Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 22

[edit]

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was redirect. The merge and redirect has been carried out. Joyous 02:20, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mouse click

[edit]

This article has been listed for speedy deletion, but I fail to see which reason it fell under. Therefore, I moved it here, although not necessarily as an endorsement of its deletion. I think the article is not encyclopedic, but perhaps it could be served simply by a redirct to computer mouse. Smoddy | ειπετε 00:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to computer mouse --Dyss 01:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Computer mouse. Megan1967 01:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect is sensible. Hard to imagine making an encyclopedic article about this. Antandrus 01:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to computer mouse. No need to merge. --Idont Havaname 05:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect/delete (for anyone that cares, it is very likely this was created due to someone suggesting a WP game on /., find a common phrase that does not have an article, complete with example of Mouse click.) ~ mlk ✉♬ 06:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~
  • Delete. No useful content or history, not a useful redirect. Andrewa 09:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. Stombs 11:23, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not useful and doesn't need a redirect. Computer mouse contains enough information on its own to not require a merge. --Deathphoenix 03:10, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. The article *does* have some useful information not found in Computer mouse.
  • Merge. THe information regarding the switch and how the clicking sound is produced should be included in computer mouse. Ganymead 05:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. This could be an insightful subheading in Computer mouse. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 18:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, definitely some information worth keeping. -- taviso 23:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 02:23, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science)

[edit]

Policy to allow personal research. Bensaccount 00:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep This page is a draft for a set of guidelines. It is not claiming to be official policy yet. Bensaccount has not tried to discuss any issues he has with the page on its talk page before taking this route. Wikipedia needs guidelines as to how to be NPOV when comparing scientific viewpoints. This page details how NPOV policy should be applied in this situation. Perhaps people would wish to ensure these draft guidelines are reasonable and in accordance with the spirit of the NPOV rule rather than impulsively deleting them. Barnaby dawson 00:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep good-faith policy draft. —Korath (Talk) 01:05, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an excellent stab at a very difficult issue. Ungtss 01:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs expansion. Megan1967 01:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for same reasons given by Korath and Ungtss. --Idont Havaname 05:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the above reasons. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to subpage of a user page or at least put draft somewhere in the article name. I applaud people tackling the issue, but until it's done I don't think it should have that article name. --fvw* 22:06, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
    • I would agree with changing the name to wikipedia: Draft of NPOV (Comparison of views in science) or a similar title. Note that the article does have a disclaimer at the top. Anyone disagree with a change of name? Barnaby dawson 16:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • In any case, of course (and in contrast to edits attempting to "save") don't make the change before the VfD has been closed and the permanent disposition of this subpage effected. Don't throw the closer-admin an unnecessary curve! --Jerzy(t) 19:56, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Keep w/o regard to whether the policy proposed is sound; deletion is not the way to cope even with challenges to strongly established policies. But should it be linked into the policy think tank? --Jerzy(t) 05:23, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
  • Keep. The complaint "Policy to allow personal research" does not state a rational reason for deletion of this page. The cure to personal research is insisting on paraphrase, quotation, and citation to published scholarly opinion. This draft policy explicitly covers the issue of "personal research" in items 5 and 6--by requiring citation to "primary sources." ---Rednblu | Talk 21:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd vote against it, but its adoption should be the matter of a vote, if at all. Nevertheless, no reason to delete. Smoddy | ειπετε 19:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think it's badly flawed (see talk page), but you don't just VFD good-faith policy proposals in the Wikipedia namespace! - David Gerard 12:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - it seems specifically designed to allow Creationists to forbid the inclusion of science in articles, so as to present their case in a more flattering light. It is notable that the only supporters of this policy on the talk page are Creationists involved in the Creation vs. evolution debate article. CheeseDreams 22:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 02:28, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ek Onkar

[edit]

Not encyclopedic. TigerShark 01:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • This seems legitimate to me. I think it should stay. It needs to be expanded. See the About.com page. Cookiecaper 03:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not too familiar with Sikhism, but I would vote redirect to Sikhism. --Idont Havaname 05:42, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I have changed my vote to Keep after seeing the changes. --Idont Havaname 06:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand. ~ mlk ✉♬ 06:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~
  • Comment: I would be happy with a redirect to Sikhism or an expansion, but in its current form it is simply a translation and therefore not encyclopedic. "I type in a word and it translates it to French, go on give me a word. Souffle. OK, Souffle in French is...Souffle...hmm...must be a problem somewhere" TigerShark 11:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I initially raised the VFD but I believe that it has been sufficiently expanded now for a keep TigerShark 21:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing here worth merging or redirecting to Sikhism. Leaving it as is it comes across as a dictionary definition with not a lot to say. Megan1967 01:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ek Onkar appears to be one of the central tenets of Sikhism, the world's fifth biggest religion meaning one creator. I have added a couple of paras on the concept and its derivation so it is at least s decent stub. Also Ek Omkar or even Ik Omkar so we need good redirects. Capitalistroadster 08:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. utcursch 12:44, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Another obvious keep. GRider\talk 17:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Ganymead 05:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Smoddy | ειπετε 21:54, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. The redirect's target article was proposed for deletion (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ed Onkar. That article was kept, so I'm interpreting that as a vote to keep the redirect, also. Joyous 02:31, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ek Omkar

[edit]

Redirect to a non-encyclopedic page. TigerShark 01:41, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment this should probably be posted at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion - perhaps pending the decision of Ek Onkar. K1Bond007 01:55, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not probably, definitely. The whole idea of having rules, procedures, policies etc is that we follow them. No vote. Andrewa 03:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, see Ek Onkar commentary. Megan1967 01:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:35, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

List of people named bill

[edit]

Not encyclopedic. TigerShark 01:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Not encyclopedic. K1Bond007 01:53, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Those named Bill must be known.
    • Vote above is from anonymous page author. Struck-out. TigerShark 01:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is useful to anyone researching the prevalence of the name Bill. 198.82.71.55 02:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Anonymous voting not allowed. Struck-out. TigerShark 02:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • It's up to the administrator, at the end of the process, to decide upon the worthiness of votes from anonymous users. Please read Wikipedia deletion policy. Uncle G 02:35, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
        • Thankyou Commandant Uncle G, that is why I did a strikethrough. This page has already been reviewed by at least one Admin, but only you saw fit to raise Chapter 43a, Section 567, Sub-Section 761B. Ve must follow ze rules! TigerShark 11:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • When you've read Wikipedia deletion policy, please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Godwin's law as well. It's not your comment to strike through nor your decision to make. Uncle G 19:58, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
            • You really need to get less hooked on strict interpretations of the rules. I did not delete anything, or make any changes that could not be clearly seen and reverted. What exactly is the problem with what I did? (except that it didn't comply 100% with your precious rules). This is not the first time that you have lectured me on "the rules" and I believe that your approach to me, especially your tone, is at least partly to blame for the tone of any replies from me. TigerShark 21:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - As above. Plus any list that has "Bill Shakespear" on it has got to go. Rossrs 02:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • My immediate reaction, upon seeing this at Special:Newpages, was "You have to be joking!". Delete. Uncle G 02:35, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
  • Delete Silly. --LeeHunter 03:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let this be an object lesson in the dangers of having way too much free time on your hands. 23skidoo 03:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's crap. Neutralitytalk 04:17, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also, looks like the article creator was just caught tampering with votes here. --Calton 04:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's impossible to list all people named Bill. And I don't see how this article could be useful to anyone, anyway. --Idont Havaname 05:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Now, if this were "List of people called Bill associated with Star Trek", I suppose it would be judged significant (though not by me). -- Hoary 07:11, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. And so inaccurate that it is not a useful start if anyone were to decide that such a list were encyclopedic, because it contains any number of people who are not referred to as Bill. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 01:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikify and merge notable ones to Bill for disambiguation. We have precedence such as John. Kusunose 17:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete silly lists. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Curps 04:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This list is impractical, likely a joke. GRider\talk 17:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The inclusion of "Bill Shakespeare" is just too much! Ganymead 05:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete on title alone... Smoddy | ειπετε 21:55, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:36, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ozone and plant reproduction

[edit]

Essay on obscure area of plant science, not encyclopedic.--nixie 00:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, POV essay (see Conclusion), and obviously an essay due to number/formatting of references. --Idont Havaname 05:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Any good bits can be merged into tropospheric ozone. --TenOfAllTrades 07:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is not peer-reviewed science. Wyss 10:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything verifiable/useable to Tropospheric ozone, no redirect. Megan1967 01:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • keep looks useful for research. Squiquifox 18:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete TenOfAllTrades says it Smoddy | ειπετε 19:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki. Joyous 00:41, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yuppers

