_crater — Add to this discussion

Untitled

From VfD:

This is a non-notable crater on the moon. The connection to its namesake is established here: List_of_craters_on_the_Moon and I don't see much point in copying the positional data from the primary source ( http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/moon/mooncrat.html ) into an extra article; this could be put on List_of_craters_on_the_Moon too. For reference, a notable moon crater would be the Giordano_Bruno_crater. Ianb 21:47, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem with this; it does contain more information than the table you reference (the fact that more information could be inserted into the table doesn't mean it will be); I'd venture that any named crater is by definition notable. Moreover, it sure doesn't hurt anything by being here or violate any policy. Keep. Jgm 22:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • There's quite a lot of craters on the moon, aren't there? A page on its own telling you where it is.. well, if that information isn't in the List_of_craters_on_the_Moon, it should be. The crater doesn't need a page, although I think William Meggers probably does, he was a fairly notable spectroscopist. The crater named after him doesn't appear to be that notable. DeleteAverage Earthman 12:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Articles on divots next? :-) Seriously, I actually think this should be a keep, even if it duplicates information. I understand that a redirect might take care of the issues, but having this as a placeholder for a future article with more depth, so to speak, about the crater is not, I think, fundamentally misleading or unhelpful. Geogre 13:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Future information? I may be being dense here, but how much more can we say at the moment about this specific crater? If all we have is name, position and size of these craters, that is best served in one table, rather than 40 stub articles. If the Chinese stick a base there in 30 years time, we can add it then... Average Earthman 17:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Concur- the named craters are few enough, and large enough, that they may well each merit their own entry when someone gets around to writing them. Keep. -FZ 18:02, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A slippery slope. Not only is there the Moon to consider, but there are many other bodies - especially Mercury, Venus, Mars and even the Earth - with millions of named and (as yet) unnamed craters. I'll abstain from voting, but not even my social life is dismal enough to get me started on such a project! Fire Star 22:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Unless Meggers crater is notable for other than its location and size, I vote to delete. Such data are more conveniently and practically kept on a table. Denni☯ 05:04, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
  • Well as a far-side crater it's very unlikely to receive much additional material in the near future. But there's a bunch of Lunar craters in the same category. Would it make sense to just have a page about the Moon's far side, with a table of features, and then link all the corresponding far side craters to that page? There's probably only going to be a few far side that ever get much attention in the next couple of decades. RJH 02:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Okay I have added a bunch more information concerning this crater. Not sure what else could be added until we actually go there. RJH 16:46, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • thanks, much appreciated. If anyone's got a spacecraft capable of heading in that direction and is looking for crew, count me in ;-). --Ianb 18:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Making Period Mail - Add to this discussion

Making Period Mail 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 transwiki to Wikibooks. As of 17:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), the article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk)

A "how to". RickK 23:05, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I moved the nice images to chainmail, don't see too much worth merging, so delete as a "how to"... furthermore, the chainmail page already links to two external "how to"s...--Fastfission 23:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. You can tell the author thanks for the images though. Postdlf 00:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • "Period" being? Delete. Glad the young folks are keeping busy, but this is a how-to. Geogre 01:35, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this is useful and interesting information. Agree that it's a "how to" that may fit better in Wikibooks. After transwiki, make this a redirect to chainmail (so it doesn't pop up again). Rossami 03:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikibooks and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikibooks and delete. ··gracefool |☺ 02:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks —siroχo 09:10, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'd be glad to refactor some of that info and merge it with Renaissance Faire or something... that's what Period likely refers to... ren faire folk arfe notorious for calling their ye Olde Dye Spot garments "period" they arfe. but it's too big to all go in. (Pedant)4.41.26.37 08:38, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd be glad to refactor some of that but it's too big to all go in

  • move to wikibooks, keep, rename to Chainmail manufacture, and expand to focus on historical production methods. dab 12:01, 22 Oct 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.

July 22

Weirdo Jace Moose Head - Add to this discussion

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Weirdo Jace. Andrewa 01:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, per above. Geogre 03:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ianb 05:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 07:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Maybe >>>IF<<< it gets released it MIGHT be WIKI material.. Williamb 08:38, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 17:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moose Head - Add to this discussion

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Weirdo Jace. Andrewa 01:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, per above. Geogre 03:10, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Possible redirect, for spelling, to the brewery -- Moosehead. SWAdair | Talk 05:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, hang on wall. Ianb 05:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 07:10, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 17:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Brewster Jennings & Associates - Add to this discussion

This page could possibly be a real Wikipedia article... if sources for this "information" were cited. -- [[User:Mike Storm|Mike Storm Talk ]] 01:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, if not expanded. Andris 15:19, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agenda of one kind or other, but mostly nonsense. Bacchiad 19:43, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This article was speedy deleted (which, as patent nonsense, I agree it should have been) then Undeleted without the approriate Votes for undeletion process. It should have stayed deleted. In other words, I vote to delete. RickK 19:50, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Sure seems like patent-able nonsense. Fairly ridiculous. Is it maybe a reference to some dumb TV show or other? Should we even be trying to read the author's mind? Geogre 21:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The context, for what it's worth, is that it was supposedly a front company for outed spy Valerie Plame. If the name doesn't get de-linked there, this will probably keep popping up. Also note some articles give a different address. Niteowlneils 01:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 17:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of murdered people - Add to this discussion

