|
<noinclude>{{Older AfDs}}<noinclude/><noinclude><span id="coordinates">[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions|Administrator instructions]]</span></noinclude>
This page contains ''Votes for Deletion'' listings that have finished their voting period and are eligible for either deletion or removal from the list, as appropriate. Sysops can delete those articles for which a consensus to delete has been achieved. You can still add your votes to these listings if you feel strongly, but please be aware that once an article listing is on this page it can be deleted or removed from the list at any time.
<noinclude></noinclude><!--{{adminbacklog}} Note: When adding {{adminbacklog}}, please be sure to put it within the <noinclude> </noinclude> tags. This page is transcluded in a few places, including a number of userpages.
--><includeonly>===[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old|Old discussions]]===</includeonly>
See also: [[Wikipedia:Archived delete debates]]
<noinclude>{{Bots|deny=SineBot}}<div class="noprint" style="border:1px solid #999; background:#fff; margin:0 0 .5em 1em; text-align:center; padding:5px; float:right; clear:right; font-size:smaller;">
'''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAMEE}}|action=purge}} Purge page cache]<br>if page isn't updating.'''</div>
{{shortcut|WP:AFDO|WP:OLD}}
This page contains ''Articles for deletion'' discussions that have finished their discussion period and are eligible to be closed following the [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]. You can still add your comments to these discussions, but please be aware that once a deletion discussion is on this page it can be closed at any time.
<noinclude>
Administrators should remove the link to each day's discussions once all the discussions for that day are closed. However, there needs to be at least one day on this list for technical reasons. <!-- Admins: New days are added by Mathbot normally, and should NOT be added manually. Please don't remove the very last day when it has reached 0 open, as the format is specific and must be maintained. -->
</noinclude>
<!-- Place latest vote day below this line. Do not move or modify this line -->
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 15|15 March (Saturday)]] (8 open / 27 closed / 35 total discussions; open: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Cyprus Cup squads|1]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wah Wah 45s|2]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alastair Gordon, Earl of Aboyne|3]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Dundas, Earl of Ronaldshay|4]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Spencer, Viscount Althorp|5]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valid Bishops|6]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Working Out Loud|7]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Eureka Earthquake|8]])
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 14|14 March (Friday)]] (17 open / 36 closed / 53 total discussions; open: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Berkin Elvan|1]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tosca (software)|2]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in Andhra Pradesh|3]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peanut butter test|4]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Baker (shogi)|5]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Ciceri|6]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bart Flynn|7]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeh Friendship|8]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Leo|9]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gennady Korotkevich|10]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Tabler|11]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Thinkers International|12]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Estrem|13]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QN5 Music|14]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotana Aflam|15]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotana Classic|16]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Registered Agents, Inc.|17]])
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 13|13 March (Thursday)]] (7 open / 40 closed / 47 total discussions; open: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers|1]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandavarkavu|2]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenin Gani|3]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beetroot Design Group|4]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DiscoverSim|5]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Lamb (actor) (2nd nomination)|6]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brontosaurus_Chorus|7]])
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 12|12 March (Wednesday)]] (8 open / 58 closed / 66 total discussions; open: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOAN Sound|1]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Vaughan|2]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warlord (demo) (2nd nomination)|3]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PSSC Labs|4]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Ethiopian throne|5]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthopraxy|6]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhan Chirikkunnu|7]] [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tórshavn derby|8]])
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 9|9 March (Sunday)]] (1 open / 35 closed / 36 total discussions; open: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-war film|1]])
<!-- Do not place any vote day entries below this line. Do not move or modify this line -->
<noinclude>
*[http://tools.wmflabs.org/mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/afd/afd.cgi Refresh the number of open discussions] (last update at 07:00, March 23, 2014 (UTC))
* For comparison, the current time is {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC).
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Transwiki}}
== OngoingSee discussionsalso ==
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs]], an alternative version of this list
*[[Wikipedia:Possible abuse of User namespace]]
</noinclude>
*[[Wikipedia talk:Do lists of postal codes belong on Wikipedia?]]
*All recipes proposed for deletion should be discussed at [[Talk:List of recipes/Delete]] (see also [[Wikipedia:Mailing lists|Wikien-l]])
*[[Unsolved problems in biology]] See [[Talk:Unsolved problems in biology]]
*[[List of Europeans]] & [[List of EU people]], see [[Talk:List of Europeans]] & [[Talk:List of EU people]][[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]] 09:14, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
*[[Template:VfD-Translation articles]] - school project, in the process of contacting the professor/other users.
*[[Simpson vs. Savoie]] - [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] has requested verification, but said request will take time to complete. Article kept and discussion shelved until that time.
== Needing Transwiki ==
*[[International Meridian Conference]] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:VfD-International_Meridian_Conference deletion debate]
*[[Urban walks in Melbourne]] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:VfD-Urban_walks_in_Melbourne deletion debate] - to Wikibooks or Wikitravel if legal
*[[Oregon Legislative Councel's opinion on gay marriage]] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:VfD-Oregon_Legislative_Councels_opinion_on_gay_marriage deletion debate]
*[[Animal names in Papiamento]] and related articles - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:VfD-Animal_names_in_Papiamento deletion debate]
*[[Declaration of Paris]] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:VfD-Declaration_of_Paris deletion debate]
*[[How to learn a language]] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:VfD-How_to_learn_a_language deletion debate]
*[[Transwiki:wiktionary]] ("Testa-lying") - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:VfD-Transwiki_wiktionary deletion debate]
*[[Peter Gay]] - to 9/11 memorial - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:VfD-Peter_Gay deletion debate]
*[[Maitrayaniya Upanishad]] - to Wikisource - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:VfD-Maitrayaniya deletion debate]
*[[Winston Churchill Quotes]] - to WikiQuote - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:VfD-Winston_Churchill_Quotes deletion debate]
*[[Paris Peace Accords]] - to WikiSource - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:VfD-Paris_Peace_Accords&action=edit deletion debate]
*[[Blimey]] - to Wiktionary - [[Template:VfD-Blimey|deletion debate]]
==Individual debates older than five days==
===May 22===
====[[Mew glitch]]====
This is a game guide entry. It can probably be fixed up and be transwiki'd to Wikibooks and deleted. [[User:Guanaco|Guan]][[User talk:Guanaco|aco]] 17:01, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
*Agree. This goes along with [[Mirror Coat]] - it, and any other relevant Pokemon articles could be transwiki'd to Wikibooks and merged into one Pokemon strategy article, then deleted here. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 18:11, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
*A Wikibooks Pokemon game guide keeps sounding like a good idea. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 07:01, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
*I like the sound of that. 16:18, May 23, 2004
* '''Delete'''. Unencyclopedic, but worthy of Wikibooks. The Wikipedia Pokémon Team has plans for a Pokémon section at Wikibooks, last time I checked. Some of it seems to be covered in [[Missingno.]]. [[User:KelvSYC|kelvSYC]] 02:28, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
=== May 23 ===
====[[Ambiversion]]====
Relatively obscure dic def. Anything encyclopedic about it could probably go on the [[introversion]] and/or [[extroversion]] (which are barely more than dic defs themselves, mostly redeemed by being myers-briggs typs). [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 20:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
*There could be an article on this, but this isn't it. Work on, <s>else delete</s> - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:58, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
**Well, that's why it's marked "stub". Many other stubs aren't articles yet either. Should those be deleted as well? I'd say keep, if only because I think stubs give more initiative to improve it to a good article than an empty page does. Besides, listing it in "votes for deletion" less than 50 minutes after the page was created doesn't give it much change, does it? [[User:Abigail-II|Abigail]] 12:36, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
***True. A week should be enough time for it to become something worth keeping. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 13:05, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
** Is this the only stub you are willing to give a week, or do you want to delete all stubs older than a week? [[User:Abigail-II|Abigail]] 13:54, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
***I'm not speaking of "all stubs," and didn't say I was. I'm speaking of this one. If you're so attached to it, you could edit it to make it better ... - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 14:15, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
**I could understand someone who likes all stubs to be removed within a week. But you are focussing on this stub. Why do you want to delete this one, but not others? What makes this so special? And no, I'm not attached at all to this stub. But I'm not attached to most of the content on Wikipedia - that doesn't mean I support deleting it. [[User:Abigail-II|Abigail]] 15:06, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
***Not all stubs are equal by a long shot. And in any case, I've changed my mind about this one. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 15:37, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. VfD is not [[Wikipedia:Cleanup|Cleanup]] - [[User:ScudLee|Lee]] [[User Talk:ScudLee|<small>(talk)</small>]] 15:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
**Actually, you're right - this one should go to cleanup. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 15:37, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
* Move it to Wiktionary and delete. If/when someone has more content to write than this sub-stub, they can easily recreate the article. Note that the two ''far'' more relevant articles [[introversion]] and [[extroversion]] are themselves still stubs. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] 21:56, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
* Move it to Wiktionary and delete. The only stub whose deletability is relevant to this discussion is this one, for which no one has rebutted the argument that it cannot rise above stubdom. Even if it can, it will resurrect when introversion and extroversion have risen above stubdom. (They may take a long time to do so, but they clearly deserve the time, unlike this one.) --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 05:27, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
====[[Political terrorism]]====
Either a copyvio or original research. [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 23:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
*Not an article, merely some observations. Use whatever is useful in other articles, then delete. [[User:Wyllium|Wyllium]] 23:45, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
** Wikipedia is not a place for original research. [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']]
*Seems like "Political terrorism" ''could'' be a title for a genuine article, but that's something that this isn't. it's unformatted, unwikified, ugly, and uninformative. Either '''major''' cleanup, or delete. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|♫]] 01:47, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
