Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Log 7

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The project which was started by Spiderpig0001 has been rejected by the community. After his depature from this wiki, the project has been listed as abandoned as no one else cared to revive the project. Because it is currently not wanted, it should be deleted unless someone else wants to restart the project in the future. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 05:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has had Quick Deletion requested per criteria A7, therefore this RfD is unneeded. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 10:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC) (retired)[reply]

Results: Quick deleted. - Huji ^reply 11:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proton decay

Proton decay (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Page was tagged for deletion on October 17, 2007 but never listed here. The reason stated by the origional editor (Chenzw)was because it did not make sense -- Creol(talk) 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, beacuse it really doesn't make the subject clear. - Huji ^reply 21:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep, regarding the recent simplifiction of the article. - Huji ^reply 14:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up, the article should instead be cleaned-up and/or re-written if possible. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 23:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's going to be absolutely awful to rewrite unless there's a nuclear physicist amongst us. I can't see a way in which we can successfully rewrite it, and it's not a topic of much importance for Simple in my opinion (read the EN article).
- Weak keep - vote changed after simplification. I'm still a little unsure about it, and I believe it should really be improved, but it does give a simple, very short description. I'm not sure it's enough to qualify an article which we can never really expand upon without a nuclear physics degree. Archer7 - talk 14:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simplified- I am not a nuclear physicist though, so don't ask me how much there is to this theory. --Eptalon 16:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simplified stub. It describes the subject in a very short way, but is long enough for a stub. The description matches the enWP article, so I guess it's correct. --rimshot^talk 14:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been cleaned up and simplified, there is no reason to delete. Oysterguitarist 14:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Keep - Huji ^reply 13:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Projects

Not in use, extra template made unnecessary by Main Page/Sister projects Blockinblox - talk 00:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because we don't even need to make it a redirect. (It is not used and is not supposed to be used later). - Huji ^reply 06:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it was originally made for Wikipedia:Sister projects, but for some reason it was never used. Completely redundant. Archer7 - talk 12:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Eptalon 16:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 05:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not used. Oysterguitarist 14:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not in use. --Dezidor 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. Archer7 - talk 13:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Invertebrates

Category:Invertebrates (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Almost all animals are invertebrates, and having a list would be pointless, since you would be listing almost all the animals. It would be easier for them to be categorized by phylum Oysterguitarist 14:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - I think, animals shouldn't be added to this category; instead, they should be added to the category of the phylum they belong to, and that phylum should be (directly or indirectly) a member of either "vertebrates" or "invertebrates" category. The existence of this category, in that setting, wouldn't be useless, as it serves another way to browse the knowledge categories about living creatures. - Huji ^reply 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- After giving it a second thought, I think I agree with Creol's comment below, so I change my vote to delete. - Huji ^reply 19:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 97% of all animal species are invertebrates. Only a single phylum is not. This is akin to Category:Spanish people and Category:Non-Spanish people. Separating by phylum makes more sense (though named by common name, not actual Taxo name: Mollusc not Mollusca, Vertebrate vs Chordata, Flatworms vs Platyhelminthes, etc. Category description should include common and proper names though.) -- Creol(talk) 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep the category, but only as a parent for other categories. At the moment, there are two or three animal articles in it which I am trying to remove. With the argument that 97% of all animal species are invertebrates, we could also say that only 3% are vertebrates (and delete that cat as well). I see the problem mainly in that animals need to be classified as far down the tree as possible. This might mean, however, that we end up with categories that only have one member in them (for example Bryozoa, which are small animals which form colonies most of the time).--Eptalon 08:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Vertebrates should be a subcat of category:Chordata as Vertebrata is a subphylum under Chodata. Given my example above, it would actually be Category:Spanish writers (vertebrates) and Category:people who are not Spanish writers (invertebrates) which would actually cause problems as Chordata would include certain species of invertebrates which would either require a dual category which could upset the flow or putting invertebrates in Chordata which is just plain wrong. This being said.. Cat:Animals could use an extensive re-planning. Following a stricter, taxonomy based cat tree for living creatures (much like en:wp's animals and plant cats are laid out) seems the cleanest way to lay out the categories. -- Creol(talk) 16:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a sidenote: I have removed all species from there. I have created new categories for Plankton, and Bryozoa. Dragonfly and Bee are now just Insects, and no longer Invertebrates. --Eptalon 09:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have put up a request on Simple talk to do that. Given that, I therefore propose to keep invertebrates as it is now, and leave the decision up to the person who reorganises, what to do with it. --Eptalon 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing wrong with an extra cat. ...Aurora... 08:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow Eptalon's suggestion, parent category should stay.-- Tdxi a n g 06:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with it. JetLover 22:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: kept, for now. --Eptalon 16:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Kabakoro

Seems not to be notable enough, and the information cannot be verified. - Huji ^reply 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability -- Creol(talk) 13:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --rimshot^talk 14:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, unverifiable information. Oysterguitarist 20:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...Aurora... 08:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable.-- Tdxi a n g 06:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted -- Creol(talk) 06:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laborschule Bielefeld

Article moved from Laboratory school Bielefeld to Laborschule Bielefeld.

