Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Log 8

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you think a page should be deleted, read the deletion policy to make sure.
Then follow these instructions on how to request a page for deletion. To find more information on what discussed deletions and quick deletions are:
PLEASE READ THIS

Before nominating: checks and alternatives

[change source]
Shortcut

Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:

A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines
  1. The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion.
  2. The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)
  3. Subject-specific notability guidelines, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines
B. Carry out these checks
  1. Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for quick deletion.
  2. If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)
  3. Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
  4. Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
  5. Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
  6. Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lead.
C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
  1. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for RfD.
  2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
  3. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to fix it.
  4. If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.
D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
  1. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.
  2. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an RfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources, and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an RfD nomination may still be appropriate.
  3. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include {{unreferenced}}, {{refimprove}}, {{third-party}}, {{primary sources}} and {{one source}}.

Discussed deletion

[change source]
Put the deletion tag on the article.
  1. Click "Change source" at the top of the page to be deleted.
  2. In the edit box, add this tag: {{rfd|REASON}}. Put it at the top of the page, above the rest of the text. Then, replace the text "REASON" with a short reason why the page should be deleted. Do not be too specific here. You can add more details on the discussion page (see below).
    • It is a good idea to write a change summary to let others know what you are doing. You can say "nominating for deletion", "requesting deletion", or something like that.
  3. Click "Save changes" at the bottom to save the page with the deletion tag at the top.
    • You can also check the "Watch this page" check box to add the page to your watchlist. This lets you know if the page for deletion has been changed. If the deletion tag is removed any time before the discussion is closed, it should be put back.
Create a discussion page.
  1. If the deletion tag has been added to the page, a box should appear at the top of the article with a link saying "Click here to create a discussion page!" Click that link.
  2. You should be taken to a page starting with "Creating Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/..." along with the current year and the name of the article to be deleted. In the edit box, the following tag should have already been added: {{RfD/Preload/Template}} . Replace the text PLACE REASON HERE with a more detailed reason why the page should be deleted.
    • It is helpful to include links to the various policy pages about Wikipedia (that begin with Wikipedia:). Here are some examples of this: "This article is [[Wikipedia:COMPLEX|not easy to understand]]" or "Not a [[Wikipedia:notable|notable]] topic''. This will make others more aware of why the page is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policies.
  3. Click "Save changes" to save the new discussion page when you are done.
    • A change summary you can write for this page is "creating discussion page", "starting deletion discussion", or something like that.
    • As with the page for deletion, you can check the "Watch the page" box. This will let you know if someone else has replied to your discussion.
  1. Copy the title of the discussion page to the clipboard. You can do this by dragging the mouse over the text from "Wikipedia" to the end of the page title to highlight it, then right-clicking and selecting "Copy".
  2. Go to the list of deletion requests, and click "change source" beside the words "Current deletion request discussions".
  3. At the top of the list of discussions, paste the title from the clipboard (right-click and select "Paste"). Add a pair of curly brackets before and after the title to make a template that will copy the content of the discussion page onto the main deletion page, like this:
    {{Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/(name of page to be deleted)}}
  4. Finally, click "Save changes" to add the discussion to the list. If the page saves successfully, you should see your deletion discussion at the top of the list. And that's it!

If this is too complicated for you, there are some gadgets like Twinkle that you can use. This allows you to do it faster.

Quick deletion

[change source]
See also: Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Quick deletion

If you think a page has nonsense content, add {{non}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page does not say why the subject is important, add {{notable}} to the top of the page.

If you think a page should be deleted per other quick deletion rules, add {{QD|reason}} to the top of the page.

Notifying the user

[change source]

Generally, you should try to be civil and tell the user that created the page to join the discussion talking about the page. This can be done by adding {{subst:RFDNote|page to be deleted}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talkpage.