[edit]

Slangdef, not internet slang (or common), so adding to Internet slang and redirecting there isn't warranted. --fvw* 01:28, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

  • Hmm why does looking up "yuppers" in wiktionary bring me back to Yuppers? Anyway it belongs in wiktionary not here. Kappa 01:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. Not Internet-specific, so don't add to Internet slang. -Sean Curtin 03:41, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. This doesn't look like it will have potential as an article on the Wikipedia. --Idont Havaname 05:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. Megan1967 01:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No encyclopedic potential. -- Curps 20:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Not wiktionary. Smoddy | ειπετε 19:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 02:42, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Goren

[edit]

This was marked for speedy deletion as "nonsense/vanity". However, it wasn't patent nonsense, just unwikified and written in fractured English. So I'm moving it here. This is the main protagonist in Law_&_Order:_Criminal_Intent, just as John Hoynes is a secondary character in The West Wing. (A line from the discotheque scene in THHGTTG springs to mind — which probably has an article in Wikipedia, too.) Uncle G 02:16, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Delete. Completely unreadable as it currently stands. Someone else can write a proper article on the character later. 23skidoo 18:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Name of a fictitious NYPD detective, main character of a notable, popular TV show. Some good info, but this article doesn't fit the format we have for such things. Delete. If someone who is good with TV articles cleans this up before the 5 days are gone, I will change my vote. Fire Star 19:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Change my vote to keep. Article cleaned up nicely. Fire Star 05:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and list for Cleanup. RickK 23:48, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, borderline notable. Perhaps it could be merged with L&O:CI, but as it stands it needs a major rewrite if kept. Megan1967 01:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have cleaned up this article adding information about the character and D'Onofrio's performance in the role. Capitalistroadster 04:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was, in my opinion, originally a nonsense article (random 2-3 words comments regarding the character). However, it is now a completely different article that should be kept. TigerShark 11:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep main character on one of the most popular TV series. That passes any reasonable inclusion criteria by a wide margin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Samaritan 18:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep better than many Wikipedia articles... Totally notable. Smoddy | ειπετε 19:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. The unsigned votes were heavily discounted, especially those of User 208.231.120.126, whose only edits to date have been to this discussion. Joyous 02:47, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Ewee

[edit]

Onomatopoeic neologism. —Korath (Talk) 03:15, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Gazpacho 09:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, merge and redirect with broader topic i.e. low functioning speech patterns.
  • Delete, amounts to a vanity neologism. Wyss 10:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --GeorgeOrr 10:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, demonstrates the etymology of a new term
  • Keep. merge and rederict to communication difficulties or autism
  • Delete rediculous and insulting neologism. --InShaneee 04:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speedily. GRider\talk 17:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Because InShaneee can't spell ridiculous
  • Keep. Article provides specific information regarding the nature of autism
  • Delete neologism. Don't redirect - insulting. Smoddy | ειπετε 19:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Zerbey 23:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. TomStar81 04:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, TomStar81 did not carry out the delete. I reviewed this discussion thread and the relevant articles on 2 Feb in an attempt to close the remaining issues on this VfD day-page. I concur with his count of the votes for deletion. Since the anonymous votes must be steeply discounted, the concensus was a clear delete.

However, during a review of What links here, I find a significant number of articles which do still link to or redirect to this page. That finding contradicts the primary argument in the deletion nomination and the assumptions made by the other voters who endorsed the nomination. I am going to exercise my obligation as an administrator to override the pure vote count and keep the article for now.

If/when someone cleans up all the redirects (and if it has be done in a way which preserves attribution for GFDL) so that this page really is no longer needed, please contact me or ask any administrator to review this page to see if it is then appropriate to carry out the deletion decision. Rossami (talk) 02:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On 20 Feb, Redxiv reported that he had completed the clean-up. I have now carried out the deletion as decided by TomStar81. Rossami (talk) 07:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cosmic Era vessels

[edit]

This page was created as a result of an effort to combine several stand alone articles. Those articles have been reverted, and this page is no longer needed; Therefore I move to have it deleted unless someone can produce a viable reson for retaining it. TomStar81 08:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --RoySmith 15:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant. Megan1967 01:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - those pages have not been reverted. What links here still lists pages. 132.205.45.110 20:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's true, there are still some pages that link here. Three of those pages are user talk pages, and the other two are redirects. The redirects should be expanded into their own articles, but I've never seen Gundam Seed or Gundam Seed Destiny; consequently if those pages are not made into their own articles someone will most likely nominate them for speedy deletion. TomStar81
    • I think some just removed all the other merge tos. Though I wonder why, since some of the things that were to be merged were somewhat trivial. I submitted several of them for SPEEDY, but they were rejected as not the right criteria. I suggest that before people delete this, that they go through Category:Gundam Seed and clean it by merging appropriate articles (some Gundam Seed zealots have been removing the merge requests on some of the minor articles) or nominating them for Deletion (there are about 100 articles on this not very noteworthy edition of Gundam).
  • Delete, this article is empty. 68.47.175.214 06:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, not it's not empty. It's just an ugly, bloated mess resulting from merging articles that were perfectly fine on their own into this one. I still say delete this and leave the articles that I'm restoring separate. 68.47.175.214 08:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • NEW CONTENT, I have taken to merging stuff together, since Category:Gundam Seed is so filled with less useful pages, and people just take off the merge tag WITHOUT discussion on the talk pages. 132.205.45.148 19:46, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's not true, this was discussed on My user talk page, and on Administrater Stan Sheb's talk Page.
There are no links to that discussion from the various pages' own talk pages.
Admittedly, this was an oversight on my part. I'm still new enough that to the Wikipedia that I tend to forget to place comments, suggestions, demands, etc on the pages in question. For this I offer no excuse, and take full responsibilty for the mistake. TomStar81 04:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, merging into a single page does not make sense for multiple articles each of a page or longer. (One could argue whether each of those articles should be a page or longer, but that question should be taken up for each article and agreed upon individually first.) Stan 04:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Only one of the articles is over a page in length, the others are pretty short (Archangel being the exception). They are even shorter once you remove the common introduction, and the non-templatized box listing the various ships (which should be a template) , and use a common format for the ship specs (ie, an infobox on the right) 132.205.45.148 19:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see how Lesseps and Volgulsov are anywhere close to a page in length either 132.205.45.148 22:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this mess. To my mind, totally unnotable. Smoddy | ειπετε 19:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If this mess is unnotable, then every page that was merged into it to create it is also unnotable. I would suggest you plug vfds on those pages, as the merge redirects have been reverted. They are listed here: Template:Cosmic Era ship classes. 132.205.45.148 22:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:49, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Grigor ILLyanich Stoyanovich

[edit]

This article makes more sense to me than does, say, Ascension (Stargate), but the protagonist is merely in the real world and not in Tolkien's (etc etc), so he isn't notable. -- Hoary 08:22, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

  • Delete this vanity page. Looks like a candidate for speedy deletion to me.
  • At 08:24, 2005 Jan 22 LizardWizard forgot to add the twiddles to the above. Ah but LW, this is not patent nonsense. Patently uninteresting, yes, nonsense, no. -- Hoary 08:36, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
  • Sorry I forgot the twiddles, and thanks. Anyhow, speedy deletion isn't just for patent nonsense. It's also for "Very short articles with little or no context." LizardWizard 08:38, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, no context. Wyss 10:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --RoySmith 15:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Nationality and birthday — classic vanity, which its author's edit history leads me to suspect is either autobiographical or sneaky vandalism. Delete. Uncle G 14:57, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obviously. Smoddy | ειπετε 19:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:50, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Sodib Prime

[edit]

Fancruft, from a game that doesn't even have its own article. The infobox is a cut and paste from Battle of Coruscant. —Korath (Talk) 08:42, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fictional battle of no significance whatsoever, particularly since it is from a minor computer game rather than a major 'classic' work of fiction (not that I'm in favour of creating such articles for any fictional battle). Average Earthman 09:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, obscure. Wyss 09:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft. jni 13:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --RoySmith 14:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not demonstrated. Smoddy | ειπετε 19:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:51, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mithgil

[edit]

Vanity, mudcruft, and a platform for an external link. Why, oh why, can't these be speedied? —Korath (Talk) 09:00, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probable wikispam, no evidence it's encyclopedic. Andrewa 09:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an article for a character on a MUD? The mind boggles. Average Earthman 09:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, yawn. -- Hoary 09:41, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
  • Delete, at best, not encyclopedic. Wyss 09:57, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --RoySmith 14:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, --Zelindo 20:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I even play the MUD, but come on now! Fits Mithgil's character, though. --Taorah
  • Please delete. Smoddy | ειπετε 19:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. Votes are almost evenly split among "delete", "transwiki", "redirect" and "keep as is". Not reaching a clear concensus to delete, the article defaults to "keep" in some form.