Laborschule Bielefeld (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

copy paste from german wikipedia (Laborschule Bielefeld) via google's page translator. ---barliner--talk--contribs- 15:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retranslated a stubbable article into understandable English. Possibly lacking a complex tag. --Eptalon 16:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After being retranslated and copy-edited, the article makes a lot more sense than its original form. The school also seems notable enough (rather rare mission/goal, 19K google hits, De wiki article (its a german school, the german wiki should be more capable of determining notability on the subject than most of us)). -- Creol(talk) 17:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 23:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice job Eptalon.--Werdan7^{T @} 02:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it has been rewritten. ...Aurora... 08:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Keep - Huji ^reply 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Strife

Cloud Strife (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I tend not to request for deletion of such articles, but this time, this is "very" far from our definition of core articles. I don't think it is needed, but feel free to oppose, or even complete it using the En WP counterpart.- Huji ^reply 22:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serves no purpose as a wikipedian article. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 22:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Werdan7^{T @} 00:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge. You've convinced me :).--Werdan7^{T @} 04:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ---barliner--talk--contribs- 15:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Final Fantasy VII article for now. The parent article already has this information, so no merging is necessary. The Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children article also links to Cloud Strife, but it doesn't really need the link. Perhaps Cloud Strife can be made into a standalone article in the future, when the descriptions in the parent article are more fully developed. --Kyoko 15:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FF7. -- Creol(talk) 18:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - until there is enough content to warrant for its own article. --Eptalon 19:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Final Fantasy VII. The article's information is already covered there, so I'm not sure if anything else can be added to it that couldn't also be added to the FFVII article. Cheers, and happy editing, ( ar ky ) 13:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Final Fantasy VII, for now. Oysterguitarist 14:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Final Fantasy VII, for now. --Dezidor 16:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, merge with the game. JetLover 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Redirected to Final Fantasy VII - Huji ^reply 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Displacement

Displacement (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The title is too general (it "sort of" speaks about "vector" displacement, not for example a "bone displacement" in fractures, medicine). The content is not clear enough, so unless a flul rewrite takes place, I see no reason keeping it like this.- Huji ^reply 16:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I agree with Huji's statement, although it could be rather changed into a disambiguation page. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and Transwiki to wiktionary. The information on the article is good, but it needs a little bit of work. I'll do it if that's what the consensus is.--Werdan7^{T @} 01:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and transwiki, per Werdan7. As a note, English Wiktionary already has a more complete definition of the word, while Simple English Wiktionary lacks content about displacement in terms of physics. --Kyoko 15:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete per nom ---barliner--talk--contribs- 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary -- Creol(talk) 18:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I made it into a disambig page; there are a few redlinks left, though. --Eptalon 19:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the current changes to the article, I take my request back. - Huji ^reply 14:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Keep - Huji ^reply 14:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

Imperial Cebu

Imperial Cebu (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Doesn't exist even in english wikipedia; the content is not factual, thus not encyclopedic; the web pages cited don't precisely support the claims of this article, unsimple Jordz 08:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced politically motivated essay. -- Creol(talk) 10:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} ^RFA 04:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, POV, not in simple english. Oysterguitarist 14:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per above. --Werdan7^{T @} 01:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Yegoyan 01:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsouced, biased ---barliner--talk--contribs- 15:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently biased personal essay. --Kyoko 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand Tagalog - but it looks like the tagalog article has a POV problem. On the other hand, if this could be changed into something factual; I would tend to want to keep this article. Not being in EnWP is no reason for deletion. --Eptalon 19:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete - Huji ^reply 14:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canuck

It was copied directly from the English Wikipedia. Panda Bear | Talk | Changes 19:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wasn't directly copy-pasted from English Wikipedia. I did a thorough copyedit of the page when I brought it over here. If you copy-paste the English version here and not save it but a do a comparison of what has been changed, I think you'll also see that many changes have been made. There's no reason to delete it. · Tygrrr^·talk· 20:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Tygrrr said, you can go to this page and replace the text with what is found here (the version of that article on En WP, by the time the copy-and-paste happened) and press "Show changes" button. I think the changes are enough to make this article acceptable. - Huji ^reply 21:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Huji. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} ^RFA 04:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Huji. Oysterguitarist 14:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result was "Keep" - Huji ^reply 06:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software_piracy

Software_piracy (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

unencyclopedic, this is only used in propagandist circles. unreferenced, overddramatised, and quite POV in the way that the article seems to see P2P sharing online and bitorrent as some kind of crime. Maybe, thoughtcrime? this does not focus on supporters, but is only from the system's point of view. in a real encyclopædia, this wouldn't be here. also, software, films, and music are three vastly different subjects, and the title only covers software. This indirectly supports intellectual property, the terms, the laws. --smalltalker ^{C} 00:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopedic, legal and media topic indicative of the times. It is POV in the aspect that it does not take the criminal side into account in the same manner that an article on theft rarely takes the thief's opinion into account. Copyvio is a crime. -- Creol(talk) 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but both sides still need to be taken. Even a criminal is still a person. The article should be bilateral. smalltalker ^{C} 06:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is just ridiculous. Archer7 - talk 08:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this diff, the article is nothing else than what was originally written at piracy. In my opinion it makes sense to make a difference between people who main, extort money, and possibly kill other people, and those who simply copy a CD or DVD, most often, to give to their friends. Yes, Software piracy may be a big problem, especially in countries like China or Russia. Looking at [paper (PDF download)], copying of works with copyright, without the permission of those who hold the copyright is a criminal offense, in some countries. In any case, this is a legitimate article, and should be kept. POV, is no reason for deleting an article, AFAIK, --Eptalon 11:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Motion to immediately close this RfD as speedy keep per the many reasons stated above. Phaedriel - 13:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep, per Phaedriel, it's Ionas again. Jordan - talk 15:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy kept because the request was made by the sockpuppet of a blocked disruptive user, without good reasoning. - Huji ^reply 18:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clean1