Discussions

[change source]
See also: Wikipedia:Deletion review
  • The discussion is not a vote. Please make suggestions on what action to take, and support your suggestion with reasons.
  • Please look at the article before you make a suggestion. Do not make an opinion using only the information given by the nominator. Looking at the history of the article may help to understand the situation.
  • Please read other comments and suggestions. They may have helpful information.
  • Start your comments or suggestions on a new line. Start with * and sign after your comment by adding ~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs and make sure your comment is indented (using more than one *).
  • New users can make suggestions, but their ideas may not be considered, especially if the suggestion seems to be made in bad faith. The opinion of users who had an account before the start of the request may be given more weight or importance.
  • Suggestions by users using "sock puppets" (more than one account belonging to the same person) will not be counted.
  • Please make only one suggestion. If you change your mind, change your first idea instead of adding a new one. The best way to do this is to put <s> before your old idea and </s> after it. For example, if you wanted to delete an article but now think it should be kept, you could put: "Delete keep".
  • If you would like an article to be kept, you can improve the article and try to fix the problems given in the request for deletion. If the reasons given in the nomination are fixed by changing, the nomination can be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an administrator.
  • Try to avoid confusing suggestions, such as delete and merge.
  • Requests for deletion is not a war zone. You can click here for more information, although the page is not in Simple English.

Remember: You do not have to make a suggestion for every nomination. You should think about not making a suggestion if:

  1. A nomination involves a topic that you do not know much about.
  2. Everyone has made the same suggestion and you agree with that suggestion.
  • All times are in UTC.

This log documents completed deletion requests for November 2007 and December 2007.


December 2007

[change source]

Template:Deletedpage

[change source]
Template:Deletedpage (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This template was for when there was no cascading protection and pages had to be salted by deleting then protecting page, now that there is cascading protection there is no use for this template. Oysterguitarist 21:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete - Huji reply 15:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RADWIMPS

[change source]
RADWIMPS (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The notability of the group is questionable. The article doesn't answer it, and I cannot find satisfactory information on the net in English. - Huji reply 20:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Agreed per nomination. Also, an ugly page with no wikifying or categorization. 3 strikes and you are out. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 21:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Japanese band with a jp:wiki article (they know their notability better). Two album releases from a major label (EMI Japan) that ranked 13th and 5th on their national ratings (Oricon). The first single from the major debut ablum sold out at over the 1 million copy mark. While unformted and uncategorized (actually is categorized, but wrong place on two levels, not J-pop (japanese rock band) and even if they were it would be J-pop bands as they would be a band that plays that music, not the music itself - but that last one is a common error), these are not grounds for deletion, {{Wikify}}, {{cleanup}}, and {{uncat}} exist just for articles like this one. Atleast the writing is readable to the point they can be cleaned up unlike many j-pop band articles which need translation to get from Google-Jap/En translation to actual English to Simple English. -- Creol(talk) 06:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been bringing my Japanese students of English to the simple.wikipedia J-pop to let them contribute information on some of their favorite groups. They are new to this, so please be patient. I would like them to register for the site, but there is a restriction on the number of times an IP address can be used for new registrations (our university computer labs use a proxy with one IP address). Thank you all for your patience. Mixtli
Result: Keep - Huji reply 15:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris Facts

[change source]
Chuck Norris Facts (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Is this really needed? Notability issues also. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 22:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has been greatly expanded since it was nominated for deletion. -- Creol(talk) 02:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks to me like it is just another Chuck Norris fad. Does it really belong? Razorflame (contributions) Talk 22:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs on nearly a dozen other Wikipedias. JetLover Bam! 22:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to vote, there does seem to be some notability since it is in several other languages(which I had not seen). Oysterguitarist 22:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Were this just a list of the facts (ie. a copy of the 5K pages of what Chuck Norris can do) I would support deletion, but as it is actually an attempt (stub-ish that it is) to explain what these "facts" are, and the fact that it is a very widespread and well known Internet phenomenom, I see no reason for it not to be explained (though I would wish it were explained a little more than this). -- Creol(talk) 06:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...Aurora... 08:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chuck Norris may not be notable  :) but this is an explanation of a widespread cyber-fad even though the person himself is almost unknown this side of the Atlantic. --Bärliner 13:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a real phenomenon and it's certainly notable in the US. Is Chuck Norris really unknown over there? It seemed like Walker, Texas Ranger was always on TV when I lived in Spain yet I've never once seen it at home. Hmmm... Anyways, Creol's right, the article needs to be expanded to explain the phenomenon a little better. · Tygrrr... 19:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Tygrrr, no, Chuck Norris is definitely widely known here in the United States. I just thought that this article was just another attempt to make light (fun of) Chuck Norris, so that is why I supported the deletion of this page. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 19:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know he's well-known in the US. I live in the US and I even said "it's certainly notable in the US". By "over there" I meant Europe. · Tygrrr... 20:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Keep - Huji reply 15:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VIS Interactive

