Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:43, 26 June 2004 editDuncharris (talk \| contribs)30,510 editsm →[]← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:47, 26 June 2004 edit undo68.225.103.51 (talk) →VfD Footer section Next edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 628:		Line 628:

	==VfD Footer section==		==VfD Footer section==
			Legitimate article. Have heard of this author before. Keep.
	<!-- ************************************************************* -->;		<!-- ************************************************************* -->;
	<!-- *********** Add new entries above this section*********** -->;		<!-- *********** Add new entries above this section*********** -->;

Revision as of 20:47, 26 June 2004

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

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

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

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

More information.

Things to consider:

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

AfD etiquette:

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

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

25 24 23 22 21 20 - 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12

Template:VfD frontmatter

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

Decisions in progress

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

June 20

Shakti Kak — Discussion

Substub about what seems to be a non-notable person. The name is fairly common, but I only saw a couple of Google hits that were even close. - Lucky 6.9 03:16, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Someone attempting to create articles about everyone in the family? See Ram Nath Kak. Andris 04:07, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
That one at least comes back with a fair amount of hits relating back to the book he wrote. As for his kids, well... - Lucky 6.9 06:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete on Shakti Kak (forgot to write that in my first comment). I agree about Ram Nath Kak. He might be notable, although I wish someone familiar with Indian literature looked at it. Andris 14:55, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
Can't have articles about every professor of economics. Delete. --Hemanshu 05:06, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neeraj Kak — Discussion

Neeraj Kak

This really is turning into a family affair. It's just a substub, and of all the Google hits I got on the name only two seemed to match, and I'm not entirely sure of those. - Lucky 6.9 06:53, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Does not look notable (does not pass "average professor" test and the claims about "leading figure" suggest vanity). Also, see Shakti Kak listing on Vfd a few sections above this one. (That's the "family matter".) Andris 14:44, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - agree with above. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:59, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Hemanshu 05:12, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This article seems to have been resuscitated after the talk above. I came across it as a link from an article on his pleasant-sounding but unremarkable wife Lily Patir Kak. (i) I see no sign of the existence of his "book". I don't say that it doesn't exist, but my guess is that it's his PhD thesis. (ii) His theories sound remarkably uninnovative for a demographer. (iii) Some of the articles on other members of the Kak dynasty linked from the article on his Dad, Ram Nath Kak, seem a bit dodgy. -- Hoary 03:12, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Megan1967 04:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Indubitably — Add to this discussion

obvious dicdef. Move to wiktionary and delete Telso 07:06, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete. TPK 17:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wyllium 19:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki dicdef to wiktionary. --Zigger 21:29, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)
Oh, definately delete -Frazzydee 21:49, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nicolas Kaviani — Discussion

Entire text of the article is "A classical composer, born 1977. See performance flyer: ." I get 160 hits on Google, which makes me think that this might be vanity/advert. blankfaze | •• 07:50, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seems like nobody wants to comment on this listing. Should I RfC? blankfaze | •• 15:08, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I will. This sounds like a doggone vanity to me as well. If this is the best someone can do, it doesn't deserve a listing. - Lucky 6.9 16:14, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete self-promotion. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Spleeman 04:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Hemanshu 05:14, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Pretty unlikely that a composer that young is notable, and even less likely given the lack of information offered. Delete. Isomorphic 07:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ibaraki prefercture — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Ibaraki prefercture

Joe vincent — Add to this discussion

Vanity page. - snoyes 14:08, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Misplaced Pages is not a biographical dictionary. —No-One Jones 14:20, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fredrik (talk) 14:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I speedily deleted one of these earlier today (Maria Vincent) and would have done these but they're listed here. -- Graham :) | Talk 14:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Mud 15:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Should be a speedy anyway, but delete whatever it takes. - Lucky 6.9 16:22, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Wow, he died in 1979 but didn't pass from the world in 2002? Delete. RickK
Delete. Not notable. Davodd 00:24, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Timbo 19:56, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Hemanshu 05:18, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Victor Irie — Add to this discussion

Vanity page. - snoyes 14:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Misplaced Pages is not a biographical dictionary. (And full stops are our friends.) —No-One Jones 14:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fredrik (talk) 14:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. See above. -- Graham :) | Talk 14:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Mud 15:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I see what you mean about "full stops." Try reading that mess in one breath! Delete. - Lucky 6.9 18:19, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable Davodd 00:25, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Hemanshu 05:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Noisy 08:58, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Etienne Vincent — Add to this discussion

Vanity page. - snoyes 14:09, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Misplaced Pages is not a biographical dictionary. (And full stops are our friends). —No-One Jones 14:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fredrik (talk) 14:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. See above. -- Graham :) | Talk 14:44, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Mud 15:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable Davodd 00:25, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Hemanshu 05:20, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

4ever yours — Add to this discussion

Vanity page about a local band. Totally flunks Google. - Lucky 6.9 16:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"4ever yours utrecht" in Google, returns ZERO hits. Delete. Wyllium 19:05, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Allmusic.com hasn't heard of them either, but that means less for a European band. Still, looks like personal promotion of a no-name band. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:52, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete.... Although spelling words with numbers is so cool. Timbo 19:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sarah Gordon — Add to this discussion

Listed on Cleanup since March. Do we know this person? This is strange. --Jia ng 17:07, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Strange" is right. The link back to the so-called "webpage" is just to a personal one. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 18:21, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, looks like Vanity.--Woggly 19:46, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Jiang's search is indeed interesting; however, a search for brings up a swack (297 to be precise) of hits. returns over 3000, of which almost all the first fifty were for this person. She does seem to have some cachet in the field of computer security. Denni ☯ 02:34, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
Delete, someone in her field could easily have many Google hits without being famous. - SimonP 14:51, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ambivalenthysteria 21:39, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Extended the article. --Palapala 11:31, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable person. It's easy to have many Google hits if you're a modern person active on the Web. - Centrx 20:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Funny argument. Tired of reading that it needs Google hits to be "notable", and now it's exactly the other way around...? How notable is a female who obviously has reached the top level within her profession (which, btw, is still heavily male-dominated)? --Palapala 18:22, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
  - It's not the other way around: a high number of Google hits does not mean that person is not notable, only that, theoretically, the number of hits required to qualify that person as sufficiently famous is greater. - Centrx 06:40, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
We keep Pokemon characters and obscure StarCraft units but delete an article on a real person who has made real contributions to computing? How odd. Denni ☯ 00:27, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)
Delete. My real name is not an uncommon one, but a Google search combining my real name with further keywords to refer to what I am known for gets over 600 entries. Yet I wouldn't expect to find myself listed in Misplaced Pages (and I'm not). People are indeed more likely to want to look up information about many Pokemon characters and obscure StarCraft units than they are to look up information about me. jallan 19:03, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The point is not whether or not I can manufacture a search phrase to pull in google hits. I can be pretty "famous" that way too, and I =do= have an uncommon name. It is also not whether or not people will search for Pokemon characters over "Sarah Gordon". More people will look up Pokemon characters than will look up Alan Turing. Does that mean the Turing article should be toast? What matters entirely is whether or not Sarah Gordon is noteworthy enough or not to appear in Misplaced Pages. My Google research says yes, she is. Denni ☯ 02:39, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)

It doesn't, in my opinion. And from the article I don't see any reason why anyone would look her up more than thousands of other people who have made a minor impact in their profession in some way or have contributed to various journals or written for magazines or even written a book or two. Maybe the article doesn't properly make clear what she's done. If not, it should be improved to make it clear. Or you might provide a list of entries in Misplaced Pages of people in her field or related fields of approximately equal accomplishment or who have less accomplishments to their credit. Does every senior research fellow at Symantec also deserve articles and everyone in a comparable position in other organizations? If not, why not? If so, how many articles are we considering? One of the things Misplaced Pages is not is a biographical dictionary. It is not supposed to contain a digital Who's Who within it. Perhaps that should be a separate Wiki project? jallan 04:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well hello and thanks for all the comments about my work. I'm not sure how I ended up in Misplaced Pages to begin with, although its pretty cool - but if you guys who are more familiar with it think its not an appropraite or useful place to have a listing about my stuff, please do remove with my blessing!.

Since some people asked some questions, I'll answer here. (p.s. you can mail me directly as I might not get back here, I was just unable to leep tonite and was looking for hits on Symantec and here I was...)

To the person who wonders why anyone might look me up - from the e-mails I get, they seem to read something or see something in some other media and then go to do a more thorough search - either on me, or my subject area.

To the person how mentioned my being at the top of the game in a male dominated industry - yes, that is very ironic considering not only did I not set out to be there, I didn't even set out to be in the game at all...it is kind of weird though, few people ever write about the gender thing.

To the person suggesting that there be a list of others in my field who have provided approx. equal accomplishments - so far, there aren't any such people in this specific area. Its a very specialized area, and people generally have focused on other aspects of the problem. That is what has made this work unique. This will change in the future as Universities adopt a multidiscipinary approach to security (as some are doing!) but for now, the work just isn't there. That's why people look me up - there isn't anyone else yet.

To the person who commented on the web page - not sure why there was a link to my own page (which is drastically in need of being redone and which is actually being redone ...) but that is where anyone can get all the papers, articles, press/media links, etc.

Best wishes, Sarah

ZiRC — Add to this discussion

Ad for an IRC network. Doesn't seem to be anything notable about it. Fredrik | talk 19:39, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete, absolutely. —Stormie 00:24, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Ephemera. Geogre 03:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -- Mud 17:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Don Ohlmeyer — Discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Don Ohlmeyer

Pyro's Union — Add to this discussion

Vanity and nonsense. Possible candidate for speedy deletion? --Woggly 19:55, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Probably vanity, but not nonsense. Delete, though. Everyking 20:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Vanity, and silly vanity. Hie thee to the delete bin. Denni ☯ 02:47, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
"Few people know of Freddy" - exactly. Delete. TPK 03:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert by anon up to no good. Andrewa 07:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Since few people know of Freddy, why, who are we to promote him? Delete. Or, in their own words, deface. - Lucky 6.9 08:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Best they not contaminate their non-conformism with extra publicity. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:05, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I don't know why, but it did crack me up. Kevin Rector 03:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Sad, really. It reminds me of all that I'd like to forget. Geogre 10:47, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that article is trenchant and relevant, about a movement that will revolutionize society as we know it; that will be the vanguard to a bright new future for all mankind. I read those words, and realize that a desperate and lonely world has finally found the salvation it has sought through the long, lonely times of yesteryear. On the other hand, who cares? Delete. Dukeofomnium 18:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Timbo 20:36, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How to make starch from frosted potatoes — Add to this discussion

This VfD discussion relates to an old article, which was deleted in July. The current article has no content or history, and can be speedily deleted. sjorford 09:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Silly, pointless recipe. Delete. hfool 21:03, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep, but first restore to original 1881 version from the page history. It makes no sense to modernize the language, and inapproriate to add editorial remarks such as "This all of course begs the question of why you would want to know how to make starch from frosted potatoes" within the article itself. Dpbsmith 21:20, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but move it to the Cookbook. Krik 22:01, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I think you mean move to wikibooks. (indicating delete from Misplaced Pages) - Tεx τ urε 02:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
rewrite possibly as section in starch or starching. I see no reason why it should go into the cookbook - perhaps Wikibooks needs/has a book on domestic cleaning and oddjobs - bit of lemon peel here bit, of bicarbonate of soda on the underside of the vacuum cleaner sort of thing. The cookbook should be for food. Dunc_Harris|☺ 00:08, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete and move to wikibooks - Tεx τ urε 02:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What makes everyone think wikibooks wants this? Delete and don't move it; if it ends up in the cookbook, I'll list it for deletion over there, too. Gentgeen 08:34, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Another dump from the 1881 Cyclopedia. Joyous 21:02, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I'll give a star to the first person to transwiki it to Wikibooks. Davodd 00:19, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

original VfD discussion ends here

Delete See above. Bart133 22:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's a nonsensical vandal bot listing. Speedy delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Phillippe Phloppe - Add to this discussion

Ha, ha. Funny. Except not? TheCustomOfLife 21:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Surname sounds like Flop. Not even WP:-) could handle this. Krik 21:57, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I would have put it in the bad jokes section, but I thought it was too bad of a joke, if that makes any sense. Flip flop. Grossaroo! TheCustomOfLife 22:01, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It's a silly 'flip flop' joke. Mpntod 22:06, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
So Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense is only for Good Jokes? Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:29, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, don't be ridiculous. I believe I made myself perfectly clear. Besides, you were the one who put the votes for deletion notice on the page anyway. I was just cleaning up your work, mate. TheCustomOfLife 00:05, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - c'est quoi? Dunc_Harris|☺ 00:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    - (cur) (last) 21:30, 20 Jun 2004 Duncharris m ({msg:vfd}) That's quoi. TheCustomOfLife 00:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Nonsense. Move to BJAODN. RickK 22:34, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
A little forced, but the 'cheese' part is enough to sneak it into BJAODN. Denni ☯ 02:53, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
Guillotine! Failing that, BJAODN and delete. Andrewa 03:21, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A perfect BJAODN candidate. Delete from here, preserve it there. - Lucky 6.9 06:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Written as a BJAODN candidate. So we should just destroy it entirely, otherwise it'll just encourage them. Average Earthman 10:08, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, do not move to BJAODN. Agreed w/ Average Earthman. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I've seen worse on BJAODN. DJ Clayworth 17:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: You know, someone went to a lot of work for this joke. That, to me, makes it funny. At least it's not an anti-politician entry (the which we will start appearing soon). Geogre 03:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- vandalism. Davodd 00:17, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Someone put this on BJAODN already. I mean, it's kind of funny, but if some folks think that it's vandalism, perhaps it should go. Wouldn't break my heart. - Lucky 6.9 00:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- If it's already under bad jokes, then delete it. TheCustomOfLife 00:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

SID Metal — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/SID Metal

Australian war metal — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Australian war metal

Ingo Giezendammer — Add to this discussion

Person in question appears to be mostly unnotable with a total of ~2 Google hits on someone else's personal page. Possibly vanity. -- Grunt 22:12, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 17:00, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Definitely not notable. He's listed on the "List of Neo-Dadaists" that's also being considered for deletion. You know who else is on that list? The already-deleted Lennie Lee! Delete with extreme prejudice, thereby creating a new form of performance art. - Lucky 6.9 17:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Definitely notable. Google is not God. anthony (see warning)
Delete - Google may not be god but Ingo is not notable. - Tεxτurε 01:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Have you even heard of Ingo before this? I can't think of a more notable graphic artist. anthony (see warning)
  - I've never heard of Ingo Giezendammer. Are you sure you don't mean Ingo Giezendanner?
This guy is listed as a performance artist, not a graphic artist. I'm convinced it's part of a spamming effort on behalf of "Lennie Lee." - Lucky 6.9 16:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Gary D 08:42, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Forever's end — Add to this discussion

unsavable stub. 67.160.75.230 22:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete; agree completely. -- Grunt 22:27, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
Delete. Ultimate Band List has never heard of the band, either. ] 22:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Can we delete Forever's End as well? That entry and a pile of these other entries look to be vanity from a single source - David Gerard 18:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is so obnoxious that it's been nominated twice. Check out the bottom of the page. It's our old friend "Skunkhunt" on the loose again, he of "Toas Martial Arts" and "Phartcore Metal" fame. Make this just go away! - Lucky 6.9 00:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Move to the entry on Notable Oxymorons and delete ping 07:46, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I have never heard or read the expression "forever's end" outside this entry. Probably vanity. Dukeofomnium 19:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

True Heavy Metal — Add to this discussion

POV nonsense. 67.160.75.230 22:32, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I feel this is salvageable with some effort. -- Grunt 22:33, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)

Delete. POV essay and website advert, by a heavy metal fan obviously. I'm another fan of the genre, but this page is not remotely encyclopedic (nor entirely accurate IMO, I play my heaviest bass parts with a pick - not that it's relevant to whether we keep the article). Andrewa 03:14, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: The author did a good job of trying to report rather than endorse, but the line between compound-noun-artform and adjective-noun-artform is a dark one. POV is intrinsic, and reporting on the POV questionable. It's kind of inescapable that a hierarchy of good/bad is going to be reiterated by the article. Geogre 03:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete - original research, not a report of a term in common use ('cos it isn't) - David Gerard 18:16, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, David Gerard convinced me. Dpbsmith 22:40, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) Keep. It's not nonsense, and the POV problems not that bad. No different from Arts and Crafts Movement or the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. You can't report on an artistic movement without giving an empathetic presentation of the movement's POV. I think the article is marginally OK already and is fairly easily salvageable. Rewrite the first three sections into a single section with a more neutral point of view (just the fact ma'am) regarding the movement and its creators. Follow it with "What is True Heavy Metal," rewritten without exclamation points in a more encyclopedic style. For example:

According to its proponents, true heavy metal is characterized by: a powerful screaming vocalist with a several-octave vocal range; a shredding lead guitarist who can both blow up and harmonize and or highlight the melody; a thumping bassist capable of good solo work; a double bass drummer with the flexibility to deal with changing time signatures; stage presence; and the use of original material rather than chipeing.