Does this page serve any purpose? The way it stands it doesn't appear very useful: as an alphabetical list it provides the ability to search by name (the Search function takes care of that already), but doesn't provide any other useful information. It also seems limitless, so it could easily grow by millions of names. Exploding Boy 01:26, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • This page serves the purpose of listing famous/notable people who have been murdered. (What search function could provide the same list?) The "other useful information" can easily be accessed if one follows the links. And it only seems limitless because, as experience has shown, people soon run out of names to add (cf. the edit history of cover version). In other words, I don't see the slightest problem with that page. Keep. <KF> 01:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • See, it doesn't say it's a list of famous/notable people who have been murdered, and I didn't recognize most of the names on the list, so they can't have been that famous. Also, many of them are probably only famous for having been murdered, which is a whole other thing. The search function I'm talking about is is to the top left of every page on Wikipedia. Surely if these people are so well-known one would be more likely to search for them by name. Exploding Boy 02:31, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • As all lists of people, it's supposed to include only people who already have articles in Wikipedia or are likely to get one (i.e. they are famous). It's currently in the format "Name, Year, Annotation" and part of a death-related series. Keep.-- User:Docu
    • OK, I withdraw my vote for deletion, but I'd like to see the page cleaned up, and the entries standardised. Exploding Boy 03:22, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • comment: I see from this list e.g.: Lili Wang. Why do the people mentioned here qualify for an article in Wikipedia? Is there a consensus / policy / guideline that being a murder victim is grounds for notability? Ianb 05:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh man. Keeeeeep. Barely. I'm not convinced of it's usefulness, but it might turn into something interesting. However, keeping it makes me want to create List of people who died of old age and List of people who died from their own stupidity.  :-) Ocon | Talk 04:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • keep (barely) but only if the people listed are otherwise notable. I see no point in a long (and incomplete) list of murdered random people. Ianb 05:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I suppose- it is useful information, though I think it would be moreso if it were sorted by date. Besides, don't we already have a lit of people who died from their own stupidity? -FZ 18:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain: Someone created a List of people who died with a tortoise shell on their heads. Listmania is outrageous. Also note that people who enter minor folks sometimes hit the List of first and then rationalize the article from that, rather than the other way around. The more nebulous the list, the more susceptible to tomfoolery. This one's probably useful (keep), but the list shouldn't warrant an article; only an article should warrant inclusion on the list. Geogre 21:15, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I just want to predict that all you people who voted "keep" are going to regret it when someone starts adding all the names of the 9/11 victims (and that's just the start). --Zero 16:51, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Rename. List of notable murdered people. --Jll 12:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Supoort a rename to List of notable murdered people —siroχo 00:28, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose renaming, support keeping. To be consistent, we'd also have to append an "of notable people" to every list on Lists of people by cause of death. Current policy already forbids adding non-notables to the article namespace. Keep the existing article titles. If you must, create a {{notablepeopleonly}} template to stick at the top of every list. --Benc 09:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • comment: this is an excellent idea. Wiki is a very spontaneous medium, and I suspect most people don't stop and read the guidelines before they list their favourite personal cause de celebre. Of course, this doesn't such a template will be universially heeded, but it makes it easier to point out that someone doesn't belong on a list. Ianb 09:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

TOaster Oven — Add to this discussion

Aside from the miscapitalization, we do not need to document a message board discussion from some random website. These GameFAQs people are even more useless than Slashdot, and they should stop adding their crap here. Sorry to be so blunt... Adam Bishop 02:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I couldn't agree more. No reason that this can't be speedied, IMO. And no, you weren't blunt. This is just idiocy. - Lucky 6.9 02:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sheesh. I'm running out of witty ways of saying, "This is junk." Geogre 03:04, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • DELETE! Agh! Get it off! Get it off! Postdlf 03:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete as not encyclopedic (among other reasons). But this does not meet any of the criteria for a speedy. Rossami 03:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • SHould JUst BE A REdirect TO GAmefaqs. Rhobite 04:00, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ocon | Talk 04:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • slash, burn, use freed-up space for grazing cattle. Ianb 05:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, idiocy. 100% in agreement with Adam's comments on GameFAQs people - yes, you were blunt, but don't apologise for it, this sort of article calls for bluntness. —Stormie 06:58, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, await article on the kitchen appliance. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but protest the anti-Slashdot slur. Bacchiad 19:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 17:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Neutrality 00:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Existential despair — Add to this discussion

The original article was just incorrect. I rewrote it, but now I'm thinking there isn't enough to work with to make it a separate article. What information is there currently is basically the same as what is on the existentialism page. -Seth Mahoney 03:47, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • 'Keep: This is very relevant to existentialist philosophy, in fact it could be argued that it is the very essence of existentialist philosophy.lordbetterthanyou
  • Delete. Ocon | Talk 04:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: No offense, but the current article only cover Sartre, and the man to see when it comes to existential despair is Kierkegaard & Sickness Unto Death. I think this particular subtopic of existentialism is worthy of a break out, myself, since it has been consistently referred to by outsiders (non-philosophers). Geogre 13:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • You're absolutely right, the current article does only cover Sartre, and if it is to be kept it should cover Kierkegaard as well, but if I remember correctly, Kierkegaard doesn't really give a solid (read: long and meandering) definition of despair, other than to say that we are in it and a relationship with God is the way out of it. Even if we added Kierkegaard's definition along with the permutations of Camus and Beauvoir its still going to be a very short article. I think that the existentialism article (along with the Kierkegaard article! Its all about his life, not his philosophy!) could use more content and Wikipedia could use fewer very short articles. Still, if you think it warrants its own article, great! I hope that means you're willing to write it.  ;) -Seth Mahoney 17:33, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll take a stab at it. My focus will be probably as Kierkegaardian as it was previously Sartrean, and I'll lean heavily on the concept as understood in pop culture -- which is really where I think the breakout is deserved. I.e. it's not so much that this element of existentialism is concisely discussed as it is that "existentialist literature" and film have gone whole hog for this part of the elaborate (and distinct) philosophy, without necessarily the rest. I ask folks to vote slowly, as that's how I write. Geogre 18:47, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Then again, I seem to be selfless just now, so I understand losing the article. It is a vague search term. Geogre 00:36, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • For the most part I like what you've written a lot. I'm still wondering if we would be better served by including the appropriate information in the Kierkegaard article (which, as far as philosophy goes is nearly blank) and in articles on the appropriate books. Its looking now like the two versions of despair (Sartrean and Kierkegaardian) are so divergent it may be confusing. If the vote is still to delete, I think we should merge the appropriate information into the articles on Kierkegaard and his books. -Seth Mahoney 20:34, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. If someone later adds something useful, it can be broken out again. Gdr 14:27, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what we could redirect to. -Seth Mahoney 20:35, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge Arevich 13:43, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This definitely deserves breakout. It's an important concept in Frankl, Kafka wrote about it, and it's important to the Existential Psychologists.--Samuel J. Howard 21:47, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • If you want to write about despair as it relates to the concepts in existential psychology, by all means, go for it! I think on the pure philosophy end there just isn't enough to it to make a separate article worthwhile. -Seth Mahoney 22:14, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • I copied the section on Kierkegaard to the Soren Kierkegaard article, and the section on existentialism's later cultural importance to the existentialism article. I also did a little editing of the existential despair article. -Seth Mahoney 22:05, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

THIS DEBATE IS NOW CLOSED.

Results: 2 keep, 2 delete, several merge. Considered a consensus not to delete. DJ Clayworth 18:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Legislative Debate — Add to this discussion

Legislative Debate, Creating A Bill, An Example Bill Judging Rubric Legislative Debate Format Parliamentary Procedure are all created by the same anonymous user, very unencyclopedic and very weird text. Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete all, merge with Parliamentary procedure if there's anything worth saving. Rhobite 04:45, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, badly capitalized, to boot. RickK 04:50, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all of them. - Kenwarren 13:13, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all, a cleanup would be a start from scratch anyway. Ianb 13:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Looks like a bunch of middle school student notes from government class. Postdlf 20:15, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Elf-friend 17:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

clockwork orange — Add to this discussion

clockwork orange 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 redirect to A Clockwork Orange.