[change source]
VIS Interactive (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I just have to ask this question: Does an article with no interwikis or external links belong on this Wikipedia? This page also has to do with notability. Does this company really exist? If it does, I don't know about it, and I actually live in the United States. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 23:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know you can first find out by searching Google that it does exist? There is no requirement on any wikipedia that an article must have interwikis to other wikipedias if there are none known. Blockinblox - talk 00:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::Yes, I did know, but I am holding firm on this RfD because I am sure it is a notability issue. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 00:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll save myself and withdraw my request. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 00:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Bune

[change source]

Other discussion of the RfD has taken place of Vice Bune talk page

notability and veracity issues. See talk page. References seem to be to various copies of the article on other wikis and other sites some of which note that they are copies of wikipedia  Barliner  talk  12:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But many of those links are copies of wiki articles, now deleted. One actually has the header "This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on South Pacific Ocean is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines." The Vice Bune talk page notes this and other, including its deletion from en: wiki. The latin wiki you note has little more than dates of birth and death. The "voyages" are in "pseudo-history"-- Barliner  talk  17:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vice Bune was not, repeat not, the first European to visit Vanuatu, the Solomon islands or the Bismark Islands despite the claim/s made by the same author in various articles on English (deleted), Latin (exposed) and now Simple English WP. That other Europeans were the first is very well documented. The same writer responsible for this theory and all the links cited as verification is now very active on the English Philippine WP project see [1] and [2]. The theory is his and also that of his late father, Mitjeel Yoshamya. A Croatian website alludes to the fringe theories of this writer – see[3] as well as the summary and links provided in Latin by Andrew Dalby at [4] and [5].English historian Robin Harris’s outstanding recent history of Dubrovnik (recently translated into Croatian) contains nothing on Vice Bune. See [6] Why? Because there are other Croatians who did great things and are worthy of note. Not Vice Bune. --Nickm57 09:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How was it established that Yoshamya is the author's father? I read all the linked discussions and haven't seem anyone but you make that claim, but maybe I missed it. But I did notice in the discussion on the Latin WP, that he came up with a great deal of historical sources for Bune's life, not just Yoshamya. The simple article doesn't even list Yoshamya as a source, it lists only other sources. The author also suggested on Latin WP that this move to deny Bune's existence is a form of systemic bias, since conventional history wishes to discount the possibility that Croatian sea-captains could have involved in exploration: the documents and records just don't fit in with the systemic bias taught as fact, so they attempt to suppress them, but he says they would not have given a Western European explorer whose life is equally well documented, the same treatment. Experiment 626 14:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Authorship. It’s hardly all that relevant but you have missed it and I am certainly not the only person to make this suggestion. See Latin WP article on M. Yoshamya [7] And see [8] where Dr.Lovric aka Zyelimeer Yoshamya acknowledges the connection. Look at the login name at [9] (it’s AZLovric) Look at the statement at the bottom of the Wikipilipinas page “Partly adapted, translated and completed (by the same author), from the articles Vice Bune both in Croatian Wikipedia, and in Vicipaedia Latina”. In the original Latin WP article on Vice Bune, user “GeoLatina”, added references to M.Yoshamya’s monograph, which have not survived the latest revision, but references to it being added are still to be found in the discussion page.
2. “Conventional history.” Can I ask (rhetorically) what you mean by this? Even if you believe what you have just written about systematic cultural bias denying the history of Dalmatian exploration Experiment 626, should this article then not also do that in some detail and in the usual neutral WP fashion? It clearly doesn’t, in fact it was written without any reference to such a debate at all. It states, as though fact, things that can be demonstrated not to be so, or are very unlikely to be so.
The WP project does not exist to give independent research a soapbox. Remember the WP guidelines at [10]. Wikiinfo is the place for this new research - and its already there[11], placed by user AZLovric!--Nickm57 22:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Good sources, how is "notability" defined and established? Why does it matter if this provides valuable information for an encyclopedia? -Liberator 06:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Vote invalid, as a sockpuppet of a banned user --Bärliner 22:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Nickm57. At best this page is a POV nightmare, most likely it is a theory by a few nationalistic historians about a countryman. Were this article to state what is widely sourced about Bune and also include a section about what was theorized (with appropriate space alloted to counter-theory evidence) that would be fine, but this buries the knowns (viceroy to Mexico) and includs thing that appear just blatantly wrong. Bune discovered a host of Islands, this is why they have similar names - Yet look at the names listed and try to compare them to names of Croatian Islands. The closest match (and only) I could find for those listed in the Solomon islands was Velakula (solomon) to Vele Srakane (Croat). Pretty much every Google hit for Velakula is related to "Bune discovered" articles (400 hits but only 39 non-related pages). No verifiable reputable source, only a theory, questionable theory at best. -- Creol(talk) 06:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result Deleted (5 delete, 2 keep) -- Creol(talk) 02:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cats