Then the list of "true heavy metal" bands. I don't think I should be the one try this because I detest heavy metal, whether true or phony, and know zilch about it. The only issue I see is whether the "True Heavy Metal" movement is reasonably famous or significant. If the list of bands is a list of bands who would identify themselves as aligned with the "True Heavy Metal," then there's no question as, unbelievably, even I recognize some of the names. Dpbsmith 18:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) P. S. OTOH if David Gerard is right, then... never mind. I did mention that I know zilch about heavy metal, right? Dpbsmith 18:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

None of that list who are famous call it an artistic movement. This series of articles appears to be spam for Forever's End. ~~I could be wrong, of course~~ - David Gerard 18:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is the section on "What is True Heavy Metal" an accurate statement of what aficionados prize and what is deemed to be the core of the form? If so, could it be used in the article on Heavy metal music? Dpbsmith 22:40, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not sufficiently, and I'd want it referenced. The series is indeed Forever's End spam - check the URL of the reference for the section in question - David Gerard 23:01, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Conceptually POV - any salvagable info should be moved to Heavy metal. Davodd 00:12, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

this is incredibly stupid as it stands. But it is a potentially salvagable entry. There should be an entry discussing the furious debate in the metal scene about what is true heavy metal, which, as this entry does note at one point, began with Man-o-war's claims to be true metal, and their slogan 'death to false metal', in the 80s.--XmarkX 11:00, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. It blatantly posits, even in the title, that other sub-genres of heavy metal don't have "quality" or "integrity" and aren't "True." Even if I feel personally that all heavy metal is cut from the same cloth of repetitive self-indulgent tantrums at 120 decibels, I don't write articles proclaiming that... Fire Star 21:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Even the title is POV. Dukeofomnium 19:13, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tartiflette — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Tartiflette

Filip Serafin — Add to this discussion

Someone who was born in Poland, apparently. Zero google hits for "Filip Serafin". -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:51, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete. -- Grunt 00:47, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
Born in Poland, raised in Obscurity. Delete. Denni ☯ 03:08, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
Delete, and imho this should have been speedily deleted. —Stormie 03:39, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Either not notable or misspelled. And article has almost no information.Andris 05:59, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This takes the taco for useless substubs. - Lucky 6.9 23:10, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fire Star 21:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 21

Lea Bridge road — Add to this discussion

An unremarkable road in London, article badly named anyway. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I live near there. I'll see if I can find anything of importance about it. (I have a book on the history of Walthamstow that may have detail.) But yes, it is badly named - David Gerard 13:18, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If it's just a road, delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Given the earlier discussion on Capital Boulevard, where the consensus was to delete a main road in Raleigh, NC, a minor road would have to be deleted. Geogre 10:50, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- That's not really a convincing argument against this article in and of itself, considering that article exists ... - David Gerard 17:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. DJ Clayworth 13:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Silva Mind Control — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Silva Mind Control

Imperial College Electrical and Electronic Engineering Society — add to this discussion

It's a completely unremarkable departmental student club, article written by a past president. --Robert Merkel 04:45, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
14 Google hits, completely unnotable. Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The university is notable, the department is notable, the society isn't. Average Earthman 10:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Comment: the article is so confusingly written, I can't even make out whether "EESoc" is a designation for the department, as implied by the first sentence ("The Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (EESoc) at Imperial College London produces some of the most well educated electrical engineering graduates in the world," or a society within that department. There is an awful lot of promotional and unverifiable language in that article. What the heck does it mean to say that it "produces some of the most well educated electrical engineering graduates in the world" or that "The department’s teaching scores assessments are always excellent?" Once you remove the POV, what's left? Dpbsmith 01:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Template:Manchurian Provinces — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Template Manchurian Provinces

IWin — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/IWin

Jinux — Add to this discussion

More fun and self-promotion from the Javalix gang, complete with mixed-up future tenses. - Lucky 6.9 17:53, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Both an ad and a duplicate of an existing article (although it may not exist for long). -- Cyrius|✎ 00:59, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete ad from temporally mixed up time traveller who forgot to use a spell-checker. SWAdair | Talk 04:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's also technically nonsensical.

"General purpose operating systems such as Linux are too complex too port, but gnu/Hurd and ReactOS was ported, providing for the first time the ability to run Win32 applications in Java."

Linux has been ported between various architectures, while Hurd and ReactOS are somewhat obscure ia32-only operating systems at present. I fail to even parse the win32 applications in Java part; Java can certainly be used to write win32 applications, but isn't a generic interpreter for all win32 apps....

Delete. I don't see evidence that this software is particularly notable. -Oliver Crow 09:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lauchlin Currie — Add to this discussion

Delete - vanity/advert/bio-response to critics - biographer trying to use Misplaced Pages to refute critics (see note at top and sig at bottom) - Misplaced Pages is not the place for Roger J. Sandlands to use his own works to dispute allegations against Currie. - Tεx τ urε 18:49, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Part of me wants to accept this as a pretty good bio; however the header and footer makes me suspicious of the info. Does anyone have access to the ANB (subscription required) who could check for copyvio? DJ Clayworth 19:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You'll have to check out the original leading paragraph here. We still need to discover the copyright issue. The writer may not own the copyright if the publisher does. - Tεxτurε 21:15, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- See my comment below, with the same time stamp as this one, concerning copyright issues. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:54, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've removed the vfd notice from Lauchlin Currie and I'll attempt to verify that User:213.107.19.27 is indeed Roger J. Sandilands. If so, fantastic -- Sandilands is an economist of some note. Otherwise we have a copyvio problem (not a vfd problem). NPOV-ification is pretty easy -- if you bother to read the article you'll see that the only editorializing is the note at the very top; I've struck it off. -- Now, I do understand that removing the vfd notice is going to get somebody pissed off at me, and it's possible that User:213.107.19.27 is not Sandilands. I'll take my chances; I'd rather have that, than to piss off yet another knowledgeable contributor. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. This is what makes this project worthwhile. I'd love to see more articles from people like this and less entertainment-related substubs the likes of which this site is bombarded with on a daily basis from the same joker. If I sound like I have it in for this person, you're right. - Lucky 6.9 21:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I've removed the vfd notice again; I won't bother to do so a third time, so don't get your panties all in a twist, thanks. This vfd listing is a simple mistake, although a rather serious simple mistake. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:51, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - My understanding of the VfD process is that you don't remove the tag while it is being discussed on VfD. How are people supposed to know that it has been nominated for deletion? This is not an action you, or anyone else, should take unilaterally. Please restore the VfD tag that you have again deleted. - Tεxτurε 21:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    - Nope. If you want to see the vfd tag, you'll have to do it yourself. It's a mistake, & I won't help you make it (or remake it). Wile E. Heresiarch 22:36, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      - I've re-added it. It is inappropriate to remove the VfD header while the article is still being discussed here, and if you continue to delete it, you can be blocked for vandalism. RickK 22:57, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
        Oh, Rick, you righteous warrior, you. What part of "I won't bother to do so a third time, so don't get your panties all in a twist" are you not understanding? Wile E. Heresiarch 23:32, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep -- valid topic. I am listing this on Cleanup if it isn't already there. Davodd 00:02, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I think it needs adjustment, but it seems a valid topic. Joyous 02:24, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep: this is a well-written, well-referenced article about an encyclopedia-worthy person. I hope Roger Sandilands (if it was him—he added his e-mail address to the original version of Harry White, so checking should be easy) continues to contribute more of the same. —No-One Jones 05:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Update: I emailed Sandilands to ask if he is the anonymous contributor and got this reply --

Dear Robert,

Yes, indeed. I did post them yesterday. I was not 
sure what your style and conventions were, but I am 
pleased that you seem happy with them.

With very best wishes,
Roger Sandilands
http://www.economics.strath.ac.uk/Staff/Sandilands__Roger/sandilands__roger.html

- Could you also ask him if he owns the copyright and is happy to release it under GFDL. If so, I suggest we take his word for it. DJ Clayworth 14:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Check the link. This is exactly the kind of person we want to encourage; we need more people who know what they're doing. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
To further muddy the copyright question I found this article at . The site appears to have no copyright statement. Don't know if this makes it more or less likely that its a copyvio. DJ Clayworth 14:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I've emailed the author about copyright issues -- the original version states that it's adapted from an article he wrote for American National Biography, so, if anything, the copyright issue is there. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Update: I have received another email from Sandilands. He has emailed me a different version of the Currie bio. At this point I suggest the original be deleted as a potential copyvio (wrt ANB) and post the other version. About Harry White, his contribution was originally posted to amazon.com as a book review. As Amazon claims only a nonexclusive right to use the comments , I see no potential for copyvio there. I'll follow up on all this stuff within a day. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:54, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - Update: I have pasted the alternate version of the Currie biography (as emailed to me by Sandilands) into Lauchlin Currie/Temp. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If the original author understands and approves of GFDL then I'll change to keep. He has to realize that it will not remain in its current form. Others will change his bio. - Tεx τ urε 19:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. He looks significant enough to me, a bit of cleaning up and wikification will make this a fantastic bio, and it certainly seems that any copyright question has been cleared up by the email exchange with Mr. Sandilands. —Stormie 03:38, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Alexandre Otto Strube — Add to this discussion

Besides the VfD'ed article, an IP's 4 edits w/in a half hour produced the following:

On 1978 (as an event, not a birth!):

* April 17 - Alexandre Otto Strube is born.

On List of people by name: Al (now List of people by name: Ale), misfiled by first names instead of last:

Alexandre Otto Strube, (born 1978), brazilian, hacker
Alexandre Straton Campbell, (born 1982), brazilian, engineer

A Google search on

"Alexandre Otto Strube" OR "Alexandre Strube"

produces "about 4,330" hits, of which they "omitted some entries very similar to the 82 already displayed." The 82 suggest a non-famous guy who uses the net primarily to discuss open-source code, secondarily to discuss cars, and on special occasions (2 days before his birthday) for a little vanity.

ESL. Non-WP format. 3 subject-less pseudo-sentences of 21 words, & a link to a Euro-patent-protest page saying "Join this online protest by changing your homepage from 5 until 15 april". Dunno when he plans to change it back.! (On 2nd thot, i nowiki-ed it as a deceptive political ad.)
--Jerzy (t) 19:37, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

Looks like personal promotion, delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: A very thorough puff. Geogre 02:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like promotion. Andris 15:23, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Australia v England 2001 — Add to this discussion

It's about a single cricket test series between these countries; its not complete, its way too detailed, its full of external links and its been on cleanup for weeks. DJ Clayworth 19:24, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A big ugly mess. Delete. blankfaze | •• 20:28, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete - look at how old the article is! If it hasn't improved after three years... -- Cyrius|✎ 00:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Can't we just nominate for Featured Articles? :) Failing that, delete. Dukeofomnium 13:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Harry White — Add to this discussion

A review of a book, something which should not be on Misplaced Pages. -- Grunt 21:05, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

Agreed, though it appears well-written at first glimpse. We should try and encourage the guy to turn this from a book review into a wikified article. I'd hate to see this individual give up on this site. - Lucky 6.9 21:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've wikified the article, and removed the review sections to give him an idea of what we are looking for. There's lots more information out there about this interesting man. DJ Clayworth 21:40, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep the modified article. Nice re-write! DJ!
Keep: could be improved, but certainly shouldn't be deleted. -- Jmabel 00:20, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Article was contributed by Roger Sandilands; see my comments under "Lauchlin Currie" above. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:19, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Stellar re-write! By all means, keep. - Lucky 6.9 17:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The "rewritten" article referred to above is now at Harry Dexter White. Harry White is now a disambiguation. -- Jmabel 23:59, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Twenty dollar bill — Add to this discussion

Delete. This article was the original title of U.S. twenty dollar bill. Zanimum moved the page, SimonP made it into a dis-ambiguation page, and there hasn't been a single new article to link to it since SimonP made the dis-ambiguation page, so how is this article still needed?? 66.245.12.119 22:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Somone will come along and create the article for Canadian twenty dollar bill. blankfaze | •• 22:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Who wrote this vote and forgot to sign?? 66.245.12.119 22:56, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - Me. Oops. blankfaze | •• 22:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's a valid disambig page. RickK 23:09, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, its been in its current state for all of four months. - SimonP 01:16, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Yup, Keep - I've added Australian twenty dollar bill also. - TB 09:14, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
- False. IMO, the phrase "dollar bill" is not very common in Australia; the commonly used phrase is "dollar bank note". 66.32.249.213 13:59, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not a vote--why does this no longer appear on the main VfD page? older≠wiser 14:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Postdlf 8:29 25 June 2004 (UTC)

Truthfully, I thought this was going to be about that trick where if you fold a twenty a certain way, the pic on the front looks like the Twin Towers in NYC blowing up. Should I note that somewhere or does someone else want to? --The Iconoclast

Srila Vishnupada, H.D.G. Ramakrishnananda Swami — Add to this discussion

Listed on Cleanup since April. This guy doesn't seem to be notable enough to merit an article. He is the founder of a Classical Yoga society. Period. Plus, much of the text is a possible copyvio from . A Google search for "Srila Vishnupada, H.D.G. Ramakrishnananda Swami" gets 15 hits. blankfaze | •• 22:56, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Heck, if this is a copyvio then it needs to go away very quickly. It's a teensy-weensy bit POV as well. And if he's not notable, delete. Meditate on this truth. - Lucky 6.9 23:05, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: No guru no method, etc. Ephemera.
Why isn't the VfD notice on this article? I think the ending date of this discussion should be adjusted to reflect when the notice appears on the article. That said--I vote for deletion--this is a vanity page. Regarding the possible copyvio--the article was already listed on the copyvio page and the author of the website granted permission--on the article's discussion page, although the author appears to have withdrawn that notice after I edited the page to add some factual, although derogatory, information about some of the people this person claims as spiritual mentors. older≠wiser 14:26, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Good point. I've put the boilerplate on. - Lucky 6.9 17:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agent 212 — Add to this discussion

Listed on Cleanup since late April. Poor sub-stub at best about a non-notable ~~web~~comic. Google search for "Agent 212 Daniël Kox" (Daniël Kox being the illustrator, according to the article) gets 162 hits. blankfaze | ?? 23:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks like copyvio . -- Cyrius|✎ 00:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Not any more. I rewrote the text. David Remahl 00:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - ARRRRGH!!! Don't rewrite possible copyvio in place! It leaves the copyvio in the history. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:17, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep, now that it is a wikified stub. It seems pretty notable, having been around for > 25 years in two languages. David Remahl 00:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, unless some evidence is presented that it is notable. - SimonP 01:12, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It IS notalbe, google returns 5000 hits, all relevant. Wyllium 14:43, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello,

Agent 212 is a popular comic. It was published at a time in the "Spirou" magazine and is edited by "Dupuis"

Bedetheque (the ultimate french reference when it comes to comics), give 33 albums published, , you can find at least one album of Agent 212 in every library in France.

Finally Cauvin is a really popular comics writer his homepage.

So basicly, article need improvment but does not deserve a delete :o) Hashar 02:39, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

After that info provided by Hashar, it's gotta be a Keep. —Stormie 03:48, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

No, we HAVE to delete it, then re-create it. We can't keep the copyvio in the history. RickK 04:31, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

I've moved the rewrite to Agent 212/Temp. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:05, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The rewrite from Cyrius seems ok for me. Whether you delete it and recreate it or just move to content, a page Agent 212 need to be kept. It really deserves it. Every Belgian, French, Dutch (,?) kids has read at least one album of this series. Besides, this series is mentioned in the List of comic books.Lvr 12:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 22

L&L Crip Gang — Add to this discussion

As far as I can see, all Google hits are Misplaced Pages related. Also, the following page lists _many_ (it scares me) LA "Crip Gangs", but not this particular one. Crips in LA County, Long Beach Crips. Even though I wouldn't oppose including a significant street gang in the encyclopedia, I see no reason to promote this one.