Not needed because we already have {{cleanup}}. Also not currently being used. · Tygrrr^·talk· 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with it not being needed, but it's not being used because I've just cleaned up all the pages that had it on them (but there were only a few)

Gwib^-(talk)- 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If we really need levels of cleanup (which we don't), it would be easier to just add them to {{cleanup}}, like {{cleanup|1}}--Werdan7^{T @} 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant, and created as part of a project that has not become active as of yet. Phaedriel - 00:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE I WANTED IT TO BE ACTIVE. NO ONE ELSE DID. I feel trapped. Just please, ignore any Clean templates from now on. I will be adding them to a project which is heard, not seen. I am really sick of no one wanting to touch simple. It seems as though some Admins only want simple to stay the same. No one is in the mood for change. LIAM / LIAM 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has no important use in simplewiki. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 03:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other users, the currently available templates can be used. --Yegoyan 03:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. What "some Admins only want" is not important compared to what The Community, which includes far more editors like me, wants.---barliner--talk--contribs- 10:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and my vote has nothing to do with my recently becoming an admin here. When something is not wanted, it is not wanted. - Huji ^reply 13:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Gwib^-(talk)- 16:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need for this template, since we already have {{cleanup}}. Oysterguitarist 13:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Important addition/Comment: Since this template was put up for deletion, templates {{Clean2}} and {{Clean3}} have been created. Based on a conversation happening simultaneously at Simple talk (see here), I think that if it is determined to delete {{Clean1}}, Clean2 and 3 should also be deleted. Please comment if you disagree. · Tygrrr^·talk· 22:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they should be deleted as well. It would have been better to see if this one stayed than make the rest. --Yegoyan 22:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with applying the same decision to Clean2 and Clean3 templates. - Huji ^reply 08:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with deleting all three templates. Oysterguitarist 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three templates. They are redundant. --Boricu æ ddie 02:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted Templates:Clean1, Clean2 and Clean3. · Tygrrr^·talk· 14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blakeism

There is no sources, google turns up only 71 results, and I have never heard of Blakeism. smalltalker ^{C} 08:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Why delete a page on a religion? I say keep it! I just checked and it looks good but a little bit more information is needed. I say anyone who wants this page deleted is religist.

I just checked this page on Blakeism and found there was a source.

Quick deleted:G3 - adding information they knew to be incorrect (the included source/reference had nothing to do with/disproved the article)

Ben Kovitz

Comparing the page with en:History_of_Wikipedia, I think the page is merely trying to say "Jimbo" is not the founder of Wikipedia. I think it is a claim which is not accepted in English Wikipedia, hence pushed here. I request its deletion. - Huji ^reply 16:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject freely states that he is basically just a footnote to the history of Wikipedia. The article matches this thought. While Kovitz may be notable in some other way, what is stated in the article hardly proves him notable. -- Creol(talk) 16:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sketchy notability, and a clear attempt at circumventing the rejection of this material at EN. Phaedriel - 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as far as I can see it. --Yegoyan 18:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Creol. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His own user page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BenKovitz says Jimbo gave him the idea.---barliner--talk--contribs- 10:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oysterguitarist 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Delete - Huji ^reply 14:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Red Midget

It was originally me who copied over the article from the English Wikipedia. I have since tried to verify the information in there, but was unsuccessful. According to Aleksandrit, there is also nothing similar in Ukrainian or Russian Wikipedias. I therefore think it is time for this article to go, esp. since it is not written terribly well, either. --Eptalon 18:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Eptalon 18:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 22:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- By the way, as the original author of that page, who has written the majority of it, I think you can also request for quick deletion. - Huji ^reply 12:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete author wants deletion. Oysterguitarist 14:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, --vector ^_^ (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Yegoyan 19:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.---barliner--talk--contribs- 10:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Delete - Huji ^reply 14:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tifa game

Very unencyclopedic, an essay at best; and do not yet talk about notabliilty. Best to get rid of it when its fresh. --Eptalon 20:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note about copyvio and the "All rights reserved..." comment: The Tifa game is a Hentai flash game based on characters from the Final Fantasy game series. SquareSoft owns the rights to the characters the game is based on and likely the world setting they are using. The article is not copyvio, what the creator of the game is doing with is. -- Creol(talk) 16:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Eptalon 20:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not encyclopedic, not verifiable. -- Creol(talk) 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, per Creol. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 02:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone above, possibly Speedy Delete as copyvio because of the sentence All rights reserved by Square Enix inc. --rimshot^talk 21:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Panda Bear | Talk | Changes 22:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal ball entry, utterly unencyclopedic. Tempted to speedy it, but let's stick to process. Phaedriel - 03:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Yegoyan 03:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic, unverifiable information, not notable, and the All rights reserved by Square Enix inc could make the article a copyvio. Oysterguitarist 14:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete --vector ^_^ (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I didn't know an article could be uncyvlopoovyic. LIAM / LIAM 00:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only unencyclopaedic but apparently current event. An article about a copyvio game ---barliner--talk--contribs- 10:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Delete - Huji ^reply 08:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kimberly Ashton

This is not another English wikipedia. While telling users the history of the vandal and what to look for, also tells the vandal what we know and gives other vandal ideas about how to operate. - BrownE34 talk contribs 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While a basic warning about an abusive user's activities to answer questions about the problem may be one thing, an article dedicated to that person is just giving the person the attention they are craving in the first place. Kimberly Ashton and his/her socks are in no way notable. The desperate actions of a pitiful person who should not be given the satisfaction of a page writen about them does not belong here. -- Creol(talk) 04:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. - BrownE34 talk contribs 04:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is to let newbies know about Kimberly Ashton. Since this is a very complex case, newbies might say "Who the hell is Kimberly Ashton". This answers their question, and it is harder to understand than say, Willy on Wheels. Since this is also very serious, since the other people's personal information and the stalker factors. This is too serious to be ignored. Ionas (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In 8 words - 'The Willy-On-Wheels of Simple English Wikipedia. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 07:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willy on Wheels could easily be detected and was silly vandalism started as a college prank. Kimberly Ashton is a very complex, hard to understand case, and thus new users would say "Who is that?" Ionas (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm afraid sometimes it's necessary to keep what we know quiet, so people don't know what we're looking for and make themselves undetectable. We also need to deny them the attention they come here for. Archer7 - talk 10:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That first point you were trying to make is stupid. Why would we keep quiet if a new user is in danger of getting harassed or stalked. How do you think the people who the personal info actually belongs to feels now? Ionas (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ionas, besides the fact that your comment is offensive, it doesn't apply to what Archer said. He means that we shouldn't advertise what we know about the vandal because if the vandal knows what we're looking for, they will try not to do what we have said identifies them, and therefore make it harder to do so. --Isis §^(talk) 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the same as Willy on Wheels. --84.45.219.185 10:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please create an account if you wish your vote to be counted. Thanks, Archer7 - talk 10:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP was abused on en.wikipedia/wikiquote/wikibooks/wiktionary but is not being abused now. I am a different individual to the ones that got us blocked. --84.45.219.185 10:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, but IP votes are not counted. Also, please stop posting ads for your Ford Mondeo, none of us want to buy it. Archer7 - talk 10:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three words: revert, block, ignore. Crediting trolls for their disruption is the best way to encourage them to continue their pattern of misbehavior. Besides, the comparison of this minor troll with Willy on Wheels, who was mentioned at the New York Times, is far fetched at best. We already know KA's methods well enough to deal with her disruption without giving her the satisfaction of dedicating a whole page to them. Phaedriel - 11:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Phaedrial - Huji ^reply 13:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You say it's for the "newbies"? Well, I see little chance of new users coming across Kimberly Ashton. Maybe they see a few comments of her socks on talk pages, or perhaps slight mentions of her by other users. If they want to know about her, they can look at her userpage, which tells all they need to know: She is blocked indefinitely. --Isis §^(talk) 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the sentiments that have already been expressed. · Tygrrr^·talk· 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is more complex than WoW. Ashton is much more than "a troll wanting attention", and if that's what "she's" doing, then that is the wrong way to get attention. There has been a recent rise in Ashton's socks, and harassment is quite serious. If someone were to come across a person that released personal information that was not theirs, made good edits, and pretended to be a "good guy", the newbie would never suspect anything and get duped. This is for informational puproses. Ionas (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a reason why "revert, block, ignore" exists on English Wikipedia, and I think it applies equally here: creating pages such as WP:KIMMY gives vandals credit that they don't truly deserve and gives them the attention that they may be seeking. It also tips them off on what admins and others have already figured out. Pages like this also provide enough information for copycats, making it only harder to investigate future vandalism and harassment. If people really need to know more about KA, they can ask, privately, the people involved. The asker may or may not get any answers, but that's up to the individual. --Kyoko 00:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DNFTT. --Werdan7^{T @} 01:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personnaly prefer PDFTT (Please dont..), but that pretty much says it all.

Wake up. Wake up. Wake up, wake UP! She is much more than a troll. And, when someone said "This is not English Wikipedia", don't mention Revert, Block, Ignore. Is this going to be as hiveminded as english wikipedia? Please. Wake up. Wake up. Wake up. Wake up. Wake up. WAKE UP! Ashton is not a troll, and it is much more complex than that. Are we going to all say "Unbellyfeeling Ingsoc is doubleplusungood. Stop it. Ionas (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read Beans. You do not even believe in trolls or punishment (even for murder or rape), why should this matter to you? You don't beleive what she does is wrong in the first place. Why should anyone even need a warning? -- Creol(talk) 09:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Trolls want attention. Don't feed the trolls. --Eptalon 08:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well said Eptalon. Oysterguitarist 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Userfy - User:Kimberley Ashton is banned, and for good reason, and needs to have a page like this. However, the absence of one being created by an administrator does not mean that a regular level user should make one labelled "Wikipedia:". It should instead be in User:Ionas68224/Kimberley Ashton and be left there. The issue of it damaging Kimberley Ashton's reputation is irrelevant as he/she is already banned. It is a truthful exercise. Blissyu2 22:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with EXTREME PREJUDICE against recreation, per Phaedriel. Ionas, you're giving this person exactly what he/she's looking for. Leave the tough cases to the administrators, and let everyone else just write an encyclopedia. Sean William 02:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Phaedriel and others. --Yegoyan 02:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --§ Snake311 _{(T + C)} 02:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sinbad 12:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sinbad. LIAM / LIAM 13:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete. - Huji ^reply 14:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Learning English

BBC Learning English (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I couldn't find any reliable source that stated this web site is notable in its type. The English Wikipedia counterpart didn't help either. I request its deletion due to lack of notability. - Huji ^reply 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything either. I suggest merging into the existing section at Learning_English#Online_learning. Given Simple's mission, preserving this in some form is a good idea.--Chaser 05:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / keep The main problem here is that the source can not be given as a reliable reference even if that source is considered a very reliable reference for just about anything else. There have been a couple write-ups over the last couple years about the service in Arab and Indian news outlets but I am not entirely certain of the reliability as I am unfamiliar with them. I have to feel the basic information of the page is a valid addition, but may be better suited by being merged to the BBC page at this time with the Online Learning section listed by Chaser being relinked to it. -- Creol(talk) 05:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BBC Learning English is most notable in its type for several reasons:

The BBC World Service has been providing English language teaching for almost 65 years. bbclearningenglish.com was launched in 1996 and is now one of the one of the world's leading language learning websites.

It is a free service that is provided by the BBC to its international audience. It has partner sites in several countries worldwide (including 9 partner sites in China, and has more than one million monthly unique users, generating over 30 million page impressions per month, and hundreds of thousands of downloads of teaching & learning materials

It adheres to the same editorial policies and principles as the rest of the BBC and delivers high quality ELT materials, with new content added 5 days per week. It has been honoured twice in the Webby awards and works with the British Council. It also publishes bilingal ELT sites for Chinese and Arabic speakers.

I agree with Chaser's comments that it is a valid addition given the mission of Simple English Wikipedia. It is one of the world's leading EFL/ELT websites, serving millions of people (for free) and as such should not be deleted from Simple English Wikipedia.

Catherine Chapman

BBC Learning English

Cathachap 12:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you need to add these bits of information to the article, and you need to cite reliable sources about them. If BBC Learning English has been reviewed by critics, it should also be added to the article. By adding these, you will also affect the way other edits make decisions about whether to keep or to delete the article. - Huji ^reply 15:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Kept (a slightly polished version), open to discussions on where to merge the content into (creating a BBC World Service article where this could be put (and linked as well) would be an option; the problem is it does not fit at all at BBC --Eptalon 21:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kedar Joshi

Non-notable. Google search returns 755 hits, a number of them are user profiles on websites. Page has been created and deleted twice on en:wiki--once for copyvio, once for notability. · Tygrrr^·talk· 16:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (for notability and verifification). No verifiable references which are not self-generated. Unknown author of an unknown book that no one has reveiwed and we do not even have a link in need of being filled by an article about him. -- Creol(talk) 17:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Creol. - Huji ^reply 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Creol. --rimshot^talk 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reason. -- Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 07:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted. Phaedriel - 01:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

Also submitting the related article

''International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam'' (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

For starters, they are not written in Simple English (although several parts of them are very poorly written), but they are verbatim copies of their EnWP counterparts. Their tone is very far from neutral, praising its subject in a completely non-neutral way; this point is also matter of heated discussion at EnWP right now. In case we ultimately decide to keep them, then such an extensive rewrite of them should be in order, that nothing short of a drastic "stubbification" could solve their neutrality problems for the time being. Last but not least, these articles appear to be part of a spam spree to publicize this person and the sect he founded at every imaginable English Wikimedia project, including Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, Wikisource (where it's being considered for deletion), Wikiquote (deletion under discussion), Commons, and Wikinews (discussed for deletion as well). All these last 5 entries, including ours, were created the same day, by the same user. Phaedriel - 11:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Isis §^(talk) 12:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep but Complete rewrite~~. Change my vote to delete as spamcruft. For those of you who don't know what spamcruft is, it is spam that no one knows or cares about, except for a few people (stereotypically a small fandom).ionas ^talk _cont _ribs 23:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oysterguitarist 03:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and HELP me to improve these articles.--Iamsaa 06:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I also deleted this page on Wikibooks too. --Az1568 08:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---barliner--talk--contribs- 11:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know this organisation, neither am an expert in Islamic (?) movements. From the text, it is unclear how big the movement is. In general, I think it could be kept, provided of course there is some notability, and that the article can be rewritten in such a way that it is NPOV. --Eptalon 13:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, there also appear to exist serious notability problems related to this person and the sect he created. A Google search for "Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi" yields barely above 1,000 entries, not taking into account the Wikimedia pages and subpages. Out of these, nearly all appear to be unreliable blogs and websites hosted by the sect itself. I have tried to locate at least one appearance at a major media, reliable and verifiable website - and failed. Unfortunately, and from my modest point of view, there's nothing salvageable here (and you now I normally try and help to improve articles in order to keep them). Best regards, Phaedriel - 00:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify to something like this. Make sure that there are reliable sources for everything that is in the stub. After that, quickly revert any unsourced addition to the article, as well as as any non-NPOV edit. If this proves impossible, delete. --rimshot^talk 15:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is very unlikely to be written in an NPOV way. - Huji ^reply 13:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete losing all hopes to get it improved. ONaNcle 08:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - keep only first paragraph. --Dezidor 17:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should already be deleted because ten days have gone by and everybody says delete. I thought an AfD would end in 5 days. ionas ^talk _cont _ribs 00:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/leaning to Keep - While he is not very notable he is the founder of a Sufi order. Possibly keep, completely rewrite the article in Simple English. Or we could add his name and his orders name to the Sufi page as a list of Sufi orders or an create an article called List of Sufi orders or something on those lines. -- LoNdIuM ^{Speak to me}_{Contributions} -- 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: I am probably sticking my hand in a hornets nest: In the interest of all, I decide the result is keep&stubify for both articles. I will quickdelete both of them if there is no visible progress in a week's time (Sept 8). --Eptalon 15:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we keeping this? The discussion has been here 1month+ I am pretty sure, before I got blocked on en. Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 02:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Eptalon, as the closing admin, has made a choice; and whether we like his decision or not, we must respect it. Administrators: please don't archive this entry until Sept. 8 or till Eptalon himself delists it. Thank you! - Phaedriel - 19:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Both articles kept, Riaz Ahmed GOhar Sahi probably can use further cleanup (left the cleanup tag). I think they can be kept (as a basis for further work, if needed) in their current form. --Eptalon 12:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AOC (disambiguation)