**Yeah, you are right. Delete it promptly. <br/>Wishes. ODM.
*Under the heading of <s>[[don't bite the newbie]]</s>'''[[Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers]]''', I'd like to suggest (and I will try myself) stubifying this article for now and thanking ODM for an honest first attempt. I found it a very interesting read, though very POV to be sure, and in need of wikifying. ODM, I hope you'll take the time to develop this into an encyclopedic form. [[User:Dwindrim|Denni]] 01:24, 2004 May 25 (UTC) [Markup by [[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 06:10, 2004 May 28 (UTC)]
* I think too little consideration has been given to taking ODM at face-value. He says he wasn't trying to post an article, and that this is largely a misunderstanding. Are we so stove-piped now that we can't do ''anything'' but VfD decisions here, even if common sense requires we go a little off-topic? I request "unanimous consent to suspend the rules", and extension of this discussion for up to a total of 10 days (instead of the standard 5-day cycle), with the goal of finding an article-talk page that may not be ''perfect'' for his "notes", but will be more suitable than this page and [[Political terrorism]]. It may be interesting to see what it will lead to. ("Exhibit A" for this proposal is [[MediaWiki:VfD-Nalgene]], where, about 30 hours ago, i spewed all sorts of crap that wouldn't belong in [[Nalgene]] onto that page (in lieu of [[Talk:Nalgene]]), which crap then morphed into a (so far) uniformly praised edit of the [[Nalgene|article]].) I don't expect much to come out of the first 30 hours after the current contents of [[Political terrorism]] land on a suitable talk page, but 30, or 90, days may do wonders. --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 07:46, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
* Looks like notes taken in preparation of a political science essay. Delete, until the author can work out something more legible. [[User:David.Monniaux|David.Monniaux]] 07:50, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
*Since my first comment was not a vote, this one is: Keep. It needs work, but the basic concepts are worth retaining. [[User:Dwindrim|Denni]] 18:14, 2004 May 28 (UTC)
===May 24===
====[[Chinese cannibalism]]====
''see also [[Talk:Chinese cannibalism]]''
The page tries to justify the sporadic, isolated and fictitious occurences of cannibalism using grossly generalising indicative adverbs, such as "often", "in general", "mostly", "not uncommon" and sentences as "Unlike other civilizations, China has a rich history of cannibalism...relatively common in China" [intro]. . Readers will be induced to accept that cannibalism is a common practice in China. [[User:Ktsquare|Ktsquare]] [[User_talk:Ktsquare|(talk)]] 17:46, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. Double-plus-yuck. It's not accurate, [[Marco Polo]] reported that the Chinese of the time held the Japanese in contempt as "cannibals", and the practices described, except for a few of the (probably unnecessarily) gory details, all appear in other cultures. This could be NPOVed and verified if anyone has the stomach for it, but I very much doubt that we'd have an article worth keeping at the end of the process. Most likely we'd just then merge it into a sentence or two of [[History of China]]. So [[user:andrewa/minimum waste of time|MWOT]] and delete. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 21:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
*Merge it into sentences of [[History of China]] and a small paragraph of [[Cannibalism]]. History is a mirror, isn't? ---[[User:Koyn|yACHT nAVEL]] 22:24, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
** Bad idea. Merging such unusual incidents into [[History of China]] is even more ''misleading and twisted''. It's like saying "Since most of the incidents on (the culture-'''non'''-specific) [[Infamous cases of child murder after 1900]] happened in the UK and US, let's merge them into [[History of the United Kingdom]] and [[History of the United States]] and list them ''next to'' the Civil Wars and the Reign of Queen Victoria!" Twisted it is. --[[User:Menchi|Menchi]] 22:32, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
*Well, sentences of Cannibalism, that's my stand. Why do we always care what other people think of China? ---[[User:Koyn|yACHT nAVEL]] 23:39, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
* Delete, but merge with history article if any accurate and sourced info. Right now that's not much. The history of the original author leaves one doubtful of the intent. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 00:17, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
* Delete. For reasons others have given. Reliability of what's there is too questionable to merge into other articles. Anyone wanting to include this material has got to do fresh research starting from scratch, this isn't trustworthy even as a starting point. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 01:09, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
* The orginal author of the article seems to leave aside crticial information from [[Kuwabara Jitsuzo]]'s journal article which the article IMO seems to base on. Take a look of my commented article on the corresponding page. However, I still support the idea that the article must either be NPOVed or deleted. [[User:Ktsquare|Ktsquare]] [[User_talk:Ktsquare|(talk)]] 01:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
**My commented version is now placed on the talk page.[[User:Ktsquare|Ktsquare]] [[User_talk:Ktsquare|(talk)]] 03:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
* NPOV and verify. If there is no progress within one week, then delete. If there is, then keep. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 02:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
**Opinions of just one Japanese historian don't deserve an article, for reasons Dpbsmith has given, until they are carefully justified by the academia and the public. Please refer to rule 10 of [[What_wikipedia_is_not#What Wikipedia entries are not]] [[User:Ktsquare|Ktsquare]] [[User_talk:Ktsquare|(talk)]] 04:47, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
***I don't know your presumably unusual definition of "primary research," but if you claim that Chinese cannibalism was only dealt by Kuwabara Jitsuzo, it's a total fallacy. There are numerous accounts, from academic papers including 支那人人肉ヲ食フノ説 by 神田孝平　(『東京学士院会雑誌』, 1881), to popular books like 呪われた中国人 中国食人史の重大な意味 by 黄文雄 and 食人宴席―抹殺された中国現代史 by 鄭義. I'm not familiar with western research, but Kuwabara Jitsuzo's article was to prove that an account of cannibalsim by muslim merchants Solayman and Abu Zayd. And Lu Xun even made cannibalism the symbol of Chinese legacy to be abolished. Did your remark come from a strategic reason, or don't you really know that? --[[User:Nanshu|Nanshu]] 03:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
*If anythign can be salvaged merge to [[cannibalism]] and not anywhere else. [[User:The Land|The Land]] 15:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. Chinese cannibalism is an interesting topic for Wikipedia to deal with. There are numerous records of cannibalsim in official documents and fiction. It deserves an independent article. --[[User:Nanshu|Nanshu]] 02:46, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. I don't think it's a major part of history;it's more of a personal insult, like "I'm gonna eat your heart and liver"[[User:Wareware|Wareware]] 03:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
*Merge it as a paragraph of [[cannibalism]]. -[[User:Poo-T|Poo-T]] 26 May 2004
*Keep. This is an intriguing, well-documented fact. It merits an independent section when someone could provide a lengthy, detailed information thereof. And stop deleting my vote. That's not fair. May 28, 2004. [[User:Hermeneus|Hermeneus]]
**IP w/ this as first edit. Do not count this vote. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 22:04, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
***Huh? I've been using this place at least for three years now. "Learned cannibalism in China is different from cannibalism elsewhere. It is unique in the sense that it is an expression of love and hatred, and a peculiar extension of Confucian doctrine." "We need to remind ourselves that the Chinese people are not particularly different from the other races of the world as far as the practice of ''survival cannibalism'' is concerned. When it comes to learned cannibalism, however, its practice is quite different. Worthy of note here is the fact that some types of ''learned cannibalism'' are found only in China." (Key Ray Chong, ''Cannibalism in China''. Longwood Academic: Wakefield, NH. 1990.) It's an established, traditional culture of China.