Delete. -- David Remahl 00:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. They're a street gang, so what? -- Cyrius|✎ 00:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. I have no idea of how significant or not this particular gang may be, but I will say that the Internet may not be the greatest guide to this particular area. In general, its an area where our coverage is very poor. Even clearly historically significant gangs and quasi-gangs (e.g. the Savage Skulls and the Young Lords, both household words in New York thirty years ago) do not even have stubs. -- Jmabel 00:17, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
- The "no original research"[REDACTED] rule applies...The information in the article is unverifiable. Still, a street gang Misplaced Pages:WikiProject is a great idea ((un)fortunately not in my field of expertise)! -- David Remahl 00:45, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I hate the thought of having articles on street gangs unless they've done something notable. It's a scary proposition. Delete. RickK 04:32, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
I'm with you on that. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 07:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Both Crips and Bloods have articles; what is the point of adding nonimportant (except to their members and friends) subgangs? Denni ☯ 03:41, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
Why delete? OK, so they are a gang, but what is the justification for for getting rid of it? Because they're a street gang and don't justify an encyclopedia's time? The article is non-persuasive, non-incendiary (from what I could tell of such a stub) - Misplaced Pages is all about a growing body of information, why get rid of something that isn't factually incorrect (noone has produced evidence the page is incorrect) or trouble making??? Why should there be an article about a gang is they did something notable? Should we reward for a gang becoming notorious, ADD anyone?!
- Hm. A sockpuppet (this is his first post) who doesn't even sign. A double non-starter. RickK 22:56, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Forever's End — Add to this discussion

More Skunkhunt nonsense, vanity page for his band.67.160.75.230 00:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, no. Speedy delete, block user, throw salt over your left shoulder, throw Tabasco over your right shoulder, spin around three times and sing "Kumbayaa" in the key of D while strumming a bassoon. Only then shall the bad mojo be displaced. - Lucky 6.9 00:40, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think their info page speaks for itself:
Though, the band has played many shows for the last decade and a half, they haven't ever released a CD other than their current demo or had any "RECORD DEALS".

Nice try fellas, but if you haven't gotten a CD out in 18 years, you should probably try something else. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete. My rule of thumb: if you haven't released an album, you're not notable enough to be on Misplaced Pages. —Stormie 06:37, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: My band did release an album, and I don't think it's worthy of an entry in WP. Skunkhunt needs to read any of the Rock'n'Roll 101 books out there: you don't get signed by ticking off encyclopedists, and you don't get people to come to your shows by letter bombing people in far away cities. Geogre 10:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Abigail Toyne — Add to this discussion

Substub about a glamour model who doesn't even have an official website and has no verifiable biographical details on her agency's site. --Robert Merkel 00:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete as vanity, although I can't help but wonder what she looks like... - Lucky 6.9 01:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - Google search can find you (not safe for work, but nothing hardcore) pictures if you're that keen...the short version is "attractive, but nothing exceptional". --Robert Merkel 03:59, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- LOL! I'll take your word for it. - Lucky 6.9 06:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think this is an attempt at promoting the adult yahoo group in the external links. Delete unless turned into a real article. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I tried to chase down the links to this and another "glamour model" created at the same time, and they were to hobby/fanpages. Being photographed topless doesn't automatically mean significance. Geogre 02:03, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Silly silly nekkid people should go away. Kevin Rector 03:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. ] 03:39, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, though this is a stub. She's been an actual Page 3 model more than once - David Gerard 09:51, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
delink-ed the links so that if this is self-promotion they won't gain much google or alex. Can put them back if the article is kept. (no vote). DJ Clayworth 13:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete - if we gave every brainless idiot who got paid for whipping their bits out in the national press an entry we would need to spend their combined earnings on new drives.

Acclimation — Add to this discussion

Article listed on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion June 22 to July 1 2004, consensus was not reached. Discussion:

It's seems to be a perfectly good topic but it's an orphan and a dead-end and the current "article" is little more than a definition. This is my first candidate for deletion and if this is the wrong place (or thing to do) I appologize to all. Kevin Rector 03:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

- Probably should be moved to Wiktionary, if nobody improves it. --Robert Merkel 05:23, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep and list on cleanup. anthony (see warning)

End discussion

I've moved some of the article text to the somewhat hardier article at acclimatization, leaving a redirect. - toh 19:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Nimbo — Add to this discussion

Sheesh. Another neologism. - Lucky 6.9 04:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep, it's really not that neo- a neologism. The word has been used on Usenet for a LONG time and was listed in the rec.arts.comics.marvel.xbooks FAQ as long ago as August 1995 - see . —Stormie 05:04, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
I didn't get any Google hits that matched, but if you think it's a keeper, I'm fine with that. - Lucky 6.9 06:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No vote (just a comment). Google gets 708 hits for "nimbo comics." SWAdair | Talk 08:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I just tried "nimbo" and didn't get anything that matched. I can remove the vfd later if no one objects. - Lucky 6.9 16:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's a valid and much-used term in meteorology, and this is in fact its primary meaning. I've added that to the article and reordered it accordingly. -- ChrisO 18:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Excellent. Keep as rewritten. - Lucky 6.9 21:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

White Nationalist Party — Add to this discussion

Delete. This is nothing but an advert for a very small white supremacist group. Coolmoon 04:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ambivalenthysteria 06:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I can't decide on this one. On the one hand, political parties should be documented, regardless of how distasteful their politics. But on the other hand, although the article describes them as "a United Kingdom political party", a quick Google reveals that they have not actually contested any elections, merely announced that they intend to in the future. And the article itself says "the Electoral Commission refused permission for the WNP name", so if they do ever achieve any prominence as a political party it will be under a different name anyway. —Stormie 06:36, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
- - Not all political parties exist to stand in elections - on the far left and far right they often don't believe in electoral politics. Secretlondon 12:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The article should be kept but edited to reflect all of the foregoing. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep for now. User:143.117.143.42 added to it and their contrib list shows evidence they know their way around this stuff. If Nick Griffin is involved then definitely keep (though that's not clear from this article). It's a defective article, but documenting the neo-Nazi splinter groups is entirely encyclopaedic IMO - David Gerard 09:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete - advert for their views and promotion for their group. - Tεxτurε 19:23, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree that that's a criterion for deletion. Are Neo-Nazi groups encyclopaedic or not? You seem to be saying they aren't. This article doesn't read to me like a promo at all - David Gerard 21:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I want to add: I've been trying to fill out Category:Neo-Nazi topics and I'd really rather not lose stuff - David Gerard 20:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm almost certain this has been listed before. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:33, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I was thinking of White nationalist FAQ, whose deleted revisions have mysteriously disappeared. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:52, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I assume this is the same party? Notable enough for me. Everyking 06:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Any fool can form a political party. It takes several fools to make one a legitimate presence on the political landscape. Just another kind of vanity page. Denni ☯ 04:29, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
No vote. This is a real party, active in various parts of the UK, which is encyclopaedic. The article needs so much work that I'm not going to vote to keep it, but would if it was rewritten. Warofdreams 18:40, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - its an active politicial party in the UK. Secretlondon 12:18, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. anthony (see warning)

Empire of Septempontia — Add to this discussion

Another idiotic micronation for your deleting pleasure. - Lucky 6.9 04:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete all micronations. RickK 04:33, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete all micronations. A mention in the Micronation article is more than sufficient. —Stormie 04:43, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
While all articles about all "Micronations" should be deleted, I think it's at least a bit funny that the National Anthem is "Seven Bridges Road". Kevin Rector 04:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: not verifiable. Google results: "Empire of Septempontia", Septempontia—mostly from their own website. Newspaper archive searches turn up nothing. —No-One Jones 05:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Kill it, kill it now, before it breeds. Oh, and in case that wasn't clear, delete. Ambivalenthysteria 06:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete only micronations that lack any sort of claim to fame, as is apparently the case here. Everyking 08:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- In case there was any confusion, I meant that as a plain delete. Everyking 16:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Ditto. i.e. Delete this one. -- pne 05:04, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't have a specific problem with micronations that have some sort of presence, but this article needs at a minimum a rewrite. Exploding Boy 14:10, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, but only if verifiable. Even then, there's a potential "slippery slope." Maybe it's best to nip this in the bud now and just mention it in the micronation article as suggested. - Lucky 6.9 16:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, don't list in micronation either. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:13, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If it's not bit enough to count as a significant society, it's not big enough whatever grandiose title it calls itself. Average Earthman 14:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wolf Szmuness — Add to this discussion

Conspiracy theories ya us. RickK 04:41, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

The article is problematic, but not a candidate for deletion IMHO. The person was noteworthy, and the fact of the conjecture about him is interesting. Needs careful editing, but keep. --Woggly 05:10, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep the introductory paragraph (thank you Catherine), and trash the rest. Google gives 367 hits for his name. Of the original article, the only notable part of his history is in the last three paragraphs. Those statements are extremely questionable. I am not in favor of an article describing an obscure conspiracy theory. Delete the original content, but keep the intro so that a real article can grow from it. SWAdair | Talk 06:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep, and keep the background details as well unless there is cause to think they are false. Work on POV as necessary. Everyking 08:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Comment: On cleanup, I and others are trying to make it acceptable and NPOV. It might be possible to report the conspiracy theory without endorsing it, and even to offer a few countering phrases without engaging in polemics. Geogre 13:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neocles and NEOCLES — Add to this discussion

If he's of "no distinction", why do we need an article on him? RickK 05:00, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Even his son didn't consider him important enough to link to. :P --Woggly 05:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a line lifted from the Themistocles article which in turn came fom the 1911 Brittanica. Our indistinct friend is already mentioned there almost word for word. Speedy...? - Lucky 6.9 07:33, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Redirect Neocles to Themistocles. Delete NEOCLES. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

FleetBoston — Add to this discussion

Useless stub, very uninformative and not worthy of notation without expansion. ] 05:56, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Keep - slow down the deletion train here. This is a real bank that has been bought out and the facts can be verified. There are lots and lots of one line stubs in Misplaced Pages, and it will be improved. As such, I have listed it one Misplaced Pages:Cleanup. Burgundavia 06:45, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
I've been bold and changed it to a redirect to the better-named and more informative stub FleetBoston Financial. If ] agrees, I suggest that he be the one to remove this section from VfD, otherwise that he adds a VfD message to FleetBoston Financial. - TB 09:00, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep re: What to list and not list on VfD. FleetBoston is definitly notable enough for inclusion in WP. Davodd 16:10, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Like the railroads, pretty soon there's only going to be four banks left (or two), and this proto-behemoth is likely to be one of them. --Gary D 07:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep and hope it grows. FleetBoston was a very substantial bank of regional (Northeast US) importance. There is a lot of reasonably significant information that could go in the article. Like, the time I had a CD with Bank of Boston or Baybank of Boston or whatever it was called a merger or two ago, and when Fleet took it over and the CD matured, they sent me a notice informing me that I could either roll it over or redeem it... but that if I chose to redeem it, they were going to sock me with a $25 fee. When pressed, they agreed to waive the fee "just this once," as if there were ever likely to be a second time. In the transition from BayBank to Bank of Boston to FleetBoston customer service declined and fees increased with every merger. I believe it was Fleet that set up the special express tellers that you could only use if you had more than $25,000 in your account. Grrrr..... Fleet's logo looked like the dorsal fins of three sharks, and when they merged with Bank of Boston the new logo looked like a green and a blue shark circling. A friend of mine changed banks to get away from Bank of Boston, only to have the new bank swallowed up by Bank of Boston, changed again, and had the second bank swallowed by FleetBoston. Are you getting all this? because it might be just a tad too POV to put in the article. I moved all my accounts to a little neighborhood bank that pays 3.5% on their AutoMax savings account. I hope they survive for a while. Dpbsmith 20:23, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jeffrey T. Nomura — Add to this discussion

about a high school teacher. Maximus Rex 07:41, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The man is clearly on his way to sainthood. Nevertheless, delete, although if someone was to create an article on the high school it'd be nice to have it mentioned that he teaches math there. Everyking 07:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, Gawd, no! If we HAVE to have articles on every school in existence, do we really need lists of all of the teachers? Please, no! Especially since they'd be impossible to keep up to date. Oh, and delete this article. RickK 19:03, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
  - I think it'd be interesting to the reader to know how many teachers they had at a particular time, how many for each subject, how long a teacher generally stayed at the school, etc. I don't think it'd be impossible to keep up to date; even if no actual students or faculty contributed, school websites might be sufficient for gathering most of the necessary info. Everyking 20:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    - There are plenty of things people allow to get out of date already on Misplaced Pages, without adding more. Delete. Average Earthman 14:29, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
ouch... delete. Non-noteable, and the style is waaay over the top. Lupo 09:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Wonderful article. Now delete it. —Stormie 12:10, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Uh...yeah. Nice gesture, though. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 16:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fire Star 21:03, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Del. Non-famous. Jerzy (t) 14:14, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
Wow, someone should print this and send it to Nomura, and then delete it. Chris N. 20:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. About a high school teacher. anthony (see warning)
My vote is to delete.Cody The Blue Bomber 04:52, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Gary D 08:45, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Especially considering vandalism of User:CML relating to this page. --ssd 06:01, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Best of Country Cooking 2000 — Add to this discussion

What appears to be a very non-notable cookbook. Or should I have an article for every individual O'Reilly "In a Nutshell" publication? --Robert Merkel 09:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No-notable? Is that why it is part of a series of books? Keep. Antonio Super Vacuum tongue Martin
Delete, if we had an article for every cookbook ever published by a magazine publisher, we'd have.. well, too many from my kitchen alone! —Stormie 11:53, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Real book. Keep unless someone can show evidence that Reiman Publications LLC is a vanity press operation. Misplaced Pages is not paper. Rossami 15:23, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Well written and about a real book. Antonio Modesty Aside Martin
Delete. Not notable. Vanity pages are about real people, but people have to be notable to be included. In the same vein, articles on books should be about notable books (imagine what would happen if every book got an article). Minimum standards of inclusion must apply. Misplaced Pages is not paper - Servers are not cheap. SWAdair | Talk 04:41, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It is a real book and[REDACTED] should have as many articles as possible without including non-famous people. Servers are no cheap, no, but for $200 a month you can have a server than can hold 500,000 normal sized novels of data. If we need to donate more to[REDACTED] to let it expand I for one will donate. (anon user)
Delete - went back and forth but can't see it expanding as an article. Right now it has less than you'll find on any book site. - Tεx τ urε 18:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Solomon_Holbourn — Add to this discussion

Although one in my list of notable lifeboatmen, the article about solomon featured his kinsmen rather than himself, and so is irrelivant.