AOC (disambiguation) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It'a disambiguation page that consists of red links. Maxim 13:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is not helpful, all of the links are red except for one. Oysterguitarist 13:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Red links are helpful, because they point to entries that have to be created, and make us aware of that need. A lot of disambiguations are made when we need to fill a particular red link; and at creation, usually just one is made blue (the one intended by the creator). These disambiguations are very helpful to precise the meaning of other more specific articles. This particular one should certainly be simplified, but most definitely not deleted. Phaedriel - 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've simplified it, and filled a red link from it. When complex/mostly red-linked disambiguations are found, I suggest fixing them. Imho, they are a very important and useful tool, especially at our project, where the limitations of Simple English often demand the explanation of a concept with descriptive links. Phaedriel - 19:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After what you said I now see how this could be helpful to people. Oysterguitarist 21:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phaedriel.- Huji ^reply 08:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phaedrial - Spiderpig0001 Does whatever a spiderpig does! 23:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Any good reason for deletion. --Dezidor 11:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes

List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Useless list, too long, and... WHO CARES! These lists are one problem I have with enwiki, that and successful nominations of these for Featured Article status. No one would really care about how many episodes there are to Buffy, unless they're members of a small, cult-like group of fans with too much time on their hands. Also, NOT very simple at all. I, and several others probably, do not know the purpose of this list. To whoever wrote this article, this is an encyclopædia for children, people who do not know English well, or ESL students, not a group of list. Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Who cares?" is not a reason to delete an article. Neither is "it's useless", "it's too long", or "it's not simple" (unless it is a direct copy-paste that has had no changes). Also, I am personally getting extremely tired of the negative air that seems to be hanging around this wiki lately. I think it's comments and attacks like those in this request that are contributing to it. Let's try not to bring grudges about processes at other wikis over here. Anyone can attack other users. It takes a lot more work to contibute in a helpful, positive way. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now. I know this isn't really the place. I'm just so tired of crap like this. · Tygartl1^·talk· 14:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists serve the purpose of having similar items grouped together for ease of access in much the same way as categories do. Unlike categories, lists can get the basic information across without having to create articles on each item (which is usually only done when there is a need to split off from the main article). The current Buffy article is at 22K already and does not even have a general plot section which would take it over 30K. Expanding the character section is also likely to force it to be split of into a seperate article. Merging more information into that article would force a split of it anyway. The list also contains an easier way to handle two previous red-links from another article dealing with Emmy Award nominations for episodes without having to create the other two episodes (yet). -- Creol(talk) 15:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a declared enemy of strictly spamcrufty entries, my own analysis of this list leads me to believe it's a perfectly valid fork content from the parent article. It could use some simplifying, true; but by no means this list fits in any deletion criteria that I'm aware of. I suggest speedy delisting this entry, out of mere common sense. Phaedriel - 19:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a worthwhile article which has valid content. Jordanhatch - talk 21:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has useful content. - Huji ^reply 08:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good reason for deletion. --Dezidor 18:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is lists are not found in a real encyclopædia. Lists of Pokemon, Mortal Kombat characters, and everything else are unencyclopædic. And, who is going to use that information? Are there a group of people who just really like learning about the episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer? See this essay by Zordrac aka Blissyu2, which mentions a little bit about wikipedia lists. Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 19:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes me think that, you don't have problem with this specific list, but with lists in general. If I'm not misunderstood your case, I suggest you would bring this into discussion on Simple Talk, please. - Huji ^reply 12:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Settlements

There is no precedent for any such thing at the main English Wikipedia, which explicitly regards ALL settlements as "encyclopedic", regardless of size or age (See en:WP:OUTCOMES, for instance). Also, this page claims to be a "guideline" but it was practically railroaded in by an informal poll, that I was not even aware of, of only a few users on Simple Talk. There is no practical way we can draw the line on what places are "notable" enough for inclusion, and there is no reason why we should any more than the main English wikipedia. Imagine, a few decades from now when we are presumably much larger, we could feasibly have an article for every spot on Earth, but not if we senselessly delete places just because we've never heard of them. Blockinblox - talk 17:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For further background on the discussion and the poll mentioned by Blockinblox, see here. - Phaedriel - 18:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As to the railroading, by my count 13 users who reasonably contribute voted in the "informal" poll. This compares to the 15 or 16 who voted in the last few admin requests. Not too far off. The reason I support the policy or guideline or whatever you want to call it is that it does not sit well with me that some tiny towns have pages created and we have small cities and large towns that do not. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, places need to have proper verification that they exist, and I think we should demand more than "City, State is a city in State." I think if we do override this, we need to demand a paragraph (2-3 sentence minimum) without heresay and unverifiable information. - BrownE34 talk contribs 18:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of what I mean by "railroading" is the way 7 options were given, and when the votes were tallied, six of them (B-G) were combined to produce a super-percentage against the seventh. (A). What the...? Blockinblox - talk 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the discussion also (somewhat arbitrarily) states that the "guideline will be in place until 20,000 articles are reached". If this is part of the understanding, it should be included on the guideline page, especially seeing as that figure is practically just around the corner... Blockinblox - talk 18:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you call railroading is legitimate, if 5% of the voters chose option A, it is equivalent to say the 95% did not choose it. That's all I did there. And yes, I am also unhappy about that guideline--Eptalon 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The guideline encourages users to focus on larger, more historically important places before we start trying to get every single settlement ever. The plan is to re-evaluate the guideline as we reach certain "checkpoints" (for example, 20,000 articles, 25,000) and relax the guideline as we grow larger. Again, this is just to help us to focus on the more important topics while we are still (relatively) small. I agree about posting on the page that the guideline will be re-evaluated at 20,000 articles. I didn't realize that it wasn't there since that has always been part of my understanding of it. · Tygartl1^·talk· 20:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rework. I want a guideline people will respect and follow. If that means reworking it, I'm all for it. I would like the essential spirit of it to remain, however--that we should try to focus our efforts on some of the larger/more important places first. And contrary to what some people seem to believe about my intentions when putting something up for deletion, I'm not so intent on doing it because of the size, but because we can't verify the information on a place with a tiny population. (Although for the life of me I can't understand the confusion because if anyone actually read my comments, they would know that.) We also need to be clear when we rework it on what we are supposed to do with articles that fail to meet the guidelines.· Tygartl1^·talk· 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - This guideline serves us as a means to learn that we should create the articles about more important things first. As I stated elsewhere, even if every little town will finally have an article on an encyclopedia (like the case with En WP, approximately) I think it should happen finally, not right now. As others have notified, the guideline is a result of consensus of many users (although there might not have been a formal voting process, it doesn't mean the consensus is not valid). I personally dislike requesting for deletion of a consensus-based guideline like this, and suggest any such discussion to take place on the giudeline's talk page first. - Huji ^reply 10:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fine argument, but there are millions of locations on Earth, once one is added, then deleted because someone in "Whitehall" POV does not consider it notable (like Amasebail), it would be a lot more work and trouble to keep track of these articles and then re-add them when you decide we're "big enough". I agree priority should ideally be given to larger cities, but if a few of the smaller places happen to come in first, it does no harm whatsoever to just leave them there for the time being, whereas rampaging through the entire wiki and deleting every place that does not meet your arbitrary guidelines is potentially harmful. At any rate, according to the understanding that people were given at the time they voted, this guideline simply expires at 20,000 articles. It also doesn't seem fair to retroactively amend this to "relax the guideline at 20,000 and then 25,000 articles", since nobody was told that when they voted. Are we supposed to be mind readers and know what "the plan" is, without it ever being properly communicated beforehand? Blockinblox - talk 11:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have not retroactively amended anything. Please see this (taken from the vote linked to above by Phaedriel): "I think we'll be at 18,000 by the end of the month. That seems a little soon to be voting again on this issue. Things will not change enough by then to warrant another vote, and they probably won't even change enough by 20,000, but 20,000 is a nice even number to vote on it again. · Tygartl1·talk· 15:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done; reconsider at 20.000 articles --Eptalon 15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)" · Tygartl1^·talk· 14:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/rework: I fail to see the consensus about this guideline. When initially proposed it got 4 replies (good idea x2, we need to vote on size, yeah, lets vote yes - paraphrased) and then it spun off into a vote on size and nothing else was said about the main guideline proposal. As to the size aspect, consensus is missing there as well. Taking into account Blockinblox's apparent vote for "no size restrictions" and removing the sockpuppet vote of Zoey (KA), about 30% (29.4) of the votes do not believe there should be a size limit in any way. 47% of the people disagree with proposed number as giving in the article. Almost half the people who have voiced a concern on this topic do not think 10K is the right number. How do we have consensus when half the people do not agree with it? The "guideline" has never been officially voted on, a part of it has had a vote to decide if there was a preferred population, but the article itself does not seem to have had any vote, let alone one that shows a consensus. I feel that the current article needs to go back and be reworked and submitted as a proposed Guideline to see if there is consensus on accepting it as an official guideline. -- Creol(talk) 03:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, basic parliamentary procedure would call for the amendment to be voted on first, before the approved version of the measure is considered, (cf. Roberts Rules of Order) so perhaps this should have been a proposal yet.. Blockinblox - talk 12:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in the above response from Blockinblox. I would be in total favor of adopting basic parliamentary procedure for all matters on this wiki. It puts in place clear rules on what passes, what fails. I am not a fan of wikipedia is not a democracy, especially in this community where we have so few users and a very concentrated power base. Off topic I know, sorry - BrownE34 talk contribs 04:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (while keeping open to discuss and work on an alternative version). I've deliberately waited for a couple of days in order to think deeply on this and voice myself accordingly. I don't wish to delve into the formal apects of the voting that led to the adoption of this guideline; but I have doubts regarding its very spirit and letter. As one who voted on this initiative when it was first proposed, I look in retrospect and now recognize some inherent flaws in it - and I take my part of responsibility in that by having legitimated it with my vote. The experience after it was adopted has proved this guideline to be ineffective and impossible to enforce. In that time, literally dozens of entries that don't comply with it have been created; a mere perusal of the contributions of ocassional editors like DNM5 (talk · contribs) and Dezidor (talk · contribs) provide many examples. Yet no initiative to delete any of these articles has taken place (with very few exceptions). This is basically because it's almost impossible to screen every article that gets created in order to doublecheck compliance with this guideline. The matter gets even worse if we consider that almost nobody's aware of its existence (with the exception of regular editors). Furthermore, AFAIK, we're the only Wiki that has a comparable guideline (Dezidor, as an admin at Czeck Wikipedia, is perfectly aware of notability and verifiability, I'm sure; yet he had no real way of knowing some his articles violated our rule). While I see this as a well-intentioned guideline, it has no real effect, and appears to be merely a symbol to "remind us that we need to focus on more important settlements". Well, of course I'd love to have an article on Salisbury, but if Dezidor or any other editor has the knowledge to write an article for us on Čejov instead, should we delete it and tell them "not until every other town in the world with more than 20,000 people has an article on them - but make sure to return later and rewrite it"? Frankly, I think we've mistaken the path here, and Browne has hit the nail right on the head: the issue lies in demanding verifiable sources, not in setting an arbitrary bar that we cannot truly enforce anyway. - Phaedriel - 02:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the current guidleine, or demote to porposed. Then rework:
1. The inclusion criteria should not be based on the size of a settlement.
2. The thing should be phrased in such a way that it does not need rewording when we grow bigger
When we then come up with sometghing that is considerably clean, we can re-vote that --Eptalon 10:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not useful. --Dezidor 18:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Guideline demoted to proposed guideline and kept to be reworked prior to voting on acceptance.

Landerism

I believe it is very unlikely for a notable philosophy not to be addressed on any web pages; the result of Google search about "Landerism" or the name of the person who is claimed to create it, makes me believe the subject is not notable. Again, it is confirmed by having no articles about this subject on other big wikipedias. - Huji ^reply 13:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A scroogle search (I don't use google) shows 29 results. Since I can't link to a Scroogle search, just go here, click on the Scroogle scraper, search for 100 results, and Landerism, sccroll to the bottom and it is result 29. Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 19:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Delete, joke article. --rimshot^talk 10:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the en.wiki doesn't even have a deletion log, which makes me agree heavily with Rimshot. Maxim 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own research leads me to believe that the entry appears to be authentic, and the person is real; but still, extremely far from even the slightest notion of notability needed to have an article. - Phaedriel - 19:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am against stupid kind of deletionism (that I see also at simple.wiki), but this article is really rubbish and it should be deleted. --Dezidor 18:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted. -- Creol(talk) 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Cappe

La Cappe (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This town seems not to be notable enough. My searches in accessible reliable sources for its name had no successful result. - Huji ^reply 12:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the Amasebail AFD, Blockinblox made a good point that cities/villages/towns should not be judged on "notability". Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 19:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also cannot find anything about this place. How are we supposed to know it even exists if we can't verify anything about it? · Tygartl1^·talk· 23:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's important to note that the same editor who created this entry, DNM5 (talk · contribs), also made at least ten more, which appear to have the same issues commented by Huji and Tygart. Although they look to have been created in good faith, perhaps it would be appropriate to analize all these articles, and see if they should be included at this VfD. Phaedriel - 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Declaring that a town "seems not to be notable enough" puts us in a bad position IMO. Every town is notable to someone, so just whose POV are we using as a rule of thumb here? Whitehall's? This is totally subjective. Anyone can verify that La Cappe really does exist near Lorette, as shown on the Google map here. Blockinblox - talk 17:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: kept -- Creol(talk) 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the pages listed here

Okanlawon (talk · contribs) created these pages and has now marked them all with the {{afd}} tag. He has also asked me on my talk page to delete all his pages. The articles are on a number of Nigerian people, mostly politicians. They may be copyvio, but I do not have a way to confirm that. If so, that could be fixed with a simple rewrite. There is also a question of notability. I, myself, am unsure what to do with the articles so I am presenting the situation to the community to decide what we should do. · Tygartl1^·talk· 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A criterion for speedy deletion is "Author requests deletion". Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 19:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. If it were just one page, I would delete it right away. However, the deletion policy only says that a page can be deleted for that reason, not that it must be deleted. · Tygartl1^·talk· 20:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all, I've gone through many of them, and you can find related information below. - Huji ^reply 08:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it is obvious your site needs its own guidelines on notability, that's if it only follows the vague one page En Wikipedia guideline on notability. Most of the people on the list according to En biography guidelines are probably notable especially if one uses WP Bio or just click notability guideline on people. However, it seems there is a tendency to embrace Simple English as a secondary encyclopedia then obviously the list will have problems and should be deleted. On whether they are copy-vio, I will keep that to myself. So as the author, I think I will again exercise my hopeful privilege to ask for deletion.

And another advice, if you are not sure of notability which in En should not really be a question as long as their are sources veryfying their political career and office. One can go to google books and or use a library to detemine their work or career projectory or whatever. In the case of the list, you can use their initials and last name to see if they exist. But like I said, Simple English seems to me like a secondary wikipedia that points itself heavily on translating or writing En wiki articles which then obviously the list violates and should be deleted. Okanlawon

result: deleted. -- Creol(talk) 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spiderpig0001/Mentoring‎; User:Spiderpig0001/Mentoring/vote‎

Result: Quick deleted per author's request. - BrownE34 talk contribs 03:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need anything like this on this wikipedia and should not encourage its creation. The community acts as mentor, we don't need one person. Could lead to user given extra chances to improve behavior and letting things slide "because they're just new/young/just learning" - BrownE34 talk contribs

Delete we're not here to hold hands or be mummy. It's an encyclopedia.... Majorly (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strike-through text~~

Archives

October 2007

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Proton decay

Template:Projects

Category:Invertebrates

Summer Kabakoro

Laborschule Bielefeld

Cloud Strife

Displacement

September 2007

Imperial Cebu

Canuck

Software_piracy

Template:Clean1

Blakeism

Ben Kovitz

Ukrainian Red Midget

Tifa game

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kimberly Ashton

BBC Learning English

Kedar Joshi

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

AOC (disambiguation)

List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes

Wikipedia:Settlements

Landerism

La Cappe

All the pages listed here

User:Spiderpig0001/Mentoring‎; User:Spiderpig0001/Mentoring/vote‎