***Sign for it? [[User:Wareware|Wareware]] 04:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
**** "Your vote" was not deleted, because what was signed as Hermeneus was actually done by 222.1.42.161. I only asked that the real Hermeneus make the Hermeneus edit. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 16:17, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
*Merge it into another larger category. So far, the "facts" mentioned in the article could only be minor incidents -- which, I believe, can be found in the whole human history. The famous cannibal criminal who ate his girlfriend in Germany many years ago, he happened to be a Japanese. But I won't conjure up an article and say "cannibalism is common in Japan." Also, the author's understanding of acient Chinese phrases is arguable -- many of which were actually fictional way of decribing things, not necessarily facts. However, I respect the work, so it should be under a sub-category of cannibalism and stop saying "it's common." Also, references, please. [[User:Djyang|Djyang]] 15:31, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
*Those who complain that this article contains only minor events forget that the two sections "cannibalism during famine" and "cannibalism in besieged cities" are to be filled. Those minor incidents are adopted as examples chosen from numerous incidents. And cannibalism as a filial devotion to parents wasn't trivial. It was an established custom. Also, people's reactions to cannibalism (e.g. classifying Wang Ban into 孝義伝) say much to you. --[[User:Nanshu|Nanshu]] 03:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. A real, notable phenomenon (sadly). Needs work. Might want to rename to [[cannibalism in Chinese history]] or something. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 14:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
====[[Iraq Liberation Act]]====
Full text of a US law. Move to Wikisource. [[User:Grendelkhan|grendelkhan]]|[[User_talk:Grendelkhan|(blather)]] 18:31, 2004 May 24 (UTC)
*Keep, but rewrite article as encyclopaedic (summary, historical context, significance, et cetera) and move text to WikiSource. Would write the summary myself if I had time at the moment. Anyone? --[[User:Etaoin|Etaoin]] 20:53, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
**I'll agree. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|♫]] 00:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
*If rewritten as an article by the end of the VfD period keep. Otherwise delete. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 18:17, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 18:11, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
====[[SchneersonQuotes]]====
Delete. A set of quotes of Rabbi [[Menachem Mendel Schneerson]], late leader of [[Chabad Lubavitch]]. Or merge with his biography. Or move to Wikiquote (doubtful) [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 19:12, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
*Move to quote. [[User:Wyllium|Wyllium]] 19:33, 2004 May 24 (UTC)
*Agreed. Move to Wikiquote. [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 22:57, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
=== May 28 ===
====[[Heck]]====
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:VfD-Heck&action=edit add to this deletion debate]
{{VfD-Heck}}
====[[Miscible]]====
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=MediaWiki:VfD-debate_miscible&action=edit add to this deletion debate]
{{VfD-debate_miscible}}
=== May 29 ===
=== May 30 ===
====[[Aqua_Maria]]====
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:VfD-Aqua_Maria&action=edit add to this deletion debate]
{{VfD-Aqua_Maria}}
====[[The_Bells]]====
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:VfD-The_Bells&action=edit add to this deletion debate]
{{VfD-The_Bells}}
====[[Battling_companion]]====
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:VfD-Battling_companion&action=edit add to this deletion debate]
{{VfD-Battling_companion}}
====[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Placentalia-Marsupialia or Eutheria-Metatheria]]====
I put this on yesterday (with its old name) and it got deleted from the VfD page. It has been moved to a more appropriate place now, and I would withdraw the objection. It still has the VfD header on the article, it should go through the appropriate waiting period before deleting from VfD, however; and why WAS it deleted from VfD? [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 21:23, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
:I promise, I don't know why, but I'm going to look in the history and try to figure it out.--[[User:Ingoolemo|Ingoolemo]] 06:20, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
:Okay. I checked out the history, and the only thing that I can find between when I added my comment to the original VfD request was a change made by [[User:PlatinumX|PlatinumX]]. My scan of the article seems to suggest that the changes made by PlatinumX may have included deleting the article (and their edit summary also points to this. However, since my skills at analysing such things are quite deficient, and my 'investigation' incriminates PlatinumX, I think someone more experienced should go in and investigate further.--[[User:Ingoolemo|Ingoolemo]] 06:31, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
:I have gone to some effor to repair the main things [[User:RickK|RickK]] objects to.--[[User:Ingoolemo|Ingoolemo]] 20:15, 2004 May 31 (UTC)
====[[Template:Table Sort Algorithms]]====
* No longer needed due to category system. I originally speedy-deleted it, but apparently some people don't like the category system as a replacement for these, so I'm putting this up here for discussion and vote. — [[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 23:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
* <s>Keep</s> (I'm the some people). The table provides useful information that the category system doesn't. I'd like to see all MediaWiki hacks replaced with semantically proper alternatives eventually, but I oppose removing useful content until the category implementation is able to actually provide equal or superior presentation. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] 01:36, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
**That would be NOW. I applaud the removing of those terribly ugly linkboxes once the catagory is made, and I hope more people are going to do this. Delete. [[User:Wyllium|Wyllium]] 02:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
**On second consideration, I can live without knowing whether a sort algorithm is faster or slower than O(n<sup>2</sup>) and what other algorithms are as fast. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] 13:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
** As I already told you on [[User talk:Timwi|my User talk page]], you can split the category up into complexity classes yourself. This is no argument for keeping the box. — [[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 22:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
*If the grouping is sensible, I'd keep the list somewhere in article namespace, e.g. as [[List of sort algorithms]]. -- [[User:Docu]]
** Wouldn't that be a redundant copy of the category page? — [[User:Timwi|Timwi]] 22:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
***Almost, but as there is a better table at [[Talk:Sort algorithm]] .. delete. -- User:Docu
*Go with Docu's suggestion and then '''delete'''. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 20:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
*By the way, I just noticed there's a table at [[Talk:Sort algorithm]]. This should be in [[sort algorithm]], and would solve the issue completely. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] 22:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
* Keep (see my comment below for List of programming languages) [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] 02:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete once <s>categories are created</s>, references to it are deleted from all the articles, and something is done about moving the table back into the article. --[[User:Ssd|ssd]] 01:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
=== May 31 ===
====[[Template:NAMm]], [[Template:APECm]]====
Pointless and ugly decorations. If a country is a member, just say so in the relevant section. there's no need for us to give it a ribbon. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 20:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
*Oh, right, Avala's other boxes. Yes, these are even worse than the original boxes. Delete. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 20:56, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
*Actually i think they are pretty ribbons. But if we put one for every association a country belongs, the articles are going to start looking like Idi-Amin's general coat. So delete. [[User:Muriel Gottrop|Muriel G]] 15:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete [[Template:PeaceLaureates]], [[Template:EUc]], [[Template:NATOm]], [[Template:LiteratureLaureates]] too. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']]
*Keep. We only delete unused templates. Strive for an editorial decision to not use the banners in articles. When the templates are unused, we can delete them [[User:Sverdrup|✏ Sverdrup]] 14:25, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
=== June 1 ===
====[[Full Nice Handbag Co]]====
Company, not sufficiently known to be in Wikipedia. 4 google hits. [[User:Andris|Andris]] 06:09, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
:"Not sufficiently known" is an awkward reason to not have something in Wikipedia. Most of us are probably only familiar with a tiny fraction of the topics covered. 4 google hits probably doesn't mean very much... firstly the website is very new (updated 15th May) and secondly b2b businesses specializing in physical products tend not to have much of a web presence. Keep, unless verified to be an insignificant company by some other means. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]] 09:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::Um, I would say that '''4 hits on Google''' "verifies it to be an insignificant company." Delete. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|••]] 14:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC
:::Um, did I not just explain in the very comment you are supposedly replying to why '''''4 Google hits''''' is ''irrelevant''??? [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]] 18:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::: Not having a significant presense in Google doesn't mean anything. I'm sure there are a huge number of significant businesses that have no Internent presense, and even then might not come up in Google. Google is not the Internet, the Internet is not the world. I would recommend '''keeping''' this article unless it in someway conflicts with Wikipedia operations. --[[User:Jholman|Jeff]] 23:07, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
*Agreed. This is not an ad repository and no one is going to come to an encyclopedia looking for information on a company such as this. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 18:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**Who are you to judge what people will come to an encyclopedia for? What is particularly ad-dy about this entry, compared with the hundreds (probably thousands) of articles we have about companies? I think you are rejecting something because it is outside your sphere of interest and experience. [[User:Pcb21|Pete/Pcb21]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|(talk)]] 18:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*** I daresay that there are a lot of articles on this site well outside my spheres of interest and experience. There are thousands of articles about companies and their products, but they are companies and products of note, notoriety, infamy, etc. If I was looking for information on a Hong Kong handbag manufacturer, I'd go to Google and find a website. The burden of proof of notoriety in this case should be on the author.
**** It is a leading manufacturer of handbags in Hong Kong (and if you've been shopping in HK, you know they sell a lot of handbags). That is sufficient proof of notoriety. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
***I should also mention that many similar articles have been deleted in the past. Let's be honest: Who ''really'' would come to a site like this and enter this name? - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 21:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**** If the circumstances are the same as this case, then those deletions were mistaken. People may not come to Wikipedia specifically for this company, but they may come to Google, like most of our traffic. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
** Although significantly leaning towards delete, might it have more Google hits in a non-English name? The name sounds like a weird translation, something that only non-English speakers would come up with. -- [[user:zanimum]]
*Keep. Probably reasonably notable in Hong Kong; naturally Google is biased towards companies in English speaking countries. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 20:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. Unless someone can provide results from google.com.hk that this is notable, then it just looks like unnecessary self-promotion to me. - [[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] [[User_talk:DropDeadGorgias|(talk)]] 22:11, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
** I fail to see how this would be considered self-promotion. The article will only be found if someone is ooking for information about this company, or if another article links to it. Another article will only link to it if the conpany has any significance; if not there is nothing to worry about it. --[[User:Jholman|Jeff]] 23:07, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
** For the third time, since when is Google the final arbitrator of anything? A significant proportion of the information I add to Wikipedia comes from books, and can not be found through Google (well it couldn't, until I added it to Wikipedia and hence to Google :-). It is not immediately obvious that this is self-promotion (the IP in question has lots of HK-related edits). [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* '''Keep,''' strong keep. The article is reasonably NPOV and doesn't sound at all like an advertisement, just a sober statement of its business. I feel Google means little, because many significant companies (for example, established manufacturers in "old-economy" industries) tend not to get mentioned much online. Also, I agree with Pcb21--who are we to judge what people will come to an encyclopedia for? And finally, in any case, Wikipedia is <s>''not'' an encyclopedia</s> (sorry, I meant [[What Wikipedia is not|"not a ''paper'' encyclopedia"]]). I can imagine people coming here to learn about the companies they work for, much as they might come to learn about the history of the streets they live on or schools they attended. Who are we to thwart that sort of curiosity? ''-- [[User:Wikisux|Wikisux]] 23:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)''
**If Wikipedia is ''not'' an encyclopedia, what is it? Maybe you can help redefine it in the main page. [[User:Mandel|Mandel]] 16:04, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete: wikispam. Demonstration of notability is the responsibility of the author. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**Will ''someone'' please prove their baseless claims that this is spam. This is a b2b textiles company. There is no reason to call this spam.