Delete. No google hits, and if the current text is correct that it "raises copyright violation problems", then it should be deleted first anyhow so that the copyright violation is gone from the history. - Centrx 20:27, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Culmer_family — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Culmer family

Kai Brinker — Kai Brinker

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Kai Brinker

Grandfather's brother paradox — Add to this discussion

Appears made-up to me; no Google hits except for Misplaced Pages entry and sites reproducing Misplaced Pages content. -- Schnee 14:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Appears to be rubbish. Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:45, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not a paradox. Not interesting either. This "paradox" was inserted into at least one other article that I remember - and immediately edited back out. Delete. Rossami 15:27, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, this article has been vfd'd and deleted before (perhaps back in February or March). If so it's a speed delete. I can't find any record of it, however. Delete it slowly if not speedily. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not a paradox, and badly written. Delete. --Woggly 18:51, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hah. That was just silly. No point what so ever. -- David Remahl 19:49, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I found it quite amusing, and it seems like it might raise a significant issue in the theories that surround these matters, but if it isn't an acknowledged paradox, delete. Everyking 20:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why did the monkey fall out of the tree? Because it was dead. The article is profound as that joke. Delete. Fire Star 20:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete - didn't we delete this once already under a slightly different name? - Tεxτurε 21:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Found it, zap the sucker # 13:50, 3 Jun 2004 Pcb21 deleted "Grandfather's brother paradox" (still as fake as the last time vfd voted to delete this) - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:43, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
OK, a kinda funny parody of grandfather paradox. Now delete it. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:37, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

History is written by the victors — Add to this discussion

The Headline seems self-evident, at least to this one member of the human species. If I have strayed in social understanding, perhaps some better informed human should point out how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.217.58.91 (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Article listed on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion June 22 to July 3 2004, consensus was not reached, page was redirected to Philosophy of history. Discussion:

Personal essay; POV pervades. Needs either deletion or major work, Dukeofomnium 14:52, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It's not a rant, but it's provincial ("American education" "political correctness"), and it's highly unlikely to be searched for by a user. Therefore, it's kind of null. Geogre 15:50, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The subject itself should perhaps be mentioned in pseudohistory, historical myths and philosophy of history. I can't imagine anyone would search this elementary business out named as such. Delete. Fire Star 20:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sorry to be such a bother, but in my defense, I didn't just invent this topic out of thin air. I followed a pre-existing link from "terrorism", but when I clicked the underlined words, Misplaced Pages told me that no one had written the article yet, but if I wanted to write something, please, by all means, go right ahead. Now you tell me you don't want an article on this subject. OK. Whatever. I figure you guys are always quoting me as an expert, so maybe I should eliminate the middle man and just write the articles myself, but as I said, whatever. As for provincial... since I can't speak for New Zealanders and Guyanans, I didn't want to assume that they also dismiss multiculturalism as "politically correct", that's why I specified it as an American thing.Matt28 21:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I meant no insult by saying that it's provincial, only that too often articles fail to note their native bias (UK as much as USA, India as much as Australia). It's true, of course, that the phrase is trotted out as a truism and a stalking horse (many of the "losers" were preliterate and therefore couldn't write the history), but once we get into that we get into POV. I agree with Fire Star: the discussion should be a section in pseudohistory or philosophy of history, and the link you followed ought to redirect there. Geogre 00:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Mm. It's not... useless, not per se... um. But it's badly named, situated, etc. Some good information, which should be saved (I'd do it myself, but am not up to the task), but as for the rest of the entry - delete. DS 22:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Merge with history and redirect. anthony (see warning)

End discussion

Life force — Add to this discussion

Cross between a personal essay, conjecture and a nearly incomprehensible dicdef. - Lucky 6.9 16:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It sounds like it's striving for something like Akasha--something like soul...but different. There are several articles that link to spirit's disambiguation page that I wasn't able to re-direct because the concept they refer to doesn't seem to exist. See my talk page (Anthroposophy edit). I don't have enough knowledge of spirituality to develop the idea, but I think the concept is very valid, although the execution at the moment is not good. Joyous 17:28, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Delete in this form or CleanUp: There is a movie by that name. There are books by that name, I'll guess. It's a common noun. This dictdef is, essentially, essence or soul, and those entries already exist. The concept of soul/essence goes, in the West alone, from Heraklitus to Kierkegaard, and a nice, tidy, encyclopedia entry that could cover all that ground without POV would be a task for titans, sages, and fearless fools. Geogre 17:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Awesome. I love this kind of writing. Did you make up the bit about titans, sages, & fools? Rock on, dude -- Wile E. Heresiarch 22:18, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, there is no tie to any primary reference justifying use of this particular phrase for this concept--a valid concept, as Joyous points out--and there currently just isn't enough to even show this phrase merits a redirect to spirit or soul, because of the other uses Geogre notes. Maybe after further development of the spirit article, we might find a redirect or even a small article is justified. For now, delete. --Gary D 20:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to soul. -Sean Curtin 20:45, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Rewrite and then redirect to soul or spirit's disambiguation page, otherwise delete. Fire Star 20:48, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Dear Lucky: It's not incomprehensible to me. Mind you, I have an interest in "New Age-y" stuff. Surely there's some room in Misplaced Pages for an alternative cognitive or

literary style, such as this represents. Refreshing. And it sure isn't taking up much memory space! The term is related to the oriental ki, the Indian prana, Wilhelm Reich's orgone, and similar ideas. I could add something to that effect, but I don't want to go off willy-nilly and mess up the conceptual purity of what this writer is putting over. I sense here a bit of a conflict between the "right brain" and "left brain", or scientific vs. mystical, styles of thought. Have mercy, left-brainers! Give this poor, well-meaning person some slack. -- I'm not a registered user. Don't know if I get a vote, but if I do I think you know where I stand.

P.S. In reply to Gary D , While the article gives no reference, the term "Life Force" in that exact literal form does appear quite frequently in the writings of some philosophers, spiritual teachers, alternative medicine people, and the like. Also, it's not necessarily an exact synonym for "spirit". Life force is often used to mean something like "the thing that causes inanimate matter to become alive." Spirit is a little more closely asasociated with consciousness. Thanks for listening. -- fos, 23 June.

Delete -- I don't think it's synonymous enough even to be a redirect Dukeofomnium 13:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've already voted, but another reason for my vote is that the origin of the concept of the Life Force, in those words and as a concept, is George Bernard Shaw. He wrote about it quite a bit. Therefore, if there is an article by this name, it should be about GB Shaw's philosophy, and not the more nebulous concept. Geogre 02:12, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I believe "life force" has sometimes been used as a specific term by philosophers. Keep if life force is revised to review the historical use of the term, redirect to vitalism otherwise. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:26, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Vespin Love Kit — Add to this discussion

This has languished on the cleanup page for a long time and others have suggested listing it here on VfD. 30 Google hits for this local band out of Dallas/Denton, Texas. - Lucky 6.9 18:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete, not nearly notable enough for an encyclopedia. —Stormie 03:34, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wyllium 14:55, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ranked Majority Defeat Disqualification — Add to this discussion

Ranked Majority Defeat Disqualification

Looks sensible, but also looks original. Few Google hits - anyone any comments? DJ Clayworth 18:28, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete - unless support can be found that proves it is real. - Tεx τ urε 21:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Abstain, as I'm reluctant to delete something that seems quite formalized. However if it can be proven to be accurate or inaccurate, I will vote for/against it. —siroxo 01:51, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Appears to be a real proposal, possibly invented by one Mike Ossipoff (name at bottom of original version; see also ). User:Tomruen might be able to shed some light on this (I believe he subscribes the to same mailing list as Ossipoff). However, since it hasn't yet attracted any attention, it falls into the original research category. So delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:08, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I suggest that this page should be deleted. In my opinion, RMDD isn't even an election method because RMDD isn't defined for every possible profile. Actually, the only reason why RMDD meets SSSD is that RMDD isn't defined when for each candidate Y there is a candidate X such that a majority of all the voters prefers candidate X to candidate Y. Markus Schulze

Vampire lifestyle — Add to this discussion

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. I note, however, that even many of the "keep" voters expressed reservations about the current content and tone of the article. Based on that concensus, I am going to reimpose the "cleanup" tag. Rossami (talk) 00:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vampire lifestyle

Overly credulous and fairly ridiculous description of a subculture that already gets five paragraphs in the main vampire article. Cleaning this up would necessitate cutting it down to the size of vampire's section about this group. This was previously VfDed in June 2004 (see Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Delete); the majority voted to delete, but no consensus was reached, and of those who voted "Keep", most added that it should be sent to Cleanup. Eight months' worth of edits later, only a few of the crazier claims have been removed. Redirect to vampire. -Sean Curtin 02:37, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Keep, verifiably notable. ComCat 02:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Margins of margins of margins of the self-deluded, and here presented as if verifiable truth. I had voted delete before, and I do so again, here. It surely hasn't gotten any better in the past 8 months, and I thought we had consensus to delete. Geogre 02:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Merge to vampire then drive a stake through the heart of this article (or redirect). This essay is a long POV piece. It is true that, whether one likes it or not, there are people who believe as explained in this article; however, the parts that are not POV or simply unverifiable are only a slight icing on the exising subsection in vampire. HyperZonk 03:28, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 05:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep this unfortunate article. Again, cleanup. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep but make a little more factual and less far-fetched. There is nothing wrong with encyclopaedically describing a subculture, provided that the writer doesn't come across as a likely member of it! 80.255 10:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to vampire. Cleanup would leave it looking very similar to the subsection there, which doesn't (quite) need to be broken out into its own article. —Korath (Talk) 16:35, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, agree with Korath. Foobaz·✐ 05:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep but remove/rework POV content where appropriate. Notable subject and a major subculture. I'd check to make sure this isn't duplicated under similar topics such as Goth (I know Goths aren't vampires but people often confuse the two lifestyles) and Masquerade. 23skidoo 05:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep a notable, though fringe, subculture. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to vampire. --Carnildo 21:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep as its own article about subculture. -- Decumanus 02:36, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
Delete Give them a week ultimatim: if the pov isn't gone, the article should go. Zantastik 07:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete I agree with Zantastik, a vampire lifestle article without the POV would be fine, i like the ultimatim idea--Jersyko 17:35, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This subculture deserves its own article. -Hapsiainen 00:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge with vampire
Are there any vampires to back this up? My point exactly. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:39, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

DoubleClick — Add to this discussion

Obvious ad. -- Grunt 21:21, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)
copy of http://www.doubleclick.com/us/about_doubleclick/. A decent article about DoubleClick would be very welcome, however. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:31, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I started a real article. It needs to discuss the controversy over spyware which centered on DoubleClick instead of advertising for the company. The spyware is the only reason it became known to the public. - Tεx τ urε 21:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep texture's rewritten stub. Doubleclick is significant (even if it is just a significant annoyance). - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:38, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, although surely the original version is a copyvio, and we need to delete the article and create a new one with Texture's text, right? —Stormie 23:15, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
- I imagine that the original was probably created by an advocate or employee of the company but I don't object to deleting it as a copyvio and starting anew. - Tεx τ urε 23:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. They are quite a large company. I added some public info about them. I'm sure they will appreciate any feedback you would care to send them :> Thesteve 04:41, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keeep. According to our own article it is the tenth most visited website. - SimonP 14:04, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Like the common cold and mosquitos, they are annoyingly significant. Average Earthman 14:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It is a large company and very well known (even if for not the best reasons).
Keep (in current, non-advert form). Timbo 20:02, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
delete. terrible article. -Pedro 01:46, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Danny Rosenblatt — Add to this discussion

Vanity. Pure and simple. TheCustomOfLife 22:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think your mistaken. It can't be vanity if its not done out of self interest, considering the article is not on myself. Its an attempt to expand the horizons. If this is a 💕, we should not have policing of the material as long as its not purporting to be something other than it is and as long as it is factual.

I can write an article on my Misplaced Pages friend Owen Blacker here, but it would still be vanity. See Mr. Nomura's vote for deletion topic; some student wrote it for him but it's still a vanity entry. With that issue aside, the person still has to be notable, and Mary Sues and Bobbie Jos and Danny Rosenblatts are not. TheCustomOfLife 22:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is no clear definition for what constitutes notability. Indeed, I would have no objections if you wrote an article on Owen Blacker. As long as it does not interfere with the obtaining of truthful information, it should be allowed.

A regular high-school student, with no other merits to his name other than the fact that he went to a closed-down school and has ADD, is simply not notable. I don't think anyone would fight that reasoning, either. Also, if you want to sign your name, do four tildes (four of ~). TheCustomOfLife 22:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's a completely subjective position. It has factual information and it does no harm. There is not reason to expend the effort to delete it. I will join you in protecting the encycolpedia's integrity, but this is no threat. We should remove it from the deletion list.

We'll see what other people have to say on the issue, but I really don't see it surviving. I don't have anything against you or Danny, but he's just not famous enough. TheCustomOfLife 22:44, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We'll see what the general opinion is. I hope that they support the freedom to post factual information over a tyrannical stranghold on what they believe is unnotable.

Hi there, newcomer. Please have a look around our information pages, including Welcome, newcomers and the FAQ. — Please don't think of this as a "tyrannical stronghold". We are not here to battle against you or your opinions; it's just that the community at large has pretty much come to the consensus that there is no point in including pages on people who are not notable. Yes, you are right, it's a subjective classification - we vote on the borderline cases on a case-by-case basis and thus ensure that the majority is happy. — Notice also that disallowing this entry does not make Misplaced Pages any less "free". You see, the content is free in the sense that anyone is free to take it and make their own encyclopedia fork from it. If you think including factual information on any individual whatsoever would be nice, we welcome you to start a new project to collect this kind of information. On Misplaced Pages, as I said, we have consensus not to do this. We would end up with a lot of articles the contents of which are relevant or interesting to only a very very small amount of people, and are extremely hard to verify due to a lack of reliable references. — I hope you understand this, and I'm sure you will find things you know a lot about that you can write about in Misplaced Pages. Honestly, we do accept a lot of obscure things that you don't normally find in a paper encyclopedia. — Timwi 23:01, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. —Stormie 23:12, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Joyous 23:13, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear and well-said. Dan, yours is what we call a "vanity page." If you wish to contribute to this site, by all means feel free to do so within the boundaries. It's free to sign up and you can talk about yourself on your very own user page. BTW, this isn't a tyranny at all. In fact, it's the closest thing to a pure democracy as you're likely to find anywhere. I'm voting to delete your article, but encouraging you to sign up as a user. - Lucky 6.9 23:16, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree...delete. Ilyanep 23:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Preserve this page, if you do nothing else. If factual information is being restricted, it is tyranny. The majority may support it, but it is still tyranny. The weakness of democracy is that the majority don't always have the correct point of view. Regardless, it is the best system we have and we must work within it. Vote to preserve this page. This is more than about an individual- it is about the very freedom we hold dear. Where will they stop next? Will any information the majority, or a minority of self-styled police, find uncomfortable also be restricted? The Internet is the last refuge for free information in our society and must be protected. A stand must be here before it goes to far. Join me in voting to preserve this article

I was going to hold my tongue, but please get a grip. TheCustomOfLife 23:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's try this again, Dan. You do not warrant an encyclopedia article. Neither do I, for that matter. Therefore, my contributions have been on general topics. So too are the contributions by each and every person to cast a vote here. So in short, do I have a page under my real name? Of course not. Personal information is on my user page. It's only fair to warn you of the possibility of this conversation showing up on the very popular "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense" page. To be blunt, you're going to look rather foolish. Take a breath, count backwards from fifty and consider the advice we've all given you. - Lucky 6.9 23:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I've said before, this is not an article on myself. It is nota personal article. If I look foolish in defending my freedom, than so be it. I will not abandon my principles: that it should be permissible for me to place factual information at times and places of my choosing so long as it does not obstruct others.

This is the final time I'm going to be nice about this. If you don't think that this is a personal article, let's review it: An inhabitant of Aberdeen township; born 1987 in Long Island. Daniel subsequently attended the New School High School, later known as the Atlantic School and now defunct. He busies his time with computer-related activities and with the visitation of extremist websites. Sounds personal to me. If you want to start a user page and contribute to this site, go ahead. If not, your acts are very much obstructing others. Are you understanding what I'm trying to tell you? You...are...welcome...here. Just don't write about yourself. - Lucky 6.9 00:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete: "Freedom" does not mean license, as Benjamin Franklin observed. The vandal cries out that he is being censored when the cops are called, too. Encyclopedias differ from phone books, personal web pages, and commerce, even though those things might contain facts. This encyclopedia permits more than most (because of its format: it can allow more topics of ephemeral importance, as it is constantly updated and needn't fear being obsolete the day it's published), but that is not anarchy. In a state of total freedom, life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Geogre 00:19, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How are my actions obstructing others? Perhaps we will be doomed to censorship. The last bastion of free communication, the Internet, is about to be lost. The misguided tyranny of the majority may have its way. Will not a champion for freedom arise and answer the call?

OK, we've all had a laugh, and now it's time to end this. Kid, you're an idiot. You're half brain-dead, and that's the good half. You've been welcome until now to create a user page and type away about Danny Rosen-bleeding heart until hell freezes over. Instead, you plead "freedom" and "censorship" in the most agonizingly melodramatic way possible while all this time laughing your hiney off at the stupidity you've wrought. Will not a champion for freedom arise and answer the call? You sound like a Dudley Do-Right cartoon. Do you have any friends, Danny? I mean, outside the ones you watch on Cartoon Network, that is. Consider getting a life outside of "extremist websites" and spending less time with a copy of Maxim and a bottle of Jergens in the freaking bathroom. - Lucky 6.9 00:36, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This little SOB has been going under the user name of "Colinrorr." He blanked the discussion on this page and turned "Danny Rosenblatt" into a redirect to Freedom of Expression. I hope that I've redone it properly. What's the matter, Dan-dan? Do we gots to call the WAHHHH-mbulance? - Lucky 6.9 01:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC) .