Reading the current content, I also believe that this is a mere dictionary definition. It has an excellent discussion of origins, usage and similar words - exactly the content I would hope to see in a really good dictionary article. I see no potential that this will become a true encyclopedia article.

Noting that the transwiki process does not destroy history and that it therefore does not require the same concensus to transwiki an article as it does to delete one, I am going to exercise my discretion as an ordinary editor to put this in the Transwiki Queue. Rossami (talk) 02:45, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sucks

[edit]

Created by User:EventHorizon. No objections to the content, but I'm not sure every mildly vulgar slang term deserves its own page, even if "sucks" is undisputably commonly used. Will it be important 100 years from now? Wingrat 09:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • As an example of rapid adoption and usage shift? Maybe. No vote. Gazpacho 09:41, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • weak Delete. Article provides zero evidence for its etymology, which seems a bit shallow. DicDef. Wyss 09:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to sucking would be a start, probably move to wiktionary too. Kappa 10:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwikify. Dicdef. --RoySmith 14:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to sucking - SimonP 15:22, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to sucking. Add a note on its etymology and state that the opposite is ? (rocks - I belive). -- RHaworth 19:35, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sucking. Megan1967 01:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (As Wingrat said, I created the page.) We have pages on other profane or pseudo-profane words, such as fuck, bollocks, and tits. Sucking (which, in my opinion, should be called suction) is an entirely different phenomenon than the slang term "sucks". If my etymology is shallow, I'd really like the input of a real linguist and will defer to his or her edits. EventHorizon talk 05:17, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I made some revisions to sucking, which I still think should be renamed as suction. In my opinion, the slang use of "sucks" should not be at suction. For one, I support WP in maintaining articles on things judged "offensive" by some, but I don't think a possibly offensive topic like oral sex should be in a science article (excl. biology articles where such things may be relevant). Furthermore (to get technical) oral sex, though sometimes described as "sucking" or "sucking off", does not always involve suction; they are different phenomena. You could redirect "sucks" to oral sex, but at this point, "sucks" is a slang term (or family of related slang phrases) that have little to do with oral sex. Which is why it's considered "PG" rather than PG-13 or R (in the MPAA rating system). EventHorizon talk 05:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neutralitytalk 05:18, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki excellent dicdef, complete with etymology. —Korath (Talk) 08:34, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • The etymology given disagrees with those that I have read at other sources. Redirecting to sucking would be to completely bypass the actual slang nature of the term. The same justification applies to this article as applies to others. "Bollocks" is a term that non-U.K. people often do not understand, let alone correctly. Equally, "sucks" is a term that non-U.S. people often do not understand, let alone correctly. There is an argument for Wiktionarification, but there is also a counter-argument that if these articles disappear from Wikipedia, some 10-year-old will only create juvenile rants under those titles the very next day. It's better to have something reasonably well-written already in place. Keep and send to Cleanup. Uncle G 15:40, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
    • The proper response for ten-year-olds creating articles about Wiktionary entries can be seen at ouch. —Korath (Talk) 02:23, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: great refactoring, but sucking should probably move/redirect to suction. Samaritan 18:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki' Not remotely encyclopedic. --Wetman 22:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with sucking --SPUI 22:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move - worth an article, but at suck. That page would need a disambig notice. Smoddy | ειπετε 19:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE Jshanmediman
  • Keep — Why delete it? You can just add etymology information. —Wins oddf|✎ 03:39, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Etienne Suvasa

[edit]

Has drawn the GNU logo. Not notable enough. Thue | talk 10:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --RoySmith 14:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Wyss 08:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless he's done something more notable than drawing a single sketch of a smiling wildebeest. —Korath (Talk) 08:28, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme weak keep. —RaD Man (talk) 19:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as just barely not-notable. So close, Etienne. Try drawing a new Wiki logo, you'd be famous! hfool/Roast me 03:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. The only way one could find that page would be from a mention of the artist of the GNU logo, so it has essentially zero information. [squiggles belated] LizardWizard 06:43, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete sorry, not even nearly notable enough. I'm not sure you could actually add to the current content... Smoddy | ειπετε 21:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 02:51, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Genocides on Serbs

[edit]

Rant. SWAdair | Talk 10:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Promotion of POV ideas. First and last lines of the article say enough. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 13:38, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)]
  • Delete, as per summary above --RoySmith 14:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Grotesque. Phils 14:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, nonsense. Grue 16:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Nonsense. Bart133 18:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as vandalism. Wyss 08:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, possible vandalism. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic. And "tell your friends." SlimVirgin 09:22, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Comical anti-semitism, and worse grammar than whats i do do --Irishpunktom\talk 00:36, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, anti-semitic. Rhymeswithgod 06:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this patently anti-semitic, neo-fascist garbage. Edeans 05:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ItisIAnonymous 18:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the very epitome of POV writing. It's not even good prose. Smoddy | ειπετε 21:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 21:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 9 delete, 5 redirect/merge, 6 keep. Since the deletes weren't in the majority, I've reinterpreted them as "delete or redirect".

John L. Kerry

[edit]

I should like to nominate John L. Kerry to be 'deleted'.

This article is not encyclopaedic knowledge (in my view) and I am not convinced it belongs in Wikipedia at all. At the least, it certainly doesn't deserve its own article. Perhaps it could be redirected to somewhere else. Furthermore the content of the article is wrong - 'John L. Kerry' does not refer to a person at all. --Mysteronald 10:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Below was here before I set this page up correctly... with apologies. Is this now correct?


It appears that the request for deletion was made by Mysteronald, and that no one has voted for deletion yet, so I will create the page here.

— DLJessup 00:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • No. I don't believe that this article should be deleted; rather, I believe that any of its content that is not already there be moved to the Faithless electors subsection of U.S. presidential election, 2004 and this page turned into a redirect to that subsection. — DLJessup 00:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Info already at the page that DLJessup indicates. Stombs 11:21, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable results upon Google search. - Mailer Diablo 15:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Idont Havaname 17:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as suggested by DLJessup. If the New York votes had been counted for this nonexistent person then that would have been one thing, but as the only existence of "John L. Kerry" was as a typo, I can't honestly see why we need a separate page for 'him'. Dbiv 18:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an online news archive. This little squib could be amusing filler for some columnist's musing-of-the day, but it is of no historic or political significance whatsoever. It does not tell us anything meaningful about Kerry, the election, the Electoral College, U. S. voting process, etc. Some clerk made a typo. Big deal. Far less important than Richard M. Nixon's once referring to "My running mate, Henry Cabot Liar." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Redirect maybe (see above) K1Bond007 18:48, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This sort of detail is what makes encyclopedias useful.--Centauri 22:22, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • RedirectDelete. Megan1967 01:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote amended above. Having reviewed the article again its perhaps too un-encyclopaedic and trivial. Megan1967 23:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bloggy, trivial. Typos are rarely encyclopedic topics. Wyss 08:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't even deserve a redirect, nor a mention in the John Kerry article. RickK 08:05, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A redirect solely to discourage recreation is tempting, though. —Korath (Talk) 08:23, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. I'd prefer to see it merged somewhere, though. Everyking 13:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth and expansion. GRider\talk 20:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - perhaps with the Election page? --Irishpunktom\talk 00:38, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please do not alter others' comments. [1] —Korath (Talk) 03:05, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no equivalent article for the electoral vote 'cast' for "John Ewards", nor should there be. This is beyond trivial and is already mentioned in the main article. If it hadn't been corrected in time, that would be another matter, but as is, this is barely a footnote to a footnote. --Minesweeper 03:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A little typo that made no difference to history whatever. "Beyond trivial" is right. Edeans 05:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Amusing, but unnotable. Might be worth a mention on the John F. Kerry page, or as a note on the New York section of the election page though. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Faithless electors subsection of U.S. presidential election, 2004. Andris 23:21, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 17:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Justin Bailey

[edit]

A password that lets you see a 3 pixel tall drawing of a girl in a bikini. fancruft. Dunc|☺ 12:40, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Metroid. Phils 14:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Metroid and redirect. --Matteh (talk) 15:31, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect general information about it into Metroid. Anything beyond that and it's fancruft. --Idont Havaname 17:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect K1Bond007 23:37, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Metroid and add redirect. Megan1967 01:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, no redirect. Wyss 08:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. GRider\talk 17:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 22:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revelation virus

[edit]

Not enough to write about. Content should be merged into Uplink (computer game). r3m0t 12:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 23:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Andromeda Research Corporation

[edit]

Also not enough information for an article to be written. Merge to Uplink (computer game). r3m0t 12:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and delete, no reason for a separate page. --Idont Havaname 16:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete. No reason for its own page. --18:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)Bart133
  • Merge to Uplink (computer game) and add redirect. Megan1967 01:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, merge etc. Wyss 08:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. While the vote count is clearly to delete, User:Mattley provided sufficient verification in my opinion to support redirect. Noting that redirects are cheap and that there is no problematic history which needs to be destroyed, I am going to exercise my discretion to make this into a redirect. Rossami (talk) 02:56, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Armagideon

[edit]

Non-notable. Just a word used in a song. Bart133 15:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • deletegeorge 15:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. jni 15:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Xezbeth 17:14, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, dictionary definition. Megan1967 01:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Wyss 07:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Armageddon. This is a Jamaican form of that word as far as I know. It crops up more than a few times in concsious reggae, so it is possible someone might have heard of it from there and be trying to find out its meaning. Can I just redirect it, or what? Mattley 13:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do not redirect without some verification that this is indeed a Jamaican form of "Armageddon". I don't know where it comes from (the song wasn't even originally by the Clash, by the way), but I've always suspected that the ending of -gideon was somewhat significant. -R. fiend 20:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what kind of verification I can produce. There isn't any source out there saying 'this comes from here and means such and such.' It's all inferred, really. Here's a [Lee Perry] album called the "Battle of Armagideon" [2]. Here's what seems to be the original version of "Armagideon Time" [3]. This one is from a site on Biblical quotations in reggae music [4]. This one contains lyrics from a Bunny Wailer song [5]. It's definitely Jamaican in origin. And it definitely means 'the end of the world'. There also seems to be a rapper recording under the name [6], but I have no idea whether or not he merits an article as yet. He's picked the wrong name really cos he drowns in a sea of other people's google hits with his current moniker. Mattley 21:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

What is a graph

[edit]

This seems well-intended, but the article form and title is a bit out of wikipedia style. Any content should be merged with the articles at graph, and this non-standard title deleted. Thue | talk 15:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for the above reasons, and also just to mention, the name of the writer is listed at the bottom of the page. --Idont Havaname 16:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all of the above reasons. --Bart133 21:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useable to Graph, no redirect. Megan1967 01:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, duplicates content (oh, and... no no no no no) Wyss 07:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not merge. It doesn't contain anything beyond what's already there. If it's well intentioned, maybe someone should contact this fellow and suggest that he merge the article himself. --Deathphoenix 03:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bacchiad 08:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 23:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kldan

[edit]

"Are said to be" an ancient people from mesopotamia. No relevant google hits. Is this a hoax? Thue | talk 16:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete likely hoax or misplaced sci-fi fantasy fancruft. Possible speedy. Fire Star 19:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted. There's no way an ancient people had a number in the middle of their name. I've already speedy deleted this once before. RickK 23:38, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Beto Comitre

[edit]

Stub in Portuguese about a veterinarian. Text does not explain why he is notable. Probably vanity. Sietse 16:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

      • According to the text, he is notable because he is a veterinarian for dogs and cats. --Bart133 15:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yeah, right, like somebody really needs an encyclopedia article just because they don't eat meat. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:04, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Why not just put {{notenglish}} on it? Nobody will translate it, and it will be deleted. That's a lot easier than vfd. --Bart133 20:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The instructions on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation say: if an article has been listed here for two weeks and is still untranslated, it should be moved to VfD. So, it will end up here anyway. I also don't see the logic of adding a translation-request to an article that nobody will translate. -- Sietse 21:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I originally routed this one to notenglish department because I couldn't figure out on my own what it was about. Then Sietse decided to take the shortcut here. Anyway, delete. jni 13:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 01:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a user test. Wyss 07:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • What is Portuguese for delete? That is what this needs. Edeans 05:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Christian persecution in Banda Aceh

[edit]

Was the tsunami cause by Christian persecution? I don't think so. And Wikipedia is not the place to propogate such theories. Thue | talk 16:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. But it's interesting to note (which the article doesn't) that after the eruption of Krakatoa and the ensuing tsunami, Muslim missonaries in Indonesia (who had been making great gains in 19th century) spread the word that the disaster was Allah's punishment for allowing European domination of Indonesia; this was the start of Indonesia's fight for independence from the Netherlands. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bart133 18:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete any and all "[x disaster] happened because God was pissed off at [y group]" as patently unverifiable by nature. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • God wants us to delete this terminally POV rant. Szyslak 20:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic (and face it, a religious ad of some sort). Wyss 07:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and throw into the sea. --Zarquon 12:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this "pious" rant. Edeans 05:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is nonsense. Bye! -- Toytoy 06:49, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:45, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Although the result of the debate was delete, it has been re-created as a redirect to Tractor. -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Traktor

[edit]

A text in Norwegian about tractors. It's probably intended as a joke. I'm listing it here because I think it's technically not speedy deletion material (doesn't meet patent nonsense criteria). Anyway, it's certainly not encyclopedia material. -- Sietse 16:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Translate it and then decide. I'd go with delete for now. --Idont Havaname 16:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not worth translating but I'll give you a half-sentence teaser: "A tractor may be useful if one is a lazy, fat farmer who doesn't care to walk about..." / up+land 17:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to me the easy way to get rid of these things without wasting everyone else's time is to mark it {{notenglish}} and most likely nobody will bother translating it, leading to its automatic extinction. And certainly that process has fewer steps than vfd! However, at this point, delete. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that automatic extinction would be nice in this case, but to quote Wikipedia:Pages needing translation: if an article has been listed here for two weeks and is still untranslated, it should be moved to VfD. So, it will still end up here "wasting everyone else's time" if we put a nonenglish-tag on it. -- Sietse 19:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely a hoax. My Norwegian isn't perfect but I think I know what "mafia-bossen" might mean. Delete. Dbiv 18:05, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect to tractor, as it's not that unlikely a misspelling. (In fact, in view of the partial translation by Uppland, I don't think the original article had any new information on the subject, and I've already changed it into a redirect.) Eugene van der Pijll 18:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete though it sounds like it might be funny if translated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Tractor, nothing here worth merging. Megan1967 02:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and then create a redirect to tractor, to avoid future confusions. Andris 23:23, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:46, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

GCU Company

[edit]

Vanity page for a "software company" that has no released products. Notability not established. Come back when you've sold something. --Kelly Martin 16:38, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertising. Xezbeth 17:11, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertisement. Bart133 18:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yawn. In other, more important news, I saw a man in a car today. Phils 18:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, publicity. Wyss 07:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • User:Gpgarrettboast seems to be an account created solely to have logged-in user capabilities for editing this article. --Bart133 15:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 01:47, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

GEP

[edit]

The links are bogus, the content, while vaguely amusing, not remotely encyclopedia. And it's not NPOV. Do I really need to say more? --Kelly Martin 16:48, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or blank and replace with disambiguation page for this TLA (gross economic product?). Do not recreate a gay Elvis porn article. --MarkSweep 16:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. JamesMLane 17:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bart133 18:19, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it's like they wanted to be in BJAODN but forgot to include the funny part. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't think of anything better to say than what Starblind said. JRM 23:24, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic, POV. Megan1967 01:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, Delete that. Wyss 07:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... I'd say it looks like a lousy attempt at BJAODN too. --Idont Havaname 08:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 05:49, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete oh god please delete it, my eyes, my eyes!
    • Whose vote was this? Need a username. --Idont Havaname 01:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't delete leave it up :01:
  • Delete Cute, but no thanks. Ganymead 05:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stupid. Edeans 05:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't delete ok?

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. Joyous 01:48, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Confessing Christ in a World of Violence

[edit]

This doesn't belong here. Besides, it fits almost every reason for deletion. Bart133 18:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I can't see any way this can be made encyclopedic, plus it's original research and POV to boot. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a copyvio too. 23skidoo 18:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Quite possibly useful advice to someone out there. However, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia any more than an article about "Why You Should Sell Your Soul To Satan" would be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, COPYVIO, Not encyclopedic K1Bond007 18:53, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • A student of Deuteronomy would be able to predict that the current state of the cesspool we call a world was predicted as the logical consequence of longstanding personal and corporate violation of the Mosaic covenant with Yahweh (the list of "blessings and curses"). Be that as it may, this article is an unencyclopaedic, thoroughly POV screed of the first water. Delete. Fire Star 19:16, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this sermon/evangelicism. Dbiv 20:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteRich Farmbrough 23:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic, POV essay, copyright violation. Megan1967 01:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Listed as a copyvio on Copyright problems, replaced with copyvio template. RickK 00:39, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic proselytizing. Inherently POV. --BM 23:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Flow meter accuracy

[edit]

Doesn't belong here. --Bart133 18:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I've made a mistake but exactly why doesn't it belong here?

  • Keep a copy before it is deleted!
  • Be logged in when editing and sign comments.
  • Look at a few Wiki pages first and learn Wiki style!
  • Start with the basics: Wiki needs a simple flow meter article before this one
  • Come back with this one when it is more Wiki-ish.

-- RHaworth 2005 Jan 22, 33:45 (UTC)

  • This article suffers from bad formatting/overall form more than problematic content. Some of the information might be salvaged. Tips for the author:
  • This article lacks context. Please add a lead section explaining the context (similar to an abstract/summary in a research paper but accessible to non-experts). Assume as little knowledge of the issue at hand as is possible, while still providing useful and accurate specialist information.
  • Divide your work into sections using wiki markup and rely on the wiki system to build the table of contents/overview and number your sections.
  • Refrain from making lists (like "Summary of Typical Flow Computer Uses") without explaining them.
  • Also, format the Bibliography as specified on Wikipedia:Cite sources. Phils 19:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. Don't see why this can't be turned into a good article. However, I agree that Peter Shiels should try to use proper Wiki format. --gcbirzan (talk) 22:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep just because a subject is technical or specific to a certain field doesn't make it delete material. After all, we do have loads of articles dealing with highly specific, obscure, and technical computer topics. Needs a little cleanup and wikification, but not even all that much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:55, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs a docking big cleanup is all. Wyss 07:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This does belong here. GRider\talk 17:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anything worthwhile in the article is original research. Bacchiad 08:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all for the advice, I now understand the issues. If the article is not marked for unconditional deletion I will withdraw it anyway, develop it in the sandbox in Wikipedia format and resubmit.

Thanks

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 16:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suzana holmes

[edit]

You could argue that this "article" contains information. I would disagree. Deb 19:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Phils 20:02, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete according to Google, there is a real transexual porn star by that name (don't do the image search, whatever you do). Still not notable enough for an encyclopedia though, and this article is pathetic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:32, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic, has a vandalistic, uhm... touch, too. Wyss 07:51, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and Fabíola nogueira, also in VfD below. jni 15:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Though I do find it a bit amusing, it's not encyclopedic in any case. Ganymead 05:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Applying the Lower Case Surname Rule, I vote delete. Edeans 05:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Bell Ringing Mute Swans

[edit]

Something has to happen to this article, but I'm not sure what. Take away the hyperbolic fluff, and there's not much here that's not already said in Mute_swan#Trivia. One possibility would be to delete this article and merge any useful content (assuming there is any) into Mute Swan. Or, (perhaps better) would be to delete, and merge into Wells Cathedral. At the very least, this article needs extensive cleanup, and a rename to something more descriptive like The swans of Wells Cathedral. In any case, a redirect is unwarrented --RoySmith 20:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hi,

I was watching Animal Planet a few years ago and that told me about these Swans.

They showed modern color video of Mute Swans ringing a bell at the moat.

This video said that they were trained by a little girl(name unknown)that trained these Swans.

If the Swans in Wells do not do this any more, then what was I seeing?

I have contacted the Wells Cathedral and am waiting for a reply.

http://www.bishopspalacewells.co.uk/

I was told that the Swans "forgot" to ring the bells and had to be retrained.

This article Roy Smith shows is news to me.

Looks like there is a mystery here.

Supercool Dude 13:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hello,

I finally got an email from Ms. Marian Shaw at the Bishops Palace moat at Wells cathedral who says that only one pair of Mute Swans are left that ring bells daily for food. If you do not believe this then email her at <[email protected]> . That website that says otherwise is completey innaccurate. They still do indeed ring bells for food! http://www.bishopspalacewells.co.uk/wildlife.asp

Supercool Dude 15:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hi!,

  • Strong Keep, Are any of you Animal Lovers? Animal Rights Activists? Do you believe that we should protect animals that are Sentient beings like us?

This article I wrote is proof that Mute Swans are intelligent enough to solve problems and pass their knowledge to their offspring. This is a well known phenomenon and World Famous. Do not let this person Roy Smith further debase Wikipedia. He has already deleted much knowledge from us.

Supercool Dude 06:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Mention it at Wells Cathedral (if it's not there already, and I guess it is). Then delete. Not worthy of its own article. -R. fiend 20:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I did the cleanup that User:Uncle G suggested. There was nothing to merge. dbenbenn | talk 02:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jared balboni

[edit]

Non-notable. The only google matches are from a CS prof's course page. Markaci 20:42, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

  • Delete. The anonymous user User talk:128.226.202.43 who created this article just blanked it (including the VfD header). I reverted. --RoySmith 21:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If he gets those latest roles he might be better for Wikipedia, but not notable presently. Stombs 22:19, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this isn't a load of hooey, my detector is on the fritz. —Kelly Martin 01:41, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • And if Kelly's detector is on the fritz and Balboni is for real, he's not notable. Delete. -- Hoary 02:27, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
  • Delete, pimple puff. Wyss 07:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent reliable source of information. Found loads of him on google. Maybe some editing necessary- User:Beezer
Note the above vote is signed by [[Beezer]] (which exists, but is totally unrelated), not [[User:Beezer]] (which doesn't). It's unclear if this is an honest mistake, or an attempt at spoofing the voting processit's fixed now, thanks. My own google search for "Jared balboni" found a single hit. --RoySmith 20:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and disassemble the sockpuppet. Some vanity...guy didn't even capitalize his last name! Bye, Jared. Move the info to your user page after you create an account. - Lucky 6.9 17:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Lucky is a sockpuppet. ....at 04:43, 2005 Jan 26, Beezer forgot to add four twiddles to this comment
  • OMG! Boy on Rollerblades #2!! That seeing that performance soooo changed my life!! NOT. Delete. Edeans 05:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All you sockpuppets are so phony! Jared Balboni is a legend and I believe that deleting his wikipedia search will ruin his thriving career... This is a big load of hooney and all of your detectors are on the fritz, you pimple puffed idiots. Balboni is not only legit, he is a genius!!!! User:Mamasita
  • Keep Balboni is good. Don't be fooled by the sock puppets. There are so many sock puppets in here you could put on a show. A show with sock puppets in it. For children. Children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. And whose families are struggling to make ends meet. But getting back to the point, I think this Jared Balboni is definately notable. Beezer 08:22, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppets make me giggle they really do, perhaps you should put on that show. Note that last edit was by User:Beezer, whose only edits to date have been to this discussion. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 16:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 16:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Note Francs2000 doesnt know what he is talking about. I happen to have a very long history on Wikipedia. I think he might be a sock puppet. Beezer17:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If you have a long history on wikipedia, log in under the registered name that you have been using all that time and then place your vote. Being a long standing user of this website you would have no problem understanding that unregistered users have no right to vote on vfd and that previous history of people placing votes is often taken into account in discussions such as these. But I don't need to explain those things to you, seeing as you have been here for ever such a long time. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 16:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Note I am forced to agree with Beezer He has been a huge part of Wikipedia for a long time and is my mentor. Keep the Jared Balboni article. It is essential to the Wikipedia collection. Mamasita [[]]
  • Comment: Thank you, but we heard your vote the first time. And if you're going to attempt to lie your way into having "Jared balboni" regarded as noteworthy, you'd better find a more persuasive way of doing so. Your "mentor" (or more likely alter ego) "Beezer" has been an extremely minor part of Wikipedia, since 23 January 2005. His interest has been limited to "Jared balboni". This is clear for all to see on this page. -- Hoary 00:00, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)
  • Warning: this VfD page has already been vandalized: here we see 128.226.202.43 deleting my last comment, writing a comment expressing the opposite PoV, and adding my signature to it. -- Hoary 06:38, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 22:23, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One-Balled Dictator

[edit]

Poor factual accuracy and glib, biased writing. Two links, from a List of cocktails and Hitler Has Only Got One Ball. 119 20:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: those aren't reasons for deletion of this topic. Kappa 21:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nothing seriously wrong with this article that I can see. Any alleged "factual errors" should be resolved by editing, not by deletion. —Kelly Martin 01:30, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable - as the article says "little known", un-encyclopaedic - there have been much more notable cocktail recipes that didnt make the grade on Wikipedia. Megan1967 01:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as the sort of cultural history WP can afford to carry, not being paper and all. Maybe the article could do a better job of describing the cocktail as a carrier of inaccurate myths, though. Wyss 07:48, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki - cocktail and other recipes belong to Wikibooks - Skysmith 11:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: While I agree that most recipes belong to Wikibooks, this is more than a recipe; it's cultural folklore, and that makes it suitable for the encyclopedia. —Kelly Martin 20:48, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 20:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article contains more information than merely a recipe. I think it deserves a chance. --Deathphoenix 03:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep, if you've got the balls. —RaD Man (talk) 19:16, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article has folkloric value, and a reasonable breakdown of symbolic origins of the drink --Corq 18:06, 26 January 2005
  • Keep. The drink does exist, and the reference to Hitler is real, too. Edeans 05:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This enrty is facinating - well written and a bit of history that doesen't exist in other sources. As wikipedia grows - not all of the articles will be of the Britanica veriety.

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 24 keep, 1 merge, 5 delete.

Timeline of fictional historical events and Timeline of fictional future events

[edit]

I would generally refer to articles such as these as fancruft and be done with it, but I do not want to disparage the obvious effort that multiple contributors have put into these articles. The fact remains, however, that the articles seem a bit suspect as legitamate encyclopedia articles. They are not timelines that correspond to any particular fictional series, but detail events from a hodgepodge of different books and series smashed into one long timeline. For someone looking for information on any particular series, it would make more sense to check a page devoted to that series such as Timeline of Star Trek. Furthermore, with the amount of fiction out there, it would be impossible to make this in any way complete, and right now the article focuses on sci-fi and fantasy, adding a degree of POV as well. It seems to me that the articles in question fail to inform the reader of any information in a relevent fashion (since as I said, anyone looking for this information would be better off checking pages devoted to individual fictional universes instead) and are therefore not encyclopedic. Indrian 22:00, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - as one who has done a bit of work on these articles, I obviously disagree about their worthiness. I think comparing various fictional millieus together like this is quite interesting. Also, you need to fix the VfD headers on those two pages to make sure they point here to this VfD discussion, otherwise it's harder for people who have those pages watchlisted or otherwise stumble upon them to come here and vote. Bryan 23:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Good point. Fixed I think. Andrewa 23:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Terribly sorry about the linking problem and my thanks to Andrewa for fixing things. While it is true that comparing "fictional millieus" as you say can be both interesting and rewarding, I believe it specious to say that these pages actually do so. They seem to be nothing more than rolls of years that list events from various universes without really doing any comparing. While some implicit comparisons can probably be drawn just by seeing some of these events side-by-side, the usefulness of these articles to draw comparisons appears rather limited. Indrian 00:06, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fascinating, and encyclopedic in principle. The introductions could do with some clarification, and as to exactly what is included, I'm sure we'll have no more trouble deciding that than we do in drawing the line on detail vs fancruft here. (;-> Andrewa 23:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a rare bird indeed. If it were to ever become even remotely close to being complete, it would be so ludicrously enormous (likely thousands or even hundreds of thousands of pages) that it would be of little use to anyone because of its unwieldliness. Otherwise, it would be useless because of its incompleteness. I tend to try to keep articles on culture and the arts, but I bote to delete this everythingcruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:31, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • If the articles get too long they should be quite amenable to splitting up further based on time period. Bryan 00:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, and I think that's almost inevitable if the article grows at all. But I question its usefulness... would anybody really want to read a 50-page article on Fictional Events in March, 1938, when the same info would be better put on the individual entries for the fictional works themselves, and when a lot of real historical events of the period aren't in WP yet? Who is this article for, exactly? People who want to know what Scrooge McDuck was doing in 1947 without being bothered to look up Scrooge himself? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:32, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
        • I doubt anyone wants to read 50 pages worth of fictional things that happened in March of 1938, but IMO that's a silly strawman with no real bearing on whether these articles should be deleted - the timelines are currently nowhere near that dense, nor will they be in the forseeable future. If people are interested only in what Scrooge McDuck was doing in 1947 then this probably isn't the article for them, they should go to a Scrooge-specific article and I don't see why they'd think it'd be easier to find in this one instead. This article is for bringing together a broad range of fictional events from a variety of sources. One can use it to find out things like "what have various writers imagined the next hundred years to be like?" or "what major works of fiction have been set in the time of ancient Babylon?". How would someone do that if the date references are all scattered throughout Wikipedia's article space? Bryan 09:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • I agree that it's interesting and even useful in theory, but it's like building a bridge from Tokyo to Los Angeles: it sounds cool but you know it won't ever get even close to being finished. Even a single epic novel like Gone With the Wind might have 10-20 pages of timeline material or more, while something like the Marvel Universe would have tens of thousands of pages at least, and lots more new pages every month. And there's soap operas, where an hour's worth of stuff happens every say, and some of them have been running since the 50s or even earlier! When one considers the almost infinite amount of fiction out there... it's staggering. Even if all our WP editors made it their life's work to finish this article, it still wouldn't happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:59, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
            • Until it gets to the point of being overwhelming, there's no reason to delete it. --brian0918&#153; 21:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very interesting, a lot of people have put a lot of work into this. RickK 23:33, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would like to contend that not all fictional historical and future events have their own timelines, and many of their timelines are not long enough to warrant a complete timeline article anyway. Having these fictional events here is an easier way to keep track of these individual "events" in a linear fashion. I would also like to argue that specific events from other timelines (most notably events from Dates in Harry Potter) be kept off these timelines; a brief mention for linear purposes is more practical.--DXI 00:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rje 01:12, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/split into appropriate articles, then delete. These timelines should be segregated into their own pages, or when insufficient content exists for a specific fictional universe to merit its own timeline page, merged into the page for that fictional universe as a section. The ability to cross-correlate fictional historical events from multiple different timelines is of no encyclopedic value that I can fathom. —Kelly Martin 01:56, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Above vote is by User:Kelly Martin, who forgot to sign. Indrian 01:17, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I think again we're falling into the trap of thinking that something is not encyclopedic unless everyone finds it interesting and useful. Not everyone will find this of any use, certainly. I find it quite fascinating. No change of vote. Andrewa 02:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Obviously, a thorough timeline of future events (with proper citation) would give the reader an accurate idea of how people's visions of the future have changed with time. That took me 2 seconds of fathoming. --brian0918&#153; 16:29, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Those 2 seconds weren't enough. What would provide a reader with "an accurate idea of how people's visions of the future have changed over time" would be the timeline of each individual universe presented separately, along with the date when that timeline was broadly conceived, so readers could (say) contrast a future history constructed in 1935 with a future history constructed in 1972. That's not these articles, by a long way. Indeed, a reader wanting to make such a comparison would support Kelly Martin's point of separating the timelines. Uncle G 18:37, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a worthy topic for a journal article, perhaps even a monograph, as then the data could be analyzed and interpreted, but the raw data presented in this timeline is useless for that purpose. As it stands now, it is useless due to its incompleteness. If it were completed, it would be useless for its unwieldliness. Since you are obviously quick on your feet, could you explain to those of use who are not very good fathomers how you would get around these hurdles with this particular article? Indrian 20:54, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • There's a simple fix that benefits all of us. If you don't like the article.. guess what.. you don't have to visit the page! There are plenty of people who like the articles and have contributed to them. Why do you waste time trying to get rid of this article when you could be reverting vandalisms or writing brilliant prose? --brian0918&#153; 03:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Just off the top of my head, it'd be useful for geeky pursuits such as crossover fiction (ala League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) or or gaming (some friends and I are doing an RPG set in the 1920s and it would be handy to see which fictional characters or events they may run into) - Logotu
      • I can see this point a little, but one then has to asks what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Is it supposed to be a resource for writers of fan fiction or people playing an RPG in the manner you describe? Indrian 20:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I did say it was geeky, but, yeah, I don't see why that's not a one of the valid uses for an encyclopedia. - Logotu 21:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, needs cleanup and further explanation, borderline. Megan1967 01:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an interesting set of lists. --Matteh (talk) 02:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Miles 03:00, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously. --Centauri 05:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep K1Bond007 05:34, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ugen64 05:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep them, they're wonderful. Wyss 07:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both of them. Useful reference guide; I have no edits there but have read them before, and I think they're worth keeping. --Idont Havaname 08:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no problem with Wikipedia having such lists. ScottM 15:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It keeps them from crayoning on the walls. --Wetman 16:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep both articles are fun to read and are good starting points for a huge number of fictional works which are linked here. kaal 19:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but definitely should be made better, perhaps with guidelines about what is and isn't "historical." They're both a lot of fun, especially the future one. -LtNOWIS 00:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The effort that has gone into these pages shows that there are people willing to oversee them. If people cared enough to create the page in the first place and come back to find it deleted, there is a good chance they will just recreate it. Its here, its information, and although some people may not have a use for it others will. I know. That's how I found the wikipedia site in the first place;-) TomStar81 05:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I stumbled on the lists by 'random page' and liked them immediately (as i liked the logarhythmical timeline). It has definitely to be about dates from science-fiction/alternate realities and fantasy. (if enough data ever came round, one could perhaps split this into different lists), and by the way: concur with User:Kaal Lectonar 14:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I do agree that an improved introduction would be a good thing, though. -- Logotu 15:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. brian0918&#153; 16:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP definately not worth deleting, and now in ludicrous font size! :P  ALKIVAR™ 00:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments (Uncle G 16:59, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)):
    • One of the major problems with these pages is that one of the biggest sources of such pseudo-history, Doctor Who, is vastly under-represented, but that if it were properly represented, the articles would be a complete mess. (The Doctor Who writers didn't work from a series bible, and historical continuity is often non-existent. Moreover, several years, such as 8891 for a trailer broadcast in 1988, were mere whimsies. There is a book, whose title I cannot remember off the top of my head, that actually constructed exactly such a timeline as this from all of the Doctor Who episodes. It was a self-contradictory hodge-podge, and massively long.) A kind of uncertainty principle operates here: These articles can either be neat and comprehendible, or inclusive and comprehensive, never both.
    • One of the minor problems with these pages is that it doesn't include the "Pulse" from Dark Angel. The significance of this is only to be found if one considers this as being a small facet of a much larger problem. A lot of post-apocalyptic science fiction stories have posited a nuclear war or other such disaster in the near future. Dark Angel is but one of a great many. Are these pages to include all of the fictional disasters? It's hard to see them not doing so, given that in most of the fictional universes they are the central pivotal historical event that distinguishes them from this universe. But that means that these pages become long lists of fictional third world wars, atomic bomb explosions, worldwide plagues, robotic revolts, and asteriod impacts.
    • There are whole fictional timelines, such as Larry Niven's timeline for "Known Space" or the timeline(s) for James Blish's Cities in Flight universe(s), whose events aren't included here. But to include even only them would increase the sizes of these pages to the point that people would be calling for a split. And the logical way to split such articles is by universe, not by historical period. Splitting by historical period loses any sense of cohesion (except for those comparatively few pseudo-historical events that are attached to single, common, real historical events, and so can be meaningfully compared across universes), whereas splitting by universe does not. (Splitting by universe is of course what printed science-fiction encyclopaedias, which have already faced this problem, already do. It's what Wikipedia is already doing, too.) Which then leads to the inevitable "Merge Timeline of events in Dark Angel with Dark Angel!" calls. And thus we catch up to where Kelly Martin already is.
  • Comment:This is more of a question than a comment, but does the purpose of lists apply in this case? --Matteh (talk) 22:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Makes no sense as a mishmash of many fictional universes. Martg76 03:03, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense. See my reply further above. Also, try thinking of a purpose for more than 2 seconds. --brian0918&#153; 03:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the explanation you give above makes as little sense as the articles themselves. I agree with User:Indrian. Martg76 18:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was all set to take a quick look at it and then vote delete, but then it was one of the coolest things I've seen on the 'pedia. Don't dare delete it. Bacchiad 08:12, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a logical way of representing the data. An interesting curiosity, but not one that belongs in an encyclopaedia. --fvw* 19:21, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • KEEP Keep this page because it holds so many different timelins in one and you can see what happens through different novels and shows all at once without having to go all over the place. -- User:130.101.85.131
  • Keep. Harmless, verifiable, and interesting. Wikipedia contains timelines. --L33tminion | (talk) 20:19, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is definitely very cool and interesting. If it ever does get to the "Fictional events in March 1938" stage mentioned by a poster above, it'd be awesome wicked cool, but even as it stands now, it's very interesting to read a comparative study of how different things from different fictional universe relate date-wise to each other. Separately, when reading Phantom or watching Highlander, it'd never occur to you that both legacies originated in the same era, but this list shows you that the first Phantom became active right around Connor MacLeod becoming immortal. I would've never made the connection on my own. How cool is that? --Samy Merchi

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Halcon

[edit]

Appears to be vanity. Page does not establish notability. Google review finds about a dozen references to "Halcon Technologies", and many of those are on linkdumps. Reportedly they have a grand total of 24 members, which doesn't reach notability in my opinion. --Kelly Martin 21:54, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable. --RoySmith 22:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete platform for external link. —Korath (Talk) 00:43, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, smells like a stealth ad to my sniffer. Wyss 07:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. The original article was POV copyvio, but it seems that Slim tried to clean it up. Although the article is quite small and may seem like an ad, it is much less of an ad than it was before, and Slim managed to get rid of most of the ad chaff. I say keep it. --Deathphoenix 03:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, page does not establish notability. Andris 23:26, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETED. dbenbenn | talk 22:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Benking

[edit]

As I put on the moves page, this is blatant vanity that should be in his user namespace. If it cann't be merged there, it should be deleted. --BesigedB (talk) 14:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

merge with User:Benking (including histories) and then delete redirect. - UtherSRG 14:26, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps move to a sub-page of his User page, User:Benking/English, say? Note that this person's done this before, and got the benefit of a (unanimous) VfD; I'd say he's edging into 'speedy' territory if he persists. Alai 16:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this new-age wheeler-dealer vanity. Wyss 07:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity page serial offender, see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Heiner Benking. Also deleted an earlier 'merge' notice, so has had more than fair warning. I'd be satisfied with a merge with User:Benking, or a move to User:Benking/English though. (His existing User: page though is just a copy of his de.wikipedia user page, though, so that seems a nicety.) Alai 19:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 22:47, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great Googly Moogly

[edit]

We don't even have an article on the show the expression is from, nor do we give any information that could be useful to someone who was already aware of the phrase. --fvw* 22:18, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

  • After the update, I'd like to change my vote to a (rather weak) keep. --fvw* 23:24, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Delete. The expression was also used in the song "Don't Eat the Yellow Snow" by Frank Zappa, but that doesn't make it notable. For everyone's information, the creator of this page (Potatoeman57 | talk | contributions) has just vandalized User:Jimbo Wales, and also created Condalangus Rice under an anonymous IP (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Condalangus Rice). -- Curps 22:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Judge edits, not contributors. Thank you for the info, but unless you want to claim some ulterior disruptive motive for creating this article, it's utterly irrelevant. And even if you wanted to claim such a motive, you're better off saving it and keeping it for a possible future Request for Comment. JRM 00:05, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
  • Much as I think vandalizing pages, etc, is reprehensible, I also don't think it's particularly germane to the discussion at hand. This article should stand or fall on its own merits. Oddly enough, I think there may be some value here. I've heard people use the phrase "Great Googly Moogly", and wondered about the origin. This article, silly as it may be, would have actually given me some useful (well, if not actually useful, at least relevant) information about that. So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and give it a Cleanup and Weak Keep. The Zappa reference should be added to the article. --RoySmith 01:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
* Upon further research, I've found a bit of history to this, and did a bit of article sprucing-up. I'm thus upgrading my vote to a full-strength Keep (but the article could still use some cleanup). A couple more like this and they're going to kick me out of the ADW.
That's alright, the AMW will be happy to have you as a member. And who knows, you might even grow into a member of the AIW! :-) Of course, there's always the AAW for those who just can't be bothered to come here anymore... JRM 00:05, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

--RoySmith 02:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC).

  • Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 01:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Clean up and keep. I've long wondered at the source of this expression. --Calton 04:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • potatoeman57 i vote Keep for the article i created. and i don't consider myself a vandal and i will be more careful about following the rules from now on.
  • Keep, this could be helpful to someone. Wyss 07:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, frequency of use and obscurity of origin make it worth having an entry. Lacrimosus 00:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 12:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Great googly keep. —RaD Man (talk) 19:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Call me a baby, but I love that show! -Frazzydee|✍ 21:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a phrase that is much loved in R&B/Blues circles -- RyanFreisling @ 22:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for being used in one of the funniest movies ever. -- Netoholic @ 23:39, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Keep, I am yet again violating my personal policy not to vote on notability, but this is factual, relevant to a heterogeneous and unbounded group of people, and admitting no obvious merging with a previously established article. (Do you notice how I'm slowly setting policy for myself? :-) Therefore, from the bottom of my inclusionist heart, Keep. JRM 00:05, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blackberry jam

[edit]

For obvious reasons: there isn't anything you can say about blackberry jam that can't be said about jam. I tried to speeedy it, but it doesn't qualify for that. Fishal 17:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Blackberry jam isn't interesting enough for its own article. Now, lingonberry jam, that's a different story. Delete. —Kelly Martin 01:10, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, trivial. Megan1967 01:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I find blackberry jam way interesting... Wyss 07:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge (the Miro bit) and redirect to jam unless/until expanded. Kappa 08:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge (the Miro bit), but the redirection is not necessary, otherwise someone should go and redirect Red blouse to Blouse and Plastic table to Table. Lev 14:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The "Miro bit" is already part of jam. Nothing to merge. —Kelly Martin 16:18, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Since the Miro bit has been merged, the redirect should remain to preserve credit. Also if Table said anything specifically about plastic tables, then yes there should be a redirect there. Kappa 18:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not even a recipe, and that would go to Wikibooks - Skysmith 11:08, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I haven't changed my view since Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fig jam, and this article is no more than "blackberry jam is jam made from blackberries". Delete. Uncle G 17:32, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • Delete. After Miro is already included in jam, there is nothing in here worth keeping. Article consists of nothing but a rephrase of the title. --Deathphoenix 03:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

JillianThorne

[edit]

Not notable. Thue | talk 22:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. —Korath (Talk) 00:44, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as a new user test with no context. Wyss 07:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity more appropriate for a user page. --Deathphoenix 03:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 22:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nature Club

[edit]
Nature Club was set up in 2003 by a group of Year 5 pupils at Banners Gate Junior School in Birmingham called Jake Riley, Lucy Ford and Jesse Gordon. Children from the school have thoroughly enjoyed this project about Nature.

I'm afraid that club is totally non-notable outside their own school. — Pt (T) 23:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --RoySmith 23:11, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. —Kelly Martin 01:07, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as more helpful in the school's newsletter. Wyss 07:38, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If Jake, Lucy or Jesse are reading this, we think you club is wonderful, and we hope you have a great time in it. But delete. DJ Clayworth 05:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • but they're only kids - Is that a valid keep reason? --Irishpunktom\talk 00:47, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- not notable. Longhair 11:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • How sweet. Delete. --BesigedB (talk) 13:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anarchopedia and Anarchapedia

[edit]

the site is full of grafitti and has only 140 articles (of varying quality). The current main page, for example, states "Christian Deck is a douche bag.". Non-notable, delete. RickK 23:26, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Also Anarchapedia, which has only 1 article. Delete -- Curps 23:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --RoySmith 23:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • do not delete- anarchopedia is an example of what happens when there is no structure. i think that it's worth having an article and you shouldn't simply delete it because you dislike me. i will personally revert their main page if it hasn't been done yet. also, i am concerned that my article is being targeted because of the condalangus rice incident. i have decided that "condalangus rice" is not worthy of wikipedia and i will let it die. however, anarchopedia deserves an entry. there is a long article in anarchopedia about wikipedia. However, i have decided that anarchapedia (different site) is probably not worthy of an article at this point, and i vote that it should be deleted.potatoeman57-creator of the article
  • Delete both. --Kelly Martin 01:06, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • what if I remove the "christian deck" part? will that help? potatoeman57
  • Delete, not notable, POV. Megan1967 02:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, non notable. JoaoRicardo 03:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete' Pointless. --Wetman 04:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Website advertisements, no evidence of notability. Andrewa 05:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete them. Wyss 07:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Anarchopedia; this site links there anyway in some of the guidelines for making proper Wikipedia articles. Delete Anarchapedia - non-notable. --Idont Havaname 08:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, just 'cause they're fellow wikis doesn't make them encyclopedic. As far as I can tell, neither is of any serious importance. Anarchopedia has an Alexa rank of 3,889,432 (which is pretty pathetic, worse even than my personal site) and the other one has no Alexa rank at all! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Despite its name, Wikipedia is not an online encyclopedia about other wikis. --Deathphoenix 03:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Bacchiad 08:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, as shown by Alexa rank of 3,889,432. Andris 23:28, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 22:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Aytakin Mohammadi

[edit]

Vanity. Only two Google hits both postings BY somebody named Aytakin Mohammadi, one to somebody else's page, one to a Yahoo! message board. RickK 00:25, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: There is also a redirect page, DJ TYKI. Indrian 00:39, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete This vote is by Aytakin Mohammadi.

My friend told me to make this and I did, and I just don't think it should be deleted though.

  • Don't Delete. --Shayan sadeghzadeh-- Aytakin Mohammadi is a musician in the North York area and many people know him as a great artist and it would be a mistake deleting his info page.
  • Delete. Vanity. --Kelly Martin 01:02, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 02:01, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Wyss 07:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity more appropriate for a user page. If you must keep this article, then move it to your userspace. Otherwise, another article for an artist currently working on a debut album is not notable. --Deathphoenix 03:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Happy number code

[edit]

I am sure this is a very fine proof, and I mean no disrespect to the author, but I believe this qualifies as original research. Indrian 00:34, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • What on earth? :) I just wrote a page "proving" a certain interesting claim about the happy numbers. I "vote" against deletion of course, but please let me know if this page is inappropriate in any way. Oleg Alexandrov | talk 00:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Please refrain from deleting what other posters have written on this page. Indrian 00:37, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

You are fast guys! I did not delete anything. I think it was my browser cache which screwed things up. Writing a lousy code is original research? :) Oleg Alexandrov | talk 00:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way, this is not "original research". The happy number article actually has a reference to the "proof" which I put on the happy number code page. Oleg Alexandrov | talk

  • Delete or Move to WikiSource. Original research belongs elsewhere. Transwiki it to wikisource and link appropriately over in happy number, if you must, but neither code demonstrating a theorem nor the full text of a proof of a theorem belong on Wikipedia. --Kelly Martin 00:59, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Megan1967 02:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oleg, "Original research" is a sort of shorthand phrase here. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, is a secondary reference work in which the articles are syntheses of well-known, established results that have been published elsewhere and can be referenced. You're actually supposed to Wikipedia:Cite your sources although I'm afraid this is more acknowledged in the breach than in the observance. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for dissemination of new work. You could write about a computer code that someone else had published, in Dr. Dobbs or whatever, and if it were on the Web you could link to it, but you can't put a new program that you wrote yourself into the main Wikipedia namespace. You could put it on your personal user page, if you liked. In fact, that might be the best disposition for this material. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikisource. I think the interesting thing here is the output of the program, not the program itself. I have to agree that the program falls under the 'original research' clause, so belongs more in wikisource. However, the output, that is the table of 163 numbers and their happy-number derivation sequences, is not original research and is rather useful to someone interested in exploring happy numbers. Wikipedia often has sub-article "list" pages and such pointed to by an article, and I think Happy number could point to a list page for the 163 entries. But just transwiking the whole existing Happy number code page would serve both uses. -R. S. Shaw 04:53, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
    • Concur Kappa 06:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. It's not even a very good program, a better one would stop the calculations and highlight the last result as soon this result was 4, 16, 37, 58, 89, 145, 42, 20, or 1, making the pattern even clearer. Andrewa 05:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Wyss 07:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 22:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi all. Sorry to have caused all this. I was not aware of the original research requirement. I reformulated the happy number article, so that it does not depend on this page. So, you can delete it any time. Oleg Alexandrov | talk 00:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Don't worry about it, it's not a problem, no harm done. Hope you continue to contribute to Wikipedia, sorry if you got a rough introduction. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Note that the Matlab program does not in fact prove the claim. dbenbenn | talk 21:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What I stated is that if you start in the range 1 to 163, and do some iterations, then you end up either in the 4, 16, ..., 4 loop, or at 1. So, the matlab code proves what I said it is supposed to prove. Not that it matters of course, you all have a point about this particular topic. But, just for the record. Oleg Alexandrov | talk 23:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I was wrong. dbenbenn | talk 23:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_January_22&oldid=1142222541"