*I can't help but start to see this article as a bit of a litmus test of how deletionist has become in the last X months. I ask those in favour of deletion, which part of the deletion policy are you wanting to kill this under? And why do you see the article's existence as detrimental to Wikipedia? [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 23:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**'''''"List pages that you believe have no potential to become encyclopedia articles."''''' [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|••]]
***The article is already longer than many articles in various printed encyclopedia I've seen in my day (Britannica, New York City, Encarta). ''-- [[User:Wikisux|Wikisux]] 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)''
**'''''"List articles that contain no verifiable information."''''' [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|••]]
***The information presented in this article is '''verifiable and true''', as some cursory internet research will show. ''--[[User:Wikisux|Wikisux]] 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)''
**'''Delete''' This company has no political, cultural, historical significance. This isn't a accessories catalogue. Who would use this information? It does't have the history required by a commercial company to deserve an encyclopaedia entry. Where is the potential for it to grow beyond a stub? Employee of the month lists? Product ranges? We have to remember that Wikipedia isn't an infinite space where we have space for this stuff. Ask the creator to justify the page at least (if he/she hasn't).--[[User:HamYoyo|[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo]] [[User talk:HamYoyo|(Talk)]]]] 23:37, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
***The creator of the page was an anon. They easily might not find this debate. I have thus assumed responsibility for creation by proxy for the purposes of defending it. I justify the page by saying that it has verifiable encyclopedic information, and that it doesn't meet any criteria for deletion under our deletion policy. No threshold for how politically, culturally or historically important a particular company has to be is given. The threshold is that the information has to be verifiable and factual, and that someone has to be bothered to write it. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 07:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*It is an ad, people. Delete it. [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 23:40, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
**If it is not NPOV, edit it. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 07:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
***What's to edit? This is nothing but advertising, and as such, does not belong on Wikipedia. Are we going to allow articles on every small company in the world, with one paragraph saying what they do and a link to page to buy their products? If so, we might as well start selling ad space. [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 19:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
****Firstly, I don't see the problem with allowing people to write articles about small companies, as long as they are factually accurate and NPOV (as this article is.) Secondly, RickK, based on the evidence, I would submit that this article is '''NOT AN AD; it appears to have been written in good faith'''. The anonymous user has a long history of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=130.88.185.84 edits] related to Hong Kong and China. ''— [[User:Wikisux|Wikisux]] 00:46, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)''
****We have literally thousands of articles on things with links to commerce. For instance we have thousands of articles on fictional characters, all of whom created for the purpose of making money. The fact that there seems to be a willingness to keep them, but perhaps not this is indicative of a systematic bias. People want this article deleted because it is about a plain old non-western manufacturing company, rather than cosy western computery domain of understanding. But for a lot of readers, this company's existence is more significant than those daft computer instruction articles, or Star Trek, Starcraft, Pokemon... [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 09:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*I've got a few friends from Hong Kong. I'll ask them if they've heard of the company--not that it matters--but in the meantime, I'd say don't do anything rash. ''--[[User:Wikisux|Wikisux]] 23:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)''
*Delete. Wikispam. Shawn Mikula all over again. [[User:Ambivalenthysteria|Ambivalenthysteria]] 12:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* No, [[User:130.88.185.84]] isn't Mikula, he's made many edits to Hong Kong related articles. What I suggest though is that someone who speaks Chinese goes over to the Chinese Wikipedia and asks them there whether they have or want an article on the subject, possibly on their vfd page. Then, if it's good enough for them, keep if not bin it. Have posted a query at their embassy. [[User:Duncharris|Dunc_Harris]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 20:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
** I did it. see [http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BA%92%E5%8A%A9%E5%AE%A2%E6%A0%88#Full_Nice_Handbag_Co Chinese Embassy] [[User:Duncharris|Dunc_Harris]]|[[User talk:duncharris|☺]] 20:56, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Weak keep. This appears to be the corporate equivalent of a vanity page. Verifiable and even written in a sufficiently neutral tone, but not necessarily encyclopedic. Lacking a policy on corporate entries, I have to compare it to other topics and note that we routinely keep topics which I consider ''far'' more trivial (such as TV characters and Pokemon strategies). [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] 23:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Reference : Replies on this issue on zh.wikipedia.org is [http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E4%BA%92%E5%8A%A9%E5%AE%A2%E6%A0%88#Full_Nice_Handbag_Co Here] --[[User:Cylauj|Cylauj]] 15:04, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* What's there to keep? There are hundreds of thousands of such companies in Hong Kong. The company claims to export to the US and Europe, but I doubt anyone have heard of them. [[User:Mandel|Mandel]] 16:49, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete. Not encyclopedic. --[[User:Starx|Starx]] 02:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete yesterday. No encyclopedic relevance. And the transparent crusading by a particular individual only solidifies my position. -- [[User:Stevietheman|Stevietheman]] 04:31, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**Please explain what you mean by "transparent crusading". Is it better or worse than opaque crusading? [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 10:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
***You're [[shill]]ing for the article. Why waste one moment of your existence trying to keep this junk article in the wikipedia? -- [[User:Stevietheman|Stevietheman]] 14:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
****I can't speak for him, but maybe he's doing it for the same reason you're spending your time crusading ''against'' it--against this short, factual, NPOV article about a real company? Maybe because we all want to see Wikipedia grow and become more useful? ''— [[User:Wikisux|Wikisux]] 18:08, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)''
*****Very strange response that's highly inaccurate. -- [[User:Stevietheman|Stevietheman]] 22:00, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
******There is nothing inaccurate (or strange?) about what I wrote. I think you're mistaken that [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21]] is shilling for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=130.88.185.84 130.88.185.84]. Check their user histories; they are obviously different authors, and the anonymous IP has a history of nearly 50 edits on articles related to Hong Kong and China. ''— [[User:Wikisux|Wikisux]] 22:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)''
*******Yes, it's strange. I'm not the one going around commenting on everyone's vote. So to accuse me of crusading is a totally empty assertion. -- [[User:Stevietheman|Stevietheman]] 16:54, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*******Another point: You voted more than once. So, you hold no position to accuse anyone of anything. -- [[User:Stevietheman|Stevietheman]] 17:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
********'''Excuse me?''' Your baseless accusations are getting a little out of hand--first you accuse Pcb21 of being a shill because he engages in healthy, vigorous debate (isn't that the ''point'' of this board?) and now you've falsely accused me of casting more than one vote in this discussion. Sorry, but this is getting a little obnoxious. I'll be in the corner breathing deeply and counting to 10. ''[[User:Wikisux|Wikisux]] 20:53, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)''
****I've just read [[shill]] and it is obviously utterly unrelated to what I've been doing here ("A <nowiki>'''shill'''</nowiki> is a confidence trickster's accomplice who pretends to be an enthusiastic customer...") I don't know this company from Adam, I have no idea if their products are good, I utterly can not recommend them. What I have been doing of course is trying to enforce the Wikipedia:Deletion Policy for an article that caught my eye. In months past this article would've easily been kept. But over time there's been a drift towards deletionism, because the participants in vfd who are on the inclusionist side get fed up with the abuse. There are several articles that I could make this sort of stand for, but just don't have the time. The fact that making these sorts of stands is sufficient grounds to get called a confidence trickster's assistant just shows how far vfd has come (in the wrong direction). Anyone who's been around Wikipedia a while would know it is completely ridiculous to call me what you did. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 19:41, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*****I stand by what I said. Further, shill is not fully defined in that article. A shill can also be "a person who works energetically to sell or promote something" (Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition). By criticizing so many people's honest vote, that's exactly what you've been doing. -- [[User:Stevietheman|Stevietheman]] 17:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
******I find your insinutation that I have some sort of profit motive for defending this article disgusting. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 20:32, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Strong '''neutral'''. This article falls in much the same category as non-notable secondary schools. There's no very good reason for it to be in Wikipedia, and there's no very good reason for it not to be in Wikipedia. IMHO it is silly to be expressing any ''strong'' opinion about it either way, and silly to be getting overly worked up about it. It's too long to be criticized as a substub, it's factual and probably verifiable, it doesn't use any promotional language—the company name says the bags are "nice" but the article itself doesn't make that claim. I wouldn't object to anything in it if the company were notable. Putting a non-notable company in Wikipedia is intrinsically promotional. We're using more disk space for this discussion than the article is taking up. But... there's no earthly reason to have it in Wikipedia other than that it might please the person who created the article. So... '''I don't care.''' I '''vehemently''' don't care. All be the same in a hundred years, that's what I say. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:32, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**Would anyone ''know'' if this company were to close shop tomorrow? I still say delete. The author may well be eating chocolate ice-cream yoghurt this very moment while we are sweating over this. Give it an ultimatum deadline for he/she to justify otherwise delete. [[User:Mandel|Mandel]] 21:29, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
*I can't believe there are people considering keeping this 'article'. — [[User:Chameleon|Chameleon]] 22:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Hmmm... This is a tough one. I think I will say keep and delete the link to the company website to make the article less ad-like. Delete the sentence that reads ''Its range of products include ladies handbags, unisex casual bags, travel bags, backpacks, shoulder bags, cosmetic bags, evening purses, natural & paper straw bags, and sports bags.'', since it sounds addish and seems to be lifted straight from the website. Maybe replace the final phrase with "...a wide variety of bags". Maybe someone might want to put a note on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:130.88.185.84 the author's talk page] asking him what else he knows about the company and why he decided to write about it. Maybe a famous celebrity bought a bag from that company or something? Anyway, I don't see tremendous harm in keeping the article around, other than the 1 KB of space it's using on the server. Maybe in the future the article will develop into something bigger. [[User:Spencer195|☞spencer195]] 01:35, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*'''D'''elete, reluctantly, as I like the name. If the article returns with details of high levels of employment or production or history or fashion influence or local economic notability, then I'll be happy to support it. --[[User:Zigger|Zigger]] 03:29, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
* Two of my friends who are from Hong Kong say they don't know of this company, but another friend who currently lives there says she ''thinks'' she has heard of it. She asked why I wanted to know, so I told her someone wrote an encyclopedia article about it. By the time she got done laughing, I realized how ridiculous this entire thing is. I still vote to keep. ''[[User:Wikisux|Wikisux]] 08:49, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)''
*Keep. And just because another user disagrees with you on deletion is no reason to label them a shill--amazingly, reasonable people can disagree! [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] 05:09, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**That's not the reason I labeled that person a shill. He is a shill as he has been very very busy criticizing the 'delete' votes of so many other people, therefore deserving the label. It's fair. -- [[User:Stevietheman|Stevietheman]] 17:12, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
***Honestly, I have not been "very very busy" doing this, it has taken only a fraction of my Wikipedia time. (Unlike you, only a very small fraction of my recent edits have been to vfd). I don't really understand why I am not allowed to question the votes of others... how else I am supposed to point out that deletion of this article is not in the spirit or letter of Wikipedia policy that vfd contributors have grown increasing ignorant of? Your original reason for voting "delete" was the very mature reason that I have been arguing to "keep". Your instinct was to "delete", seeing that view was obviously not going to get consensus, you decided to smear me by using a loaded term like "shill" and hoped to get away with it by presenting your own definition of that word. But hey let's continue this somewhere else. [[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 20:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It might not be of the broadest appeal, but it sounds like some people have heard of it, and those who aren't interested needn't read it. [[User:Cambyses|Cambyses]] 13:48, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*This is turning into some debate. It might be significant in future trend-setting. Should Wikipedia be generally deletionist or inclusionist? Should we a) Delete unless proven to be significant; or b) Include unless proven to be insignificant?
:I tend toward a). Yeah, Wikipedia is not paper, but Wikipedia isn't [[Google]] either. Not everything factual needs to be in the encyclopedia, IMO. [[User:Mandel|Mandel]] 00:03, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
:: Perhaps the question when considering deletion, though, is not whether ''everything factual needs to be in the encyclopedia'', but whether ''anything factual needs '''not''' to be in the encyclopedia''. Unless the Wiki really starts to struggle under the size of the database, what purpose is actually served by a significance test? Who suffers if there are articles of interest to relatively few people, so long as they are well-written, accurate, NPOV etc? Removing the significance test gets around the problem of defining ''significant'', which I would argue is impossible to do in an objective, culturally neutral fashion. With the number of people in the world and on the net, an article could be of interest to only one person in a million, and still find 1,000 avid readers. Such an article might be on an arcane scientific topic, a variety of tulip, an obscure opera or the manufacturer of one's favourite handbag. Who among us is really qualified to rank other people's interests in order of importance? Best wishes, [[User:Cambyses|Cambyses]] 00:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:::Seriously this debate will end soon (because of the deadline), but I hope it will be carried off to somewhere else. It is pretty interesting (not on the co. ''per se'') and is of value. Cambyses is firmly in the inclusionist camp. But if we don't practise some sensible deletionist policy won't we end up being something like the [[world wide web]]? [[User:Mandel|Mandel]] 00:55, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
:You've rumbled me there - I guess I am an inclusionist <grin>. I think merely being factual and NPOV is quite sufficient to differentiate us from the world wide web as a whole! Agree about carrying on the debate in more general terms. As a pretty new wikipedian I don't know how/where these things happen, but could somebody who knows what they are doing create a suitable discussion page or point me to it if it already exists? Best wishes, [[User:Cambyses|Cambyses]] 01:11, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
====[[Misunderestimated]]====
Neologism. [[User:Timc|Timc]] placed msg:delete, which was removed by article author. Doesn't meet criteria for speedy delete, so I'm listing it here. This term is given as an example at [[Bushism]]. Google gives 26,600 hits but it is still a neologism / Bushism. Delete. [[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] | [[User talk:SWAdair|Talk ]] 06:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Vote to '''keep''' as a '''redirect''' to [[Bushism]]. Not sure what info should be copied to Bushism, though. Ideas? [[User:Siroxo|siroxo]] 08:12, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
*Hmm... redirect sounds good, but I don't think anything can be salvaged from the article. [[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] | [[User talk:SWAdair|Talk ]] 09:53, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Redirect to [[Bushism]]. [[User:Chameleon|Chameleon]] 13:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Redirect to [[Bushism]]. ''Misunderestimated'' is one of the canonical examples, perhaps ''the'' canonical example of a Bushism so we can allowing it to be an entry, while not allowing it for ''every'' Bushism. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Keep as a stub linking to [[Bushism]]. Much like a redirect, only with a nice quick information filter so that any information one might be searching for on "Misunderestimated" is still presented first. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 15:47, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
*redirect or delete. not worthy of own article --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']] 21:23, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Redirect. It's a particularly notable Bushism. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Merge and redirect to [[Bushism]]. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 22:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Merge and redirect -- [[User:Stevietheman|Stevietheman]] 04:34, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*'''R'''edirect to Bushism. Now merged. --[[User:Zigger|Zigger]] 03:43, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
*Delete. What can be written aside from a defination? [[User:Falcon Kirtaran|Falcon]] 03:47, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
====[[Dvd to wmv9]]====
Is there a place we can redirect this? [[User:Burgundavia|Burgundavia]] 08:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Well, it could redirect to [[Ripping]], but with a complete loss of the information in this <s>advertisement</s> article. [[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] | [[User talk:SWAdair|Talk ]] 10:24, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. All content in article is advertising. [[User:Thue|Thue]] 16:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* '''Delete'''; not encyclopedic. --[[User:Jholman|Jeff]] 02:40, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
* Nasty ad. Delete. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 22:00, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete - advert - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font>]] 22:07, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*'''D'''elete. Written as advertisement. --[[User:Zigger|Zigger]] 01:34, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
*As if more votes are needed: delete. - [[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 15:43, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
====[[To_His_Coy_Mistress]]====
This is utter trite nonsense. An encyclopaedic amateur summary of a canonical poem? I think not.--[[User:HamYoyo|[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo]] [[User talk:HamYoyo|(Talk)]]]] 10:04, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. It's a ''very'' famous poem, ''quite'' worth of an article of its own. What's there is an OK start, certainly not "nonsense." I like the fact that the article references allusions in other poems. The fact that other works allude to this poem is a very nice NPOV bit of evidence that this poem is notable enough to deserve an article. Yes, the article could certainly be improved. The paraphrases/translations/whatever should be buttressed by quoting the relevant parts of the poem to which they refer. I don't like the way in which, after "stripping the poem of all poetry" they then reclothe it in somethat tacky garb, i.e. the restatement is too creative. "So let's go fast for as long as we are still alive" is both evasive and clumsy, Marvell is talking about <strike>amour</strike> <strike>lovemaking</strike> coitus, not track-and-field. The references to those other poems need to be explained (what the heck is ''The Garden?''). (BTW Archibald MacLeish wrote a poem entitled ''You, Andrew Marvell'', another reference to the poem, which could also be included, and there are probably many more.) Might throw in some stuff about similar sentiments expressed in other famous writings, e.g Ecclesiastes and the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. and <strike>The article should document the very important fact that quoting this poem is seldom, if ever effective as a seduction strategy—at least, it never was for me.</strike>. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. Perhaps its style could be more encyclopedic, but I thought it was quite informative. I can't judge how important this poem is in English lit. circles, but it seems to have been influential. -- [[User:Solipsist|Solipsist]] 13:32, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. You yourself say its "a canonical poem". The answer is to FIX (as in edit, add to, expand) the "amateur trite nonsense", not delete it. [[User:Thesteve|Thesteve]] 13:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**Yes, okay, keep. The page has been improved already. Any further discussion reverted to [[Talk:To_His_Coy_Mistress]].--[[User:HamYoyo|[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo]] [[User talk:HamYoyo|(Talk)]]]] 14:34, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
*Edit, but keep. The poem is a cornerstone, and there are monographs upon monographs written on it. It's pretty much the most important poem of the Interregnum that John Milton didn't write. It absolutely demands a first class article, though. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 18:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) (an 18th c. Brit Lit person)
*It's a very important poem. Perhaps someone could just edit the page, but it certainly should not be deleted. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 20:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:As noted by [[User:HamYoyo|[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo]] [[User talk:HamYoyo|(Talk)]]]] it has been improved utterly beyond recognition and I think is no longer in danger of deletion, thanks to [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] and several others. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
====[[Radiohead Messageboard]]====
Can this not be merged into [[Radiohead]]. [[User:Burgundavia|Burgundavia]] 10:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:'''Delete.''' This has no cultural significance. Does the messageboard have any notoriety or fame? If it plays a role in the story of [[Radiohead]] it can get a mention in that article, but hardly its own one.--[[User:HamYoyo|[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo]] [[User talk:HamYoyo|(Talk)]]]] 10:50, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
* Agree; merge or delete. [[User:Thue|Thue]] 11:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Ok, sorry. I've mergred it with [[Radiohead]], so it can be deleted now. :-)
**Thanks very much. Just a note, it's considered polite to sign your posts on pages such as this. You can do it by typing 4 tildes, like this:<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Yours, [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] 18:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete, it's just a messageboard. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 21:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
====[[Nm (UNIX)]]====
<strike>Merely the output of "man nm".</strike> --[[User:Stormie|Stormie]] 12:39, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)<br>
OK, Keep, I like Finlay's rewrite. --[[User:Stormie|Stormie]] 21:26, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
* Keep, unless copying the manpage violates someone's copyright. Informative entry. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] 13:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Keep - I've replaced man page with stubby explanation of what it actually does. Stormie was quite correct, however, in listing the original, as stuff like manpages should be at wikisource (at best). -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 14:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
** You had apparently edited it when I checked it. I agree that the original was subject for deletion. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] [[User talk:Fredrik|(talk)]] 14:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Keep. Useful. [[User:Abigail-II|Abigail]] 14:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. Are we going to have articles on every command in every operating system? Who's going to start writing articles on [[roff]] and [[dir]]? [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 19:29, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
**They are already there! [[User:Intrigue|Intrigue]] 23:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
====[[Free game]]====
This attempt at a dicdef for a possible regional slang term didn't make any sense when it was created and hasn't gotten any more useful as folks have tried to fix it. The current useful content is duplicated at [[pinball]]. [[User:Jgm|Jgm]] 13:02, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|••]] 15:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 21:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
====[[Jong Park]]====
This looks like vanity. The article talks about his contributions to [[biosophy]], but [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jong+Park%22++biosophy&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N "Jong Park" biosophy] gives few hits, mostly pages written by himself. He also have another article about himself in wikipedia under [[Bhak Jonghwa]], an alternative transliteration of his name. The other article is also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion#Bhak_Jonghwa listed on vfd]. [[User:Thue|Thue]] 15:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* We probably also want to remove the note he left on [[Biosophy]]. [[Biosophy]] looks fishy in itself too, searching for fx [http://www.google.com/search?q=Biosophy+%22Peter+Wessel+Zapffe%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 Biosophy "Peter Wessel Zapffe"] returns almost exclusively wikipedia hits. Not listing biosophy on vfd for now. [[User:Thue|Thue]] 16:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete this and all the related pages as vanity. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 16:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete. Google shows the person exists and has written some real papers. But this page is bizarre and does not give a reason why he's notable. [[User:Andris|Andris]] 20:26, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
====[[.mpfa]]====
File extension used by [[Jong Park]] mentioned above. Searching Google for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=.mpfa+%22file+format%22+FASTA&btnG=Search .mpfa "file format" FASTA] gives few hits, mostly irrelevant. Compare with the number of relevant google hits for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=.fa+%22file+format%22+FASTA&btnG=Search .fa] and [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=.fsa+%22file+format%22+FASTA&btnG=Search .pfa]mentioned at [[FASTA format]]. Remember to remove .mpfa from the [[FASTA format]] list if/when deleting. [[User:Thue|Thue]] 15:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* It's not even a format, it's a file extension. Delete. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 05:22, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
====[[Brook]]====
A dictionary entry. Originally, it was POV, too ("best known use of the word in 'Stairway to Heaven'"). Stripped down to a dictionary entry, it surely doesn't need to be in the encyclopedia. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 16:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*I guess the only suggestion I have is wiktionary, then delete. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|••]] 17:29, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*As above. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 17:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* I have reworked the article for [[stream]] to include the definition of a [[brook]]. With this change, please see if a redirect is now appropriate. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] 19:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**Works for me. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|••]]
====[[Splendid Isolation]]====
There might be something here worth merging elsewhere, but I believe this has no article potential in its own right. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 17:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Well... I think this article might have some potential... might. But it's so ugly right now and so uniformative that I really wouldn't miss it if it was to be deleted. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|••]] 17:40, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* '''Keep.''' It's an important historical approach and I think it does deserve its own article, though it needs to be Wikified and linked to other relevant articles. ''-- [[User:Wikisux|Wikisux]] 18:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)''
* '''Keep'''. "Splendid Isolation" +Britain returns 7000 hits on google, including books and major universities. It also appears to be used in current British media (e.g. BBC[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2848683.stm]) as an analogy to current British foreign policy. [[User:Andris|Andris]] 20:38, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
* Keep and send to cleanup, if it passes the copyvio test. It's a real phrase for a real thing - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Article needs improvement. Splendid Isolation definitely deserves one. [[User:Chameleon|Chameleon]] 11:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
====[[Krazyletter]]====
* Unofficial school newspaper, which competes against another unofficial paper, and an official paper. While I've advocated schools related stuff in the past, this is too much. -- [[user:zanimum]]
*Delete. I tried for a speedy delete, but the author reverted the edit. Thanks to Zanimum for re-nominating this. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 19:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. Agree with above. [[User:Andris|Andris]] 20:40, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. My low faith in its value was lessened by the author spamming wikilinks to it all over unrelated articles. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*I do not agree. This article should be kept. If articles on a simple school newspaper can not be kept, then articles about [[Microsoft]] or [[Invision Power Board]] should be not, too. - 198.104.63.141
**The above is, of course, by the author of the article in question, who has been spamming links to it - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**Ban the author if he continually adds spam-links to the article. [[User:Mandel|Mandel]] 16:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. If the article itself wasn't bad enough, the attempt to delete everybody else's votes on it makes me want it gone anyway. [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 23:49, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
* There's a big fuzzy line dividing encyclopedic from unencyclopedic, and non-noteworthy unofficial school newspapers are squarely on the side of deletion. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 02:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete, and move the author's quote equating it with Microsoft to BJAODN. [[User:Ambivalenthysteria|Ambivalenthysteria]] 12:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*I hear you, Ambivalenthysteria [[User:Chameleon|Chameleon]] 11:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. Topic unencyclopedic, and article is worthless even if the topic was worthy. Now if the article described the paper even slightly, and mentioned something interesting about the paper beyond what normal papers do (there probably isn't anything though)... --[[User:Ssd|ssd]] 13:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' It looks like its a newspaper created by 10 year olds for a local primary school, it is defintely not encyclopedia material. - [[User:Aaronhill|Aaron Hill]] 05:08, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*[[International Community School]] is a 7-12th grade school. Thanks you. -Lappy512
*Delete, unencyclopedic. And ditto to the above BJAODN comment... --[[User:Starx|Starx]] 03:17, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
====[[Cybofree]]====
[http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Cybofree 9 google hits]. Entry written by [[User:VRmanoj]], which claims the term was coined by "V.R.Manoj". [[User:Maximus Rex|Maximus Rex]] 19:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Umm, it says it was written about in some journal, so perhaps it's worth keeping. The page needs rewriting, though. --[[User:Tothebarricades.tk|Tothebarricades.tk]] 20:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete. Not everything written in some journal merits Wikipedia entry. [[User:Andris|Andris]] 20:28, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
* If anyone knows if that journal is reasonably respectable, its probably worth '''keep'''ing. If its a minor journal, might want to wait for a second occurence before actually wiki-ing it. [[User:Siroxo|siroxo]] 22:32, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
** Vote to keep; while the term is certainly ridiculous (in my opinion), we shouldn't use that as a basis for removing the article. This article provides valid information about this term, and would be useful to people looking up 'cybofree'. Anyone else would not even know it existed, and would thus not be bothered by it in any way. --[[User:Jholman|Jeff]] 22:47, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
*** This completely ignores the real argument: the article should be deleted because the term has no currency whatsoever beyond the two people who wrote a paper about it. WP does not exist for the promotion of their invention. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 23:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**** It's not promotion if nobody reads it; but if people want to read it, then they should have that option open.
* Delete. A term a couple of academics made up in hopes that other people would adopt it. Google returns 17 hits for "cybofree", every last one of them associated with the Manoj and Azariah. -- Let me explain that invention of neologisms is very common in some fields. It is a form of advertising: every time someone mentions the neologism, it reflects well on the authors. There are hundreds of academic journals, and they generate many neologisms every year, the vast majority of which do not enter common use. Until someone comes up with some evidence, we should consider "cybofree" an idiosyncratic neologism. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 23:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**Bingo. Delete. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|••]] 23:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Promotion of personal neologism. Delete. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 06:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete neologism. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] 15:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Oh, for goodness sake. If I invent a word and then write about it on the Internet, it can be a Wikipedia article? Please. Delete. [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 19:36, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
*KEEP [[User:VRmanoj|VRmanoj]] 20:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC) : Just because a new term has only 9 hits on a controversial search engine does not entitle it for deletion. The very purpose of WIKIPEDIA or any encyclopaedia is to enable people to find obscure or rare terms on any given subject. In this context, Cybofree is a relatively new term in the area of cyborgs. The journal in which it has been published ;[http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/EJAIB.html Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics] is a well respected and credible journal. You don't just delete it assuming that the author wishes to advertise. Deletion would be justified only if the purpose of the internet is to prevent new information; however rare or crazy, from reaching the people.Please read and understand what a term means before blatantly deciding it's worth. This is a request, not an argument. [[User:VRmanoj|VRmanoj]] 20:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*'''D'''elete. The referenced paper is a proposal for this new term, which does not seem to have been adopted in the relevant fields. The paper seems to have been peer-reviewed in the field of [[bioethics]], so perhaps a new title could be found, and the article written as more than a stub. As it stands it seems to relate to psychology more than bioethics. --[[User:Zigger|Zigger]] 04:01, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
====[[Battle of Changsha (1942)]], [[Battle of Changsha (1941)]], [[Battle of Changsha (1939)]]====
All in [[Simplified Chinese]], all listed since April 23, 2004 at [[Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English]], but no one has translated any of them. Someone did translate [[Battle of Changsha (1944)]], which we should keep. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 19:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete if not translated before their time is up. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 06:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* I'll translate all of them. They also need some NPOVing as far as I can tell. -- [[User:Ran|ran]] 13:19, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
** Done. -- [[User:Ran|ran]] 13:48, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
====[[Phytophagy]]====
Could be put in Wiktionary. ([[User:Tothebarricades.tk]] added vfd notice.)
* Have moved from [[adjective]] [[phytophagous]] to [[phytophagy]], (please use [[noun]]s folks!) but I think this just needs cleaning up - its the kind of technical dicdef that we need. Put in Wiktionary too of course ;) [[User:Duncharris|Dunc Harris]] | [[User talk:duncharris|Talk]] 20:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
** probably be best to merge content with an article on [[phagy]], which can discuss [[polyphagy]] and other types of phagy. [[User:Duncharris|Dunc Harris]] | [[User talk:duncharris|Talk]] 21:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*** agh! what a mess. Right first there's [[eating]], which is essentially duplicated by [[nutrition]] which is extremely POV towards nutrition in ''[[H. sapiens]]'', and not well written. [[User:Duncharris|Dunc Harris]] | [[User talk:duncharris|Talk]] 22:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
==== [[Mind-Brain Society]] ====
[[Shawn Mikula]] again, in between his ego explosion he did post some useful stuff on some mind-brain stuff, been away for a while, better to work with than against. I still suggest delete though; if it's notable enough someone else will post. The following was snipped from [[copyright problems]]: ([[User:Duncharris|Dunc Harris]] | [[User talk:duncharris|Talk]] 20:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC))
*[[Mind-Brain Society]] from [http://mind-brain.com/mission.php] - probably an advert more than a copy vio. --[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 01:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:The author has now posted on the discussion page, and claims to have permission for this material. I have no reason to doubt that the permission is genuine. I still think the page is simply an advert, perhaps it should be changed to a VfD? --[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 01:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::I'm supporting VfD. Note that this page is a Shawn Mikula vehicle; see the talk page of that article to get a link to what I mean. VfD may spawn a truly enormous discussion again (between anonymous supporters and everybody else) but I'm all for it. [[User:Martijn faassen|Martijn faassen]] 19:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:::Agreed w/ Martijn, VfD is the place to list it. Probably someone should check for additional Shawn Mikula promo articles. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 20:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::::I see my comment is copied over already. I was actually starting this procedure myself but it looks like I don't need to do a thing. [[User:Martijn faassen|Martijn faassen]] 20:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:Delete. Likely an advert for website. [[User:Andris|Andris]] 20:30, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
#Speedy Delete. The Mind-Brain article has already been VfD'd once. --[[User:Starx|Starx]] 20:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:Delete, of course, for reasons given above. I'm afraid I see it as almost but not ''quite'' eligible for speedy delete, because: I can't find a separate VfD debate on [[Mind-Brain.com]]; the discussions on [[Shawn Mikula]] and [[Mind-Brain.com]] were sufficiently mixed up that reviewing [[Template:VfD-Shawn_Mikula]] it's not 100.00000% clear that there was consensus on [[Mind-Brain.com]]; and the titles and content of the two articles are very similar but not absolutely identical. Title and text are close enough for speedy delete had there really been a well-articulated consensus on [[Mind-Brain.com]], as opposed to "throw 'em both out." Text of old Mind-Brain.com article was (reformatted for compactness, external link omitted)
::Mind-Brain.com is a brainchild of Shawn Mikula which was established in 2002 to develop, implement and support a wide range of neuroinformatics tools, services, databases, and information, and to foster communication and collaboration between neuroscientists, scientists from other fields, technicians, and engineers for the purposes of facilitating and accelerating the development of neuroscience and neurotechnologies. Objectives: Core Objective: To develop neuroscience and neurotechnologies with the intent of using them as tools for the enhancement and expansion of normal healthy human consciousness. Tangential Objectives: 1) To increase public awareness of the potentials offered by neuroscience and to educate the lay public in neuroscience matters; 2) To bring together highly motivated and competent scientists and other individuals for the purpose of achieving our core objective. 3) To provide useful neuroscience services, tools, databases, and information for the facilitation of neuroscience research.
*Personally, I think ANY article that is recognised as being the work of Mikula should be speedily deleted. I guess that's kind-of fascist, but we don't have room for his BS in the Wikipedia. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|••]] 23:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*If this is a Mikula article, it needs to go swiftly due to its author's prior declaration that his content was not licensed under the GFDL. (Which, inexplicably, we agreed with, and deleted the content on copyright grounds, thus effectively validating this claim, which means we should stick with it.) [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 05:49, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
::This article was actually on the copyrights page before, but it apparently (according to the creator) got permission. So we can't delete it for reasons of copyright, unless this turns out to be a lie or something. [[User:Martijn faassen|Martijn faassen]] 17:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
:::The issue was that, back in the first Mikula flareup, this user posted a bunch of articles that mentioned Shawn Mikula. The articles were kept for a while, but eventually the mentions of Shawn Mikula were taken out by various editors. This user then claimed that, unless the articles kept their mention of Shawn Mikula, Wikipedia did not have permission to use his copyrighted material. The pages were all deleted at this point, as sort of a good faith "Oh, you ddn't quite understand the GFDL" thing. My view is that this action means that it is uncertain whether a given contribution by this user is GFDL or not, and that we need to err on the side of "no lawsuit". [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 04:35, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
* Delete. As a general policy I dislike authors starting articles about themselves or their projects. If it's worth writing, someone else will eventually do it. [[User:Isomorphic|Isomorphic]] 00:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete, for all reasons already stated, and that Mikula <s>is a</s> has proven <s>bubbleheaded jackass</s> an extreme egotism in his behavior, and this works against the very nature of the Wikipedia. -- [[User:Stevietheman|Stevietheman]] 04:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete per reasons stated. This is just senseless. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 07:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
====[[Poor design]]====
Over-the-top POV and/or non-encyclopedic. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 21:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Keep; real argument, against [[intelligent design]]. POV-neutralize and wikify. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] [[User talk:Fredrik|(talk)]] 21:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**Merge into [[intelligent design]] (which is structurally incoherent at the moment anyway) and redirect at best - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 22:01, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete: incoherent babble at the moment. The topic might work in some other context but way too wooly and undirected at the moment. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 21:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Keep and improve. Or merge into [[intelligent design]]. It's not a very good article but I don't see anything wrong with it. Googling on ''"poor design" evolution'' turns up thousands of hits, and quite a lot are relevant, suggesting that this phrase is really in use. The article is an ''adequate'' description and explanation of the way in which the phrase is used. The article characterizes "poor design" as an "argument," labelling it as a point of view, and notes that it "opposes [[intelligent design]]," so other points of view are acknowledged. The main reason for merging it into [[intelligent design]] would be to unify the range of points of view in a single place. And it's a legitimate argument. Opponents of evolution state—correctly, I think—that it is hard to understand how the human eye could have evolved through a process of small continuous modifications. But it is just as hard to understand how any sort of "intelligent" designer could have gotten the retina of the eye the wrong way around, with the blood vessels in front of the receptors—as if a digital camera ran wires across the camera's field of view—when the cephalopods get them the right away around, showing that getting it right is not biologically impossible. I don't want to discuss which argument is stronger. I'm saying a) based on Googling, "poor design" or "the poor design argument" is a real phrase in actual use; b) that it is a serious argument (having been made in various forms since the time of Darwin) with at least a trace of merit to it; c) that the article does ''not'' assert "poor design" as truth but identifies it as a point of view, and d) identifies and links to the opposing point of view. C and D make it acceptably NPOV, I think. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:43, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
::(Ah. I see I was commenting on an improved version. The original really was within VfD territory. Thanks, [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]])
* It looks great the way it's been rewritten. Keep new stub. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 22:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
** Thank you. :) [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik]] [[User talk:Fredrik|(talk)]] 23:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. This has the potential to become a good article and doesn't seem to merely be an invention of the article's author. (See [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22poor+design%22+%22intelligent+design%22 this]) [[User:Acegikmo1|Acegikmo1]] 02:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. This one could be fun - something to bite into once the interface settles down. [[User:Dwindrim|Denni]] 03:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Keep. Looks encyclopedic. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 03:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
* Keep, what [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] said. [[User:Abigail-II|Abigail]] 10:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Merge and redirect to [[intelligent design]]. (And Dpbsmith's example is better than the current content.) [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] 23:37, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Merge into [[intelligent design]] and redirect. The int.des. article briefly mentions the poor design argument (though not by name), might as well fully expand it into a section and not fracture the topic unessicarily over multiple pages. --[[User:Starx|Starx]] 18:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Keep, by a hair. I can see potential. -- [[User:Stevietheman|Stevietheman]] 04:45, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
==== [[The South End]] ====
Unremarkable student newspaper. [[User:Duncharris|Dunc Harris]] | [[User talk:duncharris|Talk]] 22:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Keep, but clean up POV (e.g. opinionatedly racist conservative slant, etc.). The history and development of this paper is probably relevant and interesting to thousands of people. I'd like to think Wikipedia could be the source for such information. -- [[User:Matty j|Matty j]] 22:52, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
*Well, I don't really care for these kind-of articles, but it seems to be a fairly well-written NPOV article about something that has a modicum of significance. Keep, I guess. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|•-•]] 23:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Classifying the newspaper as "unremarkable" is POV. I'd vote delete if the content was wrong - but if the only reason is "unremarkable newspaper", I vote keep. It doesn't hurt Wikipedia to have articles about subjects not everyone already knows about. [[User:Abigail-II|Abigail]] 10:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' - The paper is popular and established and the article contains information not easily available elsewhere. - [[User:Topbanana|TB]] 11:15, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
*Keep. I've done a basic NPOVing of it. Plus, this is my father's ''alma mater'' and it's nice to see the article :-) [[User:Bcorr|BCorr]]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>[[User talk:Bcorr|Брайен]] 11:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. [[User:Del arte|Del arte]] 19:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*'''K'''eep. It's an established university student newspaper, and it's achieved some apparent infamy. --[[User:Zigger|Zigger]] 03:24, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)
*Keep. --[[User:Daniel C. Boyer|Daniel C. Boyer]] 20:36, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. [[User:Fire Star|Fire Star]] 00:41, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
==== [[Wikipolice]] ====
: now [[Wikipedia:Wikipolice]] --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 01:47, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
Vandalism? Move to [[Wikipedia:Wikipolice]]. Delete to [[BJAODN]]? [[User:Duncharris|Dunc Harris]] | [[User talk:duncharris|Talk]] 22:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
: by [[User:Irismeister]], oh golly, here we go... [[User:Duncharris|Dunc Harris]] | [[User talk:duncharris|Talk]] 22:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Almost an interesting concept, but its a very subjectively written page, and has no real basis yet. It also fails to clearly state what Wikipolice are, just alludes to thier necissity and formation. Definately at least move, perhaps delete. [[User:Siroxo|siroxo]] 22:42, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
*So gentlemen, I work and you just vote for deletion! Moreover, you are using gobbledygook like vandalism (an editor who initiated hundreds of enclycopedic articles is, ''by definition'' not a vandal) and ''oh golly''. What is the purpose of Wikipedia if contributors write, and [[Wikipolice]] deletes. You see the point? This proves that the page is ''badly'' needed. So, ''gentle''men, just thhhinkkkk again, before you offer VfD, with a stress on thinking not on your POV :O)!
**It sound like you would be more at home with the editorial policies at [[Wikinfo]], so if you don't think the people here will give you the chance to write the article as you want it, why not just go there? This certainly doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything with your time. [[User:Thue|Thue]] 23:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
***No thank you, [[User:Thue|Thue]]! Redirection is not a good, constructive, genuine authoring policy. Have gone through months of research only to see my criticism of Conventional Medicine dismissed in a second by an imbecile, and put beyond Wiki traffic. If Wiki has articles on tampons and fists, which do nothing to improve the Wikipedian image, [[Wikipolice]] is here to stay, for it certainly improves it - and they need their own police :O) Besides, I'd rather lose a bit to earn a lot of my time, in the "tolerance with the wolves is cruelty to the lambs" line of thought :O) - [[User:Irismeister|irismeister]] 23:36, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
****Couldn't redirection be good? If there we a positive and a negative article for a topic then the reader would be forced to consider both and make up his own mind. Articles could still have review, and be improved, but the problem of wikipolice with a totally different worldview would not exist. [[User:Thue|Thue]] 23:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*[[User:Siroxo|siroxo]] thank you for constructive criticism, this is only a first proposal, not even a stub yet. So thanks for your SPEED :::::O)- [[User:Irismeister|irismeister]] 22:47, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
** oh golly... [[User:Duncharris|Dunc Harris]] | [[User talk:duncharris|Talk]] 22:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*This is part of Irismeister's ongoing attacks on [[User:Theresa Knott]]. Speedy delete. Consumerium might want it, though - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 23:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
***Nope, David, don't Wikicacadevaca me :O) It's a ''genuine'' legitimate NEW article, on policing the police, you bent mind over contorted ratiocinations :O) - [[User:Irismeister|irismeister]] 23:06, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
*Whatever its merits, it doesn't belong in the namespace. Move it to Meta or delete it, it's that simple. There are no alternatives. [[User:RickK|Rick]]'''[[User talk:RickK|K''']] 23:53, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
**Does 'move' work across namespaces? If so, do that promptly - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 00:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* Delete, do not move. Not funny, so no BJAODN. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 00:22, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Wikipedia.org is an anarchy. We don't need police. Mob rules.--[[User:HamYoyo|[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo]] [[User talk:HamYoyo|(Talk)]]]] 00:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
* No vote yet. I moved it to [[Wikipedia:Wikipolice]], on the grounds that it is not encyclopedic but may deserve more than 5 minutes consideration on meta. Even if the editor deserves sactions for vandalism, for pretending not to understand the difference between meta and articles. --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 01:47, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
*Not sure what to do with this but it doesn't belong in namespace. Certainly not vandalism.It ''is'' POV and original research, but Irismeister does make a few good points. Personally, I'd park this at Village Pump, or create a Wikipedia:Op-Ed (oh, be honest. Wikipedia:Rant) in Meta. We need something like that anyway. [[User:Dwindrim|Denni]] 03:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete with extreme predjudice. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 05:34, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
*Keep, but only long enough to be considered as part of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 2|Irismeister's arbitration case]]. Then delete. Content like this belongs on Meta, so if Irismeister wants it, he can recreate it there. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 05:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*KEEP-A charming article/project page on one of everybodies favorite pastime activies. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde]] 09:00, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Move or delete - it's 'original research' and non-neutral POV, so not qualified to be an encyclopaedia article. [[User:Average Earthman|Average Earthman]] 12:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. It is also a ''proposal''. As such, it has no place in an encyclopedia. [[User:Sir Paul|Sir Paul]] 17:28, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
*Keep in Wikipedia namespace or move to meta. [[User:JRR Trollkien|JRR ]][[User talk:JRR Trollkien|Trollkien]] [[User:JRR Trollkien/warning|(see warning)]] 19:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete, do not move - Original work proposal - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font>]] 20:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Move to personal subpage, or delete when arbitration is over. -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 22:17, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete, although the arbitration committee may be interested in this. [[User:Maximus Rex|Maximus Rex]] 22:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Agree with Rick K. Delete or move to meta. Interesting POV, but not inclusive in an encyclopedia as such. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 22:56, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Whatever is done with it, it doesn't belong in the article namespace. Also, does anyone else think it's inappropriate for Irismeister to be engaging in personal attacks and abuse of the article namespace after being banned once already for such behavior? I really don't understand why the Wikipedia community puts up with this sort of nonsense. [[User:Isomorphic|Isomorphic]] 00:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete, if Irismeister wants a page to complain about the behaviour of other editors, he can put it in his User namespace and deal with the consequences there. --[[User:Stormie|Stormie]] 06:11, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
*Delete this junk. Agreed with Stormie. -- [[User:Stevietheman|Stevietheman]] 04:23, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*It gets worse. Delete. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 21:02, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. This does not belong in the main namespace nor Wikipedia: namespace. Move to arbitration subpage, if this could be useful for Arbitration Committee. [[User:Andris|Andris]] 22:13, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. This is not the sort of thing I expect when I open an encyclopedia. [[User:Gwimpey|Gwimpey]] 07:24, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete, if irismeister wants to make personal attacks against me he can do it on his user page like [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde]] has done. [[User:Theresa knott|theresa knott]] 09:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. A disgruntled self-justifying editorial, not an encyclopedia article. [[User:Fire Star|Fire Star]] 17:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
====[[Dept of Botany%2C University of Guelph]]====
Article is a stub about a department of a University. Do individual departments really derseve their own articles? [[User:Krik|Krik]] 23:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Not in my book. Merge with [[University of Guelph]] and delete. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|••]] 00:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*The magic eight ball says "probably not". At any rate, this is a sub-stub. Delete -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 06:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. Not noteworthy. I guess we can use this article as a test case / precedent for [[Plant Sciences at Wageningen University]], [[Plant Biology at Cornell]], and [[Plant Sciences at Rice University]]. BTW, the author of these pages has made some very good botany-related contributions, but this trend should be nipped in the... No, I won't say it. :-) [[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] | [[User talk:SWAdair|Talk ]] 06:32, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Keep and expand, a valid topic that is imortant to many. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 12:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete, because the article is '''useless.''' Entire content is "The Department of Botany at Guelph carries out research and teaching in Botany," plus a link. You don't have to go to Wikipedia to know that any big university has a department of botany, or to find out what such a department does. Anyone who wants Guelph's published Web information can find it easily via Google. Since the topic itself is not obviously encyclopedic, having a stub placeholder contributes nothing. Anyone who knows enough ''notable'' things about this department to write an article about it can just go ahead and write it at any time; it's not as if this stub gives them a useful head-start or will serve as a reminder that we really need such an article. Someone could write a bot to generate thousands of such articles. "The Department of Zoology at the University of Wisconsin carries out research and teaching in Zoology." "The Yale department of Genetics carries out research and teaching in Genetics." "The Case Western Reserve department of Economics carries out research and teaching in Economics." These statements are close to being vacuously true. Almost-vacuously-true statements are not encyclopedic. If, say, the University of Wisconsin School of Agriculture operated an ice-cream store, now ''that'' would be encyclopedic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:54, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. Unremarkable academic department. Agreed w/ Dpbsmith. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 15:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. [[User:Andris|Andris]] 17:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 17:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. I also agree with Dpbsmith. Furthermore, I believe these sort of vacuous statements should be speedy delete candidates, true or not. Two cents' worth. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 22:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Delete. Academic departments at universities just don't need their own encyclopedia articles. And this one is particularly useless. [[User:Isomorphic|Isomorphic]] 00:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Uh, oh. There are plenty of similar articles (departments of universities) that seem to be stemming from [[List of plant science research institutions]]. -- [[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] | [[User talk:SWAdair|Talk ]] 12:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
====[[Beatrice Portinari,]]====
The main article is [[Beatrice Portinari]], while this article has an extra comma in the name. The text of [[Beatrice Portinari,]] has been copied to [[Talk:Beatrice Portinari]]. -- [[User:Micha|Micha]] 23:31, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Merge anything valuable with the duplicated article ([[Beatrice Portinari]]) and delete. [[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User Talk:blankfaze|••]] 00:03, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
| 