Colinrorr, you do not have the right to clear text on public pages when you do not like what has been said. TheCustomOfLife 01:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This page was moved from Danny Rosenblatt to Freedom of Expression; moving VFD page to match. -- Grunt 01:14, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

"Colinrorr" has been warned that his behavior is unacceptable. If he tries it again, open fire. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

VFD tag is being removed repeatedly from this page by Colinrorr. -- Grunt 01:17, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

Delete, as not notable. Encourage user to create a userpage (; —siroxo 01:24, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

And we close today's discussion with a zinger! - Lucky 6.9 01:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, nonfamous.--Jerzy (t) 01:31, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)
Delete. This is not a question of "free speech" or any other noble abstract moral term, it's simply a question of following the rules. Misplaced Pages is not anarchy. Wyllium 14:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, probably autobiography. Note: after being transformed into a redirect to Freedom of Expression, the page was deleted by User:Guanaco. I'm not sure whether it was proper to do this prior to the expiration of the discussion and wish User:Guanaco would comment, but I think the original page was obviously deletable under Misplaced Pages policy, I think the consensus for deletion already exists, I think the redirect probably qualified for speedy deletion as patent nonsense; so I think it would be silly to restore the page just to allow the discussion to proceed. Therefore, in order to allow the discussion to proceed, here is the content that was originally under discussion. Users can still vote, and the article can be restored if there is no consensus at the end of the full VfD discussion period. Dpbsmith 20:08, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Danny Rosenblatt is an inhabitant of Aberdeen Township, where he has lived since his birth in Long Island in 1987. He attended the now defunt Atlantic School for four years before its closure. His hobbies mainly focus around Japanese culture. Daniel is afflicted with attention deficit disorder. He rose to prominence with his visitation of extremist websites.

I certainly haven't changed my mind. Maintain speedy deletion. - Lucky 6.9 21:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see why there needs to be more debate. There have been enough users who've decided on deletion. Mike H 21:37, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous waste of time for all concerned -- the offending page should be deleted at once. If Danny Rosenblatt is indeed the fellow who wrote the article, he is truly afflicted with attention deficit disorder, not to mention a lack of plain common sense.66.1.40.242 00:54, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. No prominence, no significance, no point. Average Earthman 14:35, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Look, I'm really sorry about all of this. My friend, whom you lovingly know as Colinrorr, thought it would be hilarious to post an article about me. Feel free to delete it, but don't get rid of everything he put here. For some absurd reason, he wrote an incredibly extensive article on the Iraqi resistance ] which is completely acceptable but inhumanly long. As for what he said about freedom of speech, he was probably making fun of you for taking him so seriously. He's a smart kid, but he has some really strange ways of amusing himself. Anyway I hope that this clears things up.--Sumolegend 23:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I just got a similar apology on my talk page. Hey, at least we have a great new BJAODN entry! - Lucky 6.9 23:26, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
One last thing I hope everyone here understands, I am not colinrorr, and none of the statements he made here are mine. He is friend of mine, who decided to play a joke on me. I just found out about all of this pretty recently. Anyway, I just wanted to clear up any confusion.--24.228.72.84 04:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bill Hartzer — Add to this discussion

Hoo-wee, do we ever have ourselves a self-promotional ad! - Lucky 6.9 23:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete Delete Delete! Ilyanep 23:12, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

24.228.82.146 went and blanked the page. I'm going to revert it. - Lucky 6.9 23:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I restored the VFD notice after 24.228.82.146 blanked the page, but failed to muster sufficient enthusiasm to restore the article text. —Stormie 23:22, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
I wonder if this Bill guy is hot. Oh, I'm sorry. Delete. TheCustomOfLife 23:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
LOL! Shoot, I went and put the text back up. I don't blame Stormie for a lack of enthusiasm! As for this guy being hot...that's a mental picture I can do without, thank you. :^P - Lucky 6.9 23:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Apologies, dear editor! :D TheCustomOfLife 23:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete - David Gerard 23:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Not to add insult to injury -- ok to add a little -- if he's a writer by trade, he ought not begin every sentence with his name and use only simple SVO constructions. Geogre 00:23, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. anthony (see warning)
Delete - Tεx τ urε 01:24, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Canni put my resume up too? Delete. --ssd 06:05, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, promotional, non-notable. He "has tried just about every website promotion trick in the book." I'll wager he thinks putting promotional articles in Misplaced Pages is a good "promotion trick." Although I guess I have to give him some kind of credit for not mentioning http://www.billhartzer.com/ in the article. Dpbsmith 02:20, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, unless ol' Bill can tell me how you "do" a website without leaving it , well, um, all sticky afterward. Denni ☯ 05:14, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
Oh, groovy. Still another mental picture I can do without. - Lucky 6.9 00:05, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If this is his best work, I'm afraid I won't be hiring him. Isomorphic 08:10, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Gary D 08:47, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 23

Reality checks (and False awakening) — Add to this discussion

Content duplicated at wikibooks here. Main author apologised on his talk page. r3m0t 17:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic use. This use should be included in the article but article should be extensively edited. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It's such a narrow usage that I don't know, outside of Carlos Castenada readers, whether it qualifies as anything but original research. On the other hand, "reality check" is a very common phrase for Wiktionary. I would unfortunately vote the same way for 'False Awakening.' Geogre 17:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Zarqawi Letter — Add to this discussion

Delete - Wikisource if necessary but it isn't an article - Tεx τ urε 00:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I posted it as a speedy to get a sysop's attention since I wasn't sure what to do with it. It's real, but it doesn't belong here. Didn't think of Wikisource, but that's a great place for it. - Lucky 6.9 00:09, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Umm, I think we should reserve vfd and speed delete for articles that we're pretty sure ought to be deleted. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Move to Wikisource if and only if a source reference can be located, otherwise delete. Given the nature of the letter, an unsourced text is not useful, I believe. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Elvis Presley's influence — discussion

Note: This is an archived copy of a closed discussion with regard to an article that has been deleted. Please do not edit this page. If you disagree with this article's deletion please bring up your concerns at Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion. Thank you.

Article Elvis Presley's influence listed on WP:VFD June 22 to July 1 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

~~Elvis Presley has a long section containing all this and more entitled "enduring influence". No need for this. ] 00:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)~~ User:Marcus2 has taken the material that used to be in Elvis Presley and moved it to this article. Should it still be deleted? I'm personally neutral, barring evidence. ] 01:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I almost posted this myself. It's just about useless. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 00:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It is completely useless. Who's going to look for it, and what on earth can that person learn from the search that isn't in Elvis Presley? Geogre 00:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for listing this: I speedily deleted it the other day then got complained at rather bitterly by Marcus2 who created it (see my message on cleanup). I still think it needs to be deleted. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This looks like a classic case of starting an article before you have any material. Delete, but without prejudice against any real article that may pop back up here. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:35, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If the "influence" section in main Elvis Presley article is expanded to a point where it burdens down that page, then it can be moved to here, but we're nowhere near that point yet. —Stormie 03:21, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with deleting for now; hopefully this or a similar article will be recreated in the future with plenty of details once the main article grows to a certain point. Everyking 05:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I'm still of the delete opinion. To me, the information belongs with Presley. It's a natural informational development of a discussion of the singer. On the other hand, robbing people of that information in that place to expect them to search separately for "EP's Influence" is unreasonable. It's just not as useful an organization. Even if we keep this article, the info should be in the main EP article. Geogre 02:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the "influence" material on Presley warrants a seperate article at this time. Revert the removal of the material from Elvis Presley and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree. Replace the material in the main Elvis Presley article, and delete. There is no good reason to separate this information from the main article. The elvis article is not overly long with the influence material. Separating it just makes it harder to find useful and interesting information. —siro χ o 08:02, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
Wait a minute, if you think that Elvis Presley's influence material shouldn't of been moved from the main article, I was wondering if you were aware about the article entitled, the Beatles' influence. If anything, it has no more reason to exist than the EP's influence article, and it has no more reason to be included in the Beatles' main article. --Marcus2
- That article was split out from the main article when it was twice the size of the Elvis influence material. If you want to break something out into a seperate article, you're going to have to make a better case than "This other article did it (under different circumstances)". -- Cyrius|✎ 19:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages exists for its articles to be expanded. --Marcus2
- So expand it. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I looked at the article, and it doesn't look that easy for me to do. I'm not too familiar with Elvis's influence, and there is definitely someone who is superior to me in the knowledge of this topic. --Marcus2
Comment: It's been rightfully pointed out that Misplaced Pages is not paper, but nor are servers cheap. This article doesn't say anything different than what one would find at the main article and it's highly unlikely that anyone would type in "Elvis Presley's influence" before merely typing "Elvis Presley" or even "Elvis." IMO, this doesn't even make for a good redirect. Tossing in the obligatory two cents yet again. - Lucky 6.9 23:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The influence info that used to be found in the main article has been cut out and moved to the EP's influence page, and it's no less unlikely that someone would dare type in "the Beatles' influence", an article that already exists. --Marcus2
Keep Elvis Presley's influence as a separate article. The influence of a deceased artist (using the term broadly here) is as much about the influencees as the influencer. Also, moving this stuff back into Elvis Presley would make it too long. Fwiw I don't think the server issue is relevant here, since, if anything, server load is lessened by splitting articles (assuming the total amount of text stays the same). Wile E. Heresiarch 15:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but Elvis Presley should have a summary rather than just a "see also" link. Fredrik | talk 17:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Move back to Elvis Presley and delete. RickK 18:56, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Again, were you not aware of an article entitled "the Beatles' influence"? --Marcus2 20:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Here's an important consideration. The Enduring legacy section is only vaguely about influence and mostly trivia about him and his accomplishments. If we wish to keep this page, the entire section titled "Enduring legacy" will have to be moved back to the main Elvis Presley page, leaving a stub. Regardless of whether people vote to keep the stub, that section must be moved back to Elvis Presley or at the very least to Elvis Presley trivia. The latter causing even more separation of information. So I keep my vote at delete. —siroχo 19:49, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
- OK. I've moved the section to the new article you pointed out. Now, as you know, there is a good amount of separation on info about the Beatles. Marcus2 00:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
merge and redirect; the main article is still to short for it to be split like this --Jiang 00:36, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Well, the article needs some expanding, but don't expect me to do all of it. Marcus2 00:38, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - Splits like this should only be made if the article is too long. This rarely occurs. Doing the split before it is necessary makes the article hard to read. --Jia ng 20:08, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Revert or re-merge and delete. -Sean Curtin 01:02, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- What exactly do you mean by this? Marcus2 09:01, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Again, don't expect me to do every bit of expanding. Everybody should chip in. Marcus2 13:53, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - If you weren't going to expand it yourself, why did you separate it out? Your arguments make it look like envy of the number and size of the articles on the Beatles. I really hope this is not the case. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Much to your satisfaction, not really. I just wanted to create this article so that in the future someone with far more knowledge of Elvis than I have will add more details to the article. That's what Misplaced Pages's all about after all. Marcus2 20:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - When it comes to splitting things out, we expand first, then split. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:03, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Is that exactly how it must be all the time? Marcus2 22:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - Unless somebody makes a convincing argument to make an exception. Which hasn't happened yet. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:44, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete - for this you need an entire article? - Tεx τ urε 00:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
By the way even though the article has been altered my vote is still to delete (I've crossed out my original vote above that referred to a sub stub) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:31, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I may not know a lot about Elvis's influence, but I do know that it's strong internationally, so it makes sense to me to begin an article about it. Marcus2 12:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - There isn't a single section in the Elvis article that's large enough to need a separate page, especially considering how sparse the article is right now. -Sean Curtin 16:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    - Now, most certainly not. Marcus2 22:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      - Nobody's saying Elvis can't have a page on his influence later. It's just that now, there isn't enough there for one. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    - Well, what about other pages that have stubs? Can't they exist if there isn't enough info yet? And besides, a lot has changed since I separated the inflence section from the Elvis Presley page. Marcus2 12:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      - I'm getting tired of repeating the same statements. This article was a section of an existing article. We generally do not separate out sections into their own articles unless they are big enough that they pose a problem for the original article and/or can stand alone. The section on Elvis's influence does not meet that criterion as it is a Please stop talking about other articles, and talk about this one.
And now Marcus2 has made things worse by separating out another article, Elvis Presley trivia, leaving Elvis Presley's influence as barely a stub! If people have a problem with this one being too small, what made you think it would be a good idea to turn it into two smaller articles!? Merge Elvis Presley's influence and Elvis Presley trivia back into Elvis Presley, and delete Template:Elvis Presley. As has been stated repeatedly, if you want them to have their own articles, expand them until they justify it first. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- How's about we just let it stand and see what becomes of it. Marcus2 21:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - How's about we don't? -- Cyrius|✎ 22:31, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - If you keep this up, I wouldn't be surprised if the Elvis articles all get protected at least until the VfD is over. Also: vote to re-merge Elvis Presley trivia into Elvis Presley and delete Template:Elvis Presley. -Sean Curtin 22:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I have a very good reason to keep it up. I'm still trying to get some sense into you. Let's just let it stand and see what someone has to say in the future. It's when something is separated that gets quicker attention, not when it's still part of an article. Marcus2 23:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- And I have not been frequently editing Elvis's pages! Marcus2 23:25, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Electronic voice phenomena — Add to this discussion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Votes for deletion/archive September 2004 page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004 was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Misplaced Pages milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 23, 2004	Articles for deletion	Kept
January 22, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
February 12, 2007	Articles for deletion	Kept
October 10, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The WikiProject banner below should be moved to this page's talk page. If this is a demonstration of the template, please set the parameter |category=no to prevent this page being miscategorised.

[REDACTED]

Paranormal NA‑class

[REDACTED]	This page falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This page was a past project collaboration.

Skepticism NA‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Spirituality NA‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Death NA‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Psychology NA‑class

	Psychology portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

invention of telephone

The telephone is the oldest technology that was used for EVP.

With the invention of telephone there was first time a device that could transmit human voices over long distance and convert between sound waves and electric signals. So in the telephone research labs of Graham Bell, people first time perceived yet unheard electric noise phenomena turned into sound through the phone receiver.

Bell himself was agnostic but sympathized with Unitarian belief. Particularly he was engaged in spiritualism and attempted to contact his dead brothers. Although his assistant Thomas A. Watson made seances as a medium, Bell sought scientific truth, so questioning fake stage magic tricks of psychics and the human tendency of self-delusion, he struggled to use his acoustics knowledge to develop technical means to directly communicate with the spirit realm - hoping to create a tool for more objective answers. Reports of his experimental discoveries raised interest in spiritualist groups; so e.g. "phone-voyant" mediums claimed to hear ghost voices in the crackling noises of early telephones.

Later Thomas Edison challenged Bell and Nikola Tesla who can first build a spirit phone. Although no device was found, the invention of telephone (talking to a person without seeing etc.) remained associated with ghosts. E.g. the German language word "anrufen" (to make a phone call) was previously solely used for calling a god or spirit being.