  • Seems like nonsense. I suggest redirect to A Clockwork Orange.--gadfium 04:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Make it so. RickK 04:57, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • Okay, I've done so. (I hope that was a directive from you, and not just a vote) --gadfium 05:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Both, really. When it comes to easily reversible actions, you can just go ahead and perform them. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:54, 23 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.

List of Polish names for German cities - Add to this discussion

This is the English Wikipedia. Besides that, this article seems to have been created in order to keep stirring up the Polish/German nationalist wars which continue to plague the English Wikipedia. RickK 05:11, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete - Foreign languages and translations seems to be slowly creeping up through out the English WP a word or two add a time. --Buster 05:35, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. User is clearly not interested in discussing the matter, as they've twice deleted the VFD notice.--gadfium 05:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: the title is not strictly correct because it contains the names of German regions and a couple of Austrian cities as well. Ianb 05:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Maybe nice to have in the Polish edition.) --Palapala 10:12, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)
  • Delete. This belongs in the Polish Wikipedia, not here. - Kenwarren 13:15, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Information about variations of names of months, cities, countries, regions, personal names (e.g. Jacob, Iago, James) as they appear in various languages and in various eras are quite accetable here. I would vote keep for a list of Polish names of world cities (where the name differed from the standard English one). I would vote keep for a list of German names of world cities (where the name differed from the standard English one). I would vote keep on a table of major (and even minor) world cities in seven or more major languages. Not this. Jallan 17:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. But add them to List of European cities with alternative names first. bbx 01:12, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Elf-friend 17:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lili Wang — Add to this discussion

While a sad affair, both victim, murder and crime appear non-notable. Is Wikipedia a news archive? Also appears in List_of_Chinese_Americans. Ianb 06:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Strong keep - Actually, yes Wikipedia is indeed a news archive. She is an important case study for the Asian American community, as can be seen here: [1] [2]. Fuzheado | Talk 06:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless that case study information is incorporated into the article, the article as it now stands is non-notable. Vote delete until such time as the article is made notable. RickK 06:24, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with RickK. Unless improvements are made to state the significance, delete. Average Earthman 14:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Gary D 23:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Just because something is tragic, that doesn't mean it belongs here. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:58, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Send to clean up with request for significance added. I remember the murder, but the article, as written, only contains the salacious story. The use of this case for the immigrant/J-visa community needs to be in the article to explain why this item is important in general. Geogre 01:27, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless article cites a lot of use as a case study. Unfortunate, but not that notable. Niteowlneils 01:34, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it was linked by even just one substantial (i.e., not a list) article, then I'd vote to keep, but by itself it's not notable. --Benc 09:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Fuzheado. ---Dittaeva 13:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless case study information is incorporated into the article. Elf-friend 17:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would not add articles to Wikipedia if I didn't believe they were significant. The case is significant because of the unusual motives of the killer. The case has become a rallying point for Asian-American activists, much like the Vincent Chin incident. There are numerous articles about Lili Wang all over the web - I just didn't add them because I'm aware Wikipedia is not a "link farm". Besides the links Fuzheado posted above, see also:

This is most definitely a notable case. -Mth

      • comment: from the links provided I can't see any evidence of this being a "case study" or "rallying point". (the last link is in Chinese, which I can't comment on), only speculation on possible motives. Ianb 23:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I still think this case is important enough to warrant an article. The Wikipedia standard for inclusion of biographies is that the person is mentioned in several other places, and this article meets that standard. I'm a neutral observer not involved in anything having to do with the Lili Wang case, but I thought it was interesting enough and that other people would find it interesting enough to deserve an article. The only articles I linked it to were "List of murders" and "List of Chinese Americans", so it's not like I'm trying to clutter up Wikipedia with my articles or shove it in the face of someone who's not interested. I linked it to "List of Chinese Americans" because I thought someone who is browsing that list is probably interested in Chinese-American issues and would be interested in knowing about the case.

          If the Vincent Chin incident can have an article, then Lili Wang incident can most certainly have an article. But whether we should keep or delete articles of allegedly marginal significance is going to bring us back to the ages-old Deletionism vs. Inclusionism Wikipedia debate - something which has not been resolved yet. Frankly, if we can't decide whether to keep or delete, I say we should err on the side of caution and keep it. -Mth

  • Delete—beyond the pale of notability. Postdlf 03:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • In addition to the citations above, you can see Lili Wang added to this list of "History of Anti-Asian Violence" [3] (don't like linking to PDFs, so this is a Google-HTML link). Fuzheado | Talk 05:44, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

THIS DISCUSSION IS NOW CLOSED: 6 votes to delete 4 to keep. Deleted.

The Sandkings — Add to this discussion

It's not encyclopedic. It's belongs on a fan web site rather than an encyclopedia. And it's only just 1 episode from a low notable tv series. And it seems that the series already ended, which means this is sneaky advertising of a product so other networks would syndicate the series. Gavin M 06:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, but wikify. Haven't you ever seen The Outer Limits?  :) --Merovingian✍Talk 06:33, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Outer Limits was not a "low notable tv series" -- it often featured well-known science fiction stories, written by many famous authors. Outer Limits was often the first time these stories first saw dramatization. As for individual episodes from the series, if someone wants to take the time to produce encyclopedic articles on individual episodes, I say more power to them. - Kevyn 07:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Great article, good topic, a little obscure maybe but quite encyclopedic. Look forward to seeing more of these. Andrewa 10:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly, keep. If this goes, so too go all the Babylon 5 episodes. As do all the minor characters from the Harry Potter series, minor characters, places, and occurrences from Tolkien, and probably thousands more pages. Not that I don't think they should all go, mind you, just that I think it would be politically impossible to get a consensus on the issue. - Kenwarren 13:53, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't see that as a problem myself, but I suspect I'm in the minority. One comment - this is the first episode of the 90's revival of the series (IMDB says this lasted 1995-2002), rather than the original classic series, and so is not as notable. Or good. I'm no sci-fi buff, though, so no vote. Average Earthman 14:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Episode synopses are well-established as acceptable deep within the Wikipedia structure, and this is a good one to boot. Jgm 19:55, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - as notable as episodes of any other television series. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, precedent is that episodes of TV shows are eligible for articles, and while I personally think this article in no way enriches the Wikipedia, I won't vote for its deletion when there are so many other episode articles out there (some damn good ones, too). —Stormie 06:09, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Frankly, I'm puzzled by your reasoning. How about if we keep the notable TV shows (I guess there are some) and toss out the nonnotable ones -- isn't that a workable rule? I completely don't understand the implication that if we let in one TV show, we have to open the gates to all of them. I'll bet WP has some articles about former high school teachers, but... you see where I'm going with this. With all due respect, Wile E. Heresiarch 06:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Wile E., I don't really watch TV, so I don't know what's notable and what's not. Hence I'm not going to vote for the deletion of some but not others, but rather to keep 'em, if someone's made the effort to write 'em. —Stormie 00:40, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless fancruft. It's not too late to start clearing away that crap. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep The Outer Limits is one of those shows where an article for each episode works far better than a single page on the show itself. The cast and story were usually completely different between episodes. Many episodes cast notable actors who only appeared in one show. The Steve 08:16, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even the second run is a fairly well-known TV show, notable enough for inclusion of episode descriptions, not to mention it's a pretty good article. Everyking 11:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Arevich 13:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) People are clearly interested in learning about The Sandkings. Arevich 13:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Postdlf 15:49, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, and keep original name. - SimonP 06:09, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid my previous comments and vote have fallen below the sockpuppet line. At this point, I'm willing to change my vote to keep, previous name. I'm still not entirely convinced by Wikipedia:Do not use subpages, and its links, but it will take me a while to develop a coherent argument and write a proposal. I still think some sort of subpaging would be useful for fictional universes. I understand that I have to deal with the body of previous debate, and why current methods are lacking; I might change my mind in the process. Two questions:
  1. Are these debates archived forever, or will I need to make a personal copy?
  2. If I do develop a policy proposal I'd like to encourage discussion on, what should I do with it? Someone suggested Wikipedia:Rating systems as a model; is it all right to create proposals in the Wikipedia: namespace, or would it be better on my talk page? -- Creidieki 07:27, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utter tripe Williamb 07:37, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Frankly, I couldn't care less about the TV episode. But the sockpuppet farce has me enraged. This vote has been corrupted. I'd rather keep a silly page than reward this kind of behaviour on wikipedia. --Woggly 07:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would probably have voted to keep anyway, but the use of sockpuppetry to vote for the deletion of this article has really convinced me. Elf-friend 17:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The individual who put this up for deletion in the first place is almost certainly responsible for the sockpuppets. All of his edits are on this page. Agree with Woggly...I'm pissed too. - Lucky 6.9 00:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a general rule I don't support individual episode articles, but this is an exception. Not only is it the first episode in the second run, but the novelette it's based on won both a Hugo Award and a Nebula Award. Isomorphic 03:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All further votes on this topic were made by sockpuppets. There are a few comments below made by real users, but it is mostly paragraphs of sockpuppetry. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:29, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. I believe the term is pseudoinformation. Rothko 05:27, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppet -- Cyrius|✎ 06:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you loaded an Encarta or Britannica CD you wouldn't see television episode descriptions. Goncharova 05:30, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppet -- Cyrius|✎ 06:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reviving old series are always unsuccessful. Look at the Twilight Zone revival. It only lasted 1 season before it got cancelled in comparison to the classic Twilight Zone, which lasted much longer. Matisse 05:33, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppet -- Cyrius|✎ 06:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a blatant vanity page. Jasper J 05:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppet -- Cyrius|✎ 06:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Keep. Leger 05:37, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppet -- Cyrius|✎ 06:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Wow, I think that's the first time I've seen an army of sockpuppets pop up to vote to delete an article, rather than to keep it! —Stormie 06:09, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


  • I think we should keep, but implement a Naming Convention policy on names of episodes from TV shows, and other subdivisions of literary works. I posted some comments about this on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/The_Cast_Away_Cat_Princess_Prelude. There's no reason not to have episode summaries and character descriptions, particularly for (historically/socially) important TV episodes, comic books, etc. But we can't clutter the namespace with the title of every anime episode every created. I'd suggest moving this to The Outer Limits, Season 1, Episode 1. I'd be happy to draft a policy about that sort of things to open discussion, but I'm still pretty new and I'm not sure where the right place to post it would be. Creidieki 06:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


  • Delete. The original Outer Limits series only lasted for about 2 years and is common knowledge among sci fi buffs. However according to experts, the revived Outer Limits lasted for 7 years and most sci fi buffs don't even know the series was revived. I think that speaks volumes on how notable the revived series is and how notable 1 episode from that series is. I say DELETE with pleasure. Magritte 07:22, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Moved page to The Outer Limits (1995) episode: The Sandkings to reduce namespace clutter. Creidieki 22:44, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Was this new namespace authorized by consensus? I remember there are several instances where people proposed creating new namespaces, but always the general consensus is not to create them. For example, the idea for a 'List' namespace [4]. From what I've usually seen, TV episodes are usually created with the title and the name of the series in parentheses. Here are some examples: Soul Hunter (Babylon 5), Teacher's Pet (Buffy episode), The Chaser (The Twilight Zone). 128.125.30.47 23:26, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree with the anonymous commenter above—the titles of the episodes themselves should come first in the article title. The page should be moved back. Postdlf 23:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • All right. I couldn't find any policies about naming subthingies of artistic works (characters, episodes, etc.), so I was basically trying to find a reasonable solution. If there's a standard way, I certainly wouldn't object to it being moved back. I'll take a look at the Wikipedia:Naming Conventions page. I'm a little uncertain on where to move this episode, though, because of the way the series was recontinued. Would The Sandkings (Outer Limits) be all right, or would we want something like The Sandkings (Outer Limits (1995)), or The Sandkings (Outer Limits (Revival))? There's at least one episode title ("Nightmare") that appears in both the 1960 series and the 1995 series. Creidieki 01:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • I wasn't able to find a standard for this type of situation. However, I was able to find an example of it. It's in this page List of The Twilight Zone episodes, the episode "The After Hours" appears in the classic series and first revival. Sorry, but that was the best that I could do to help the situation. Korcas 02:18, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Since it looks like this article is going to be kept, I'd go for the new namespace idea. There is no set standard on how episodes are suppose to be named and the namespace idea is a great way to get these crap articles out of the way. This would definitely give more professionalism to Wikipedia. Gavin M 04:02, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comment: I'd keep the article named as The Outer Limits (1995) episode: The Sandkings. And how dare you accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Rothko 04:10, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with the namespaced version. Also, I believe most of those keep votes are sockpuppets. The person who started calling others sockpuppets must have been mistaken. Goncharova 04:13, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree too with the namespaced version. I am also disappointed in the petty name calling. For shame. Matisse 04:15, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I concur with cleaning with article space with the new namespace. I think those people calling others sockpuppets might have been scared that this article would have been deleted. That might be the reason for the labeling. Jasper J 04:18, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I like that namespace version too. I changed my vote even with the allegation of being a sockpuppet. Would a sockpuppet do that, huh? Leger 04:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, keep the namespace as "The Outer Limits (1995) episode:". I have no idea why someone would call me a sockpuppet even after I provided a well reasoned argument for deleting this article. Magritte
  • Comment: There may not be episode naming precedents, but there is certainly a wikipedia precedent: If the episode titles are unique, just the name. If something else comes along with the same title, add a qualifier in parentheses afterwards and create a disambiguation page. Why is this a problem? The Steve 04:29, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree. Jasper J 04:38, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with that idea. Rothko 04:40, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I prefer the new namespace. Goncharova 04:41, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I am also disinclined with doing away with the new namespace. Matisse 04:42, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The current name should stay the way it is. Leger 04:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I vote to keep the current name as it is. Magritte 04:45, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • All you sock puppets can pipe down. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:56, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I guess I was mainly thinking that people seem to sometimes have objections to pages for small components of a noteworthy whole. It's come up with TV episodes (this, and The Cast Away Cat Princess' Prelude), I know there's at least one Digimon on the VfD page (Jagamon), and it's happened with college organizations (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Virginia Tech Tae Kwon Do, though that may have been vanity as well). It seemed like people might have less objections if there were some way to organize pages to indicate that they were being used to explain a larger topic. And frankly, I agree with Gavin's comment that I think it would look more professional. If you search wikipedia for "call long distance", you find a link to Long Distance Call, and it's not particularly obvious that that's a Twilight Zone episode.
I've probably also had in my mind that I think most people won't search for a TV episode by typing the name into the Search box and expecting the episode to appear; I think that people will search for episodes by looking up the series, and then clicking on a "List of episodes" link. I rarely know the name of individual TV episodes. Then again, if people are looking for Jagamon, I can imagine them typing that in, instead of Digimon: Jagamon, so I'm not sure that my argument is completely solid.
The current method also makes it harder to predict where pages are for experienced users. I just looked for information on the Buffy episode "Hush", and it wasn't obvious that it was at Hush (Buffy episode) rather than Hush. It's certainly not obvious that the Buffy character "Angel" is at Angel (vampire). We have an enormous number of very similar articles about fictional characters, TV episodes, video game monsters, etc., and I think it would be helpful to standardize their positions a bit.
Finally, I really think that Buffy character: Angel and Twilight Zone episode: Long Distance Call, or Buffy: Characters: Angel and Twilight Zone: Episodes: Long Distance Call, just look a lot better than Angel (vampire) and Long Distance Call (Twilight Zone). Creidieki 10:15, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Try creating a formal proposal with a similar format as Wikipedia:Rating_system. I'd like to hear more about the details of your naming standardization. Also, try to include how the use of categories Wikipedia:Categorization or disambiguation pages Wikipedia:Disambiguation fails to address television naming issues that your naming standardization can. If it's good, then there would be community consensus to implement it. If it doesn't work out, at least you tried. RockNRoll 18:36, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Why is this even being considered? See Wikipedia:Do not use subpages. This seems to me to be an attempt to de facto reintroduce a system that was replaced because it failed. Ambivalenthysteria 13:28, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I still stand my vote to Delete this non-notable topic. And I have proof that this is not notable at all. After careful research, I discovered that this particular episode is sold separately and is NOT packed with other episodes. Here is the video for sale [5]. And here is MGM's attempt to sell this awful series: [6]. This evidence clearly shows that The Sandkings wasn't even good enough to bundle with other episodes in a DVD set. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is to delete this article immediately because it is not notable. If MGM thought it was any good, it would have bundled it with other episodes in its DVD sets of the revival Outer Limits series. Rothko 05:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • With the evidence presented above, I change my vote to Delete. I also did my own research via Google, and look at how many hits it got. [7]. It got ZERO hits, and only an Amazon ad for DVD's is displayed. It clearly FAILS the Google test. Surely, some of those keep sockpuppets must be convinced that this article needs to be removed from this professional encyclopedia. Leger 05:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Interesting. I read the above evidence, but wasn't convinced, so I did my own work. And I found an expert in the field of television and this is what he had to say about the new series: "Fast forward to the 90's, and this show has become liberal claptrap, with the plots of the show being nothing more than scanty window dressing to cover up the writers blatantly liberal agenda." [8]. Clearly, more people will now vote to delete after an EXPERT has said this series is nothing but liberal claptrap. I vote to Delete this article and I still wonder what's with the unfounded sockpuppet name calling. Goncharova 05:19, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above three. I still vote to Delete this article. I think all the sockpuppet name calling is just to make up for the LACK of evidence to keep this article. So far, I've read a lot of convincing evidence above to delete this article. I also found more evidence in support for deleting this article. Apparently, this episode LOST out on an Emmy award. The actor Beau Bridges LOST the Emmy for Outstanding Guest Actor to a show called Picket Fences. [9] Obviously, an encyclopedia wouldn't include an episode where the "star" didn't even win an award for his performance. An encylcopedia is about notable things and obviously losing out on an award is not notable. Please delete when the 5 days are over. Thanks. Jasper J 05:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm definitely convinced that the sockpuppet allegations is an attempt to undermine the delete vote. I'm sticking to Delete this article. I also did some research, and I found out this episode also lost out on another award, a Gemini Award. Two actors from this episode were nominated for the Gemini Award for Best Actor in a Dramatic Program or Miniseries and BOTH of them LOST. [10] . Clearly, a show that keeps on losing out on awards is not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. I hope all the evidence convinces some of those keep votes to delete this non-notable episode. Matisse 05:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DuChamp 06:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Consider this a formal warning. Stop using sockpuppets. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Another blatant attempt to bolster the keep votes by falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet. It boggles the mind what people would do to make up for their lack of evidence to keep this article. DuChamp 06:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Considering how a flock of new users appeared all just to vote the same way on this VfD without any previous edits, all with user names ripped out of art history... Not exactly a clever subterfuge. And not especially clever to argue against an episode's notability by claiming that it lost awards—the very fact that it was singled out for award nominations speaks of its notability. Or should we delete the article on Pulp Fiction because Forrest Gump bested it for Best Picture? Postdlf 22:06, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I doubt anyone would have listened to my reasons for deleting this article if it only came from 1 person. Besides, the truth is that NO proof has been presented that this article deserves to stay. So far, there is a plethora of evidence for deleting this article for the reason non-notability. The losing out on the awards is just one factor. There is the suspicious MGM move to sell this one episode separately instead of bundling it with other season one episodes. There is the proof of 0 Google hits and there is the opinion of the sci fi expert. I'm confident some of those keep votes will change their minds once they get a chance to read the evidence for deleting this article. I just hope they read it before the vfd deadline comes. The user Williamb proves my point. I doubt it was just a coincidence that a Delete vote came after I posted all the evidence of non-notability and I'm willing to bet that any more new votes from legitimate users will be delete. J Pollock 06:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • You don't seem to understand: it's not a matter of proof, it's a matter of argument. The criteria for deletion are flexible. If you think an article should be deleted, you need to convince people to support you, not to prove to them that you are correct. You need to rally support from real users, not sockpuppets. And if your arguments aren't enough to convince other users to support you, you'll just have to live with that. In the meantime, the sockpuppet techinque you've employed is despicable, it only serves to cloud and clog up the argument, and you don't deserve the respect of your wikipeers.--Woggly 08:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the advice. It looks like it's too little too late for this article. However, in the future, if I ever come across an article I feel strongly about it's deletion I'll try to rally people for support rather than use sockpuppets. J Pollock 06:10, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
              • If you mean this sincerely, I'm very glad. Using sockpuppets is definitely a way to get attention. So is demonstrating in the nude, or blocking the highway with your vehicle. The question is whether that's the kind of attention you really want. Woggly 08:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Real comments should be added above the dividing line before the various sockpuppetry. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

THIS DICUSSION IS NOW CLOSED: Even disregarding the sockpuppet contribution, the consensus is to keep. I choose to ignore all votes from users whose only activity is to vote in this debate, whether they are technically 'sockpuppets' or not. Questions of renaming and namespace I leave to the wider community. DJ Clayworth 21:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Winworld — Add to this discussion

Winworld 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 a failure to reach concensus. I count:
2 keep (though both are flagged as possible sockpuppets)
3 redirect
6 delete (one flagged as anonymous)
Regardless of whether the you count the flagged votes (5 to 6) or not (3 to 5), the discussion did not reach the necessary concensus to delete. For now, the article (now a redirect) is kept. Rossami 21:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ad for a site. 18 Google hits for WinWorld Abandonware -site:winworldabw.com -site:fishnet3000.net. Looks minor to me, delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. The topic however is becoming increasingly hot as "no further support" for many companies simply means that the download links mysteriously disappear (remember people desperately searching for older versions of Novell NetWare Client suddenly not available any more?). So there should be a section in Abandonware which covers legal aspects of older "serious" software and provides links to repositories/museums, or even a separate article for non-supported (phased-out) Operating Systems and Applications. --Palapala 07:46, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)
  • Keep. As the past user said, the topic is very hot, and WinWorld is quickly raising in rank. WinWorld is a repository/museum, did you click on the link?--Surfinshell23 07:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; this site could / should be an external link in a relevant article. Wikipedia is not a website directory. Ianb 09:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. WinWorld is providing a excellent service to the public, as well a great forum community. -- DuffDude650
  • comment: users Surfinshell23 and DuffDude650: are you in any way connected with this site? I notice the only contributions from you both are the votes here. Ianb 13:14, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. WinWorld may be providing an excellent service for the community, but that doesn't make it notable. Would you expect to find your local mom-and-pop convenience store in an encyclopedia? - Kenwarren 13:47, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Add a reference to this service to Abandonware. (My dog provides an excellent pet service to me.) Geogre 14:02, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Reponse: This is not an entry to a website directory; this is an article that contains a weblink. Ianb, I had never seen the reason to register in my many years useage of Wikipedia. George, I don't totally see the connection there.--Surfinshell23 15:40, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Reduce content and merge the remainder with Abandonware and make this a redirect to Abandonware. If WinWorld is a very important site, then some people might enter "winworld" and will then find more information that they might like to know. If no-one ever uses the redirect, no harm is done. Generally a single website should not have its own article. Websites should normally be linked to articles for which they provide useful auxiliary information. Jallan 17:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. Took the liberty of doing so. Article is now a redirect. Keep harmless redirect. Rossami 21:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you. A link on the Abandonware page may be even more visibility for the site. Surfinshell23 01:41, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Wikipedia isn't the place to get more visibility for your site. I took the link off the page. Rhobite 04:18, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • That someone is pleased that his or her website is linked to an article in Wikipedia is not a reason to remove a link. If it were, we would be removing almost all external links as presumably most creators of websites are pleased when linked to. The only question should be whether a link provides extra value for the readers of the article. I think this site does give reasonable extra value to readers of the article. Jallan 23:12, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I vote to keep the redirect, and merge the links from the original article into the abandonware article. --ssd 16:46, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also, I suspect we may have sockpuppets at work here (Surfinshell23 and DuffDude650), similar to the previous VfD.

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.

List of war crimes - Add to this discussion

Inherently POV and a magnet for controversy and edit war. I'm already in the process of deleting some of the more controversial parts of it. RickK 19:20, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • I hate to say it because I agree with the above, but keep. This topic will be controversial. OTOH, I feel that the concept of the article has potential. - Kenwarren 21:36, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but limit only to war crimes that have been accepted by an international court or tribunal. - SimonP 23:39, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain: A list of the crimes by statute, rather than "things people did that are war crimes" would help. Listing everything anyone has called a warcrime is inherently controversial and POV. I think the article should stick to a list of things that international courts have defined as war crimes. (E.g. "Felonies in the US include the following," rather than "It was a felony when Oliver North lied to Congress.") Geogre 00:22, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I was going to vote "Keep" with this reasoning: The controversy will already be in the articles about war crimes, making them more visible by use of a category is only honest. Otherwise, do you rely on the potential contrahents not finding the pages? But this is bogus, as I realized just soon enough: The articles inherently give more context in facts and more nuances on judgement. Reducing this to a simply including or not including in a category doesn't help at all. It's like one of these kafkaesque interrogation scenes, where only the answers "yes" and "no" are allowed. I vote Delete. -- Pjacobi 00:29, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - more trouble than it's worth. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, however the article needs to be put into two sections, those who have been accused of crimes and found guilty in court, and those who have been accused of war crimes and stating who has done the accusing. It could be a long list... Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:58, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - at present the scale and NPOV of war crime and crime against humanity articles is dubious: the former because only the very few universally agreed cases taken to court (political decision) are really identified by name, the latter because war crimes are predominantly identified as such by the winning side and many crimes against humanity tend to get sidelined or underreported. An article that lists in summary form incidents which are or have been felt at times to be WC/CAH, and the basis for these feelings, addresses this. That some incidents are felt to be WC/CAH by certain groups and not by others is inherently POV, but the fact that at least some people feel it is a WC/CAH and the basis for their feeling, is not. This is currently neither available, complete nor neutral elsewhere. So long as each entry is NPOV, it'll do its job. (Example: "Excessive force against a civilian population, or military necessity to minimise loss of life?" is a NPOV summary of Hiroshima/Nagasaki in 14 words). Whilst difficult to accept that some people may feel this way, it shouldn't be an edit war, as it can easily and neutrally be verified whether an incident occurred and the basis upon which some populations classify it as an alleged WC/CAH. Let it stand. Perhaps rename to "List of alleged war crimes". There needs to be a list of this kind, however hard the feelings it raises. See Talk:List of War Crimes. FT2 13:09, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but change title. As it seems the article will focus on incidents where large numbers of civilians were killed. Any such incident will certainly be regarded as a crime by at least some people. (Consider the alternative: Incident X resulted in 100,000 civilian deaths, but not many people were upset by this since it followed international law.) The page will be useful to people who want to get an overview of the scale of different disasters. The warcrime-or-not question should be discussed in the article on each incident. PeR 13:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inescapable POV. All wars are crimes, except for the ones involving only mercenaries (in which case it's a violent game). Wile E. Heresiarch 15:42, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep ONLY if the list is limited to cases that have either already been tried in an international court (eg Nurenburg, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, or future cases listed by the International Criminal Court, and the article is explicitly described as such. Any bias inherent is therefore their problem. Average Earthman 19:42, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. incapable of NPOV. Bacchiad 21:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Why not change it into List of war crimes prosecutions? That would remove any POV problems. Postdlf 01:24, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(Because the decision to prosecute is not neutral. Only a tiny handful of incidents are formally prosecuted. Chechnia, Cambodia, these have not been prosecuted. Perhaps as Per says, change title (Allegations of Crime against Humanity). Restricting the article to prosecuted cases greatly under-represents this crime. It's also inherently NPOV since most cases realistically need Western interest and support to be prosecuted. Crimes against humanity in less strategic parts of the world, or alleged to be committed by the West (USA/Europe) have historically been far less likely in comparison to obtain the political support necessary for a case to be suggested. Somehow this problem needs to be rectified for NPOV, any suggestions how? FT2 05:17, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC))
    • Whether or not something has been prosecuted (successfully or not) is objective fact. Whether or not an incident should be prosecuted is not objective, and cannot be simply made into a list. If you want to document all possible war crimes, all alleged war crimes, then this must be done with an explanation of the evidence/arguments for and against such a finding rather than blandly listing them as if you were reading the phone book. I would support such an article, as long as it is actually balanced, rather than balancing by merely assuming another POV to counteract the supposed dominant one. Postdlf 08:26, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • That works too, it would mean a little more information on each than I'd expected but perhaps thats for the best. FT2 08:40, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
        • One further comment—the very epithet of war crime implies a violation of institutional norms, so it would have to be grounded in some way in the perspective of existing legal and governmental power structures. Otherwise, it just becomes rhetoric. Postdlf 22:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Existing legal structures tightly define the legal terms "crime against humanity" and "war crime". One place that they are given formal definition and legal force is the Treaty of Rome. These would provide the level of grounding you're after, if I understand your point rightly. FT2 06:22, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Inherently POV. I believe all acts of war are crimes. Others think only a few are. Unless this is changed to an article about actual prosecutions, this will only ever be a magnet for trolling, edit wars, wikihate and pointlessness. Delete — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 11:46, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC).
  • Delete - I checked this out expecting something real. Instead it is just a laundry list and if it is kept the Iraq sanctions do not qualify as war crimes under any definition. - Tεxτurε 21:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    Are you sure they don't count "under any definition"? If you lived in quite a few countries outside the West, you would probably cite back the Rome Statute: Genocide: 6a: "Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group ... Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."
    • Claiming "genocide" for enforcing UN sanctions is laughable. No matter how you choose to mis-engineer the words used to describe it. - Tεxτurε 16:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • See below for sources for your 'laughable'... if 0.5 million dead kids are able to be laughed at. FT2 09:03, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
    A large chunk of the world thinks that the Iraq sanctions were calculated at least in part to further destroy in part a defeated national group (Iraq). The sanctions deliberately and knowingly inflicted conditions (lack of water etc) which brought about the group's physical destruction in part. The part that was 'physically destroyed' included around 0.5 million child non-combatant lives alone. So yes, there is a prima facie legal case. There is also a potential legal match with Article 7, items 1(k) and 2(a). The core Statute of Rome definitions are met, at least enough to justify a balanced NPOV explaining the circumstances, and both the reasons it might be, and the reasons it might not.
    • Cite your sources for what "the world thinks" (in your opinion). - Tεxτurε 16:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • See below FT2 09:03, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
    I don't know if anyone above has noticed, but the page on genocide contains a long list of "alleged genocides". That list seems to work quite well, and the POV issue seems to have been overcome (albeit with substantial debate as one would expect). If a balanced view can be reached on alleged genocides, the same NPOV is possible for various other war crime. FT2 02:11, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • That argues for deleting this list and including it in War crimes - Tεxτurε 16:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete. The application of the term "war crime" is still too ambiguous to allow the creation of this list. Maybe in a few more years, the case law will be settled enough, but not right now. (As a side note, the Iraq sanctions fail to meet FT2's standard of a prima facie case because proximate cause has not been established.) Rossami 04:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep --Dittaeva 13:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Valid examples of war crimes that have been, or should have been prosecuted based upon a solid understanding of international law, can be incorporated in war crimes (as genocide appears to be handled). Having a separate list serves no function. Postdlf 16:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sources to substantiate the claim that a large number classified the iraq sanctions as a crime were requested. A good starting point is the top 100 links at [11]. Notice these are not "fringe" groups, they include doctors and medical associations, members of parliament, UN officials and bodies, pressure groups, both Western and non-Western writers, media and the like. It's enough evidence that a significant part of the world does indeed seem to think this way. In addition, supporting links to US Department of Defense documents in 1991 discussing the US military's understanding of the scale of death and the US military analysis of the consequences of Iraq's inability to provide drinking water or repair its existing plants, can be found at [12] and includes links to the DOD Gulflink website for sources. Other relevant pages include a BBC source and UNESCO. Finally, a legal analysis of the matter with citations can be found at [13], as part of a broader analysis here. FT2 09:08, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

THIS DISCUSSION IS NOW CLOSED: Results 8 delete 7 keep. I cannot consider this to be a consensus to delete, so it is staying. DJ Clayworth 21:25, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mark Hurst - Add to this discussion

Vanity. RickK 20:32, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • ...is a consultant and author widely credited for popularizing "customer experience" online: classic vanity weasel words. (By coincidence articles Usability testing and Customer_experience_management were altered by the same anon IP to create links to this article). Delete tentative keep if can be NPOVed. Current text is c&p from here: http://www.goodexperience.com/about/mark.php. Also needs disambiguating from the British comedian of same name. Ianb 21:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete copyvio. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:15, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tag for POV rewrite. Arevich 21:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Vanity, non-notable. Delete. - Kenwarren 21:41, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, while he seems to get a fair number of Google most of them seem to be for minor technology events where he has spoken. - SimonP 23:37, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable consultant who's claim to "fame" is starting a solo consulting practice and then talking about it a lot. See [[14]] for some interesting background. Based on his own website, he "popularized" concepts that were routine parts of my MBA education years before. Rossami 03:39, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone hoping for free advertising. Rossami, thanks for reverting the promo links in other articles. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:38, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, useless information. Postdlf 13:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Bacchiad 21:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OOS - Add to this discussion

Dicdef. RickK 21:07, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree, Dicdef. Arevich 21:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not just a dictdef, but a slang one (or DDDS for "delete dictdef slang," which now needs an article, if this stays). Geogre 01:02, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - SimonP 02:20, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. dicdef. Bacchiad

Darin Hunzeker - Add to this discussion

  • Vanity, a CV. RickK 21:53, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • A c&p from this US congress candidate's website [15] (copyvio?). I can't tell whether he's actually a candidate or running from the nomination or whatever. Delete, reinstate if elected. I don't want to see entries for otherwise non-notable candidates for political office any more than I do on 14 year old would-be musicians. Ianb 22:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Yup, this is advertising pure and simple and should be removed. Wikipedia does not endorse any brand of cornflakes, kilts or candidates for Congress. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:11, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)
  • Good candidate, running for Congress. There is no reason for deletion. -- Jasonjanofsky
  • Yes there is.
1) Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. We have a policy of deleting advertisements such as this article. We do not endorse products in the way that this article does.
2) Wikipedia has an international readership. Actual members of the US Congress may be of some encyclopaedic interest to us. Wannabe members are not. And if it's not encyclopaedic it should be deleted. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:21, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)
  • This is definately propaganda and should be deleted. Indrian | Talk 22:41, July 22, 2004
  • Keep, lack of neutrality is a reason for Cleanup, not deletion. More troubling is whether it is a copyvio. - SimonP 23:28, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subject is not notable. If he is elected or otherwise becomes notable, a properly encyclopedic article could be considered. Rossami 23:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Running for office is not notable. Each election, from city board of alderman to President, will have multiple candidates. Geogre 00:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • We created dozens of articles for candidates in the recent Canadian election (e.g. David Chernushenko, Alan Riddell, Monia Mazigh). I would say that anyone who can get a major party nomination is encyclopedic. - SimonP 02:19, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep with cleanup. I think an endorsed major party candidate for a House election is just notable enough for an article, though this one is less notable as it appears to be a very safe seat for the incumbent. Still, there is likely to be a substantial amount written about the challenger in the press over the next few months. If this article is to be kept, the current content is an unacceptable (and should be stubbed until somebody writes a better, non-NPOV article). --Robert Merkel 02:49, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this is very legit because its a United States Congressional Candidate from a Major party. His information is valid because he won a Primary election in March. Running for congress is no small task. We should give it its due respect by allowing it to be a part of our history. Knowing who this guy is will add to the wealth of knowledge of wikipedia.
    • Who are you? Please identify yourself by signing your comments like the rest of us do. Anonymous comments on Vfd are not useful. --Robert Merkel 03:32, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - we've got enough articles on US Representatives just limiting ourselves to the ones who actually have been elected. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:18, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. When he wins, he can have an article. Til then it's just an advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:23, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Campaign websites are copyrighted. But I would like to take issue with the notion that Congressional candidates are not encyclopedic. They're public figures, voted on by hundreds of thousands of people. I believe all legitimate articles on Congressional candidates should be kept. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:13, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
    • To clarify--major parties only. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:11, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I think that the candidates of specific parties are a viable encyclopedia topic. Now, I'd prefer to see a page like Defeated candidates in PA8, 1992-2004, just listing them, but I understand the logic. Lyellin 13:27, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I do not support articles on every candidate in every election but this is a candidate for US congress from one of two main parties. He will likely get hundreds of thousands of votes, even if he loses. Andris 15:10, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • Additionally, didn't this bloke have to win a primary amongst the local Republicans to get the endorsement? Doesn't that take thousands of votes and a big campaign anyway? --Robert Merkel 23:54, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - the current article is a complete advert, and needs massive pruning. Also a question - does this bloke have any chance of being elected? He's running against the incumbent, and given the polarisation of US politics, for all I know this is in a district where the Democrats could literally nominate a donkey and still win the vote. Average Earthman 19:54, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a safe Democrat district AFAICT, the incumbent won the last election 63-37, and she's running again. --Robert Merkel 23:54, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Then he's a candidate put up in the full expectation of defeat, and not significant. Delete. Average Earthman 14:14, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Bacchiad 21:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Postdlf 03:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

J-B Weld and JB Weld — Add to this discussion

J-B Weld and JB Weld 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 an even split. Failing to reach consensus, these articles are kept (though, of course, they may be renominated). Rossami 21:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Advertising. RickK 22:53, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

  • Heh, I should've anticipated this. I actually paraphrased (not copied) sections of their site, so I guess it does look like an advertisement. Ah well, delete it and start over I guess; but I can't think of a way to compare it to other epoxies (which I have little information on) without leaving an advertising taste in the reader's mouth. --John Moser 23:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, your intentions may be good but the article does read like an ad, and the product does not have any particular cultural or historic importance. If you wanted to boil it down to a short paragraph, the article on Epoxy could certainly use expansion, and brief descriptions of (dare I say) the strengths and weaknesses of various products might be a good addition. Dpbsmith 23:40, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep stub. Send to Cleanup. We have lots of good, balanced articles on individual companies (and their products). This can be salvaged. Rossami 23:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, can be saved. - SimonP 02:21, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasonable starting point for useful article about a real product. Jgm 23:40, 23 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old&oldid=4892497"