[change source]

Incomplete, badly formatted list. - Huji reply 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted · Tygrrr... 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of monkeys

[change source]

Incomplete, badly formatted list. - Huji reply 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted · Tygrrr... 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects

[change source]
Template:Cue sports project (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Category:WikiProject Taiwan articles (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) - (Quick deleted)

Both items relate to wikiprojects, which the community has never supported. Rather than delete them on an old precedent, I ask the community to reaffirm that wikiprojects, and these related templates and categories are able to be deleted. -- Barliner  talk  14:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. I have yet to be convinced that we need WikiProjects. The creator of WikiProject Taiwan said s/he'd work so hard on it and then abandoned it before ever really getting started. If a project isn't being worked on now and never has been, it's just not needed. I think we'll someday have a topic compelling enough or broad enough to attract a number of users to a WikiProject. However, I don't feel that these topics are it. · Tygrrr... 15:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tygrrr. I also QDd the category as once the template was removed, the category was empty and fell under C1. -- Creol(talk) 16:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tygrrr. - Huji reply 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, we are between 30 and 40 regular (high-volume) contributors. For this (or any similar number) of editors wikiprojects are unneeded; Before I openly support a wikiproject, I first want to see an effort, of the respective people. This means that there is a page in userspace which serves to co-ordinate efforts, and that the repsective page gets such a high level of edits that it needs to be moved to mainspace; in other words, I oppose any wiki-project that relies on a mainspace page to coordinate;Or the quick, and short answer: delete the pages, as proposed. --Eptalon 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result: deleted · Tygrrr... 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islam-stub

[change source]

I think as long as we don't have a plan for dealing with stubs, only one stub template is needed. I think we have gone through this before too. That's why I think we should delete this template. - Huji reply 17:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted · Tygrrr... 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Template stubs

[change source]
Template:Stub-template (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Template:Microsoft-stub (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

These are related to the Islam-stub discussed above. Both in my reasons fr delete and in template architecture. These are not yet necessary. -- Barliner  talk  18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted · Tygrrr... 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extrajudicial punishment

[change source]

This is a word-for-word copy of the Extrajudicial punishment article on the English Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: quick deleted. · Tygrrr... 19:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities

[change source]
Aadorf (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Almens (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Alvaneu (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Coldrerio (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Affeltrangen (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Birgisch (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Eggerberg (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Mund (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Naters (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Ried-Brig (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Simplon (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Betschwanden (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Amriswil (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Not notable enough to deserve it's own page Razorflame (contributions) Talk 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm confused! You put so much time creating them, then you request their deletion? Anyways, I see no reason why they are not notable. Several interwiki links show they have been declared as notable on several wikis. We have enough space for them too, so why to remove them? - Huji reply 17:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I didn't notice that you were the creator of these pages. I just assumed they were created by someone else, and as such, their deletion should be discussed (which is why I was changing the template from QD to RfD. However, I must say that I am also confused as to why you created them and are now requesting their deletion. I might agree that some of them have questionable notability (namely those with populations less than 500), but seeing as they have nice infoboxes and multiple interwiki links, I'd have to research the notability further to determine whether or not I would vote to delete. · Tygrrr... 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment-It was my mistake. I just thought that they weren't notable enough, which was why I was adding them to qd. I guess that they actually do have good potential here. -Razorflame (contributions) Talk 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn request. -Razorflame (contributions) Talk 17:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result: request withdrawn - kept. · Tygrrr... 16:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The group of people who don't admit the special-rights of Koreans in Japan

[change source]
The group of people who don't admit the special-rights of Koreans in Japan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Notability, only 1500 members in a population of 127 million. Complex title, and complex english in title. No original independent sources given. Verification of facts difficult  Barliner  talk  12:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of prizes, medals, and awards

[change source]
List of prizes, medals, and awards (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Irrelevant. I don't know the policy of the simple-English-Wikipedia (I know only the German-policy so far), but I think the article is senceless. There is no need for such an article and a list with all prizes in the world would be extremly long. A list with "importnant" prizes is problem, because who says which prize is important and which not. Jakob 02:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Keep -- Creol(talk) 09:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runscape hints

[change source]
Runscape hints (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It does not follow with WP:NOT and has no relevant content. The title is also spelt wrong. -- JJIG (reply|contribs|email|en) 06:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby

[change source]
Ruby (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article looks as though it was copied directly out of the en:WP site. It isn't simple, and either needs to be completely rewritten or deleted. -Razorflame 02:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Delete - Huji reply 07:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misery Guts

[change source]
Misery Guts (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is a book written by a notable writer, but neither the book nor the TV series based on it are notabled. I added some info to the article (like Amazon ranking) prior to tagging for deletion, so things can be easier to judge. - Huji reply 10:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I think that since the author is notable, this page (linked to and from the author's page) is also worthwhile. This page basically improves the quality of the author page. MrB 13:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you have never heard of the author does not mean they are not notable. Oysterguitarist 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The book appears to meet basic threshold limits (ISBN, Library of Australia, given it is listed as top 100 books read by girls grades 5-6, I would imagine it is in a host of australian librairies). While not made into a motion picture, it was made into a television series, which was *broadcast on national television. Its author's other works include many notable enough to be have their own en:wp pages (Notability (books):if any are, they all are). It is actually a red-link on the authors page listing his books, En:wp is waiting for the page to be created. There are also varies reviews on australian based websites as well as newpaper references to the book and its author. -- Creol(talk) 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Keep.--Werdan7T @ 02:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

[change source]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan

[change source]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Taiwan (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is the second nomination of this page for deletion. The previous one can be found here. Apparently, this wiki project is not active any more. Generally, we don't start Wikiprojects regarding the size of our community, so I don't think an inactive Wikiproject should be the exception to this general behaviour, which is why I'm requesting the closure of this Wikiproject and the deletion of the page. - Huji reply 18:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Delete - Huji reply 12:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. G. Davis Senior Public School

[change source]
W. G. Davis Senior Public School (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Per WP:NOT, this article seems to have too limited of a focus to be on this project. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Delete - Huji reply 12:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty 2

[change source]

No context. Needs deletion. -Razorflame 19:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. QD Nonsense. No need to list here. -- Barliner  talk  19:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

[change source]
This request includes:
Four (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Five (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Six (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Seven (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Eight (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Nine (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Unlike one, which has some "encyclopedic" information in it, the articles I listed above are again subject to the same issue we had with the previous version of these articles (which were moved to Wiktionary and deleted here). So I reuqest them to be deleted again. (For previous request for deletion please see this page). - Huji reply 18:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Keep. I withdrawn my request. - Huji reply 12:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Vienna

[change source]
Treaty of Vienna (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

According to en:Treaty of Vienna, there is no treaty taken place in 1515 between Poland and Lithuania. I also couldn't verify the existance of it by Googling, hence my request for deletion of the page as unverified claim. Certainly, I'm not good in history of Europe, so a reliable source could suffice for me to take the request back. - Huji reply 11:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to reduce the growing pressures on the Empire brought about by treaties between the rulers of France, Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, and Russia, as well as to secure Bohemia and Hungary for the Habsburgs, Maximilian I met with the Jagiellonian kings Ladislaus II of Hungary and Bohemia and Sigismund I of Poland at Vienna in 1515. There they arranged for Maximilian's grand-daughter Mary to marry Louis, the son of Ladislaus, and for Anne (the sister of Louis) to marry Maximilian's grandson Ferdinand (both grandchildren being the children of Philip the Handsome, Maximilian's son, and Juana la Loca of Castile). The marriages arranged there brought Habsburg kingship over Hungary and Bohemia in 1526. Both Anne and Louis were adopted by Maximilian following the death of Ladislaus. These political marriages were summed up in the following Latin hexameters: Bella gerant aliī, tū fēlix Austria nūbe/ Nam quae Mars aliīs, dat tibi regna Venus, i.e., "Let others wage war, but thou, O happy Austria, marry; for those kingdoms which Mars gives to others, Venus gives to thee." (In en:Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor under Tu Felix Austria Nube.--Eptalon 13:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
de:Wiener Doppelhochzeit is another (German) article about it. --Eptalon 13:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (and correct) into the articles on the Czech Republic, Hungary and Habsburg. Reading through the information from en:wp articles on Maximillian I, Ladislaus II, and Louis, the facts presented in the article do not seem to be correct. This was not a treaty, it was a political marriage agreement. While it ended up placing the countries under Hasburg control, it was only due to the fact that the line of succession fell to Anne when her brother died. As Anne was married to a Maximillian's grandson, her husband became an heir with her. Had Anne died first, or her husband, and they had no heir, then nothing in this marriage agreement would have passed rulership on to the Hasburgs. The Czech Republic article also includes much of the information given in this article and needs to be cleaned up to match the correct information. The information on the events does not need a complete article about it (it does not have one on en:wp either, just bits and pieces of information on the articles of the various people involved in the arranged marriage). -- Creol(talk) 15:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It seems this was never a treaty as a familial land agreement, common in the Ernestine duchies and salic law. The article name is more useful disambiguating the various real Treaties of Vienna as on ENWP. -- Barliner  talk  23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with the above. -Razorflame 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added merge templates to resp. pages --Eptalon 22:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChessFish.com

[change source]
ChessFish.com (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It looks very much like an advertisement for a website and not an encyclopedia article. Hojimachongtalk 23:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it as spam. Oysterguitarist 03:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to popularize that chess community. But if you all don't like it - I am agree with you - delete it!
Best wishes for you all!
Jordan— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidon (talk • contribs) 07:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We know that you had good intentions when writing that article, but Wikipedia does not support advertisement articles. -- JJIG (reply|contribs|email|en) 07:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Deleted at the author's request -- Barliner  talk  18:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:History

[change source]
This request includes:
Portal:History (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Portal:History/Intro (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I'm requesting deletion of this page, because I think we should first decide whether we want to have portals, and then start creating them. Portals, like Wikiprojects, need a higher number of active users involved in the wiki, which is not the case for our wiki at the moment. Please comment. - Huji reply 19:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Quick delete, as the only author (User:Hojimachong) agreed with its deletion. - Huji reply 09:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SSATV

[change source]
SSATV (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Doesn't appear to be a notable TV station. I couldn't also find an article about it on English Wikipedia.- Huji reply 07:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete - Huji reply 19:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jakten på Billie Jo

[change source]
Jakten på Billie Jo (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Tanya Gingerich (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Melissa Hanson (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Hope Harris (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
Alexandra Sapot (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The article is about a Swedish reality series to find an actress for a part in a short lived, poorly received (ie. not very notable) soap opera. Secondary sources of information are next to none as pretty much only IMDb has any information. All the actresses included in the series (also included in the RfD) suffer the same problem. Most have had some small parts here and there, but nothing notable by itself. The winner herself is best known as an executive assistant on a television series. Individually, these are borderline QD candidates due to lack of notability, by as group I thought RfD'ing them together would be a better idea-- Creol(talk) 15:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the EnWP, we will find the following:
The article about the show is very similar to the EnWP one.
Except for Tanya Gingerich, there are no articles for the people mentioned in EnWP. --Eptalon 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On en:wp, all four actresses had articles when this was created. All were later marked as QDs and apparently, most have been taken care of. (note: and Gingerich just got qd'd as well) -- Creol(talk) 17:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article about the TV show may be kept (as a borderline case), if it is rewritten to be sufficiently different from the EnWP one. The articles about the participants should be merged into the TV Show article; if the piece of information is to be kept.--Eptalon 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have merged stubs for the contestants into the article about the show; that way it is easy to create redirects if the Articles about the contestants are deleted. --Eptalon 12:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Kept the TV Show article; redirected the individual contestants. Yes, it is a borderline case, but I'd rather keep it. --Eptalon 15:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Log_8&oldid=8870403"