92.193.22.221 (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS of sources, none of which explicitly discuss the article topic (EVP). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The early telephone laboratories first time researched technology for transmission of voices through electricity; hence the historical spiritualist application of that knowledge is by definition even the origin of EVP research. Therefore this clearly belongs to the core topic of this article. 92.193.107.75 (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC)

ITC not mention? EVP is part of ITC. ~~ED~~ 2607:FEA8:483:8E00:1078:240D:8BA0:6B4A (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s mentioned 3 separate times in the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Debt-free Money — Add to this discussion

Debt free money is the term a small number of groups on the very fringe use for what economists call "fiat money". It either needs to be completely reworked so that it is NPOV or deleted. (This unsigned entry was submitted by User:Stirling Newberry) ---- SWAdair | Talk 04:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Strange - the VfD listing does a better job of describing "debt free money" than the article does. A more complete, NPOV version already exists at Fiat money. SWAdair | Talk 05:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
How about a redirect to Fiat Money? Abstain Thesteve 08:54, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to fiat money as suggested. FWIW Debt-free Money was originally written by User:Johngelles to promote his ideas about monetary reform. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. We already voted to delete a similar article by User:Johngelles entitled (Debt-free, Tax-free, Indexed Fiat Money) so it is arguably a candidate for speedy deletion. Dpbsmith 19:56, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Didn't we dismiss those as original research? Either delete or redirect if so. - Lucky 6.9 21:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Do not redirect. The concept described here is not the same as fiat money. It is, however, original research by User:Johngelles. Rossami 21:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In which case, buh-bye. - Lucky 6.9 22:51, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete - Tεx τ urε 00:09, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to fiat money if the term is used outside of Misplaced Pages. anthony (see warning)

Klutz — Add to this discussion

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation

VfD Debate

Article listed on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion Jun 23 to 29 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Dictdef. Rick K 06:28, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep as this a fairly well used term, and I certain something more than a dictdef will come of it. Burgundavia 10:05, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, ditto. Hey, there's even a well-established series of how-to books entitled "Klutz Guides", starting with "Juggling for the Complete Klutz." Dpbsmith 12:42, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I tried to rewrite it into a keepable stub. I think it can be expanded upon. Let's keep. blankfaze | •• 17:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Important Yiddish contrib to English. jengod 22:09, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Misplaced Pages's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 05:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a term in Icelandic "klaufi" with the exact same meaning, it's probably a related word, should this be added?

Publisher name no coincidence

I take issue with the sentence, John Cassidy has used the coincidence of the name of the publisher and the Yiddish word to exploit the title in some of his books, for instance Juggling for the Complete Klutz. I believe the name of the publisher arose from the title Juggling for the Complete Klutz, their first book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.171 (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bupkes — Add to this discussion

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

Talk:Bupkes/Delete

So, what is it?

Having this entry redirect to Yiddish is pointless. When I look a word up, I want to know what it means. I just looked up bupkes, and the amount of information I got was "it's yiddish". On a scale of usefulness of 1 to 10, that's maybe a 0.5. --Kamagurka 10:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete it. IZAK 21:46, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Chutzpah — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Chutzpah

Nexuiz — Add to this discussion

Advert ping 08:16, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
In development. Wait for its release before deserving of entry. delete Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Game has not yet been released and therefore is not yet notable. Delete. After the game has been released and has become a hit, then it might appropriate to create the article. Rossami 21:52, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Some unreleased games are notable. Games being developed by notable people (like John Carmack or Sid Meier), or games that are famous for being unfinished (Duke Nukem Forever). This one is, however, not. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:31, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ableton Live — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Ableton Live

Trypticon — Add to this discussion

Crap ping 08:21, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Someone's watching too much TV. Delete. Ilyanep 01:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I'm nearly on autopilot, voting delete for posts from people not making an effort. Moriori 02:15, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
Right on! Honestly, if you were an elementary or middle school teacher and someone turned in a report like this irregardless of subject, what kind of grade would you give? Someone gets an "F" and a delete vote. - Lucky 6.9 16:53, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: If he's not so big in the comic, he must steal smaller buildings and just personal keepsakes, I guess. Geogre 17:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep as stub. anthony (see warning)
Someone put this here without putting in the notice which I just added.. It's badly written. I vote to delete unless it gets rewritten. --ssd 06:10, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I just made it into a (hopefully) suitable stub. Postdlf 18:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Cheese Profiler — Add to this discussion

More crap. Moriori 08:34, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Very delete. Geogre 12:54, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, not useful, not encyclopedic, possibly promotional. (I was going to vote for deletion even if the site itself were amusing, but it's not). Dpbsmith 13:03, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Great. We are now being compared to cheese. Ha, ha. Funny! Delete. - Lucky 6.9 15:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not notable or encyclopedic. If I want cheese, I'll go to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cheeses. —Stormie 01:48, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
Say what?!? I love it! - Lucky 6.9 05:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, its c..p, (I have been told not to use the word crap)

Incidentally how is Lucky 6.9 voting? ping 08:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Someone needs to be pointed out that Misplaced Pages is not their weblog. Average Earthman 14:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
LOL! Ping, I already voted to delete. Surprise! :^)) Love the cheese project, BTW. - Lucky 6.9 16:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, clearly. But in case any of you were wondering:
- Cheese results
- Your name is: Misplaced Pages
- Your cheese rating is: Edam
  - Edam is a pressed semi-hard cheese from The Netherlands. It comes in a distinctive ball shape, covered in red wax. It has a plastic texture, with a smooth, sweet taste. Edam also comes in black wax, which indicates that it has been matured for at least 17 weeks. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽
Cute enough, but please delete. Fire Star 14:40, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, but copy to Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. -Branddobbe 06:06, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

Horseshit — Add to this discussion

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Votes for deletion/archive September 2004 page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics NA‑class

	Linguistics portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Deletion proposal

RESOLVED Redirect to Bullshit.

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

Article listed on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion June 23 to July 3 2004, consensus was to redirect to Bullshit. Discussion:

Dicdef. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From the enterer: Yep. Dictionary definition. I didn't see anything in the rules that barred something from including one of those. Why shouldn't an entry begin it's life as a dictionary definition, or dicdef as you so aptly put it? Everything has a definition, after all. And it's a safe bet that when someone else runs across it, and thinks "Hey, I can make that a little better" that they will. After all, that's kinda the point of the whole website, is it not?
- Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Deletion_policy, and with special notice to: "articles that could never be more than dictionary definitions, etc." I don't think horseshit merits its own article. Johnleemk | Talk 12:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - Luckily I wasn't the only one who didn't entirely agree with that.
I'd suggest instead that it be merged and redirected to bullshit, which is already more than a dictionary definition. The metaphorical uses of both terms are strongly similar. Smerdis of Tlön 15:47, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I have added the bit about Big Trouble in Little China to bullshit, and also added a discussion of the difference between bullshit and horseshit to the bullshit page. Smerdis of Tlön 16:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - Enterer again: That makes much more sense than outright deletion. At least there's a reference point for the word and I can live with that. :) Thank you.
Good merge guys, very well done. I vote for a redirect. Also, enterer, in case you were wondering use 4 tildes (~ ~ ~ ~ without the spaces) to sign and date your posts. —siroχo 21:07, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
- ooh.. good info thanks! Except I'm an IP address right now. ;) No matter, at least the timestamp is nice.. 206.53.197.12 21:21, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to bullshit, it's a minor variation on the same theme. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:20, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Disambiguate or redirect to nonsense. anthony (see warning)

End discussion

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Where is the truth?

The article reads: Again one would not say "I feel like bullshit". However, Google search results show that "I feel like bullshit" is 20x more common than "I feel like horseshit". 85.193.247.94 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yalvaç — Add to this discussion

238kByte; untranslated since June 5. --Magnus Manske 14:03, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
It's blank. -- Mud 19:55, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Looks like someone replaced is with a VFD notice instead of adding one. I've restored text, kept VFD notice. -- Jmabel 23:05, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Rather than delete outright, we should presumably move it to the Turkish-language wikipedia, with a note on what has happened. -- Jmabel 23:05, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
The following is the discussion from Misplaced Pages:Pages needing translation into English:

Yalvaç - no idea what language. Thue 14:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I think it's Turkish. -- Jmabel 02:34, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
  - This looks like a copyvio - its been copied and pasted in from somewhere - but i can't find it. Secretlondon 18:01, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - It's now on VFD. -- Jmabel 23:06, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. I'd rather not pass off something that resembles copyvio as this does onto another Misplaced Pages. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

HeavenGames — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/HeavenGames

List of eponymous anatomical structures — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/List of eponymous anatomical structures

EEP — Add to this discussion

The phrase "External Electronic Photomanipulation" gets exactly 0 google hits, and the current article doesn't even go so far as to give a definition. Any evidence this isn't made up? Also delete its redirect, Eep. --Delirium 18:23, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

"External Electronic Photomanipulation" comes off as nonsense if you take each word one at a time. Photomanipulation...manipulating with light? Electronic light? From what external source? Either that or someone just likes the sound of "Eep." Delete. Eep. - Lucky 6.9 21:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The word "Photomanipulation" is used here to refer to alteration of a photograph. This sounds like a neologism for Photoshop. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 04:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Lordy, lordy, even if it were meaningful, we'd be deleting it as a dictdef, and it can't be made meaningful, seems to me. (Photoshop isn't external, after all.) This is just weird. Geogre 14:23, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Does not make sense. Andris 00:54, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Those who cannot bring themselves to delete anything may want to add this little, um, something to TLA. Otherwise, an excellent plan would be to delete, seeing as how sometimes articles can actually have negative content. (information factor minus howdumbdoyouthinkiam factor equals content factor). Denni ☯ 05:33, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

Turks Head Jugglers — Add to this discussion

This seems to be more of an advertisement for an insignificant juggling group in Pennsylvania. -- Mud 18:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But...but...they're COOL! Be there or have a bowling pin thrown at your head! Yeah...delete. Mike H 19:06, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Promotional. There are an impressive 276 Google hits on "turks head jugglers" in quotes, but inspection shows that virtually all of them are extensive lists of juggling clubs or Pennsylvania organizations or things of that sort, almost none are articles specifically about that club. Dpbsmith 23:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with the above reason. It has the Google hits, but the pages that it brings up are lists of recommendations, just a blurb about the organization, or a link to their main site. Josie Cotton 00:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Promotion for a non-notable group. Andris 00:52, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Christine Jennings — Add to this discussion

Article Christine Jennings listed on WP:VFD Jun 24 to Jul 3 2004. Was listed on here and on copyvio page for more than seven days with no improvement so it was deleted. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The woman is most definitely notable enough, but the way this article is written, it's basically a campaign pitch. Mike H 19:24, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Then the right thing to do is to keep it, and add it to Misplaced Pages:Cleanup citing rampant POV. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:28, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know of anyone who actually knows the woman's private history to write it accurately. That's why I moved to delete it. Whoever wants to write it correctly can do so by starting the page up again. You can move it to cleanup if you wish. Mike H 19:30, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Copyvio from a campaign site; I'd have rewritten, but her campaign site bio is so poorly done (rewrite if you're reading this, Jennings campaign) that it's unworkable. Delete as copyvio. ] 01:26, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete if no one rewrites. Even her notability is pretty marginal--she's been president of a one-branch bank that just got bot out, and she's in her first election campaign, as one of 4 Dems trying to unseat a Rep incumbent--she's not even the leading Dem in the race. Niteowlneils
- I'd still say that merits an article--for pete's sake, we have an article on John Hagelin (the candidate for Pres. of the United States Natural Law Party). ] 15:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep if rewritten or otherwise survives copyvio. anthony (see warning)

Man Kit — Add to this discussion

Vanity. RickK 19:59, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. —Stormie 01:45, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
I liked vanity pages better when they were just irrelevant. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Meaning drift — Add to this discussion

Huh? RickK 20:12, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Following the external link leads not to a religious site, but another vanity page. -- Mud 20:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What the...? Delete all as patent nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 21:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I thought it might refer to semantic drift and "differance," but no. Geogre 00:11, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This author has drifted from the meaning of notable article. Delete. Ilyanep 02:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Clean air — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Clean air

Elephant man's shankle — Add to this discussion

Entire content is "shankle is one of the versions of shizzle used by reggae deejay Elephant Man. ( shankle my nankle /shelbow my nelbow (take one from the elbow) )" Joyous 21:43, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Fo' shizzle, dawg. Delete as nonsense and maybe post to BJAODN, yo! - Lucky 6.9 22:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Word. Ilyanep 01:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete as a dreadful waste. It would be good if all users contributed, but it would be nicer still if they read an article or two in the process of being users. Geogre 00:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. grendel|khan 02:22, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
Delete. -- pne 05:15, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. To the author of the "article": Misplaced Pages really isn't the place for slang such as this. Perhaps you should list it, instead, on UrbanDictionary.com. -Chayves4u 01:31, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fire Star 14:43, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete Michael L. Kaufman 18:52, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Cat-and-mouse game — Add to this discussion

Was listed on cleanup, but I've already added its contents on BJAODN considering it contains nothing about the actual type of dialogue or interchange I think of when hearing the phrase "cat and mouse game." Ed Cormany 21:57, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
LOL! Looks like we have us a dog lover. Delete here, keep on BJAODN. - Lucky 6.9 22:50, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 24

Snieper

Meant to be an article about Dnieper river. Just made a typo. Dnieper article is already corrected. Please delete this poor Snieper.

I think this is a speedy delete. Ilyanep 01:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There's redirects for deletion for this sort of thing. This item should be moved there. grendel|khan 02:24, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)

Neurosquatemetry

Can't make heads or tails out of it. Looks like insane ramblings, possibly spam. grendel|khan 01:19, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)

Maybe the author needs a neurosquatemetry :) Delete. Ilyanep 01:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Make it one with nacho cheese sauce just to make it interesting. - Lucky 6.9 05:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Smells of quackery to me. Average Earthman 14:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Looks bizarre. Based in Nigeria, yet the founder was divorced in Dallas in 2000. Delete. DJ Clayworth 19:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete ometry - Tεx τ urε 22:12, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Obscure. 14 google hits, including Misplaced Pages:Votes for Deletion. Andris 00:50, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. An interdisciplinary committee of intelligometricians appraising this metapseudointellectual document has postulated that at-the-statistical-mean contemporary postevolutionary intelligences would unambivalently classify this polysyllabic piece of shit as just that. 3 (specializations) ≠ 2 (namelys). As if anyone gave a neurosquat. Denni ☯ 06:21, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
Oh, indoobabubblelootly. Denni, I swear you ought to consider a career in stand-up comedy. - Lucky 6.9 08:12, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Omar Al Masri — Add to this discussion

Vanity - Omar Al Masri is not "one of the esteemed journalists in Australia", he's a blogger. —Stormie 03:24, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

If his journalism consists of a blog, delete - Tεx τ urε 03:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Talk about vanity. And, get this: He's associated himself with that Hatem Elmohandis character whose vanity page was deleted a couple of weeks ago! No question that this should be deleted, possibly speedy. - Lucky 6.9 06:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If merely a blogger, delete. Average Earthman 14:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Unless there is evidence that he is more than a blogger, delete. DJ Clayworth 13:52, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Blogger. anthony (see warning)
- Comment: Gotta disagree with you on that, A. If I start my own grandiose blog page, can I self-promote it here? Sure, right up to the time someone else posts it here for deletion. - Lucky 6.9 21:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Gary D 08:50, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, vanity. --Merovingian✍Talk 03:23, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Tp ordut payin and Irguk Glabitol — Add to this discussion

These have had their two weeks on Misplaced Pages:Pages needing translation into English. No one has rescued them. Here's the comments from there:

Tp ordut payin - no idea what language. Andris 03:58, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Not sure what language, but I think it's just some generic notice about editing wiki text and should be deleted as soon as its two weeks are up. -- Jmabel 18:04, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)
Irguk Glabitol - I'm guessing that this, and the above Tp ordut payin, are both Tokipona, based on a comment made from the same IP address. —Stormie 04:07, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Toki pona doesn't look like that, though thinks it's Turkish. Delete anyway. Dysprosia 06:54, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now this is damned intriguing. I don't think it's Turkish; it doesn't have any of the Turkish characters. It looks like transliterated Hebrew crossed with Danish. Delete it anyway. Smerdis of Tlön 11:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Galikork?" "Galifrok?" I think it's gibberish. Kinda funny, but delete. - Lucky 6.9 16:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can't work out what language it is either. Not Turkish - doesn't look like Toki Pona... Pak-Pak is the name of a language and people in Indonesia but this is an example and it looks nothing like. It intreges me - I don't think it is gibberish and would love to know which language. However - still delete. Secretlondon 20:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

a few words are coming up as transliterated Russian... Secretlondon 20:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The word 'dlini' may be a clue - /dl/ is a very rare combination. But it appears to be a valid russian word. Morwen - Talk 21:05, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Could it be transliterated from some other Slavic language? Some words (dlini, ochen) are valid in Russian but other words are not. Andris 00:46, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

To me it seems that language of Tp ordut payin is a constructed language, with words borrowed from several languages or invented (eryudat - edit, invented; payin - page, sounds Romanic; teksta - text, Slavic; entraro - enter, Romanic). The first sentence obviously says "Everyone can edit a Wiki page". Irguk Glabitol seem to be in another language, probably also constructed. I guess that the guy who made the pages, obviously interested in conlangs, invented them. Nikola 06:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete if still untranslated. I have a sneaking suspicion they'd still merit deletion even in English. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:57, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My guess that it was Toki Pona was based on the anon that created both articles seemed to be complaining that User:Isomorphic had deleted his Tokipona articles: see . Although a closer read suggests maybe that the deleted articles were written in another (unspecified) language. That's neither here nor there, really, and I say Delete on the grounds that none of us even know what language these articles are written in and thus nobody is likely to translate them any time soon! —Stormie 01:53, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Pli no skoptoki google nihanni hits peqannaha for arsb a ternin single onioto word pohseitsh in thglrdro these btee titles. Except for "ordut", which is Finnish for something. Delete as fake language. Denni ☯ 06:34, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
Delete. I'm sure it's toki pona. I remember this user. He was apparently trying to write a Misplaced Pages interface in toki pona, but had no clue what he was doing, and was writing his translations in the English Misplaced Pages article namespace. Isomorphic 07:02, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Seems to be a conlang, nonencyclopedic. Delete, agree w/ Stormie and Denni. --Merovingian✍Talk 03:30, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Either — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Either

Evropa — Add to this discussion

Basically just a bunch of junk on the page -- looks like a Sandbox. --Small business 16:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I concur. Delete. -- Mud 17:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Can't stuff like this be speedily deleted? — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 18:02, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
Delete: Looks like someone passed out while writing a misspelled "Europa" article. Hope the hangover the next day wasn't too bad. Geogre 18:04, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's sad when an epileptic seizure strikes while typing. Delete. Dukeofomnium 18:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Ooh, that's painful looking. Unquestionably a speedy delete. To the poster: Have some of the hair of the dog that bit you. You'll feel better. - Lucky 6.9 18:43, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Homicide vs. NYPD Blue — Add to this discussion

No, it's unfortunately not the name of a lawsuit... Nonencyclopedic, to say the least. An article on cop shows generally could make valid comparisons, but I don't think any of us want to go down this particular road...eventually we'd see every variant of "The first season of Star Trek v. the fourth season of Babylon 5." I can't see this poorly written stub becoming anything at all in its hopefully short life, let alone anything NPOV. --Postdlf 11:38 24 June 2004 (UTC)

Delete it. "Worst episode ever." Geogre 13:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete.
Delete - this is not an encyclopaedic entry. Average Earthman 14:43, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not even close. Kill it. - Lucky 6.9 16:16, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete for all the above reasons. DJ Clayworth 18:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete Michael L. Kaufman 18:50, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete for reasons listed above. Andris 00:41, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
It's so bad I almost want to say keep it, for humor's sake. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. DELETE. Spleeman 04:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Exploding Boy 04:42, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep it! (I wrote the stub and planned to expand it shortly!) My idea was not to argue on which show was the best one. My aim behind this page was to show how, by the late 90s, TV shows have been able to tell quite similar stories in some various different ways, (esthetics, philosophy, ...), in order to meet the different expectations of people watching TV shows. Regarding the "poorly written", sorry folks, I do my best to write in English, which is not my primary language ! Any corrections and suggestions are welcome ! Lvr 09:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- In that case, I might suggest that you start anew at something like police melodrama, and broaden your coverage to the dozens of tedious clones of similar shows. There's something rotten at the core of a country that seems to be endlessly entertained by Method-acted browbeatings and moralistic courtroom speeches in action-free police procedurals. Smerdis of Tlön 11:48, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - Unfortunately I don't know enough on cops shows to write an entire sociologist article on the topic. All I know is about these two specific shows that have been widely compared and analyzed on usenet (that's the reason I know about this topic). Maybe I should start a stub for police melodrama based on the material and reflection I have gathered for the article Homicide vs. NYPD Blue. But if you all agree this is a totally unuseful issue, I just give up with it ! I have plenty of other stuff to write about ... Lvr 12:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- If you do write this article, it needs a different name (Commonalities in 1990s police shows?). But even then it would be an essay. DJ Clayworth 14:05, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Could be a good article if it had some detail, would be quite useful as an example of these things. Keep if the author does indeed expand it. Everyking 15:42, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'll buy that. I feel that we all prefer keeping a potentially useful article over a deletion any day, and the author makes a compelling argument. Can this just sit on the back burner after the discussion period and see what develops? - Lucky 6.9 06:06, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Even if there were a way to make this an encyclopedic article which isn't original research, this wouldn't be the proper title for it anyway. anthony (see warning)
Delete it. I think this issue may provide a good article if treated with some depth. I will come later with an article with a larger overview, covering not only the US shows I know but also some of the EU ones I know, and trying to compare them. Lvr 09:52, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Great Explosion at Faversham — Add to this discussion

Article The Great Explosion at Faversham listed on WP:VFD July 1 to July 7 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

CONSENSUS REQUIRED 7 DAYS EXPIRED...Faedra 23:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Above comment by Faedra copied and pasted from vfd mainspace Graham ☺ | Talk 00:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Faedra listed this for VfD, but didn't leave a reason. Looks like it was manually copied from a book. I can't get any Google matches on the text. - Lucky 6.9 19:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This was originally on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Old, but lacked consensus and thus has been moved back to VfD. Johnleemk | Talk 09:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(not a vote) Discussion on Talk:The Great Explosion at Faversham suggests Faedra believes it's a copyvio, but it was Faedra who uploaded it. We can't proceed - Faedra either needs to decide it's a copyvio, and list it on the appropriate page, or needs to come up with grounds why it should be deleted by the VfD process (where non-copyvio deletions are covered). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It gets weird, now. Check out Faversham munitions disaster/temp. Same user. There's a copyright notice at the top of the page. No Google hits, though. For that matter, no wikis and lots of misspellings. - Lucky 6.9 23:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There's some sort of copyright message on User:Faedra page that I don't quite get. Is he posting copyrighted material, and then working on de-violating it once its up? Maybe he's putting up the copyright notice to let people know he's not finished??? Joyous 00:47, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
All no google hits means is that google's spiders have not found it, which should not be a surprise if it has never appeared on the web, which can be said to be true of practically all non-notable twentieth century works. I'm betting this is the work of a professional writer, and the material constitutes a copyvio, but because it was never electronically transliterated, who knows for sure? I'd like to say keep, because it's interesting and well-written, but my instinct says it's too clean to be true. I vote delete, and let's follow the debate. Denni ☯ 06:55, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

The location of a website containing the source for the main body my wiki pages (at this time) resides temp. at my user page. Initially I had wished to remove some of my contributions as I saw them as superficial to an encyclopaedia, I have chosen to rework them because of positive feed back on this page, my copyright notices are self explanatory. I am a careless speller, and I am not a professional author, having not made a shilling on my work, which is why I was initially concerned for my copyright, hence the need to rework everything I have submitted before I continue with new material.

NB THIS PAGE: (VfD) URGENT: I find this page unwieldy, and hope someone can sub divide it into a page for each week or set up a frameset with shortcuts. This contrib. does not help in that regard, but I hope clarifies my desire to present the community with unproblematic content at the same time preserving my original content, still under construction, and with copyright problems unresolved. phew! Faedra 17:58, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's a little less unwieldy if you put your comments on the Template page instead of using the section edit feature. Rossami

End discussion

1780 in Canada — Add to this discussion

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: History NA‑class

	Canada portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This page is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.

Years NA‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Lists NA‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
NA	This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

History NA‑class

	History portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This page is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Untitled

This page was placed on Votes for Deletion in June 2004. Consensus was to keep; view discussion at /Delete.

Swissair

Delete: We already have Swiss International Air Lines. Saopaulo1
Keep, or merge, or something. Swissair was the predecessor of Swiss International Air Lines, and the two articles' complement each other. Ianb 18:04, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep, don't merge. The two entities are sufficiently different to justify different articles. Finlay McWalter | Talk
Merge...something like used to be Swissair and make a paragraph on it. Ilyanep (Talk) 18:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep as separate article. WP currently maintains a number of articles on defunct companies, mostly as historical accounts of what transpired during their existence. There is even a category, Category:Defunct companies, which includes dead companies and current subsidiaries that used to be independent. With seventy years of Swissair existence, this article could retain a lot of historical content that would otherwise just bloat the Swiss International Air Lines article. --Gary D 19:09, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have now rearranged the article a bit to emphasize its historicity. --Gary D 19:31, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep--] 21:39, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

We keep articles on notable dead people, why not notable dead companies? -- Cyrius|✎ 21:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep as historically significant. Heck, I wrote about the Crusader 101, a toy that's been out of production for nearly forty years and I didn't get called on it. In fact, someone expanded the article a bit. - Lucky 6.9 23:04, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. Keep. - David Gerard 20:47, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Mad Crowd" Disease

The return of the previously deleted POV rant. Speedy sure wouldn't bother me at this point. - Lucky 6.9 18:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was the original VfD poster. It was POV then, it's POV now. Kill it. Kill it now. Kill it painfully. (that's 'Delete', if you're wondering). Dukeofomnium 18:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Language of that sort is out of place here. All you need say is "delete". Wile E. Heresiarch 21:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  - Oh, please. Don't be so uptight. RickK 04:20, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  - sERIOUSLY. Spleeman 04:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I speedy deleted it twice, but perhaps a vote will convince the poster to stop bothering up with this piffle. - DavidWBrooks 18:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It was already voted on - that's why it was deleted in the first place. User should have it explained why it was deleted, and if they persist, be blocked (I'll do the explaining). DJ Clayworth 18:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I deleted "Mad Crowd" Disease following vfd voting a day or two ago. In defense of the author, let me note that there was a spurious claim that the article was a copyvio. It is possible that the author believes that the article was deleted for being a copyvio, which indeed would be completely inappropriate. However, it was in fact deleted for being a personal essay and/or original research; see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/"Mad Crowd" Disease. Probably this summary should be brought to the attention of User:Paxdora. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Leland Thorpe

This is vanity. I know this guy, and I deserve an encyclopedia entry more than he does.

Please let us know who you are. Yes, I questioned this article when it first came up. Delete. And the redirect Leland thorpe. RickK 19:08, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
Just a random professor. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I actually doubt that he's a professor. According to google, he is a high school frisbee player on Hampton team. Andris 00:40, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
dELETE. Spleeman 04:46, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. A google search indicates that Chuck Thorpe is dean of the Qatar campus (and was director of Carnegie Mellon's Robotics institute 2001-), and Leland is his son.
Keep. If you run a finger lelandt@andrew.cmu.edu, it will show you that he is indeed the associate dean of the new campus. 1 Average Earthman 12:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- In any case, I will keep my delete vote. "Leland Thorpe" only returns 41 hits on google which puts him into "non-notable" category (and "Leland Thorpe" +Qatar returns zero hits). Andris 20:15, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Leland is a valid candidate for an encyclopedia entry. Being the founder of the Hampton ultimate team he should be on this website. Again, he is the accociate dean of the Qatar campus.
Keep. Mr. Thorpe will be the head high school education outreach coordinator for the new Qatar campus. He will be leading the CMU effort to bring robotics and technology to the local students, being a chief driving force to the development of the Middle East.
Delete. He even admitted on his blog that the article was an experiment.. Furthermore, founding a high school ultimate frisbee team is not noteworthy. For the sake of accuracy, the Associate Dean of the CMU Qatar campus is Robert P. Kail . Chris N. 21:24, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:17, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete as not notable and because I loathe sockpuppets. - Lucky 6.9 06:02, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless expanded with lots of accomplishments a lot more noteworthy than what I've seen so far. --ssd 14:42, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. No vote because I too loathe sockpuppets. anthony (see warning)

Autagonist

Made up word. See Misplaced Pages:Village pump#Can I create my own words ?. RickK 19:03, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

As already noted on Talk:Autagonist, the coiner of the term and author of the article admits it doesn't belong here. I would argue, however, that the word is of sufficient usefulness not to simply be deleted. If Gdr is willing to host it as a subpage of his user account, I hope he will. If not, I will take it in as a subpage of mine. I believe the term may someday prove of use in the world of literary terms, and when that happens, I'd like the page history of that article intact. That's my perspective. Jwrosenzweig 19:07, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You don't need to be an Autagonsit to relize...delete. Ilyanep (Talk) 19:17, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Autogonist would be a better spelling anyway. Fredrik | talk 19:35, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Nice word. But delete. User can put it in user space if they want. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I really wish this was a real word. Currently neutral. Rhymeless 20:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete--] 21:32, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I don't see the utility of the term, actually. An authorial stand-in, if it's readily recognizable and bears the name of the author, is, well, an authorial stand-in. (Oh, and I'd argue pretty strongly that Geoffrey Chaucer the character and author are radically different people. The man wouldn't have thought Sir Thopas was good.) Geogre 00:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Author surrogate is a sufficient article on this topic. This is not only a neologism, it's redundant. Delete. -Sean Curtin 22:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Mr. Jones 07:18, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alfred Jewel

All material, plus an illus., are at Alfred the Great Wetman 19:39, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) ~~:Apparently already merged...delete. Ilyanep (Talk) 19:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)~~

The Alfred the Great article is already quite long, and surely there's enough to be said about the Jewel to make it a complete article on its own, so I say keep. Everyking 22:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep as a separate article; move stuff out of Alfred the Great (incl illustration). The "Alfred Jewel" is only incidentally about Alfred, and the description of the jewel is lost at the end of a long article about history & politics. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On further consideration, Keep Ilyanep (Talk) 22:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Keep: The material on "Alfred" should probably exist to explain the illustration, while the separate article could be wished longer and fuller (poss. incl. some of Alfred's artisan shops, his Pastoral Care as evidence of giving to churches (the "bookmark" he gave with it). Geogre 12:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

History of the Ryukyu Kingdom — Add to this discussion

Poster never added a reason. In its current state, the article is very bad (over 30 external links and nothing else). Someone should look into those links and make the article. Keep & Cleanup. Ilyanep (Talk) 22:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm on the fence on this. Ilyanep brings up a good point, but this isn't a link repository. No vote yet. - Lucky 6.9 22:55, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
speedy delete this under the "no useful content" guideline --Jia ng 23:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'll buy that. Speedy delete. The guy couldn't be bothered to do the research, so neither should those who search for information here. - Lucky 6.9 00:00, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I may work on this tomorrow evening... I have made a back-up of the links on my personal space. --] 00:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I'll stub it if User:OldakQuill doesn't beat me to it. Frankly I'm not entirely happy with using vfd as a cleanup list, although I have to admit this article is pretty marginal. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:52, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Since we have two folks stepping up to the task, I withdraw my delete vote. - Lucky 6.9 01:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Exploding Boy 04:41, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep now that it has actual text. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 05:29, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
FYI, this page was listed on WP:AotW, so that is why I believe he dropped the links on to it. Burgundavia 08:54, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It has potential to be an interesting subject, especially to karate students, but it does need to be cleaned up... Fire Star 14:52, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep, certainly. I've added a few things, and learned something in the process. Charles Matthews 08:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Throw it to cleanup or maybe Article of the Week. Neutrality 19:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IITYWIMWYBMAD — Add to this discussion

DUMB joke. Even the logic is wrong. - Lucky 6.9 23:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete: I can't see anyone as the victim of the joke going to an encyclopedia to look it up, unless they carry a laptop with wi-fi to a bar, and if that's the case, then, well, buying drinks is the least of their problems. Non-encyclopedic -- a catalog of pranks. Geogre 00:26, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless. (Note that voter "PM"s only other contribution (besides the two votes) to WP is a pic that appears to be a copyvio ) Niteowlneils 02:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Answer to Niteowlneils : The picture is simply a mistake, I messed up with the french version of Misplaced Pages (where I've added several useful things). And your note isn't giving any valid reason for the deleting of this article (like the two we have just below). Then I still want to tell Lucky that the logic is no wrong, maybe the example doesn't ring a bell to you, but someone may modify it to make it more clarous. The point is that this acronym has a real meaning and it should figure somewhere on Misplaced Pages (maybe in a page about jokes or acronyms). Keep but clarify. Still --PM 18:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, of course. Doesn't even belong on bad jokes. RickK 04:17, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete! Exploding Boy 04:39, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Sure it's pretty dumb, but i think it still can be a very useful page for victims of this joke.
And I don't see why the logic is wrong, I got myself trapped in it once and it seemed very logical to me. --PM 23:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, i forgot that point : of course, I think we should keep it. --PM 23:35, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I still think the logic is backwards. If I were to ask this, uh, question, I wouldn't expect the victim to answer, "If I tell you, will you buy me a drink?" It might work as a written joke but not as a spoken one. Besides, this is as non-encyclopedic as it gets, IMO. - Lucky 6.9 23:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Do we need a special category for deleting stuff just because it's really dumb? Delete. -- Jmabel 00:10, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

(see below)~~Keep~~ This is a common prank, and produces over a thousand google hits. I see no good reason to delete it, as it is a real occurence in society. I've personally heard of this a few times, as well. Also, the logic is fine. The victim is informed of the acronym, and asks the joker what it means, the joker then says "If I tell you what it means, will you buy me a drink?" The victim say "yes, so tell me", wash, rinse, repeat. Its not the most encyclopedic thing, but the info should certainly be here on wikipedia. If not on its own page, documented under some jokes heading. —siro χ o 03:10, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - I feel very strongly that we should not catalog every prank and joke in Western culture, including ones like the above that are so obviously funny to the teller alone (of which I can envision a myriad of myriads). Many stupid things are said in bars to try and make oneself look superior to the idiot sitting at the next stool. I have no desire to read about them in Misplaced Pages. Jwrosenzweig 17:05, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I most certainly agree that we should not catalog every prank. Yet, I think that this one is common enough to merit some sort of description. Regardless of who looks stupid, and who its funny too, it is a relatively common social occurence. Is there any other wikiproject to document this in? Probably not, its not really a quote or dicdef. I'm not defending this because I think its exceptionally funny or clever, rather I don't want to see real ideas left out of the[REDACTED] because the majority of people don't agree with them. However, in the interests of those who beleive it does not merit its own article, I tend to agree that it is a minor topic. So i change my vote to condense the information presented, merge with List of acronyms and initialisms, and leave as a redirect Sound reasonable? (; —siroχo 20:24, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
  - I don't think the fact that this exists somewhere means that it must therefore be catalogable in a Wikimedia project. A common prank in grade school is to pull a chair out from behind someone as they're sitting down. I don't think we need a page anywhere describing The pulling out the chair prank and how to avoid it. I will, however, agree to the merge into the acronym list if it is the will of the rest here. Jwrosenzweig 21:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If I tell you what BJAODN means, will you buy me a drink? Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:28, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No, but I'll eep in your ear. :^)) - Lucky 6.9 21:47, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, it's not even funny. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:40, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. One is left to wonder if it's ever worked as a chat up line, curious minds need to know... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:06, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, do not move to BJAODN, do not merge with List of acronyms and initialisms. WP is not a catalog of every joke on the planet. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:08, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep Dmn 01:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 25

Mei Senniang — Discussion

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

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

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

Battle of Chang Ban — Discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Battle of Chang Ban

US Constitutional right of access to DNA testing — Discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/US Constitutional right of access to DNA testing

Anarcho-fascism — Add to this discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yob

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

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

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

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

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

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

X-ist

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

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

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

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

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

Lucky OS — Add to this discussion

Lucky pokes fun at the Javalix stuff on this page. Move to BJAODN and delete. -- Grunt (talk) 15:00, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

Wasn't me! I think I may have brushed a nerve with the Javalix camp. The link is to my user page! Although I have to say I'm flattered... - Lucky 6.9 16:35, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Too close to the original for BJAODN. Just delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:30, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

History of the Beatles

I think it's so silly to have an article separate from the Beatles' main page on the history of the Beatles. It should be included in the main page. --Marcus2

Definitely keep. It is silly not to break off sub-subjects from main articles when they get especially long. Should we also not have a separate article for History of the United States? There's obviously enough information to warrant it. Postdlf 15:24 25 June 2004 (UTC)
Certainly keep. We can't have endless amounts of detail packed into a single article. Everyking 15:30, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The trouble is there are now two articles on the history of the Beatles. The main article is almost all history, and despite calling itself a condensed history is nearly as long as History of the Beatles. The two need to be merged, although that's a mammoth job for someone. Whether we then leave the result in the main article, or spawn a sub-article, isn't so important. DJ Clayworth 15:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Merge the two histories. The main Beatles article should have a history section. If that section is so large that the Beatles article is cumbersome, then a link within it to the spin-off makes sense. My point about EP's Influence was that the info was a separate (short) article that was really just a section, and the section was not large. Geogre 15:48, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I must say that it is and should be possible to contain the Beatles' historical data in the main page, and it is sensible to merge the two histories. --Marcus2
Keep. If we replace the condensed history in The Beatles with this one, we get a page 45K in size, which is too big. Having a condensed version in the main Beatles article provides superior overview. Fredrik | talk 16:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then I suppose we should have an article entitled, "History of Elvis Presley's career" if the Beatles' history article should be kept. --Marcus2 18:21, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I suspected, this is Marcus's listing out of pique that his Elvis article has been listed here. Keep. RickK 19:04, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Coincidentally, I originally thought that this article was too silly to stand on its own. --Marcus2 20:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The Beatles have a lot of history, especially since there are four of them. Elvis' article's history as of now does not merit its own article yet. When I have the time I intend to strip down the Beatles' article's History section to two or three paragraphs instead of the three sections we have right now. Johnleemk | Talk 04:45, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Marcus2, if you want that seperate article on Elvis's influence, you would do well to expand it enough to where it justifies its own article. Don't list other articles because you're annoyed about it. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:31, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nzinga Malika Adams Jones — Discussion

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

Of the worst kind. Someone give this chick a noogie for not following the BOLD FACE instructions regarding vanity pages. Delete. Please. - Lucky 6.9 16:43, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Vanity. Delete. DJ Clayworth 20:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Straight up vanity. At least this one looks like an encyclopedia article and not like some of the junk people try to post about themselves. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Not vanity. anthony (see warning)
I think Cyr and anthony are saying the same thing here. I hope we start up a m:Wikifamily project soon, so there will be a place for articles like this. +sj + 18:43, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Actually what I'm saying is that we should keep these articles here, because they're not harming anything. anthony (see warning)
Delete, vanity. Are you serious, Anthony? This is one of the most straightforward vanity articles I've ever seen. —Stormie 04:25, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem like vanity to me. This is useful historical information. Needs to be wikied, but that's a job for cleanup. anthony (see warning)
Delete. --Gary D 08:53, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Let her register and move this to her User page. JamesMLane 06:46, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -- pne 11:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Yo, Anthony...this site is adding one server per month to keep up with the demand. This would be fine in a "Wikifamily" project as suggested. Why take up space with a person that is totally non-notable? This is not, IMO, "useful historical information." - Lucky 6.9 18:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- there is no connection between needing extra servers and space - we are not short of disc space - disc space is cheap. Secretlondon 22:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete - vanity - Tεx τ urε 22:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Incka — Add to this discussion

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

Noogie — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Noogie

Otje — Add to this discussion

From the article: The characteristic sound produced by certain underground subcultures. Usually the sound is made while putting your left hand under someone's T-shirt and by making weird faces. Enough said. Fredrik | talk 17:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This must be a speedy delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Geez! You reckon this is the sound made during a noogie? Geogre 17:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No, that sound is more like "hoopa-hoopa-hoopa-hoopa." The sound varies depending on the amount of hair gel used by the recipient, but you get the idea. Oh, and delete if you would. - Lucky 6.9 17:53, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Paruresis — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Paruresis

Westdeutsche in der DDR und Nach-DDR Westgermans in East-Germany and — Add to this discussion

Author posted a POV rant in German. vandalised something else. I thought it should be run through this and killed very fast, but wanted to explain why; so I vote for a delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suspect this was inappropriately handled. POV is not usually enough reason for speedy deletion and the issue of having vandalized something else is not relevant. Material submitted in foreign languages should normally be handled according to the processes laid out at Misplaced Pages:Pages needing translation into English. There are a number of us quite active there. -- Jmabel 19:33, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

I agree this may be wasn't the correct way of deletion, but in any case, I vote for delete it - it is by the way the same contributor who created the original POV version of Myths about East Germany. And the translation the anonymous poster did take care of himself by using babelfish... And if I am not mistaken the same text was quickly deleted on the german[REDACTED] earlier, that's why the poster tried his luck here. andy 19:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's back as Westgermans in East germany. I've posted it for speedy delete. - Lucky 6.9 00:55, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From Misplaced Pages:Pages needing translation into English:

Westdeutsche in der DDR und Nach-DDR - I thought German, but it may be Dutch Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:44, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is German, but it's highly POV pro-East-Germany. And IIRC just a day ago the same page was deleted as being non-encyclopedic at the German wikipedia. andy 17:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And now we have the english version as well - Westgermans in East-Germany - the standard babelfish autotranslate. Obviously the same who created the original Myths about East Germany earlier.

I changed the german version into a redirect, and look forward to see the babelfish version on VfD soon... andy 17:12, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While I think this was very POV, and I have no particular problem with its ultimate deletion, I feel this has been handled terribly. This was substantive enough not to deserve speedy delete, even if it was rather POV. There was material that might deserve moving. Also, someone replaced it with a machine translation, which is a definite no-no. There is supposed to be two weeks allowed for translation. The fact that someone finds the material POV, or doesn't like material being initially placed here in a foreign language should not change the usual processes. Even a Vfd decision in a different-language Misplaced Pages should only be afvisory. -- Jmabel 19:12, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Meriwether Lewis Elementary School — Add to this discussion

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

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

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

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

End discussion

List of Harry Potter chapter titles in other languages and List of titles of Harry Potter books in other languages

Hem, hem. How is that sort of thing encyclopedic? 62.214.90.116

You're absolutely right, chum. These articles you brought up have so little importance to be in existence. I wonder what monotony it would bring to have every single noted book and its chapters translated in other languages! Having pages linking to Wikipedias in languages other than English is enough. --Marcus2 18:37, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Ilyanep (Talk) 19:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. blankfaze | •• | •• 20:09, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This is no worse than much of the other stuff on Misplaced Pages. I even stopped to read some of the non-literal translations. DJ Clayworth 20:35, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Who cares about reading one article on the languages of titles of other books, and more seriously, of their chapters? Move the info back to their main pages and delete. How would you like to imagine this occurence with other books published in various languages? It gets monotonous. --Marcus2 20:44, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If it's "monotonous" then don't read it. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 23:05, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
Keep. Misplaced Pages is not a paper, and I'm sure some people would find this interesting. Fredrik | talk 23:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Mistranslation can be illustrative, and it should be possible to put this information in a master article along those lines, or mistranslation can be funny, and that's not very noble or useful (the "Engrish" stuff, which I regard as a bit patronizing and colonialist). There has to be something to make these particular mistranslations particularly illustrative to justify an article, to me. Geogre 00:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- - I haven't seen any examples of mistranslations given as humourous in these articles. Have you? Exploding Boy 09:44, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, good info. Everyking 00:52, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, this info belongs in wikipedia in other languages, because there is nothing special about these translations over others. It could certainly be interesting to some, and should be placed in its proper location, however the english[REDACTED] (en.wikipedia.org) is not meant to contain translations to other languages. —siroχo 04:00, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
- But it's quite difficult for me to find this information on the French Misplaced Pages, because I don't speak French. —Lady Lysine Ikinsile | Talk 04:05, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
Delete. This is the English Misplaced Pages. Slippery slope, anybody? RickK 05:24, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I suppose we'll be chopping out the Translations section of Jabberwocky next? --Yath 05:36, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A list of chapter titles in other languages?!? That may be information, but it isn't significant information. As for the list of book titles in other languages, I can see that being useful information for those of us with international lives, but in the end I have to agree with Siroxo and RickK -- it doesn't really belong here and it is a slippery slope. Delete both. SWAdair | Talk 08:46, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Keep both. Encyclopaedic. Both part of a larger series on Harry Potter in translation. Exploding Boy 09:18, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The removal would be culturally biased - it existing does not adversely affect anyone - and it is encyclopaedic. --] 09:31, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- What happens if the pages were translated in other languages. Then there would be a lot of editing for nothing. Now suppose we had the same features for such classics as The Chosen, The Scarlet Letter, and Of Mice and Men. Delete. --Marcus2 12:23, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Giblet — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Giblet CyborgTosser 18:29, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mug shot

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

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

This one has potential. Keep for now. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:16, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, keep. It's certainly notable as a social phenomenon. —Lady Lysine Ikinsile | Talk 06:25, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
Definite potential. Keep. SWAdair | Talk 08:03, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Image Database

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

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

Delete. Spam. --Xeroc 03:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Somari — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Somari

Kevyn 21:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Weird. It shows up in Special:Lonelypages as an orphaned page, but when you try to go to it, it gives you an edit page. This may not actually be a page that needs to be deleted, but a glitch somewhere... Kevyn 21:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

June 26

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

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

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

English Catholic Parish Histories — Add to this discussion

This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

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

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

]

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

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

Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP

Anjin — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Anjin

1024×768

Hardly an encyclopedia article. RickK 05:43, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Merge with Display resolution and redirect. —Lady Lysine Ikinsile | Talk 05:49, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect. Mr. Jones 07:08, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is just the beginning, I'm now try to expand it. I think 1024×768 is going to be the standard display resolution for years in the future. Since $1024=2^{10}$ and it satisfies 4:3 ratio. L-H

So do 640x480, 800x600, 1600x1200, etc. You say that "you think" that, but does anyone else think that? (Misplaced Pages is not a place for original research). Is there anything said in this article that couldn't be said in display resolution? —Lady Lysine Ikinsile | Talk 06:08, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

Revert to redirect. Dysprosia 06:03, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Display resolution. The same for 640×480. They are not articles, and have little potential to be articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:03, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

4:3 ratio has certain importance in mathematics. It is two of the minimum Pythagorean triple.
4:3 also has significance for television, while HDTV has the ratio of 16:9.
640×480 and 1024×768 have special responsibility for PC, while 800x600, 1600x1200, etc are possible to be ignored. L-H
- 4:3 may or may not be many things, but this discussion is about 1024×768, not 4:3. What justifies this having its own article rather than an entry under display resolution? What else is there to say about it? Whether it not it will become the "standard display resolution" in the future isn't relevant now. —Lady Lysine Ikinsile | Talk 06:51, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
Just because some of these ratios happen to contain "nice" mathematical numbers, doesn't make them deserve their own article. All these numbers are chosen because they contain small prime factors; that's it. 4:3 is also the ratio of a perfect fourth but that can be handled in Interval (music). Delete 1024×768 and 640×480 and merge 4:3 into Display resolution but don't redirect it (if anything, 4:3 should be a disambig page although if we had a page for every ratio...). No potential for articles outside of Display resolution. Telso 07:23, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Merge with XGA and make a redirect. --ssd 14:52, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

]

Delete. Found at Special:Lonelypages. Content duplicates Skarsterlân, probably created as the result of a bug, or user error. Kevyn 07:12, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Outback Inn — Add to this discussion

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

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

Turnsies — Add to this discussion

A joke: they had cars in eastern Canada in the 10th century. Geogre 12:24, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete - nonsense. Secretlondon 12:27, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The question is not whether to delete or not. The question is, whether to WP:-) or not? I'd say yes. Seriously: If the game exists, this probably deserves cleanup, if not, delete. --Luc "Somethingorother" French 18:11, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Rerun Hell" — Add to this discussion

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

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

Other metal

Article Other metal was duplicate with Poor metal. I have merged them and redirected former one to the latter. (To verify that this is an appropriate action, I am listing it here.) - Mike Rosoft 19:59, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy's Driving Record

Encyclopedic? POV? merge with Edward Kennedy? wtf? Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:21, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Meg Duluoz

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

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

VfD Footer section

Legitimate article. Have heard of this author before. Keep.

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

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

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

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

I – Put the deletion tag on the article.

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

II – Create the article's deletion discussion page.

The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear.

You can do it manually as well:

Click the link saying "deletion discussion page" to open the deletion-debate page.
Insert this text:
{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
Replace PageName with the name of the page, Category with a letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion for ]. Publish the page.

III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions.

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

] ]

Categories: