Ireland Information Guide , Irish, Counties, Facts, Statistics, Tourism, Culture, How

Shortcut:
WP:VFD

Resources for maintenance and collaboration
Requests	new articles - fix stubs - article expansion - topic list
Cleanup	general - specific - blank pages - move to Wiktionary
Help wanted	peer review - translation into En - images
Controversy	neutrality - article accuracy - statement accuracy - copyvios
Stubs	"perfect" - stubs - substubs - short pages - incomplete lists - most wanted - stub cats
Disambig	articles to be merged - split
Deletion	speedy - articles - categories - redirects - templates - jokes - log - archives - undeletion
To-do lists	articles - projects - books

Template:VfD header Current votes - 1^st 31^st 30^th 29^th 28^th 27^th

Old votes - 26^th 25^th 24^th 23^rd 22^nd 21^st 20^th 19^th 18^th 17^th 16^th 15^th 14^th 13^th 12^th 11^th 10^th 9^th 8^th

Template:VfD frontmatter VfD was archived on 28 May. If you need to look at old history please see the history of Ireland Information Guide:Votes_for_deletion_archive_May_2004. Note that listings more than five days old should now be moved to Ireland Information Guide:Votes for deletion/Old.

Table of contents

1 Decisions in progress

[edit]

Decisions in progress

[edit]

August 27

[edit]

Redass -- Add to this discussion

Even mentions in the article that there is only one description of this game on the Web. Peter O. (Talk) 00:19, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Also original research. Delete. -- orthogonal 00:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
DELETE. Neutrality (talk) 01:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Some private form of sadism. Geogre 02:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete Some unoriginal form of wallball -TheFed 04:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's played quite a lot by kids here in the north of England (under the more colloquial name 'Redarse'). Basically involves kicking a football (soccer ball) at someone's arse. I'm sure there are more complex rules than that. However, I don't really feel this is encyclopedia worthy, so delete.
- Comment: Please sign your posts, user:Darksun. No vote at this stage. Andrewa 10:32, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A game played with great enthusiasm by Canadian schoolboys. There are always house rules, but this (badly edited) article lays out the basics. Denni☯ 23:30, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
Keep. --Dittaeva 12:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Piano Trios Nos. 5 - 6, Opus 70 (Beethoven) -- Add to this discussion

This should be on a grand list of Beethoven's list of works, rather than having it a separate entry --Allyunion 00:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to a page with a name something like Beethoven (Chamber Music), as you suggest above. I notice that many of Beethoven's works have a separate page, such as Moonlight sonata. I agree with you that the piano trios do not deserve a separate page. But as you suggest, we should move the text to a page with a name something like Beethoven (Chamber Music) leaving a redirect instead of deleting. ---Rednblu 01:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It should be noted that a few works, such as Moonlight sonata, if given enough detail to its history, etc, might be a notable entry, if it can be expanded as such. However, two Trios are not notable enough to warrant its own page. -- Allyunion 04:39, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to a list of Beethoven's chamber works. If they can be expanded in the same way as the articles on his symphonies, they can be broken out again. — Gwalla | Talk 01:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- On second thought, keep. User:Camembert's argument is persuasive. — Gwalla | Talk 22:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wait a sec. We seem to have quite a few articles on popular music albums by contemporary "artists" (Baby One More Time, Oops!...I Did It Again, Britney, In The Zone, No Strings Attached, Celebrity, Raising Hell, Straight Outta Compton, Doggystyle, 2Pacalypse Now, Strictly 4 My N.I.G.G.A.Z, Thug Life: Thug Life Vol. 1, Me Against the World, All Eyez on Me, Makaveli: The Don Killuminati: 7 Day Theory, Tupac Resurrection, ZZ Top's Greatest Hits and many, many more) and even individual songs (Hey Jude, Strawberry Fields Forever, Penny Lane, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Blowin' in the Wind, Space Oddity, Smoke on the Water, Grooveallegiance, Who Says a Funk Band Can't Play Rock?, Promentalshitbackwashpsychosis Enema Squad (The Doo-Doo Chasers), Into You, Girls Just Wanna Have Fun, Smells Like Teen Spirit, Bridge Over Troubled Water (song), Rapper's Delight, and many many more), but one of Beethoven's best known works should be merged with all his other works?

Understand that a single Opus represents at least as much work as a contemporary album -- and much more work than most individual contemporary songs -- , and will be listened to with delight long after many of the albums (not all!) that we dignify with articles will be wholly forgotten.

Keep. -- orthogonal 00:26, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

<<[(Lots of popular music albums] and many many more), but one of Beethoven's best known works should be merged with all his other works?>>

Yes. That is right. That may be the price of admission to Ireland Information Guide, Madison Avenue, the Age of Republicanism, the Twenty-first century, and beyond. :)) ---Rednblu 05:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If lovin' Beethoven is wrong, I don't wanna be right. ;) -- orthogonal 07:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Decumanus 02:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Having studied music, and a little of the works of Beethoven, these trios aren't really notable in themselves, unlike articles such as Moonlight Sonata, Minute Waltz, Blue Danube Waltz, etc. which document well-known pieces which have gained notability in their own right. Merge into something more useful. All the article says right now is that they're in more-or-less standard trio form. The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 05:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I'm rather surprised that people are suggesting it isn't possible to write articles on these pieces - it's quite clear to me that it is possible. You can write about the history of their composition, the circumstances of their premiere, you can give a quick analysis of the structure, thematic material, an overview of recordings... besides which, we already have many articles on specific pieces (Piano Quintet (Brahms), Piano Quintet (Schumann), Piano Quintet (Shostakovich), to just mention a few piano quintets) and I see nothing wrong with that. Of course, at the moment the article isn't especially impressive, but we don't delete articles just because they are stubs. The problem with this particular article, if problem it is, is that it combines in one article two pieces which ought to each have an article of their own; as they were published together, however, there's bound to be a certain amount of common history, so I see no harm in having this article as well as ones on the individual pieces. --Camembert 13:11, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, there is too little information on the Piano Quintet (Brahms), Piano Quintet (Schumann), and Piano Quintet (Shostakovich) pages that you cited; separate pages with so little information misses the real opportunities here. Such little sprinklings of information about many pieces would make sense if covering several pieces on one page, if organized, such as chronologically, around several concerns in the composer's life, and if covering some span of the composer's scrutiny of life, creativity, and the void. Hence, with only that little sprinkling of information about each piece, it would be better to merge that little sprinkling of information on those pages into something like the following three pages--that would grow as Ireland Information Guide contributors find sufficient information to fill out the details.

+++Chamber music (Brahms) describing briefly also the Brahms piano quartets [pnm://rm.content.loudeye.com/~a-600111/0676330_0104_07_0002.ra] (at least as much fun as the thicker Piano Quintet (Brahms)), together with the Piano Trios, Violin Sonata, and even the piano duets

+++Chamber music (Schumann) describing briefly also Schumann's piano quartet [pnm://rm.content.loudeye.com/~aa-600111/0082247_0105_07_0002.ra] which is more fun to play than the quintet, songs with incredibly richer piano accompaniments and more fascinating accompanying stories than the quintet, and solo piano works that have much more interesting things to note about them than the kind of description that is on the Piano Quintet (Schumann) page

+++Chamber music (Shostakovich) describing briefly also Shostakovich's piano trios and wonderful solo piano music [pnm://rm.content.loudeye.com/~a-600111/0689736_0101_07_0002.ra] often in the background of which you can hear the absent string accompaniment which Shostakovich never got around to putting onto paper.

I suggest the real question here is the following: Are you satisfied with the amount of information on the Piano Quintet (Brahms), Piano Quintet (Schumann), and Piano Quintet (Shostakovich) pages? If you are not, then the information on those three pages and many similar sparse pages should be merged into something like the three above "Chamber Music" pages. For all of the above reasons, I conclude that this Beethoven Piano Trio page should be Merged into a Chamber music (Beethoven) page what would contain a little sprinkling of information about each of Beethoven's string trios, woodwind quintet and octet, [pnm://rm.content.loudeye.com/~bb-600111/0152391_0101_07_0002.ra] piano quartets, songs, and delightful musical jokes! Beethoven's piano sonatas and string quartets should get their own pages Piano sonatas (Beethoven) and String quartets (Beethoven) respectively. Furthermore, if you look at the String_Quartet_No._13_(Beethoven) page, you will see that the most beautiful seven minutes of music ever written is buried in a Ireland Information Guide page of misinformation and clutter that misses the dramatic story that could emerge from even the little sprinklings of information about many pieces in the context of a String quartets (Beethoven) page. We have to start sometime to organize this wonderful information to be useful to readers. And I say that merging this Beethoven Trio little sprinkling of information to a useful page is a good place to start doing the right thing in Merging the little sprinklings of information about many pieces into appropriate pages to be useful to the Ireland Information Guide readers. (Until the Ireland Information Guide server-side process is fixed, please copy and paste the URL: addresses that do not work above into the address window of your browser; thank you.) With all due respect, very truly yours, ---Rednblu 16:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Keep. Have a look at List of works by Beethoven and you'll see that Ireland Information Guide's little group of classical music editors is slowly filling in the gaps. Antandrus 02:58, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I'm fascinated. The fact that they were written by Beethoven is plenty of justification for regarding them as encyclopedic. The fact that they are referred to by a single opus number is plenty of reason to combine them into one article (although it would be OK to have two articles, too). Oh, and I've replaced the stub notice, I can't see any reason it was ever removed. Either. Andrewa 13:42, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep decent stub. Beethoven is sufficiently notable that articles on individual works are reasonable to have, and it is reasonable to hope that such stubs will grow. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, it's important and old could be expanded maybe rhyax 06:04, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Principality of Minerva -- Add to this discussion

Undocumented group. Redundant article content. The only evidence of the "principality" is 1 "under construction" web page. The valid article content already exists at Republic of Minerva, which also already includes reference to the "principality". --Gene_poole 01:11, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Redirect to Republic of Minerva. Actually, I'll go ahead and do that. — Gwalla | Talk 01:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agree with redirecting. Since George Cruickshank, the emperor of Atlantium, a "micronation" that exists largely as a website, is trying to delete the entry for a rival "micronation" that exists largely as a website... does that make this a declaration of war? Nagurer 04:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Disregard: Invalid sockpuppet vote.--Gene_poole 04:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Nice try, George. However, I imagine the rest of us remain unconvinced. :-) The User Formerly Known As 82.6.10.139 21:05, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) (PS, merge/redirect)
  - "The rest of you" obviously need to learn how to read a little page known as "user contributions" Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Nagurer (http://en.Ireland) in that case.--Gene_poole 23:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep redirect to Republic of Minerva. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Anon IP User:153.9.253.10 restored page, so I restored vfd notice. Redirect when comes off the top of vfd. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the redirect. Note, this isn't a micronation thing, this is related to the attempt to create an actual sovereign nation in international waters, and one that sparked action from a nation to stop it, rather than someone declaring their bedroom has seceded. Average Earthman 22:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Republic of Minerva, and it looks as if there's a little material that might be merged too. Andrewa 13:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep and do not ridirect. The Prinicpality, a historical entity, is different from the Republic and it looks to me like each deserves it's own article.
- that post was 14:10, 1 Sep 2004 User:SeekingOne; to that user, please sign your posts with ~~~~. The "Prinicpality" as you call it is related to the Republic, and is already mentioned there. Your grammar is as bad as your spelling, btw :). Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As the author of the original Republic of Minerva Ireland Information Guide article, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that some spurious group is trying to resurrect this micronation. I would request that the original article Republic of Minerva is maintained with the footnote about the Prinicpality, because that is all the Principality is - a footnote in another story. OT, I'd also like to write an article on Oliver if anyone can supply some detailed info. - User:Patronus

[edit]

Megan Solis -- Add to this discussion

Article about a 12-year-old who lives in Vancouver, B.C. Sorry to say, but she is non-notable, & apparently is everyone else mentioned in this article. (Although I'll admit I wouldn't dare list Vancouver, B.C. here. ;-) -- llywrch 03:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. Third time I can remember I have ever protected a page: someone keeps removing the VfD notice, as if that will keep the page from being deleted. (No, I'm not reversing my opinion about the page.) -- llywrch 23:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. —Stormie 04:01, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. — Gwalla | Talk 04:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. SWAdair | Talk 04:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This was already deleted by myself (when it was posted by an anon), but now that the user has a username, why not simply move it to User:Msforever55? She already has a copy of it on her talk page, and was probably acting on Grunt's helpful suggestion to create an account so she could have her bio on her userpage (see User talk:154.20.118.177). Methinks she meant to put it on her userpage, but if it isn't moved I support deletion. -- Hadal 04:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, as she can move the matter from talk to user pages and this is now a relic. Geogre 12:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Johnny_Swift_And_The_Mince_Pies -- Add to this discussion

Is this really useful?

03:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)202.180.83.6 03:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, not notable. —Stormie 04:01, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 04:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete band vanity/promotion. All ten web hits are Ireland Information Guide and mirrors. BTW, does anyone know if the way freeglossary.com hides the Ireland Information Guide attribution is legit? SWAdair | Talk 04:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- looks very illegit and a candidate for an entry on Ireland Information Guide:Copies_of_Ireland Information Guide_content_(low_degree_of_compliance) --Ianb 07:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. --Ianb 07:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Band vanity. Geogre 12:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Stephen Cheung -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable, self-promotion: a 17-year-old who knows how to use Photoshop. -- llywrch 03:41, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable. —Stormie 03:50, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete Vanity -TheFed 04:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, with or without the penis. Poster is avoiding a block set by me (he was spamming his RPG site). He also has a history of furtive self-promotion (see Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Web_design&diff=5470804&oldid=5470724 (http://en.Ireland) and Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=PHP&diff=5376888&oldid=5376790 (http://en.Ireland)) under several IPs, and has created another article to further promote himself and his site (the same one he was spamming). Please note however that the penis stuff was Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Stephen_Cheung&diff=5471191&oldid=5471109 added by another user (http://en.Ireland) in an apparent act of vandalism, but User:Pusher seems to disagree with its removal (perhaps he didn't look at the page history very closely?). -- Hadal 04:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity, non-notable, possible vandalism, block evasion. Photoshop is a "difficult program"? — Gwalla | Talk 04:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete Lacrimosus 09:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC).
Delete. Below par for a young-person vanity article, should at least contain hospital of birth and details of immediate family members. --Ianb 09:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Continue banning every IP he shows up at. Geogre 12:50, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Save I'm doing a report on him. User:152.163.253.37 23:05, 27 Aug 2004
Delete --Gmarine3000
Delete. Indeed there is another Prof. Stephen Cheung 張仁良 which is quite well-known in Hong Kong. But I don't bother to write about him. --wshun 13:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Ball (baseball statistics) -- Add to this discussion

This article should be merged with Baseball statistics. -- Allyunion 04:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you, so Keep article as per your request. You are not asking for a deletion, but for a merge and redirect. There is no need to list here: What to list and not list on VfD. Simply merge them yourself and redirect the page (#REDIRECT: Baseball statistics) yourself. Davodd 05:15, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

On base percentage -- Add to this discussion

This article should be merged with Baseball statistics. - Allyunion 04:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you, so Keep article as per your request. You are not asking for a deletion, but for a merge and redirect. There is no need to list here: What to list and not list on VfD. Simply merge them yourself and redirect the page (#REDIRECT: Baseball statistics) yourself. Davodd 05:15, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Photography as an art form -- Add to this discussion

Looks like a copyvio, but Google turns up nothing. No internal links. Looks like someone's school essay. I don't think there's anything worthwhile here. grendel|khan 05:38, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)

Delete. Fuzheado | Talk 12:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: No original research, although this is very, very well written (suspiciously so, perhaps). Geogre 12:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Send to cleanup, I think. It seems like a valid topic. I continue to find that Ireland Information Guide searches are sucky, but I figured any decent article on this topic would contain the word Stieglitz and Google searching in Ireland Information Guide on Stieglitz didn't turn up any real pay dirt, so I think this is the only article we have on this subject. Someone already linked it in the Photography article. I can't think of any better title for such an article. I dislike this article intensely. For starters, it doesn't mention Alfred Stieglitz. Or Pictorialism. Or F. Holland Day. It is written in an "original research" style and is at least 80% original reseearch. And, yeah, I wonder about its being a possible copyright violation. But I still am thinking X-Treme cleanup, not deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I didn't see the Bauhaus folks (Moholahagy Naggy, whose name I just butchered, e.g.) or "The Defining Moment," etc., either, but I wasn't looking that hard, because I was looking at it in terms of original research. Geogre 15:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Well, me, I don't know boo about the history of photography or photographic aesthetics. On thinking some more, what's needed is so much cleanup, as replacement with a good stub. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)BTW did you mean "The Decisive Moment" as in Henri Cartier-Bresson?? Dpbsmith (talk) 16:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- D'oh! I'm sure I messed up the Bauhaus photographer's name, too. (Kicking brain.) Geogre 21:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Aha. Duncharris has noted in the History that he removed a signature — a name — from the foot of the page. The article was originally signed "Arnold Perey, PhD". Arnold Perey's doctoral thesis in anthropology was about Aesthetic Realism (http://www.aestheticrealism.org/Links-WebPages.html), and a Ireland Information Guide user Aperey did the posting, first as anon IP, see article History. OK, we can surely take it that Dr. Perey both wrote and posted the text, so it's not copyvio. But it is original research, maybe from his thesis. Bishonen 16:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A dissertation that was reviewed and its author awarded a degree is certainly more peer-reviewed than most of what is in here. I haven't really looked at this, but I'm guessing there should at least be material worth mining. Maybe he can move it to his user area & start mining it? -- Jmabel 22:24, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe, but what's needed is a straightforward presentation of the whole subject, not a personal examination of selected aspects of it. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep and make less essay-like. -Sean Curtin 00:20, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
- How? Sean, you need to give some vote here. Either keep it all or send it to clean up or merge & redirect or delete. I'd almost like to see it go to a kind of Wikisource staging area. It's good, but it's not encyclopedic. Geogre 22:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - It isn't now, but it's got the bones of a good article. -Sean Curtin 06:08, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Duality of Screaming -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable zine written by "two anonymous Australian teenagers". RickK 06:39, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Delete Lacrimosus 09:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC).
Delete: Advertising. Geogre 12:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, advert. Just about anybody with a Kinko's nearby "publishes" a zine; they're notable if they're influential, but not otherwise. — Gwalla | Talk 01:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, and not doing a good job being anonymous. -TheFed 05:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ireland Information Guide is swamped with junk. Wetman 09:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Children's Own School -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable Montessori school. RickK 06:43, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

For Montessori, 1920 is pretty old, pretty close to the origins. Very close. ~~Abstain~~ for now. The article doesn't quite give enough notability, but it's really close. Geogre 12:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and send to clean up to see if further research improves it. User Allyn will keep working on it, so this should be kept. Geogre 12:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What are the guidelines for listing specific institutions? I see other schools listed here. Perhaps I am out of line in submitting this article for a specific school?Allyn

Schools are a constant bone of contention, Allyn. The best indication of this is Ireland Information Guide:What's in, what's out where you'll see a distinct lack of consensus, particularly about high schools. For primary schools, there's general agreement that the school has to be notable in some way.

This seems borderline. It was perfectly OK to be bold and submit it. Nobody minds your submitting it.

Now we're trying to figure out whether it's notable enough to keep.

The most helpful thing you can do is try to do a little more research that might add a few more reasons why this school is interesting enough to deserve an encyclopedia article. As I understand it, there was a small wave of Montessori schools in the late 1910s and 1920s, then a sort of hiatus, then a resurgence in popular in the 1960s and thereafter. Do you have any idea how many Montessori schools there actually were in the United States in 1920? You might also say where you learned that Dorothy Gove knew Maria Montessori; assuming this is verifiable, it's of some interest. Finally, http://www.griffinmuseum.org/hist_photos/history_10.html shows "a selection of historical photographs" and there is one of "Children's Own School, 96 Main Street. Now the Montessori School. Home of James William Russell, Russell Farm." Is the building itself interesting? I'm confused by the statement that the "Children's Own School" is now the Montessori School, assume that's a mistake and that it was always a Montessori school that was always named the Children's Own School.

Any famous graduates?

Now, I don't want you to work terribly hard trying to improve an article only to find out that it gets deleted anyway, but... if you know the school and live nearby, have you thought about taking a picture of it to put in the article? All images have to be released under the GFDL, which is easy if you take it yourself and relatively hard if someone else has taken it... Dpbsmith (talk) 01:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep LegCircus
Response Thank you for the suggestions. I do have a question, though. If I were to do additional research, how much time do I have to make any changes before a delete vote is taken? The school is in Massachusetts and I live in Oregon and I have to do things long distance. This was my childhood school when I was raised in Massachusetts. I am going to have to make some calls next week and ask some questions. I am also going to try to have a friend snap some e-pictures for me to put up on GPL, but those won't be ready for a week or so. I am not sure what my best course of action is. Can I ask that a vote be suspended until I make improvement, or should I volunteerly delete it myself now, but make another article when I am ready; if so, I don't know how to do this as I am fairly new to Wikapedia's authoring. Thank you. --Allyn 04:28, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Allyn, our basic issue for any item is whether or not it is notable enough to be in a general knowledge encyclopedia. We're all over the road on this, of course, because we're a wiki. Some things get overlooked, some are deemed notable by enough folks, etc. The best thing for you to do is to keep "notability" in mind with this article. I think it's part of the first wave of Montessori schools, and most of those did not survive. It might be even more notable, however, if it wasn't an early Montessori, if it was a notable educational philosophy of the New England area (and there were many). For your researching, your best bet is probably to e-mail the current librarian at the school, or archivist, if there is one, to get some of the legends and history of the place. So far, people are abstaining or voting to keep, so you may not be up against just the 5 day limit. Geogre 22:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, trusting Allyn to improve the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Request removal I have found out that I don't have enough time this week to do further research and try to get someone to snap some e-pictures. Can I request that this article be removed and that I will write a new article with additional research whenI get back from a trip out of town next week? --Allyn 05:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Allyn, that can create as many problem as it solves. I'm changing my vote to keep on the basis that a Ireland Information Guide user (you) is going to work on improving it, and I recommend some time on Clean Up. Geogre 12:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:Dartmouth-vfd -- Add to this discussion

Delete this. Aside from throwing gasoline on an already incendiary issue, it is wildly inaccurate: Non-notability is an already established fact? substub? Should be merged? Give me a break. There is no need for this. Kevyn 07:17, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's a joke that has not been used on any articles, Kevyn. There is a Templates for Deletion page, I think. If it's deleted in 5 days, that should be fine, since the Dartmouth Flood ought to be over by then anyway. Delete. (No, I had no hand in the template in any form. Don't do templates.) Geogre 12:58, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: It is was being used Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Dartmouth_Ski_Patrol&oldid=5500533 (http://en.Ireland), which is why I didn't just ignore it. Kevyn 14:20, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Remove it from Dartmouth Ski Patrol ASAP, and Delete in VfD timeframe. Niteowlneils 14:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It's still on Dartmouth Ski Patrol, where it is indeed wildly inaccurate, as that article is far from being a substub. This is what creating joke templates leads to: somebody else is going to think it's even funnier to actually use them. Delete. Bishonen 09:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - So at least two people point out that it is being used on an article but neither removes it? WTF? anthony (see warning) 14:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
unnecessary, all Dartmouth College articles now sorted out. Shouldn't templates go on Ireland Information Guide:Templates for deletion? Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:45, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry, I wasn't aware of the existence of Ireland Information Guide:Templates for deletion until now. My apologies for listing it in the wrong place. Kevyn 06:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. RickK 19:31, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Care to elaborate, or are you just trolling? anthony (see warning) 14:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete -- Jmabel 22:26, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete when no longer being used on any articles. Angela. 00:49, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Replace with regular VfD template wherever used, then delete. Not likely to be useful in the immediate future, as the assignment is over. Do not move to BJAODN, as it isn't funny. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. No need to promote more bad feelings. Should really have been listed on TfD though. — Gwalla | Talk 02:01, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Yup. Should have been listed there. My bad. Kevyn 06:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Yes, it should have been listed on TfD. But I'm not wanting to quibble. We've wasted enough time on this. Andrewa 14:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

keepVagrant 21:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Multiplayer Gateway -- Add to this discussion

"Multiplayer gaming community", founded this month. I propose to delete this as non-notable. Andris 07:06, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable,advert,unencyclopedic.--MaxMad 07:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Yet another forum. --Ianb 09:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: No advertising, and we are not a web guide. Geogre 12:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, advert, Ireland Information Guide is not a web guide. Just another gaming forum. — Gwalla | Talk 02:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Rodney Dickens, Lauren Grandcolas, Steven D. Jacoby, Mark Bingham -- Add to this discussion

9/11 victims who did not do enough during their lives to warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia. Transwiki to wikimemorial and delete. --Jiang 09:18, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. -- Necrothesp 09:39, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki to memorial & delete. Geogre 13:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep Mark Bingham. He was one of leaders of the attempt to take the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania back from the terrorists. After the events, his name was in the newspapers and TV quite a lot. Transwiki the rest to memorial. Andris 13:32, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with Andris: Mark Bingham stands outside the other victims for being identified as one of the passengers who rushed the cockpit on Flight 93. Geogre 15:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep Bingham, no vote on the rest. Everyking 17:57, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep Bingham—the media had quite a bit about him specifically. Didn't bother to read the rest, so no vote. Postdlf 23:28, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki 'em all, keep Bingham. — Gwalla | Talk 02:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep all. Famous people who warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. anthony (see warning) 14:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep Bingham, wikimemorial the rest. Average Earthman 01:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki all to Wikimemorial. Bingham may deserve an article, but the current text is all memorial and no encyclopedia article. This discussion thread would be a better starting point. By the way, I am choosing not to rewrite the article during the discussion period because this is the right content for Wikimemorial. I'll make some notes offline and recreate the article after it is transwiki'd. Rossami 02:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep Bingham, wikimemorial the rest. Ambi 13:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Memorial and delete all except Bingham. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
keep Vagrant 19:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

EL GGoDo -- Add to this discussion

Delete. If this were not a nonentity, some information on exhibitions, collections, or something, would have been included. Vanity or joke, whatever. Wetman 09:43, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not noteable -- Solipsist 10:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
~~Abstain:~~ There are a couple of works witnessed on the web, but very few. I simply cannot assess the notability. In general, Expressionism ended in the 1930's. I would not expect a 71 year old artist to be doing a ton of self promotion. We will have to be presumptive and delete, but I'm not ready to say so yet. Geogre 13:04, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: too local. Geogre 15:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Note: If this article is deleted, please delete the tons of redirects the original poster created to the article. RickK 19:30, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

How does one become recognised? I suppose we can ask ourselves the universal question who stands at the great gates of recognition to say that one artist/person is "recognised" and the other is "not"; at present you are the gate keepers to this exclusive club. Who is to say that "Albert Einstein" should be recognised and another great scientist/artist/musician etc of equal standing not are recognised.

As the main contributor to elggodo.net and the contributor of this short article (to save disk space) I believe this article should remain if you wish to reflect history, even if with a note to say:

 "El GGoDo is not a world-wide celebrity, but a private man whom is well known in Leon Spain as a great artist (painter, sculptor and philosopher) as is recognised by inclusion in the cities Gothic Cathedral of his artwork, "Liberted" ,see these links for further information as further proof:

(http://www.catedraldeleon.org/sub2/sub2.html, http://www.spainturismo.com/leon/)".

Taken, he is generally known as an expressionist but of course he has now created his own style which is based on expressionism. I have seen many great works of art and I believe at least a number of his works can sit comfortably along side the master works of great painters such as Picasso and Dali without any problem or hesitation.

As I have time and this is not my full time occupation, in addition I have a number of disabilities which affect my endurance I will add more and more information to elggodo.net and as the appropriate information comes to hand (please send me some if you have any) I will add it to the Ireland Information Guide section on El GGoDo. El GGoDo.net is definitely not for profit it is not even a company of any sort just a group of people trying to preserve the works of El GGoDo and to encourage research, investigation and perhaps publication of critical essays on his artwork theories.

Based on this I hope you will reconsider your verdict about the deletion of the small entry on El GGoDo whom is a true artist still alive living, breathing and painting artist. About the exhibition listing - I know for sure he has exhibited a few times in a big way, but in Spain the political situation made it and "makes it" difficult for him to exhibit often; if he was in Australia yes he could have a long list of exhibitions without doubt. Spain has a very colourful history as I am sure you are aware unsigned comments added by anon user:203.45.60.51.

Note to the anonymous contributor, please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end of the post. You should also be aware that anonymous votes are steeply discounted during these discussions. Please consider creating an account and logging in. Rossami

[edit]

Asia no junshin -- Add to this discussion

Cool song, but does not merit encyclopedia entry. -- Paul Richter 10:14, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete -TheFed 05:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The defense of El.GGoDo was written by A.R. Melbourne Australia. A.R. questions though how it got in the Ireland guide when Leon is in Spain!

[edit]

Alan Beckwith -- Add to this discussion

Probably autobiography. Doesn't meet Ireland Information Guide:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies. He might have an Imdb entry, but non of the credits are noteable. -- Solipsist 10:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, possible vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 02:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete Everyone and their dog is a member of the Screen Actor's Guild. -TheFed 05:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. No reason to delete. anthony (see warning) 14:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Minor appearences on TV only. Average Earthman 01:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Ireland Information Guide's policy should be upheld. Known by all in several fields. User: Mia State 08:08, 01 Sept 2004 (UTC)
- Hello Mia, that's a nice sock puppet. How do you get the lips to move so realistically. But you are quite right Ireland Information Guide's policy should be upheld - as per Ireland Information Guide:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies. -- Solipsist 19:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Who do you think this is a sockpuppet of? And when did Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies become policy? And which part of it do you think applies? anthony (see warning) 19:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
delete not notable. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- also user has added his name to lot of lists, remember to remove all from special:whatlinkshere/Alan Beckwith. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
KEEP. I think this is a valid entry. If we delete this guy because he is "minor" then there are an awful lot of people and metal bands that should be removed as well. I did an internet search and he has a lot of listings. He has also done stage work which means IMDB would not include these works. Pitchka 19:17, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
keepVagrant 21:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Stefan Capaliku -- Add to this discussion

cv/Resume. Whats the policy here? Can we place our own resumes? Google comes up with something and he exist in another language(Albanian?) of a Ireland Information Guide sis. project. Speedy deleted at first but not sure so placed it here. --Jondel 11:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If he is notable, an encyclopedia article could be created, but delete the CV. Darksun 12:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
delete. CVs should be deleted on sight, IMHO. If this guy is notable (doesn't strike me so from the CV), this is not the way to start the article. --Ianb 13:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: No CV's. Geogre 13:07, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'd say an obvious resumé like this is a speedy delete candidate, even for a notable person. No reason this should have to stand for a week. But it's not my call, so delete. If an admin wants to do a speedy I'd be all for it. -R. fiend 18:13, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's such a bad resume that I think it could almost be deleted as "patent nonsense".--Samuel J. Howard 18:55, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ireland Information Guide is not Monster.com. — Gwalla | Talk 02:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete CVs. If someone is notable, somebody will write an article about them. Average Earthman 01:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence of notability. Just to be picky, though, a CV is not a speedy under any of the current specific cases. As for the poor quality of the writing, please see the very first bullet in patent nonsense#Not to be confused with.... Rossami 02:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete all CVs. All of them. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

deleteVagrant 21:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

National anarchism -- Add to this discussion

This article seems to have been made up for the purposes of scoring points in a debate on Talk:Anarchism. This is not an historical term and it is at most the name of a fascist's personal website. By allowing the article to remain, Ireland Information Guide would be giving credence to a piece of propoaganda and a neologism that has no use outside of that site. I suspect I know who the author of the article is, and having seen what he does to those who cross him (vandlaising every page they edit until he forces them from the wiki) I wish to remain anonymous.

Comment: About 1320 Google hits (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22National+anarchism%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N) apparently across many sites and authors, and no talk page as I write this. Article is the work of an anon, but Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=219.88.38.213 they have no other edits (http://en.Ireland) at this IP at least. On the other hand, the IP who listed this has Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Pencil&diff=5417443&oldid=5417347 a history of vandalism (http://en.Ireland). Probably not a suitable VfD listing IMO~~, perhaps even an early removal candidate~~. No vote at present. Andrewa 16:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: As we now have some votes to delete, early removal is not appropriate, but still unsure, still no vote. Andrewa 22:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Admittedly, it's still not a very good article. -FZ 20:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I cannot imagine this becoming a useful article. Delete. -- Jmabel 22:28, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Ditto. Delete. Lacrimosus 06:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless completely rewritten. -Seth Mahoney 19:14, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Alexandre de Rodes (Rhodes) -- Add to this discussion

An article on Alexandre de Rhodes (the correct spelling) already exists. This version should be deleted (as it has factual errors anyway). Don't keep it as a redirect, since I doubt anyone will go to that page, but possible make Alexandre de Rodes a redirect to Alexandre de Rhodes. Darksun 12:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, later redirect can be made. Geogre 13:08, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Somebody who can't spell a guy's name shouldn't be trusted to write an encyclopedia arcticle about him. RMG 23:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Pac-Pix -- Add to this discussion

vaporware, not well explained. --Ianb 16:29, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to clean this up a little bit, although it's still not great, and everything I wrote was inferred from the original article, screenshots, and reviews. 4570 hits on Google for this game, none of which appear to be Ireland Information Guide on the first page at least, and EB Games seems to be taking pre-orders for its release in 03/05. Perhaps a Keep or merge into Pac-man would be best? - RedWordSmith 18:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: A product of the future. When it is released, we might well want a mention of it somewhere. As a breakout, it would be better on the WikiGames than in main space. A simple, "This is a game, and here is how you play it" seems non-encyclopedic. I appreciate the work gone into improving it, but the farther we get from GameFAQs, the better. Geogre 18:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Game that hasn't even been released yet. — Gwalla | Talk 02:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Products need to be of exceptional promise/interest to merit an article before they exist. Average Earthman 01:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Sentinel III -- Add to this discussion

As much as I love Outlaw Star, the current article is only two sentences long, and pretty much says all there is to know about this fictional planet, IIRC. There's nothing that can't go in the main Outlaw article. Non-notable. - RedWordSmith 17:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but let's merge and redirect to Outlaw Star, if only to prevent the article from cropping up again in the future. If I had the time I'd do the same with all of OS's satellite articles. There's likely little or no competition for most of their titles. —Triskaideka 18:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Honestly, I don't know that it would get recreated very often, unless this is a brand new page and the IP who created it comes back, wonders why it isn't there, and writes it again. Redirects are cheap, but it's not an issue of preserving the authorship here. Geogre 18:46, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge if possible; even if not, redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:20, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Outlaw Star if the information isn't already there. If it is, just delete. — Gwalla | Talk 02:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Alice on the Internet -- Add to this discussion

A poorly written article with a poorly written title about Alice from Alice in Wonderland on the Internet. Delete on the grounds that Ireland Information Guide is not a web guide, and should not have articles about an entity's presence on the Internet separate from the article about that entity itself. Livajo 17:52, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

delete, not encyclopedic. Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:42, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agree with delete in this case, but we should be careful about general pronouncements such as the above. An article on E-commerce or New Media would be respectively about "entities" commerce and journalism, "on the web".--Samuel J. Howard 21:31, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
I've been puzzling over this one. Of all the fictional characters snatched up and manipulated by the Internet, Alice has been one of the most mangled and reshaped. So, do we talk about that as a phenomenon? Possibly. At the same time, this is somewhat journalistic, somewhat a commentary that creates the subject it reports on (i.e. there is not something out there called Alice on the Internet that needs an article; there is Alice as she is on the Internet that is getting commented upon). A very weak delete, or the contributor could be asked to write up a section on Alice in Wonderland on Internet uses of the character. Geogre 00:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Alice in Wonderland]. Not that I think the redirect would be that useful, however. — Gwalla | Talk 02:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete do not redirect -TheFed 05:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

delete Vagrant 20:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Aibohphobia -- Add to this discussion

This seems to be a modification of a listing in BJAODN. There's some discussion on the talk page about the notability of this article, but it doesn't look like it's ever gone through VFD since being created in 2002. At any rate, an article about a non-notable joke at best, and a joke itself at worst. - RedWordSmith 18:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

History of the translation technology -- Add to this discussion

Poorly written and poorly titled start to an article. Some history of translation exists in Translation#History, but not enough to start a new article with. Satori 19:54, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 21:29, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Incoherent, poorly titled, contains no real information. — Gwalla | Talk 02:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Dr peter ellis -- Add to this discussion

Non-noteworthy. He's some oncologist in Hamilton, Ontario. Mike∞Storm 21:11, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Something Bitchin' This Way Comes -- Add to this discussion

Created by hard-banned User:Michael under his latest pseudonym of User:Mike Garcia. I have been deleting and reverting vast quantities of this user's work today, but this article has been "vetted" by Guanaco, and normally I would just delete it because Ireland Information Guide policy written in stone by Jimbo on this one user is to delete all of Michael's work even when others have modified it, I don't want to get into a p*ssing contest with Guanaco on this one -- I've had too many bad dealings with him and would rather get support from the community on deleting this. Please note: It is JIMBO'S decision that Michael is hard banned, it is JIMBO'S decision that all of Michael's work be deleted or reverted. RickK 21:45, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Keep #Danny 23:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) comment moved off main VfD page
Keep. This is my work as much as it is Michael's. Guanaco 23:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Unsure. I think RickK is doing the right thing listing this. On the one hand the policy is quite clear, all Michael's contributions are to be simply erased. That's what a hard ban means. On the other hand, this seems to now be a good article. ~~No vote for now.~~ Andrewa 00:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I'd rather judge the article on its on merits rather than the politics of who initiated it. If it's an acceptable article on its own merits, what would the point be of deleting it -- to recreate it again in more or less the same appearance? (Sigh, the ghosts of internet projects past now haunt me.) KeithTyler 00:14, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the main reasons for the decision to delete/revert all of his edits was that it was nigh-impossible to go through all of his edits and fact-check them on a case-by-case basis. However, this article has been vetted by an established user, and I feel that it should be kept. (But if Jimbo says it goes, it goes.) -Sean Curtin 00:25, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
You might want to delete this entirely, removing Michael from the edit history, and then recreate it, not by restoring the deleted text but by copy and paste. Assuming it is all accurate right now. Adam Bishop 00:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Michael may be banned, but he still has the right to attribution. Guanaco 04:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - What? No he doesn't, he's banned! He shouldn't have anything attributed to him if he is supposed to be reverted/deleted on sight. Adam Bishop 07:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    It's a basic concept of academic honesty, if not the GFDL, that we should try to follow. Guanaco 15:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, I assume Guanaco would not take credit for it unless he was sure it was factually correct. Everyking 01:10, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You assume wrong. Guanaco would do anything to make me look bad. RickK 04:44, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  In that case, you should show that it has at least one inaccuracy. Guanaco 04:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  I have no idea if it's correct or not, and it's not my need to have to do so. Michael is on auto-revert, no discussion. RickK 05:12, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
  I am not on auto-revert, so if you delete my edits, you should show that there's something wrong with them. Our banning policy states that "if a user does knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user, they have taken responsibility for it, in some sense, so there is no benefit in reverting that edit again, and there is the risk of causing unnecessary conflict amongst the Ireland Information Guide community." I have taken responsibility for the content of the article, so there is no benefit in deleting it. Guanaco 15:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I originally was of the 'take them one at a time' opinion, but having wasted the last hour or so researching this issue, now understand the reasoning behind the hard-ban/auto-revert policy of Jimbo. The article has one possible minor inaccuracy (can't be sure without the actual album in my hand), and one major inaccuracy. Just doesn't seem worth wasting so many people's time on. Niteowlneils 16:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- What is the major inaccuracy? Everyking 19:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  There were two bands called Lock Up. The earlier of the two released Something Bitchin' This Way Comes, and the later band released Pleasures Pave Sewers and Hate Breeds Suffering. This article linked to Pleasures Pave Sewers as if it had been created by the same band. This mistake wasn't Mike's fault, and it was an easy one to make. He probably copied the information from allmusic.com, (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&token=&sql=10:uwazqjobojfa) which contains this inaccuracy. I have fixed our article and have submitted a correction to allmusic so this hopefully won't happen again. Guanaco 03:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This seems to now have become a test case. If it's allowed to stay, then IMO we are endorsing the actions of users who verify and edit Michael's work rather than deleting and reverting it, thus circumventing the ban. So reluctantly, it must be delete. Andrewa 01:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- sigh- seems there are alot of short memories around on Ireland Information Guide these days... Why is everybody debating the 'should he stay or should he go' around Micheal when a quick look through the edit history of Crass by Micheal and his many alter-egos plus several related articles from a while back should remind everybody of just how destructive, bloodyminded and mischeivious (and sometimes unfortunately subtle in his disinformation) this character is. The hard ban is there for a reason, shame everyone has forgotten what that reason is. quercus robur 01:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The history of "people-who-have-been-given-second-(and-third)-chances" is indeed rather completely dismal. It only takes one Pandora to open this particular box, while all can "enjoy" the sorrows she releasess. - Nunh-huh 04:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I still don't follow what this now-gone user's destructiveness has to do with deleting an article that has been shown to be largely accurate. Is he gone, or isn't he? And whether or not he is gone, how does that affect the content of this article? (And how does letting this article be kept - as opposed to deleting it -- lead to further damage?) KeithTyler 00:05, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

He never really left. I think it would be wise to read User:Michael to fully understand why people are so upset about the hard ban being essentially overruled. Mike H 00:08, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Otherwise just throw away all rules, give this project over to the trolls and POV cranks, and the rest of us can go home. Jallan 14:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:16, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. -- Necrothesp 15:53, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ambi 13:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Jesus, this is disappointing. We're going to delete an article -- only to to recreate the exact same article in its place. Whatever. I don't care about Michael or Guanaco, or politics. What is the primary goal of Ireland Information Guide -- to have accurate articles, or to have articles that are free of internal politics? Maybe someone could please fill me in, as I'm sort of new, and had gotten the idea that it was the former. Sigh. KeithTyler 18:48, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
What about changing the edit history, to attribute Michael's changes to a non-existant/blind/generic user? Or attributing it to his IP? Rhymeless 21:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I read User_talk:Michael/ban, and I can't say that knowing the history explained to me why his history requires that an accurate article has to be deleted simply because his name appears somewhere in the edit history. In fact, quite the contrary -- plenty of comments throughout that article agree that, for example, Any Michael article that has been checked for accuracy by someone else with knowledge of the subject or takes the time to look up appropriate references is fine. (User:Infrogmation) Now, the link in that article to a mailing list about the details of the ban (Information Guide.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-April/002296.html "Jimbo's letter to the mailing list" (http://www.Ireland)) is broken, so I don't know the details of it. I do feel, from what I've seen so far, that the matter has become so terribly religious that a lot of people simply won't view the subject beyond the edicts they've been passed. I for one mourn the deletion of articles that are contentually acceptable. Regards, KeithTyler 00:20, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Comment. Mediocre articles that anyone can write are not a big loss when it means people do not have to put aside what they would like to be doing and check every single fact in an article or edit by a person who makes up information again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and finding it some of it bogus again and again and again and again and again and again and he won't stop and he won't stop and he won't stop and he won't stop and he won't stop and he won't stop. Jallan 02:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fundamentally I agree with that principle, however, that concern isn't an issue here as the article in question just so happens to have already been checked. Deleting it now won't undo the work already done in checking it. Which is why I feel that if that justification for deleting an article can no longer be benefited from, we should return to a principle of article quality on its own merits. Comments in the Michael ban article say as much as well. ... And I'm sure there's a better place for me to be prattling on about this principle than here, and would appreciate if someone could help point me there. KeithTyler 04:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Delete - Michael is hard banned, and his work is to be removed on sight. The correct link to the Jimbo post is Information Guide.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-April/002296.html (http://mail.Ireland). -- Cyrius|✎ 02:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete and rewrite —siroχo 02:24, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Hard-banned user, and for a reason. This article was revived and vetted by an admin, then still found to be innacurate. Vintage Michael. Until/Unless Jimbo says otherwise, this article should be deleted, as well as User:Mike Garcia, the known reincarnation of a hard-banned user. SWAdair | Talk 08:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not sure if this should be deleted or not, but I am quite sure that if it remains (or is deleted and then replaced) Michael should be given credit, even if he is a bad guy. -- SS 21:06, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Central Catholic -- Add to this discussion

Subsubstub, plus a list of frivolously intended broken links. KeithTyler 22:23, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

delete. non-notable high school. Nothing links there, or variations on it. Googling for educated at Central Catholic School Lawrence Massachusetts (http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=educated+at+Central+Catholic+School%2C+Lawrence%2C+Massachusetts) gives a few obituaries of non-notable persons. Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Speedy delete candidate: It is a substub that immediately goes to a link. It is also a substub that nothing can grow out of because the title is indistinct. How many "central catholic" things are there besides the HS? How many HS's? I will sit on the sidelines with just a delete vote for a day or two. Geogre 00:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. GRutter 15:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Discontinued palmOne Handhelds -- Add to this discussion

Um, what is this? RickK 22:25, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Why delete? This is a replacement guide for older PalmOne PDAs.
- How does that remotely qualify as an encyclopedia article? RickK 22:25, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
  - I have been planing to link this page with the articles related to palmOne. Only the current models are mentioned on the articles.
merge and redirect to PalmOne, Inc. under "list of models", including current ones. All entries User:Andros 1337 has created need to be cleanupped as they appear to be a bit POV. having said that, some interesting contributions. New user may wish to see welcome, newcomers and sign their posts with ~~~~ Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:45, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks duncharris. I have moved the info to PalmOne, Inc. The redirect page can be deleted. Andros 1337 23:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Climbing equipment Manufacturers -- Add to this discussion

Stub, no actual content, bad title, bad format, nothing but URL links. KeithTyler 22:48, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Could be a speedy deletion candidate for being nothing but links. Ireland Information Guide is not a shopping portal. I'm not doubting the good intentions of the contributor, but the policies are pretty darned clear on this. Geogre 00:26, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert(s). — Gwalla | Talk 02:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ireland Information Guide is not Yellow Pages. Average Earthman 01:12, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - just a list of links. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

BWMA -- Add to this discussion

This was nominated for speedy, and I was about to delete it as 'sneaky vandalism', but some other admin took off the tag, so it gets to spend five days here, I guess. Google finds zero relevant hits, and superpages.com can't find anything even close to being a gallery or museum on Roosevelt in Pasadena, let alone anything with that name. It just doesn't appear to exist. Niteowlneils 22:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No google hits. Delete. RickK 22:52, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I removed the tag, only because it is just not at all a speedy deletion candidate. But it doesn't seem to be at all notable. blankfaze | (беседа!) 23:01, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I live in Southern California, and I've never heard of this museum. Even if it did exist, it's non-notable. Besides, the first search off Google for "BWMA" is "British Weights and Measures Association." -- Allyunion 23:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It may be nonsense after all. Nevertheless, it can stay, with no links out, for the VfD period. (My dog makes American paintings. She's an American Eskimo Dog.) Geogre 00:28, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Anywho search, Business, Name Busby, Pasadena, California fails to locate it. Nor does eyeball scan of all 35 hits returned by category = Museum. Nothing on Switchboard, either. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, possibly nonexistent. — Gwalla | Talk 02:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Dogpile's advanced search found zero relevant hits. SWAdair | Talk 08:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. No Google hits by extended name ("Busby and Ward Museum of Art") at all. Even my beagle gets a few (although he doesn't make American paintings, since he's really a sculptor). Dukeofomnium 16:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

UK Video Art: The Early Years -- Add to this discussion

There's nothing there. It seems to serve as nothing but a vehicle for linking to the external site. I almost listed this on Cleanup, but it would really require someone to actually WRITE an article, since nothing here is worth cleaning up. RickK 23:03, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the article's history, it looks like it's been repeatedly recreated despite attempts to redirect it to other locations. RickK 23:37, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It looks like we've walked into a conversation, not encyclopedic at all. This is in addition to the problem with the name and the fact that the content might belong (that which is intelligible) to another article. Geogre 00:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I was going to say merge/redirect to video art, but it looks like that already happened. Since it keeps getting recreated, is it a speedy candidate? — Gwalla | Talk 03:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey! First look at my 'anonymous' (but authoritative) recent addition (29/8/04) in the 'votes for deletion' page you have on Peter Weibel. Then, re this reference to European and specifically UK video art must be included otherwise you are going to have a typically American-biased entry! If an informative global overview can't be produced at least leave in invaluable links!! Looks like you've left a link to the Experimental TV Centre, NY, alone for example, now why is that?

- No change of vote. Geogre 13:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well George (Geogre?) you are just being stubborn. C'mon, Mr Anonymous has a very valid point. You can't do that All-American-Boy and sneer it off! That just isn't very intelligent , this is meant to be a serious (if not intellectual) contribution to WORLD knowledge.

- Well, Anonymous, please read my vote, and don't make assumptions about the nationality or ethnicity of those who vote against this fragmentary and POV account. Geogre 01:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can't see a reason for a separate article under this title, but, Mr. Anonymous, please feel more than free to add appropriate UK-related material to Video art, which is probably too U.S.-centric. -- Jmabel 04:46, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

OK, this discussion is getting cyclic to say the least! I will indeed add more on European work to the Video Art main page if there's no other world expert out there to offer it (?). However, I would have thought your editors could have easily transferred the GIST of the 'stub' statement to the main page with no trouble, particularly as Jmabel appears to agree it is currently 'US-centric'. And Geogre, there is certainly no assumption of 'ethnicity' in my comments but some remarks on this page surely read as American bias? My point, as above, is that this UK chronology reference link MUST remain if you are including direct links to 2 or 3 U.S. video info organisations and, I note, a German database! -- 'Mr Anonymous' Aug 30, 2004

Got to agree with Geogre. Article just kind of starts in the middle and doesn't really say anything other than there was video art made in the UK. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It says early video art was not only the work of US (or US based) artists, but that there was simultaneous interest and use of the medium across the western world. Until this appeared the main Video Art page didn't "really say anything" about anything other than typical claims, BY OMISSION, of American supremacy in the field. This addition contributes some historical FACT. Keep it.

[edit]

Bergin -- Add to this discussion

Firstly, it's just a dictionary definition. Secondly, I've never heard the term used, and a google search did not find any references to Bergin as anything other than a last name. Google of "do a bergin" returns nothing. --Satori 23:11, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you should move it to Wiktionary instead. --Sgeo | Talk 23:51, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

See my second point, above. I don't believe this is a term in usage outside of, perhaps, one company's IT department or a small group of friends. It should just be deleted. --Satori 01:39, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Delete or speedy delete as nonsense. It's someone's private joke -- to do a Homer, etc. Geogre 00:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete it. -- Allyunion 00:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Joke neologism, dictdef. — Gwalla | Talk 03:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:Public IP -- Add to this discussion

Text of this template is: Template:Public IP

I question whether this has any value. If someone is vandalizing pages from a public terminal, this message will not stop them from being blocked. -- Netoholic @ 23:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This should be on TFD. — Gwalla | Talk 03:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep, at least the first sentence. anthony (see warning) 14:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How does one know if it is a public IP or not? Delete. And if it ends up being kept, remove all but the first sentence. cesarb 14:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you serious? There are a number of ways to determine that an IP is used in a public kiosk. One of them is to use the public kiosk and check your IP. anthony (see warning) 15:04, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious. Suppose someone not logged in adds that template to his IP's User: page. How are you supposed to check? You don't even know where the supposed public kiosk is. The reverse DNS and whois point to random company, which might or might not be a cybercafé (and its webpage is written in a foreign language, with no pictures). Or maybe the webpage is for something which is obviously not a cybercafé or something similar, but that particular IP happens to be used by a public machine in the lobby.

If you are the one using the kiosk, it's easy to find the IP; however, given the IP, it's not easy to determine if it's really a public machine or not (and to make matters worse, you can find a public machine in the middle of a set of nonpublic ones, you can find a nonpublic machine in the middle of a set of public ones, or you can have a range of IPs with a mix of public and nonpublic machines).

The only way I can imagine it being used is for a logged-in user to add it to his current IP whenever he using a public kiosk. If you trust that user, you can trust the IP belonged to a public kiosk when the template was added to the page.

cesarb 17:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

August 28

[edit]

Various Wing Commander TCS Capital Ships -- Add to this discussion

TCS Vesuvius, TCS Concordia, Bengal-class strike carrier, Concordia class fleet carrier, TCS Ranger, TCS Cerberus, TCS Plunkett, and TCS Murphy are a small subset of the articles created on the Wing Commander video game, much of the work done on them being completed by Iceberg3k, phong, and BobMcdob, whom I recognize from Spacebattles (http://kier.3dfrontier.com). While the series is an undisputable cult classic, these articles are just more of the well-known problem of inappropriate fiction breakouts. I recommend a delete as non-notable -RedWordSmith 00:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to a single page, preferably the game itself. -- Allyunion 00:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge and delete these waytoomuchtimeonyourhands articles. DEATH to game pieces. Denni☯ 02:28, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Wing Commander (computer game). — Gwalla | Talk 03:11, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Just merging Bengal-class strike carrier into Wing Commander would make it a very long article -- this is basically a Pokemon-style datadump, and there are over 50 breakout articles from the main Wing Commander article as it is, which will have to be dealt with one way or another; merging these 8 in gracefully would be a difficult task. If it absolutely must be merged rather than deleted, I'd much rather that it be merged into the already questionably existing Technology and Vehicles (Wing Commander). But seriously, do Ireland Information Guide really need to know that the TCS Tiger's Claw has 28 Hornet light fighters, 28 Rapier II medium fighters, 14 CF-105 Scimitar medium fighters, 14 Raptor heavy fighters, 04 F-54 Epee light fighters, 04 F-57 Sabre heavy fighters, 4 A-17C Broadsword heavy bombers, 4 Interceptors, 2 CF-337d Troopships, and 2 Shuttles? - RedWordSmith 04:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Good point. Delete. — Gwalla | Talk 00:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Do anything that reduces the visibility of this stuff. Don't forget to to categorize into something under Category:Fictional, so that some day, praised will be the developers, I can make this all inivisible by setting one preference. -- Pjacobi
- Ooh, what a lovely idea. Average Earthman 00:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:41, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Delete all: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect (or, for all I care, delete outright). I do want to remark though, that Category:Fictional includes plenty that is not fancruft: I for one wouldn't want to turn on a switch that sends Newspeak down the memory hole. -- Jmabel 04:57, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Merge into Technology and Vehicles (Wing Commander), and Delete originals. This is valid info about a computer cult classic, but not important enough for separate articles. Key45 21:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and Delete is, regrettably, not generally considered a valid move, due to the requirement of attributing edits. See the policy page for details. - RedWordSmith 01:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

2-1B (Too-onebee) -- Add to this discussion

Sounds like a minor character in Star Wars. -- Allyunion 00:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A very minor character in Star Wars. It appears in one scene and has no lines. ~~Delete.~~ — Gwalla | Talk 03:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep redirect to Minor characters in Star Wars. — Gwalla | Talk 01:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Minor characters in Star Wars. Kevyn 06:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Minor characters in Star Wars and pray that nobody expands this stub. Cutler 11:31, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Ok, Minor characters in Star Wars has been created. Content from 2-1B (Too-onebee) has been merged into the minor characters page, and the 2-1B (Too-onebee) page is now a redirect. Kevyn 05:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Well, it took me quite a few hours to do it, but I found just about every minor Star Wars character with an entry (there were about 50 of them), and merged them all into Minor characters in Star Wars. I defined Minor as being substubs, stubs, and articles with only three paragraphs or less. Kevyn 23:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Hierarchy-Philosophy -- Add to this discussion

Delete. KeyStroke
Delete. POV, original research, and generally a rambling mess. --Satori 01:31, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
90 Google hits for "Hierarchy-Philosophy," none of which actually seem related. Very nearly Patent nonsense. Delete - RedWordSmith
The only thing this article cannot be tagged for is parking on the wrong side of the road. Now wait a minute... Delete. Denni☯ 02:24, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
Nearly? Nay, precisely patent nonsense. Delete, possibly speedily. Kook political rant, incoherent, neologism. — Gwalla | Talk 03:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I acknowledge that with a few footnotes to the nonsense of Immanuel Kant, George W. Bush, and Wittgenstein, this page could be assigned to college freshmen for analysis and semester finals. Nevertheless, this page should be deleted as nonsense while we still have the chance to do so before it grows into something bigger. ---Rednblu 05:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: What a dreadful bit of nonsense. Ok, someone has read only Ayn Rand, finally broke from her, and now feels qualified to explain what's wrong wtih Philosophy. Ick. Geogre 12:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Pixod -- Add to this discussion

This is merely an advertisement for Mallie Mickens website, and as such, should be deleted. -- Bobdoe 02:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Advert, Ireland Information Guide is not a web directory. — Gwalla | Talk 03:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, website vanity. --Ianb 07:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Web vanity. Geogre 12:28, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Cuntry disco chocolate covered satan group -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable band. It was speedily deleted, but it wasn't a speedy candidate, so I restored it and brought it here just in case. Guanaco 05:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Patent nonsense is a reason for speedy deletion. The only reason Guanaaco restored it was because I deleted it. This band has one Google hit. Delete and ban Guanaco. RickK 05:34, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Delete And do not ban Guanaco, your politics have nothing to do with Ireland Information Guide. Both of you need to knock it off. -TheFed 06:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Nonsense. Geogre 12:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Borderline case, I think RickK was quite justified in speedying it but Guanaco had every right to undelete and list it here if he wanted to. But he does seem to be riding RickK, doesn't he? Please cool it, guys. You're damaging each other, yourselves and Ireland Information Guide. Nobody is perfect. Andrewa 17:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Obvious easy delete. If not a joke, non-notable and vanity. If a joke, original research. Non-notable almost by own testimony, since the band "makes records in miniscule runs with little or no concern to commercial viabilty" and "seldom performs live." But I don't see how it could qualify as a speedy under "patent nonsense." I just reread patent nonsense and it has a very narrow definition. "Incompetent and/or immature stuff" or "Really poorly written stuff" which are carefully classified as not falling within the definition of "patent nonsense." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Clan of the Dead Goat -- Add to this discussion

Vanity/ advert/ broken link - it's got everything Cutler 11:19, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Keep As far as I have seen, there are many articles on Ireland Information Guide relating to gaming clans, or websites that are of note within a certain community. Is it an advert? Well clans are non-commercial in nature. Broken link? What is Wiki for if not to fix things like that.. Vanity? Well I would have to agree on that one, but if I had someone else make a page about the clan, woundn't it be just as bad? The reason I think that this clan deserves an arcticle, is because it has become so known in the community, its become an institution within the Counterstrike custom modeling scene. --Jemimus 11:35, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete not a big fan of including clans in general, unless they're notable. These guys get get fewer than 500 google hits (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Clan%20of%20the%20Dead%20Goat%22). Compare the number of hits to a more notable gaming clan 4 Kings' 3,210 hits (http://www.google.com/search?q=%224%20kings%22%20gaming) (no affiliatons, just saw them in a documentary). Seems that if we're going to start including gaming clans, this one is not the right place to start. —siroχo 11:55, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Other clans can be nominated for VfD if they look non-notable, so please tag them. In this case, WP is not a web guide and needs to be careful not to give the impression that it is. Geogre 12:20, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, Ireland Information Guide is not a web guide. Somebody turned it into a redirect to Clan of the Dead Goat Gunshop, also on VfD, which is also non-notable. — Gwalla | Talk 23:32, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If a clan can get sponsorship, go to Korea to compete, and get news articles written on it, then it's sufficiently notable. This one isn't. Average Earthman 01:17, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete vanity, violates spirit of autobiography restriction as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Clan of the Dead Goat Gunshop -- Add to this discussion

Vanity/ advert/ non-notable - Clan of the Dead Goat. Cutler 11:22, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Keep My inspiration for making an article about the Gunshop was other acticles about notable websites, in particular the 4chan article. Which relates to a open hentai database and its associated community. 4chan is very well known in hentai/anime circles, and the same is true for the Gunshop, as it is well known within the Counterstrike Custom modeling community. Vanity/Advert? Sure.. but not more so than 4chan or other website related articles in Ireland Information Guide. non-notable? Well this is more a matter of opinion than anything else. Do I have to post hits per day to prove the site is notable? Its notable within its own community, which easily numbers the tens-of-thousands. --Jemimus 11:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete and merge into Clan of the Dead Goat if that is kept. Not deserving of its own article. —siroχo 11:46, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Again, I tend to vote this way about any game presence online unless it is the exemplar of such things. Not notable enough for us to be a web guide. Geogre 12:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep: This is the most influential modding community of the biggest on-line game ever. It deserves a mention. Jorri 14:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: This vote by Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=212.204.128.49 an IP with no other contributions (http://en.Ireland). Andrewa 17:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ireland Information Guide does not need an article on every website. Wyllium 15:26, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
Keep: The Gunshop has grown out to be a full-size community supporting the weapon model replacement scene. It stands out in quality and its emphasis on realism. It deserves to be kept in here GrefTek 15:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: This vote by Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=212.204.128.49 another new IP (http://en.Ireland). Andrewa 17:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete Clans can rarely, if ever, fit into the catagory of notable, this one certainly doesn't. -TheFed 17:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The website doesn't even come up. RickK 22:52, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, Ireland Information Guide is not a web guide. Just a Counterstrike mod site. — Gwalla | Talk 23:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. If it was notable, they'd have fixed their webserver quicker. Average Earthman 01:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Alexa doesn't even know it. -Sean Curtin 01:25, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Ianb 07:05, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Hit with delete stick repeatedly. Terrapin 14:15, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ireland Information Guide is a website dedicated to writing an encyclopedia. Promoting your website does not further that goal. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Its the biggest community modding site for the biggest online game. Its member count easily reaches into the tens of thousands - I don't think there many other sites with a community this big. This article is not an advert for a personal site but an informational page for, as previously stated, a website with a huge online community behind. If the Gunshop doesn't deserve a mention, I'm not that sure what others websites do. Please keep it in. fabianoag 6:46, 31 Aug 2004 (AEST)
- The above supposed User is in fact the anonymous user User:203.45.51.219. RickK 19:38, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. http://gunshop.clandeadgoat.net/ has an Alexa Traffic Rank of 461,504. SWAdair | Talk 08:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Viljandi Folk Festival -- Add to this discussion

No real definition or context, but it doesn't seem like a speedy delete candidate, reads like an ad —siroχo 11:42, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: not an article, really. Geogre 12:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete The festival certainly could be of note, were the article written more about the festival and less as an advertisment I would say keep it. That, however, seems unlikely. -TheFed 17:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Advert for upcming event. Is this festival particularly famous in Estonia? Is it influential? If not, delete. — Gwalla | Talk 23:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds like it is a major event. Keep then. — Gwalla | Talk 00:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A quick google finds references to this specific festival in the webpages of the British Embassy and the British Council. It therefore appears to be a significant festival in Estonia, and therefore a keep. Average Earthman 01:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Question: AE, the festival has a presence, but do you want just a keep, or a keep and clean? Just asking, because, to me, the article looked like half a blurb with rainbow words. Geogre 15:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Rhymeless 02:48, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep but clean up and wikify. RMG 00:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Ambi 13:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Dartmouth College student life -- Add to this discussion

This is the entire merged content of the articles that are listed above. There are about half a dozen unnotable student societies and clubs here, out of a total of (at a conservative guess) 100? 200? how is this balanced? how is it to be maintained? delete, no merges, nothing. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge with Dartmouth College, redirect, and split out into individual entries where the content is too big. anthony (see warning) 14:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge with Dartmouth College and redirect. I think this should be a section of Dartmouth College. From the start, I have argued that these merges should be to Dartmouth College#student life and not a separate article. The same is true of the ...athletics article. The reasons are simple: the DC article can contain it, and we are going to be in immense janitorial trouble by having the breakouts. Do we want to have to watchlist every one of these articles to stop college folk from writing up "funny" stuff in the college life or, worse, booster/hate speech in the athletics articles. Let's not multiply our headaches unless we have to, and logic says we don't have to and shouldn't need to. Geogre 15:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment Dartmouth College article presently does include a Student Life section and present contents and structure is:

1 Student Life

1.1 Musical activities

1.1.1 A cappella singing groups

1.1.1.1 Dartmouth Cords

1.1.1.2 Dartmouth Dodecaphonics

1.1.1.3 Dartmouth Rockapellas

1.1.2 Dartmouth Wind Symphony

1.2 Drama and performance

1.3 The Hopkins Center

1.4 Winter Carnival

1.5 Dartmouth Night

1.6 Clubs

1.6.1 Dartmouth Mountaineering Club

1.6.2 Dartmouth Film Society

1.7 Athletics

1.7.1 Dartmouth Womens Crew Team

Merge and redirect as follows: Dpbsmith (talk) 15:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1 Dartmouth Film Society -- Do not merge, already in Dartmouth College article

2 Dartmouth Rockapellas -- Do not merge, already in Dartmouth College article

3 Dartmouth broadcasting -- Trim appropriately and merge into Dartmouth College, Student Life, Clubs

4 Native Americans at Dartmouth (NAD) -- Trim appropriately and merge into Dartmouth College, Student Life, Clubs

5 Dartmouth College Marching Band -- Trim appropriately and merge into Dartmouth College, Student Life, Musical Activities

Make this page redirect to Dartmouth College when above work is complete.

Merge/redirect. — Gwalla | Talk 23:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. (Much redundancy already exists.) -Sean Curtin 01:27, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ambi 13:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Wildplum Recordings -- Add to this discussion

Apparently a recording studio only. I.e. a legitimate business, but no more than a studio for hire. Geogre 15:26, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

True, Wildplum is a recording studio. More importantly, it is also a record label with 5 releases and 4 artists who are of some interest and significance in the folk community. The article is similar to those of other record labels listed in the list of independent record labels and, like entries for many of those labels, it provides useful information about a legitimate indie label. For example, assume you were an artist looking to get signed to an indie in California specializing in folk, checking Ireland Information Guide for possible labels. Or perhaps you wanted to know what label Caren Armstrong was signed to. Keep. Wildplum 15:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

242 Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Wildplum+Recordings%22+-dmoz+-directory&btnG=Search) hits after an attempt is made to remove DMOZ and its mirrors. Delete. - RedWordSmith 16:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment I regard Celtic Elvis to be mildly notable, for the simple reason that I've heard of them. I'm assuming that this is the same group that did "High on Stress" and "Kill a Tree for Christ" and one called, uh, something like "You're My Fixer Upper," with power drill accompaniment. I'd be more receptive to articles on Celtic Elvis (409 hits) and/or Caren Armstrong (never heard of her, but she gets 779 Google hits) than to an article on the label that records them. They need to be good articles, not promotional in nature, and giving some indication of why the artists are of some importance. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've heard of Caren Armstrong, if it's worth mentioning. I think this label just scoots within the margin, but it's close. Rhymeless 02:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Christian applied philosophical view of marriage -- Add to this discussion

The theologians mentioned are notable, and this is an accurate description of a particular line of reasoning in Protestant thought. However, the name is so cumbersome as to be impractical. The line of thought is presented as true, presents no alternatives, and claims to speak for "Christian," which is too POV from the start. Geogre 15:33, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

merge with marraige and redirect.--Samuel J. Howard 16:56, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. An essay, albeit a good one. There must be a place for it, but it's not Ireland Information Guide. Andrewa 17:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Essay. — Gwalla | Talk 23:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Personal essay. Delete but encourage the author to contibute to existing articles. Rossami 02:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, do not merge: essay. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:11, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge any useful content with Christian view of marriage (which incidentally should be renamed Christian views on marriage or something similar and plural). -Seth Mahoney

[edit]

E. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh -- Add to this discussion

She has certainly been involved with a significant, ongoing research project, but is she notable herself? Is this vanity? Geogre 15:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Apparently, I'm full of beans. Will remove nomination. Geogre 00:58, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. She's the leader of the research project. Several of her bonobos have articles (including the famous Kanzi). She should have one as well. _R_ 20:18, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Very famous (and very controversial) in her field. -- orthogonal 23:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. — Gwalla | Talk 23:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. Average Earthman 01:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Eep! Definite Keep. She's the top mind in an influential field of research. -FZ 13:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Word Rage -- Add to this discussion

Word Rage is the angry frustration felt by some people who receive emails with lengthy attachments in Microsoft Word format. Seems a made-up term and indirect vanity. Google returns 582 matches, none of the first 10 results refers to this particular meaning. Doesn't even appear in Urban Dictionary. Wyllium 16:10, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Discussion

Delete Doesn't even really qualify as a Neologism, not that that would justify it. -TheFed 17:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Original research. Granted, I have WordRage even without e-mail being involved (WordPerfect 5.1 does all anyone ever needs), but this is not encyclopedic content. Geogre 17:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Vi is all I ever need ;-) --Ianb 22:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not an established term, most of the content is original research. I like the suggested attachment. Is there some other article in which it would be appropriate to include some of the information in this one? (By the way, within the last forty-eight hours I was sent a Word attachment that is utterly useless, as it is a proposed poster layout in which appearance and typography are everything, and it uses a bunch of fonts that are not installed by default in Windows or the Mac and is thus useless... so it's not as if I don't appreciate the issue). Dpbsmith (talk) 19:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
hmm. A phenomenon looking for a name. Not sure this is the way to go about coining it. Note, most of the content by volume can be found here: [1] (http://www.catholic-church.org.uk/pleasetry.htm). --Ianb 22:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. A piece of anti-Word advocacy disguised as an encyclopedia article. — Gwalla | Talk 23:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Cleanup and move. There is a useful page called Top posting. Remove the term 'Word Rage' and move the content to Word attachments. 84.66.30.39 11:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete neologism. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete neologism. The useful content is now in Word attachments. 81.77.35.97 19:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

U.S. presidential election, 2012 -- Vote here

Ireland Information Guide is an encyclopedia, not a forum for political punditry. Of the material in this article, only the date seems verifiable, and that seems adequately covered elsewhere. Gdr 18:20, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)

Delete: It's the future. It does not exist yet. Geogre 18:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) "I Have Veto'd"
The 2008 presidential election article seems to be rather professional and acceptable, and it is in the future as well. The writer of the 2012 article has not listed himself as a potential candidate so the article doesn't qualify as vanity. It's not very informative but may be a useful shell. I say keep. Thehappysmith 19:42, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Speculation and generalities that, with a few details changed (names, which party is currently in, which party is currently out) apply to any presidential election two terms away. Delete please. - RedWordSmith 19:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The 2008 article is good and useful, but trying to write about 2012 takes the speculation too far. Delete. Everyking 19:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Concur- The 2008 article is sueful, but there's nothing useful here, just speculation and restatements of the obvious. Delete. -FZ 13:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This article seems to be all about perhaps, assuming and maybe. No place in the wiki i'm afraid. Saint will 20:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Original research, speculation too far in advance. — Gwalla | Talk 00:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. What Everyking said. Neutrality (talk) 02:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, original research. James F. (talk) 03:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, way too much speculation. Flockmeal 05:34, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
"assuming an ammendment is mad to the US constitution"; how about the second one? anyway, delete. recreate in 2008. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete Original research speculation. If someone wants to create an article on general future US election speculations, that might be OK. Jallan 02:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

2004 Summer Olympics medal count for countries ending in -stan -- Add to this discussion

As I said when adding the vfd notice, one may disagree about the existence of *other* pages, but to create a page just to make some injokey point is an obnoxious abuse of Ireland Information Guide IMAO. Aris Katsaris 18:28, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, I cannot verify if Aris' mentioned the reason but I agree that this article should be deleted. Andries 18:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This is silly. What next - Summer Olympics medal count for countries with an odd number of letters in their name who declared independence on a Tuesday? — Ianb 18:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A bit puzzled, never heard of a Stan Union or Organization in the making, but well, unless this organization gives some evidence of the contrary, delete ;-) — Pgreenfinch 18:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- But Pgreenfinch, you don't think it's important that this union of -stans is almost national and therefore should be compared to the nations?
- Of course, except that I didn't find the main article describing this Stan Union, and that there is already a Stan Laurels article — User:Pgreenfinch|Pgreenfinch]] 07:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You know, all the -stans were part of the Ottoman Empire, so they have political and cultural union.

Delete. This is absurd. Maybe a medal count by continent or something like that would be interesting, but to count the medals of several coutries just because their names are somewhat similar is pointless. — Kevloral 19:56, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, completely nonsensical, although that is usually a redeeming feature in my opinion. But in this case, no-one will ever bother to find out how many medals were won by -Stan countries. Therefore it has no place in an encyclopedia. Saint will 20:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I for one would like to know. Care to try a different argument? Wile E. Heresiarch 15:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I so appreciate the bitterness and sarcasm of the joke. However, as someone probably on the same side as its author on this issue I vote here, as I did on the articles that occasioned it, delete. Geogre 23:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I appreciated also, only good things get imitated, happens to every serious brand. And obviously the attempts at debasing and suppressing the now imitated articles opened a pandora box for trollers. ;-)) — Pgreenfinch 07:59, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The "stan" countries are an identifiable geographical grouping. Expand the article to name the events and medalists involved (there aren't very many). Wile E. Heresiarch 15:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You might have a point here, maybe it is a "macro region", if we refer to the United Nations statistical definitions, but I don't see at the moment any article describing that grouping and/or its organization. Any evidence would help. — Pgreenfinch 15:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - "Stan countries" has some currency as an informal term -- Googling for stan "central asia" returns many hits. This loose usage has been adopted by National Geographic -- their Feb 2002 story on Central Asia [2] (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2002/02/01/html/ft_20020201.6.html) opens They are a diverse lot, these seven Stans. That NG refers to Central Asian countries generically as "Stans" shows the term has made it into the mainstream. Fwiw, Wile E. Heresiarch 16:03, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Why not an article about it? I switch to neutral during the wait. — Pgreenfinch 17:31, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - Oh, there is an article about it. It's called -stan, just moved to this spelling by me. I also attempted to clean the ethnocentric POV (see Talk page) about the suffix -stan being comically "over-used" (!), though I feel that was a bit of a waste of time, as the article is still pretty weird. I vote delete on the present listing. Bishonen 22:35, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. There is no reason why this page should be deleted. — 18:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You'll have to sign your vote if you want it to be counted. Fwiw, Wile E. Heresiarch 19:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - fails to include Soviet Canuckistan. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Northside Christian Church -- Add to this discussion

If it was a big church in a big city, one that is notable for something other than being a friendly community of good Christian souls, then okay. 19:30, 28 Aug 2004 User:Thehappysmith

was blanked by author -- speedy deletion candidate. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Godspeed to them, but not significant or notable. Geogre 23:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. — Gwalla | Talk 00:03, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Crab Basket -- Add to this discussion

Vanity for non-notable band. Google search for '"crab basket" band' returns 11 hits, one of which is relevant. That site happens to be run by Crab Basket. Guanaco 20:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also delete Image:Crab Basket.gif, which is their logo. Guanaco 20:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

obvious vanity. delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:42, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
delete before someone adds an entry for frakin' awesome. --Ianb 21:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Speedy delete candidate for obvious nonsense. Definitely delete this, and the image, and, if the author blue links the band members, each of them. The link is nerve wracking, too. Geogre 23:10, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Band vanity. — Gwalla | Talk 00:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ireland Information Guide is not a site to promote non-notable bands. Average Earthman 01:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete both as vanity. Geogre, which specific case do you believe qualifies this as a speedy, though? Rossami 03:25, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Because it is a band waiting for members, is frakin' awesome, and is waiting for any songs, what we have here is something that is nonsense. Granted, it's not the "dfadfdsafd" sort, but when you get "It's a great company that is going to form any day now," you've got nonsense. N.b. that I also say that it is a candidate. I err on the side of caution, generally, but I also think that we ought to have a nonsense that's a step beyond the "save page" or "snot" (both of which, incidentally, are more test saves than patent nonsense). Geogre 13:17, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

RPGFan -- Add to this discussion

RPGFan - Non-notable RPG website? _R_ 21:58, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

28,300 Google Hits (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=rpgfan+-wiki+-fdl+-gnu&btnG=Search), Alexa rank of 63,880 (over 40000 at peak withing the last six months), and ads by AnimeNation and Nippon Ichi Software; I'd call them notable as far as RPG websites go. Keep - RedWordSmith 23:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Notable within the genre. Keep. Rhymeless 02:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- But is the genre itself notable? The article is orphaned and I notice we have no RPG website article yet. _R_ 10:11, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's pretty prominent, and its reviews are often cited. We probably ought to have an article on game-review/discussion sites, as we do on any media industry of that size. -FZ 13:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

August 29

[edit]

Protiviti -- Add to this discussion

This is an ad for a consulting company. Delete -- Bobdoe 00:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This looks like a substub for a major international consulting company. I'd say decent sized multinational companies should have an article, but only if someone is willing to create one with some actual useful facts in them (which I'm not in this case). Delete unless expanded. Average Earthman 01:46, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to their parent company, Robert Half International. RHI is a $1.9 billion professional services company with an international presence. RHI deserves and article. According to their own website, Proviti has only "hundreds" of professionals. If their advertised scope of industries and territories are to be believed, then they are spread much to thinly to be a "leading" anything. Because they are merely a division of RHI, they do not report their financials separately making such measures as revenue or market share unverifiable. Rossami 03:42, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, I had already written a respectable stub before I saw the most recent post. Merge with Robert Half International, redirect, and send to cleanup so hopefully someone will fill it out on the whole company.--Samuel J. Howard 05:22, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Merge. And redirect, just in case someone searches on "Protiviti", so the searcher can learn it's not a kind of Italian sausage. ("I like to add sliced Protiviti to my Chef's Salad"). -- orthogonal 22:13, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Three Guys from Miami -- Add to this discussion

Is this really notable and encyclopedia-worthy? Looks like a vanity entry to me. Please vote. Ropers 00:47, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It doesn´t seem that important to me maybe in a local newspaper, but not in an encyclopedy

Linn

Just as valid as the list of other Food Network chefs! Are we going to eliminate all popular culture references from the encyclopedia? Better delete the ones for Emeril Lagassse and Julia Child. They are/were, afterall, just TV chefs as these fellows are. Jale

- N.b. This user blanked the discussion. Reverted by me. Geogre 01:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Name of their TV show? when it went on the air? title of a book or two? Cut the self-serving nonsense. What a waste of time. Wetman 01:30, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Non-notable. Apparently a regional show. Were it to be national or syndicated nationally, I would vote to keep. Geogre 01:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Alexa rank of 480,886. Not high enough for wide notability, and Ireland Information Guide is not a web guide (as a comparison, a randomly selected cookery site from a google search, www.texascooking.com, ranks 93,027 with Alexa, while a famous British chef at www.deliaonline ranks at number 37,368). If their book is a roaring success, maybe they'll deserve an article, but there are hordes of cookery books out there, and hordes of TV chefs. Average Earthman 02:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This very much feels like self-promotion. Original article has POV, reads like a PR blurb, and conveniently has Amazon link and 1-sentence article about the publisher. Editor at 168.143.113.138 reversed the vfd and added this to list of chefs. Maybe articles for each of the "Three Guys" but not an article for the title of this trio. --Junesix 03:10, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable self-promotion. Though I'm sure it's yummy. But wasn't this book already weritten by Jerome K. Jerome? -- orthogonal 22:08, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Main Page/Temp4 -- Add to this discussion

Can this page and the other Main Page Temps be deleted? The last edit on Temp4 is August 7, 2003. I've been here since September 2003 and just ran across this page today via the random page button, why are we saving these? Doesn't seem necessary. -Flockmeal 02:50, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Keep, while no longer active projects they, and their associated discussions, are useful as a part of Ireland Information Guide history. - SimonP 05:37, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

ACORN -- Add to this discussion

This is quite clearly nothing more than a piece of PR propaganda for the organization. I mean, for fuck's sake..."The 80s proved to be a time when the political elite in America was less concerned with the needs of low-and moderate-income people than ever." WTF?

Anyway, I'm not sure it necessarily needs to be deleted--it may still be salvageable--but it was suggested in #Ireland Information Guide that listing it here is the only way to get any decent amount of attention brought to it.

Kurt Weber 04:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep: If its claim of having over 160,000 families registered, it's surely deserving of an article. I say send it to cleanup to get increased attention. -Frazzydee 04:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Definitely notable. Send to Cleanup for POV-ectomy. Kevyn 05:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep and send to cleanup. Not promotional as such. One-sided, biassed, but legitimate, well-written description of a notable organization. POV as such is cause for editing and balance, not for deletion. If the nominator is knowledgable, he could begin the process by adding a section entitled "Criticisms" or something of the sort, explaining why the organization is really... whatever he thinks it is. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) P. S. In response to the sentence "This is quite clearly nothing more than a piece of PR propaganda for the organization" my response would be "this is quite clearly something more than a piece of PR propaganda, although it clearly does contain some PR propaganda." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:45, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Send to clean up. ACORN is pretty significant and active, but a clean up is needed. Geogre 13:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Don't nominate for VfD because you don't like an organization's politics. Geogre 16:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - I didn't. Read above for why I nominated it here.Kurt Weber 17:47, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. A perfectly legitimate topic. — Gwalla | Talk 01:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I removed the vfd, as it did not meet vfd guidelines. If this is incorrect etiquette, please let me know. --LegCircus 15:49, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
- It is. Once an item is listed, it should stay. Usually, no one will object if the nominator removes the VfD tag in a landslide vote. No one else should, and, honestly, the nominator shouldn't, either. Let the 5 days go by. The tag will do no harm, and we won't forget to assess the votes properly. Meanwhile, Clean Up really should work on it. Geogre 18:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Needs some NPOVing to be more encyclopedic but is a perfectly valid topic for an article. This listing is absurd and quite clearly politically motivated, which is a waste of everyone's time. If an article needs some work this is not the way to draw attention to it. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- For the umpteenth time: No, it's not politically motivated. If you'd actually read what I wrote above, you'll find out why I submitted it.
  - I have read what you wrote above, and I have also read your user page, on which you admit to holding extreme right-wing views. If you wanted this article NPOVing you could have done it yourself, or brought it to people's attention in the usual way, but instead you tried to have it expunged from Ireland Information Guide. No doubt this was your way of opening up a new front in the battle for, as you put it, "the entire destruction of socialism and collectivism." — Trilobite (Talk) 08:06, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - 1) No, I do not hold "extreme right-wing views", and I have no clue what gave you that idea. My ideology is very much NOT right-wing. 2) Your assertion notwithstanding, several people suggested to me that the only way to get attention brought to it to help clean it up was to list it on VfD, and following their suggestion, I did. I do not necessarily want it deleted (and if you actually did read what I wrote you will see I said as much). Grow up.Kurt Weber 18:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment I regret not knowing the etiquette, but I must say I disagree with it. There have been no delete votes (even the user who called the vote won't vote for deletion). There was no proper justification for the tag in the first place, and if we agree that VfD should not be used to draw attentiont to the page, then why do we reward those who would use it thus? Once again let me apologize for being new. I welcome comments at User talk:LegCircus — LegCircus 02:52, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

You may have a point here. If someone put a VfD tag on a big article like George W. Bush (for example) it would be removed immediately, and there wouldn't be a five day debate on the matter. I don't think you need to worry about anyone being rewarded for misuse of VfD though. A string of "keep" votes shows the community's disapproval. The VfD banner will disappear from the article in a few days and then the important work of NPOVing can begin. It can begin now actually, as there is no rule about not editing pages while they're being voted on. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not that you need another vote, but Keep. Needs a POV-ectomy, but it's definitely a notable organization. Antandrus 03:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hold (slow-down?) This page contains potential copyright violations which need to be resolved first. I asked the submitter to clarify. Rmhermen 13:29, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment I am the submitter and primary contributer to the page. There is no copyright problem. If I need to clarify further I will. Otherwise I will prepare for the next assault on my innocent little article. --LegCircus 15:34, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  - Keep, now that copyright is resolved. Anyone know the preferred method for indicating this in the article? Rmhermen 16:16, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    - It's best on the talk page rather than in the article. My suggestion: "This article incorporates material from http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=722. As the copyright holder I agree to license it under the GFDL. ~~~~" (signed by LegCircus of course). — Trilobite (Talk) 16:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

List of people by reported SAT score -- Add to this discussion

Delete. Not at all encyclopedic; the information is not even verifiable. Do we really need this? Quandaryus 04:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to SAT. The information is verifiable from the Time Magazine article the information came from, but it doesn't need to be in a separate article. Kevyn 05:20, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This information is encyclopedic, but unless this list gets considerably longer it would be better to merge it into SAT - SimonP 05:35, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't buy that it's actually encyclopedic. We might as well have a page called List of celebrities by reported number of affairs -- the information would serve just as much purpose as an encyclopedia article. Quandaryus 20:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I don't think we need it. Seems to me that it is wide open for everyone to come along and add his or her own scores, and there is nothing encyclopedic about this. Let this much information be added to SAT, if desperately needed. Geogre 13:08, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect, qv --Merovingian✍Talk 22:29, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Isn't a compilation of facts like this copyrightable? RickK 23:15, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Possibly, but I don't think that would apply in this case - the Time magazine article had more names & scores than the author of this article referenced, so it's probably substantial enough of a change to the compilation that copyright would no longer apply. Assuming this survives the VfD debate, someone could also add names & scores not in the Time magazine article (if they could be obtained), changing the compilation even further. Of course, I sincerely doubt Time would ever come after Ireland Information Guide for the list, so this is really all just hypothetical. Kevyn 00:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - I don't buy that this is verifiable (in any reasonable sense of the word). -- Cyrius|✎ 04:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Third Echelon -- Add to this discussion

This looks like a paranoid rant or a cut and paste from a conspiracy theory page. Everything I have read on the NSA describes them as a bunch of non-violent electronics engineers, techs software specialists and computer science geniuses. AlainV 05:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete, this article is the plot from the book/video game Splinter Cell. Flockmeal 05:38, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, just put in a sentence so people know its a fictional organization. -- Crevaner 08:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Make a redirect to Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. No need to merge the material. Geogre 13:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would prefer a straight delete as non-encyclopedic detail that is already adequately covered in Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. We should probably redirect, though, to keep it from popping up again. Rossami 15:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Black Lotus -- Add to this discussion

An article for a single card from Magic? Even if it does go for $1000 (which I doubt it does; I thought the bottom had somewhat fallen out of that market). Merge and redirect to Magic: the Gathering, before we get thousands of other pages like this. -R. fiend 08:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I came across Information Guide.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Dripping_dead&oldid=5466666 one like this (http://en.Ireland) a little while ago and redirected it. But yes, delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:44, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Black Lotus is the most legendary card in the game, and gets >6000 Google hits (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22black+lotus%22+Magic+gathering&sourceid=firefox&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8). I vote keep this, delete other cards that might show up. --Farside 11:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge and redirect as the fiend said. Then we can read about this legendary card in its proper context. --Tagishsimon

Merge: "Black lotus" is no doubt the rarest card because it's a legendary flower for mythical opium. It is also used as some kind of unspecified opium in the Baldurs Gate games. Perhaps make it a disambiguation for the various uses of the word (it's like the lotus flower itself -- used in all sorts of mythologies and fictions). Geogre 13:03, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I created this stub specifically because I came across its listing Information Guide.org/wiki/Ireland Information Guide:What%27s_in%2C_what%27s_out#Trading_cards (http://en.Ireland) on Ireland Information Guide:What's in, what's out. I also checked eBay to confirm the prices- I was suprised, as well. I do agree with R. fiend: we don't want thousands of articles like this. However, due to its noteriety, it seems due its own (non-stub) page. Keep.--Rossumcapek 18:15, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete most articles on trading cards, but a few, incl. this one, are notable enough for separate articles. Keep. Meelar (talk) 21:20, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Keep. Black Lotus is an exceptional aspect of Magic: The Gathering culture due to its infamy and value. RMG 00:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Keep* This is the most valuable and famous element of a cultural phenomenon.

Keep. Make sure that other cards aren't added... but an article on the single card the most exlempifies a magic cultural item, and costs so much? Gotta have it. Lyellin 01:23, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Reluctant keep, but emphatically not a sanction to include most other Magic cards. -- Jmabel 04:55, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Passes my carefully crafted "that's interesting" test. Terrapin 15:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep but only because of the card's notoriety. No precedent should be set here. Spatch 18:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If this is deleted, then mark every one in here as VfD, since it's pretty much the same. The Black Lotus is the "mythical card", even I as a non-Magic player know of it's existance and value. WolfenSilva 19:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Personally, I don't have a problem with magic card listings, given the precedent w/ Pokemon. But even if you don't accept that premise, the card still attains notability in its own right. Lacrimosus 22:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, I suppose. I want to note how extraordinarily fortunate I feel that I was able to look upon the card through the external link without having to pay anything. Everyking 23:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I did a quick search for "Black Lotus" on eBay and found one that's currently at over $1600 and there have been sixteen bids. Not only is it remarkably expensive for a game card, but people are willing to pay for it. That's encyclopedic. Keep. --Aranel ("Sarah") 22:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely keep, even if there probably aren't any other article-worthy Magic cards. As for Everyking's comment, I actually played a rather convincing fake once. It was fun... -- SS 21:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Gelnaw's Law -- Add to this discussion

Gelnaw's Law gets few if any hits (wiki mirrors apart) on Google [3] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Gelnaw%27s+Law%22&btnG=Google+Search) [4] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22William+Gelnaw%22+irony&btnG=Search) [5] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%2Bgelnaw+%2Birony&btnG=Search). Suspect either invention or non-notability. Ironic, huh? --Tagishsimon

Delete: Probably no hoax, probably well known in a specialized field. However, insufficient spread and usage for a general encyclopedia. Geogre 13:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Don't Delete: I've heard it several times before, but I believe it's named incorrectly. I'd suggest, if anyone has the time, doing a little research to find the origin. GregDunn 20:50, 29 Aug 2004 (GMT -6)
Delete - unverifiable. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Searching on the text of the "law" gets only Ireland Information Guide, mirrors, and one blog. Non-verifiable. SWAdair | Talk 03:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Okrent's law -- Add to this discussion

Okrent's law - Neologism, 19 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22Okrent%27s+law%22&btnG=Search) or less google hits, many from mirrors. --Tagishsimon

Delete. The stub also doesn't explain what this maxim is supposed to imply. It sounds terribly philosophical, but its consequences are not developed. JFW | T@lk 14:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Abstain: The NYT is a heck of a platform from which to launch a law. Okrent's law is about the NYT's desire to "balance" stories that don't have two sides and about journalism's non-stop effort to get the other side, when the other side really doesn't have adherents. (E.g. someone proposes that we need to treat the mentally ill. The reporter thinks he or she simply has to go find someone who disagrees. Consequently, an "expert" from some Nietzschean-influenced organization gets ink to say that the mentally ill should be sterilized.) Geogre 15:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, or at least find someplace to merge it with; a bon mot that is in the process of becoming famous, or deserves to. If nothing else, it's something worthwhile to keep in mind when writing here. Smerdis of Tlön 22:03, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Neologism, no context, and the actual meaning of the term is very poorly explained. However, the topic of the "law" is something worth discussing. Delete if not expanded or renamed. -Sean Curtin 02:43, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Delete neologism. If it spreads, it can come back later. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Add Geogre's analysis to the article. This does deserve to be famous. Key45 21:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is not our purpose to seek to, or assist in, coining neologisms, deserving or not. Merge it into journalism, if you will; and even then, I'd lose the law tag as being neologistic. --Tagishsimon

[edit]

W h auden -- Add to this discussion

Uncapitalized page title, only content is a poem copied in from somewhere. Any proper content should go to W. H. Auden but there's not even anything to merge. Bonalaw 14:50, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Change to a redirect to W. H. Auden, no merge needed. The poem would be Wikisource, if it weren't encumbered. It is, of course, and it's absurd to even debate it. Geogre 15:26, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Made into a redirect. The poem, "Refugee Blues," was mass e-mailed after 9/11, since it seemed prescient. It's a fine, fine poem from Auden's middle period, and I recommend people read it carefully, without thinking about 9/11. Geogre 15:30, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Shirley Temple Bar -- Add to this discussion

I'm sure she's a wonderful entertainer, but is the winner of a drag beauty pageant sufficiently notable? Geogre 16:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

thought about listing this one myself, but a quick googling [6] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Shirley+Temple+Bar%22&btnG=Google+Search) revealed a certain amount of fame, which might just translate into notablity. Abstain awaiting comment from those more versed in the Dublin transvestite / cross-dressing bingo scene than I am. --Ianb 20:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment. A weekly bingo event in a gay bar? I wonder if that's to tempt the blue rinse brigade away from Mecca Bingo halls in Dublin? The mind boggles. Saint will 20:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
weak keep. I'm not exactly involved in the gay/trans scene but I have heard of this person. She's had reasonable TV time on RTÉ as far as I know. Given a week to expand I think this article could be worthwhile. If it stays as it is I don't care one way or the other.—Rory ☺ 01:33, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Freundster -- Add to this discussion

Neologism/pun. Does this exist outside of a small collection of slang users somewhere? (Besides, wouldn't Froindster be better than invoking Sigmund?) Geogre 18:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- that would be a "Freudster" --Ianb 12:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- quite. I wonder what that lapsus lingua says about me? Geogre 18:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism, dictdef. — Gwalla | Talk 01:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Ianb 12:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete neologism. Rossami 20:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Wayne township -- Add to this discussion

A US School district which doesn't seem notable. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Additionally, the Revolutionary War Wayne has a lot of things named after him around the country. I once taught at Wayne Country Day School. It's half the continent away from Wayne County, Michigan, or this Wayne Township in Indiana, or Fort Wayne. Also, the article is misnamed. Also, people in Australia adding the names of all the suburbs of Canberra have even less interest in this, I'm afraid, than I do in those. Geogre 21:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In Indiana, townships are administrative divisions of unincorporated parts of counties. This article doesn't say that this one is notable, it's factually wrong cause it says it's a school district, and it doesn't reflect the naming conventions. Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 22:11, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Comment. This gets complicated. At a minimum, the title's got to change. "Metropolitan School District of Wayne Township"[7] (http://www.wayne.k12.in.us/) is different than "Wayne Township"[8] (http://www.waynetwp.org/), although the township used to manage the schools before the school district was split off. I suppose an argument could be made that one article could cover both at Wayne Township, Indianapolis (or Wayne Township, Marion County, Indiana) (there are three other Wayne Townships in the US, one of which is also in Indiana), with a redir from the school district's full name, although the boundaries of the two bodies are no longer identical. If not, this should be moved to the SD name if kept with this content. If it stays just Wayne Township, it should cover the services it still provides--"township assistance, formerly known as poor relief; EMS and fire protection[9] (http://www.waynefire.org/index.html); parks; maintenance, preservation and restoration of cemeteries; assessing property for tax purposes; weed control; and paying livestock claims."[10] (http://indianatownshipassoc.org/pres_letter.html). Niteowlneils 22:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Plàcid -- Add to this discussion

Vanity. The refered page ca:Plàcid_Pérez_Bru seems to have also been deleted -Nabla 21:05, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Speedy delte candidate for a substub out of which nothing can grow (because it's not the name of the place, but just one word of it, as if the above were "Wayne" instead of "Wayne township"). Geogre 21:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - no context. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Postcodes: New South Wales -- Add to this discussion

co-listed: Postcodes: New South Wales A-M, Postcodes: New South Wales N-Z A list of 2610 (!) postcodes. Unencyclopedic-Nabla 21:17, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

List of cities that have not hosted the Olympic Games -- Add to this discussion

Prank. Mikkalai 21:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

List_of_cities_that_have_not_hosted_the_Olympic_Games#Failed_to_win_enough_votes may be reasonable. Delete the rest. -- User:Docu

Move to BJAODN -- quite good. Still, it's probably just as meaningful as a lot of the other stupid Olympics lists that have cropped up. RickK 22:16, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, BJAODN. Lacrimosus 22:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
delete as a prank, perhaps keep the ones that failed to win enough votes under a more appropriate title, but I bet its not a complete list as it stands. —siroχo 22:21, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
VETO - According to the title, this could refer to any city in the world that hasn't hosted a games, even my cute little town. I agree w/ Docu in the section that may work, but that can be moved somewhere more appropriate. --Merovingian✍Talk 22:26, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Fire Star 22:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete with reservations. I vote for a deletion, but to keep the cities that did not win enough votes under a more appropriate title. There's no reason to have cities like Troy and Gotham City, there. Sean 22:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 23:59, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Also, be sure to put all the micronation capitals on the list as it goes to BJAODN. Geogre 01:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Move to List of cities that have failed to win enough votes to host the Olympic Games or something similar, and delete the rest of the junk. — Gwalla | Talk 01:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although someone has cut the rubbish out, it's still a bad title. I'd suggest move to Unsuccesful candidate cities to host Olympic Games Average Earthman 10:15, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep, per move to Earthman's title. And remove the cities (i.e. Melbourne and Montreal) that *have* actually had the Games. Ambi 13:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That should be Unsuccessful candidate cities to host Olympic Games. RickK 19:25, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

If someone was willing to write the rest of the article, this would be better suited as a section of an article named Olympic Games host selection process/procedure or Olympic games bidding process/procedure -- Chuq 05:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment: I'm currently working on making this new page complete based on data from here (http://www.gamesbids.com/english/archives/past.shtml). - Plutor 17:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. I agree that this would be better as a part of a page about the Olympic selection procedure, or at least at a more succint name, like List of cities that failed in their Olympic bid. -Plutor 17:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Note, it has been moved to List of cities that failed in their bids to host the Olympics by somebody. -- user:zanimum

[edit]

Field name -- Add to this discussion

Dicdef, doesn't look expandable. —siroχo 22:25, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Merge/redirect to record. — Gwalla | Talk 01:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I don't agree with a redirect at all, and therefore not with a merge. The reason is that "field name" is at least as common in botany and ornithology and entymology for living critters, and the last thing I expected to find, when I clicked on the link, was a definition for computer science. Geogre 02:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- comment: what about a disambig page? — Gwalla | Talk 05:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Possibly so, yes. I suppose the disambiguation would be to the various fields, so to speak. Geogre 12:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

1994 United States Academic Decathlon -- Add to this discussion

The nose of the camel. Seems like a sneaky form of vanity. RickK 22:59, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I haven't even really gotten to start working on these pages. The competition in and of itself is notable, as a search for it (including it's nicknames) on Google turns up tens of thousands of pages for it. It has involved several hundreds of thousands of high school students in the US since its creation. I'm not sure why you think this page is vanity, as I wasn't there, nor was my school. Yes, I did compete in later years, but I'm trying to make pages for all the years, listing curriculum. I got the idea for this from http://www.b2g5.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1092791176&user=demidec (this URL may not work forever, as they clear their board fairly regularly).

People are interested in this history and who won the competitions. I could have created pages for state results, county results, etc. but I didn't because that would have obviously been too much. Rather, what I'm trying to do is go around and gather what results I can find to compile a comprehensive history of the competition at the highest level. I was planning on going to a local school later this week as well because I contacted them and found out they had curriculum listings for the past few years as well as national results. Already I have compiled about 30 pages of information about the various years.

Furthermore, I really don't appreciate this being put on VfD so quickly; I would hope that if someone is unsure as to my intentions with this, they would have asked me, not everyone else. CryptoDerk 23:23, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that teams from Australia and Canada also do decathlon (even though it's called USAD). Also, let me point out some precedence in that we have an article for National Academic Quiz Tournaments, which lists results. That competition is not as old, nor does it include as many participants, as decathlon. While my results are a lot larger, they are understandably so. USAD used to publish entire lists of every medal winner on their website after each national competition -- for an example, see http://aad.gci.net/results.htm -- the 2001 results. CryptoDerk 23:50, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Also see William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition which is another competition page that lists results. CryptoDerk 00:21, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I should expand a bit on what I said about the curriculum. I plan on having the detailed curriculum outline for each year as well. The curriculum includes well known novels, poetry, artwork, music, etc. CryptoDerk 00:58, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Looks like a perfectly reasonable article. — Gwalla | Talk 01:35, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Looks like a work in progress. -- Allyunion 05:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep.. Some kind of "work in progress" tag mightbe appropriate though.--Ianb 06:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. This has potential and is not yet finished so if in a couple of months or so there's still no work done to this article, then return it to vfd. Saint will 12:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So all you people who are voting keep will also vote keep when every single one of the kids that will wind up listed on every single one of these gets their own article? RickK 18:51, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

of course not - unless they're from Dartmouth College. ;-) --Ianb 19:10, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Agree with RickK. Now is the time to be hitting the camel with a stick. Not when we've got a whole series of these things. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I never announced any intention to create a page about each of the people that are listed. With these articles I only intend to follow precedence of other well established articles, such as the ones I've listed above. I thought if I did that there would be no reason to cry foul. I guess not. CryptoDerk 12:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Instead, we have redlinks for all of the non-notable high schools. RickK 19:32, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Fine. I agree, the redlinks shouldn't be there. I have removed them. I may add a link to a school in the main article when I get around to writing about cheating controversies. There have been some interesting events, one of which HBO made a movie about. CryptoDerk 19:50, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Abstain: I've been thinking about it and thinking about it, and all I can come up with is this: Of all these sorts of things, this is the best I've seen. The author does not redlink the names. The author isn't proposing a spiderweb. That said, I'm always in favor of master articles, and not individual ones. I'd rather see United States Academic Decathlon with sections on the various years than to see isolated articles. I could not vote delete, when hundreds of similar list-like articles are dreadfully done, with every name a redlink, and written about much less notable subjects, but I cannot vote keep with my own dislike for break outs for recurring events. Geogre 14:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Putting this information in the main article is doable, but I worry about it getting too large. Once all the information is collected and wikified, then we can distribute it accordingly. Seven of the 10 subjects change every year. My main reason for doing it this way is because there are two types of people who would look up this information 1) people who want to just know about USAD as a whole (those who would look at the main article) and 2) people who want to know what school from their state has won historically or who the highest scorer from each year was (those who would look at the year-by-year pages.

That being said, I do intend to incorporate some of this information into the main article, including the overall theme for each year, and perhaps "trivia" such as the highest scores of all time, etc. Thanks for your comments. CryptoDerk 20:02, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

August 30

[edit]

Orion (names) -- Add to this discussion

Aside from terrible naming conventions, I don't think it belongs on Ireland Information Guide (while I'm on the fence about this). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 01:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: "Orion" = "O'Ryan?" Nooooo. There aren't really variations, and we should already have plenty on Orion without this. Geogre 02:35, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history all I can say is that it is a shame that the people who edited this spent so much time with so little useful result. Delete. Fire Star 05:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd say include the info in one of the articles on the disamb page and delete. MGM 07:31, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Definitely Delete. A poor sub-stub and inferior to the Orion page. Saint will 11:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mesmerizing in its non-notableness. delete. Terrapin 13:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can't even see anything from this substub that'd be useful on the disambiguation page. Delete. Spatch 18:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. And O'Ryan quite clearly isn't derived from Orion! Trilobite (Talk) 02:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. And I believe the eytmology of Orion is unknown. The two translations here might be legitimate guesses by genuine linguists, but I'd like to see sources and reasoning. One Greek myth connects the name with "urinating" because Orion was born from an ox's hide onto which Zeus, Poseidon, and Hermes had urinated. Probably folk-etymology. Jallan 02:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Airplane graffiti -- Add to this discussion

One site hit for "Airplane graffiti", and it leads to a news article[11] (http://www.limerickpost.ie/dailynews.elive?id=3075&category=Daily-Thu_________) about a guy arrested for painting graffiti on a military plane, that does NOT use this term. Either non-notable or unverifiable. Some hits for "Jet graffiti", but they all seem to be related to a video game. Niteowlneils 01:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, non-notable. But I definitely remember seeing pictures of graffiti scrawled on bombs during the bombing of Iraq in about 1998/1999. Airmen annoyed at being away from their families wrote messages like 'Merry Christmas Saddam' and 'This one's for my little girl'. But even that's pretty non-notable. So Delete. Saint will 11:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

LegalizeIt This entry is mainly talking about graffiti on commerical airliners. I based this entry on what relatives and friends who work in airports tell me. There is also a discussion on this, with a photo, at *[12] (http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1717719/). Perhaps the term used is not well-known, but it was the best I could come up with.

Delete. Not that it isn't an issue, but that it's non-notable. — Mr. Grinch (Talk) 18:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep! After checking the link provided above, there's even photographic evidence. ;-) Are some of those pictures under GFDL? Kim Bruning 18:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. There's real graffiti, then there's tagging. This is tagging. When airplane graffiti gets as good as railcar graffiti, give me a shout - I collect that shit. Denni☯ 22:11, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Delete Real or not, it's non notable. -TheFed 00:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I learnt something by reading this article. Even if it is only trivia it's informative and deserves inclusion. Trilobite (Talk) 02:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Interesting and notable enough for aviation-minded people like myself. I agree that the title is not the best, but can't come with a constructive suggestion of a good alternative. BACbKA 10:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
delete Vagrant 19:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Christian Fellowship Centre -- Add to this discussion

Sincerest apologies to the author, but the article content does not match the article title at all. I cannot tell whether the subject of the article itself is truly notable, but the general topic deserves its own, true, article. Geogre 02:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep: The subject of the article would certainly be "notable" to those who are looking for information on this topic. As for the content/title issue, I think it is a bit rash to put this up for deletion without having done a bit of research. The name of the subject at hand is the "Christian Fellowship Centre", the name by which it is known to thousands of people, and the name under which you will almost always find this institution referenced. SeekingOne

(note: this is the autor) Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Geogre is correct, the title of the article is too generic and therefore somewhat misleading. Whether or not the centre itself is notable enough for an article, I don't know, but it should be listed under its proper name and let that article stand the scrutiny of Ireland Information Guide's editors. Myself, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it if such were the case, but this article matched with this title at this time at least needs a redirect. Fire Star 04:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ditto. At least move to Honor Oak Christian Fellowship & Conference Centre. I'd also like to know if there are copyright issues with this, and it looks rather POV, but those aren't VFD issues. -- Jmabel 05:02, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Geogre and Jmabel. The title would only be appropriate if this is the only establishment on the planet known as the Christian Fellowship Centre, which it isn't. Average Earthman 10:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'll do the move and we'll proceed from there. DJ Clayworth 19:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete or merge. -TheFed 00:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

The Mitre -- Add to this discussion

Delete. Non-notable. RSpeer 04:32, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
At least Merge into University of St Andrews. A publication at a very notable university. I can't tell be reading this whether the publication is notable enough to merit its own article: can someone from Scotland weigh in? -- 05:06, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
I agree, this needs to be Merged with the Uni website. It's fairly interesting, but doesn't deserve a page on it's own. Besides, isn't a Mitre a kind of hat that Bishops wear? Saint will 11:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It is a one year old paper, so it's not the student newspaper. It seems like this is the St. Andrews version of The Dartmouth Review: a counter paper. Further, a redirect of this term to University of St Andrews is going to be iffy, because it is an ecclesiastical item. Geogre 12:27, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- To clarify: I would merge without redirection. Yes, the analogy to The Dartmouth Review seems spot on. I see we don't have an article on that. We should. If this paper has even a fraction of the same impact, it deserves at least discussion in the article on the Uni it is attached to. -- Jmabel 16:27, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  - The general opinion I've seen is that merging without redirection violates the GFDL. RSpeer 17:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, the ecclesiastical item would be at Mitre or Miter. RickK 19:07, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  - Righto. Just thinking of who-knows-what that could grab the title (the Freemason's newsletter? the BPO Elks meeting hall? dunno). Geogre 19:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The author has written quite a few lines on the subject. It would be too big just to shove it in the uni article. Trilobite (Talk) 02:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would recommend a merge, with a dab link to the uni from Mitre... if the vote ends up to keep this article, though, I recomment moving to The Mitre (periodical). We also need to do some disambig work for Mitre vs MITRE. -FZ 13:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What FZ said. Incidentally The Mitre is also the name of a pub in Oxford. Highly unnotable bar the fact that it's a decent pub, just thought I'd mention it... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, managing to find a decent pub in Oxford is notable. -FZ 16:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Danebod Family Camp -- Add to this discussion

Uh, wow! It's a camp... with games... and get this, crafts! It must be notable! Delete. RSpeer 04:40, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Notably non-notable. -- Jmabel 05:07, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. --Martinl 08:18, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I'm so amazed by the non-notability of this! Saint will 11:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: A camp, but a concisely written article. Geogre 12:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I'm tempted to say keep, as we have plenty of articles on tiny non-notable villages, suburbs, schools etc., but there's really no information of value here. If the author can make it interesting I will change my vote, as I think Ireland Information Guide should in general be covering topics considered non-notable by dead tree encyclopedias. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. My major concern with this type of article is that even though it may be relevant today, what will its value be in ~~ten years~~ ~~five years~~ two years from now? Does the topic of this article have sufficient staying power that it will be on anyone's radar in the short term (never mind the long term)? I think this does not cut it. Denni☯ 02:04, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

[edit]

Index.dat -- Add to this discussion

This seems like the author has a hidden agenda and non-notable subject. I looked in my Windows machine and didn't find this "index.dat" file. The author might be some privacy advocate trying to cause unnecessary negative publicity towards Windows. Passion 06:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, it's highly POV. If it was an encyclopedic subject, a rewrite should begin with a blank page. Passion 07:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, using Google isn't reliable because there are lots of different files - not related to Windows - called index.dat and it's where shareware developers hawk their "privacy programs". Passion 07:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Relevant and clearly notable (149,000 Google results.) Keep. - Mustafaa 07:18, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There are at least one Internet Explorer vulnerability connected with this file. BTW, there are seven "index.dat" files on my Windows machine. Keep. --Martinl 08:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect: A single Windows file doesn't really need an encyclopedia entry, even if it is presented like this. Merge and redirect to Internet privacy or Internet Explorer. Geogre 12:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Don't merge/redirect. A legitimate topic. May need some NPOVification, like adding Microsoft's argument in favor of it. — Gwalla | Talk 17:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep but only with a POVectomy. Spatch 18:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Not only a legitimate topic, but a notable one, too. Please don't merge/redirect. As for NPOV, that's an issue to deal with after we resolve the Vfd issue. — Mr. Grinch (Talk) 18:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Written somewhat unprofessionaly though, send to cleanup. Kim Bruning 18:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

keep, but with urgent cleanup. I don't like how that "deltree" is placed there. WolfenSilva 19:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Merge I agree that this is indeed a large, encyclopediatic issue (though probably not as currently written as much) it doesn't warrent it's own article. -TheFed 00:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Ireland Information Guide is not paper Kim Bruning 07:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep While the subject is, in my opinion, just pure paranoia and MS bashing, it is real (hidden in a super-secret folder). 15:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep Real file, real concerns. Does need some NPOV washing. Key45 22:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

John Wilding -- Add to this discussion

John Wilding is an advertisement. Delete this, and also the duplicate article John Wilding Ltd. Lupo 11:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And also delete Contract Hire: it's also an ad for the same car dealer. Lupo 11:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I say delete. The saint has spoken. Saint will 11:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete for advertising and Misuse of Capital Letters. --Ianb 11:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Sorry but the site does not make plain that a company cannot put links to itself. However, John Wilding and John Wilding Ltd will happily amend the article to give just a history of the 20 year old Company. We trust that this will satisfy users.
- post by User:213.122.106.236, 11:55, 30 Aug 2004. To that user -- you have a few days to improve the article to show is noteworthiness. Otherwise, if there is a consensus to delete here, because users vote on its notability, it will be deleted. Writing about yourself is generally frowned upon, see Ireland Information Guide:Autobiography. Ireland Information Guide is not a web directory, it is an encyclopaedia. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The new page form clearly states "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business". -- Cyrius|✎ 05:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert for a non-notable car dealership. — Gwalla | Talk 17:22, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
curius comment to talk page "Search "McDonalds" or "KFC" and see if you still think that Ireland Information Guide is non-commercial" 19:29, 30 Aug 2004 User:2004lionheart
- McDonald's and KFC are notable multinational restaurant chains. Their entries were created by Ireland Information Guide users, not the press department (it probably says rather nasty things about McDonalds (in fact just thinking about eating meat makes me rather queasy)) as for garages, Kwik Fit might be notable (cos you can't get quicker than a kwik fit fitter) but others? Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete both John Wilding and John Wilding Ltd: advertising. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete car dealership. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please Delete, useless advertisement fullerton 05:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete -advertisement, not noteable--Fenice 20:48, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Living Stream Ministry -- Add to this discussion

I don't think this is notable. This comes from User:69.141.225.52 contribs a.k.a. User:SeekingOne contribs seems to be promoting his religion, even if it may be semi-unintentional. Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article doesn't "come from" me at all! I merely edited it twice (that was two out of 17 edits) and the article was in place months before I ever even heard of Ireland Information Guide. I have no special interest in this article whatsoever. It was simply inaccurate at the time. As for this about "promoting my religion", this is most definitely not my religion, merely an area of research, and I have no interest in promoting anything, only in providing information. This is an encylopaedic site. As such, it should be very extensive (although I agree with limitations, of course). I don't think it should be a place for people to comb through articles deciding what is personally insignificant. Religion or no religion, what is the difference? I could easily do the same thing with other related articles in an entirely different genre. "I've never heard of these people. Obviously, they's only slightly notable. The author must have an agenda. They need to be deleted." SeekingOne

Sorry, but you have produced some POV stuff articles on marginal subjects. And yes, the spread of the Western virus of the mind to China is interesting, and you're obviously knowledgeable, keep up the good work old boy. I'm still not sure about this group though. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you feel that my articles have a POV, then that can be fixed rather than attempting to delete entire entries (and making accusations against a user without checking their veracity). Also the question of the marginality of a subject is purely a matter of personal opinion related to personal interest in the topic. There are countless number of very acceptable articles that would be considered "marginal subjects" by readers who are not interested. As for this particular article, I agree that it probably isn't necessary. --SeekingOne 15:09, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat on the edge. I'd say it should be merged (at one sentence) and redirected to an article on the evangelical press. There are a pile of them, and they operate on shoestring budgets. A single article on the lot (with the exception of some of the really huge ones, like the Guideposts folks and Jack Chick) would be ok. Therefore, make this a redirect and leave the merging up to the author. Geogre 14:48, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Borderline. Watchman Nee is pretty well known, but if that's all then they're pretty small. On balence, keep. DJ Clayworth 19:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep...just. Trilobite (Talk) 02:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Netline -- Add to this discussion

Insignificant company. Wyllium 12:34, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Reads like an ad. Delete. RSpeer 12:47, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. WikiSpam. — Gwalla | Talk 17:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Reads like an ad, dies like an ad. The product might be worth mentioning. --Ianb 18:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: wikispam. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

SimulaWorks -- Add to this discussion

Ad, Gets fewer than 100 google hits (http://www.google.com/search?q=SimulaWorks), certainly non-notable for a computer-related topic. —siroχo 13:02, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Ad for non-notable software. — Gwalla | Talk 17:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Does not look notable. --Ianb 18:38, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete if evidence of notability not provided in article. The software looks like something that could be notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

2004 Summer Olympians who attended Dartmouth College -- Add to this discussion

Mmm..kay... Terrapin 13:29, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nooooohhhh... The same goes for 2004 Summer Olympians who did not attend Dartmouth College, 2004 Summer Olympians whose relatives attended Dartmouth College, 2004 Summer Olympians who failed entry to Dartmouth College ... --Ianb 13:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If they're olympians, they're notable. Merge with Dartmouth College under a general list of alumni. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Same for 2004 Olympians who failed to get into Dartmouth College and Olympians who competed for the EU who went to Dartmouth College. If they're Olympians, they should have separate articles. If the author wants to note them as famous alums, that's fine. The next logical step after this would be 2004 Olympians who went to University of North Carolina, 2004 Olympians who went to UCLA etc. Far too minor. Geogre 14:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: What with all the controversy surrounding the articles about Olympians from EU countries and about Dartmouth, I'm surprised someone actually decided to put up this un-encyclopedia-worthy article. I really fear soon we'll be seeing things like People from Dartmouth who prefer Colgate toothpaste and Olympians whose weight is a Harshad number on this page. Livajo 16:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
How about the impending article on Dartmouth College undergrads who didn't make the 2004 Summer Olympics but watched it on TV? -- Jmabel 16:31, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - This has got to be a joke. - RedWordSmith 17:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Please don't create joke articles just to "prove" a point on VfD. — Gwalla | Talk 17:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete as obvious joke. This one isn't funny, though. Lacrimosus 21:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, joke. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, this kind of information can be noted in articles about Dartmouth or the Olympians who attended Dartmouth, but a separate list is not justified. --Michael Snow 17:26, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

AzurEeL -- Add to this discussion

An FRP character. FRP is Fibre Reinforced Plastic. Anyone have the foggiest idea what this is about? According to google [13] (http://www.google.com/search?q=AzurEeL&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&filter=0) it seems only to be a user name in Turkish-language internet fora. --Ianb 13:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Also Azureel. --Ianb 13:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Azureel is now no more, it is an ex-AzurEel. --Ianb 18:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Nonsensical vanity. One ought not write an article on one's 44th level illusionist mage. Geogre 14:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"(the last letter is big due to emphasize the long tail.)" Whether it's patented or not, it's still nonsense--quite funny nonsense, though. Delete -- Bobdoe 16:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. In coherent nonsense about some kid's roleplaying persona. Somebody also edited FRP into a disambig between Fibre Reinforced Plastic and Fantasy Role Playing~~—possibly the same user~~. — Gwalla | Talk 17:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. (By the way, the disambig was created by The Anome, not the same user.) Rossami 21:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Speed deleted as patent nonsense. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Sociocybernetics -- Add to this discussion

This was nominated for speedy deletion as "original research", but that's not a speedy case, so I bring it here. Some hits, but not a lot for a 'science'. Way out of my field of expertise, so no vote (I just want to get some resolution). Niteowlneils 14:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutral for now. The article is a total mess, but it may have a salvageable kernel. Not sure if the term "sociocybernetics" has any real currency, but some of what is here seems to relate (at least vaguely) to the work of Gregory Bateson. If that tie is legitimate, this would be encyclopedic. -- Jmabel 16:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Keep, cleanup. Confusing, but seems to be a real topic. — Gwalla | Talk 17:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
keep - sociocybernetics does exist as a field of science. The article is only unfinished, the contributor stopped working on it when it was listed for deletion. What he has written sofar is encyclopedic and factually acurate.--Fenice 21:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Is this factually accurate? Googling "sociocybernetics" together with random terms from this article did not find anything. I am convinced sociocybernetics exist but I am not convinced this is an accurate description. Andris 12:44, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Keep provided the author works on it and makes it into a valid article. Trilobite (Talk) 02:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's a real field, and needs an article. This article is not very good, but the basic framework and references are salvageable. Keep for cleanup. -FZ 13:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
keep - Real field, simply needs cleaning up Tmq 15:28, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

[edit]

Gold V-dramon -- Add to this discussion

Discussion moved from Ireland Information Guide:Pages needing translation into English:

No idea what language. Andris 12:20, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Looks Indonesian, and unencyclopedic - any speakers? - Mustafaa 19:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The presence of pun and digimon make me seriously doubt it is an authentic system of writing. - --67.65.112.151 04:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, it's real. It's either Indonesian or Malaysian, it seems to be about a digimon character of some sort. "pun" is a real Indonesian word. - Node 04:54, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gold V-dramon is a very unimportant character encyclopedically (a possible evolution of an unused form of a Digimon used only in one season). It may be a Digimon in the card game, but even so, it's not worth an article. Delete. --Geoffrey 01:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

<end moved discussion.

Delete. Untranslated in the allowed 14 days, and apparently not worth translating. -- Jmabel 16:21, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Untranslated substub about a non-notable Digimon creature. This one runs the gamut. — Gwalla | Talk 17:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete - it is, in fact, a Digimon critter. [14] (http://digimon.thenexxus.org/encyclopedia/digimon/gold_vdramon.html) Smerdis of Tlön 18:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete - yay, one less Thingymon. --Ianb 18:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Ick! Ick! A digimon! Get can of Raid. ("Subtrivial fancruft" + foreign language = "subcomprehensible subtrivial fancruft?") Geogre 18:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. So short it's hardly worth translating. Trilobite (Talk) 02:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Matter/electrus -- Add to this discussion

Re Matter/electrus
Non-encyc orig research by editor who is still vandalizing Matter in connection with the same content. --Jerzy(t) 18:49, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

Sigh. Delete. RickK 18:56, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
move to bad jokes and other deleted content? :-) Kim Bruning 18:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. No original research please.--Ianb 18:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- One of his edit summaries for the nominated article: "Summary: Primal Electromagnetic Fields are the essence of mass: the quanta of unstructured Matter, basically electrons. Primal Energy is Kinesis transported by PEMFs as photons. Space is the source of" --Jerzy(t) 18:59, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)
Delete. Incoherent, not an encyclopedia article, original "research". — Gwalla | Talk 21:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Now why did we get rid of the ((insane)) template? Rambling, incoherent, bizarre, private vision of reality. Geogre 21:55, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Speed deleted as patent nonsense. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Amphigory -- Add to this discussion

Amphigory - Ad for an online business. --Ianb 19:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Advert, non-notable company, Ireland Information Guide is not a web guide. — Gwalla | Talk 21:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It's just another ad. Geogre 21:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete this article, but we could use an article on the topic of amphigory, a type of nonsense verse that at first seems meaningful but whos meaning does not survive scrutiny, e.g. many of the poems of Lewis Carroll. -- Jmabel 23:11, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
- And the title of some of Edward Gorey's books - Nunh-huh 02:13, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - That's Amphigorey, a pun on this word. -- Jmabel 05:02, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

And Amphigorey, Too. I promise to pay more attention to my silent e's. - Nuenh-hueh 06:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. It's an advert. Trilobite (Talk) 02:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Use namespace for article on verse. -FZ 13:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Butan -- Add to this discussion

An odd disambiguation page. RickK 20:11, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

The page is intended to help those people who do not know the exact spelling. So keep it. — Monedula 20:25, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep perfectly reasonable spelling-disambiguation. — Gwalla | Talk 21:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A disambiguation page is defined as pointing to other pages that might otherwise have the same name, so I suppose this isn't strictly one. But it's a good idea, IMHO, to have pages like this for words that are hard to spell. Perhaps they could have a category of their own? (Or perhaps they already do?) Meanwhile, keep. Bishonen 22:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Change to a redirect of Butan for Bhutan. -TheFed 00:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- comment: Why that and not the disambig? The misspelling could easily be either. — Gwalla | Talk 01:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Useful in its present form. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Bhutan. It's quite possible people will misspell the country this way, but it's hard to see how someone could do it with butane except as a typo, which they will notice themselves when they end up at the wrong page. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Well, "butan" is how butane is spelled in German. Fwiw, Wile E. Heresiarch 04:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- What Wile E. said, and in many other languages too. I was just thinking that butan for butane could easily trip me up. Keep as is, please (I already voted), as better than a redirect for non-native English speakers. Bishonen 06:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect exactly as Tilobite says. Jallan 02:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep in the spirit of misspelling redirects. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep as it is. Non-native English speakers could misspell either one as "butan". Andris 12:36, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Wisconsin Gamma chapter of Phi Kappa Psi -- Add to this discussion

Wisconsin Gamma chapter of Phi Kappa Psi - I found this on the old pages report; it hasn't been touched since it was created in 2002. As much as I admire Beloit College, this looks like a vanity article by a fraternity member. I recommend a delete. - RedWordSmith 20:17, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. It's vaguely possible that there might be information about this group that is worth having in an article (such as, say, either the main Beloit College article or the main Phi Kappa Psi article, but not this one), but the chances of someone coming along to provide us with that information are pretty slim. --Aranel 21:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Phi Kappa Psi. Maybe merge, but it doesn't look like there's much there worth merging. — Gwalla | Talk 21:41, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Chapters are too minor. A redirect isn't needed, given the unlikeliness of a search or the need for a search. Geogre 21:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge extremely minimally into the Chapter Roll section of Phi Kappa Psi. - KeithTyler 18:59, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Multilingual software -- Add to this discussion

Multilingual software - doesn't deserve an article --Edcolins 20:43, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Redirect to internationalization. -- Jmabel 23:14, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to internationalization. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio, County Auditor and Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio, County Commission -- Add to this discussion

Please? RickK 21:04, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

As the author of the page, I'm wondering why this has been nominated for deletion. Which category do you suggest makes it inappropriate for Wiki? Indeed, I'm still working on this article, and a number of other related articles, on Montgomery County government. If you find something inadequate -- let me know -- I'm either working on it or perhaps it's something I've overlooked. In short, I vote against deletion. Acsenray 21:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At what granularity of trivia do we let Ireland Information Guide go? Where are the dog warden election results from every municipality in the world? RickK 21:33, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
- What official deletion reason is being cited? It is a key municipality in a key swing state in the U.S. that may be interesting for voting trends purposes. Ireland Information Guide has short articles on every municipality in the country, even ones that don't exist as jurisdictions except in the books of the Census Bureau. These are simple facts, not opinion or pontificating, that I myself have taken much trouble in tracking down. Is "no one is interested in this" a listed deletion policy? I wouldn't be averse to merging this information into other information about Montgomery County. Acsenray 21:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Officially, I would argue for deletion on the grounds of notability. While election results on the county level matter to the county, they do not go beyond that. We do not note journalistic items of local import. Geogre 21:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
comment: there's a whole lot more of these under Montgomery_County,_Ohio#Government --Ianb 21:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The problem I have with these entries is whether someone will be around in 2006 to diligently update them. Does Montgomery County Ohio have a website with this info? If so a link there would serve everyone better (Still, gimme some nice dog-catcher voting statistics against information on Star Wars fighters which weren't even in the films any day... )--Ianb 21:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Second the county website link idea. As for the updating concerns, that's not a valid reason to delete. • Benc • 16:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Simply not notable enough, I'm afraid. Delete. Lacrimosus 21:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Well, if the tide is turning against me, I'll have to keep in mind the boundaries of minutia. And then wonder how it compares to using a separate page for each of the (fictional) rulers of Numenor, most of who were never mentioned in the actual text of the work in question. Hmm. Acsenray 21:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Yeah, delete those too! Terrapin 15:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Comment: If you think those are not notable, please tag and nominate them for VfD. Geogre 00:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Result of these elections is not significant enough. Appropriate for 1-liner in an article about Montgomery County, Ohio. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. And if there are separate pages for every ruler of Númenor, put most of them on this page for deletion as well. I hate cleaning up after that kind of mess myself. Jallan 02:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You may want to check out the information on the ruler of Numenor articles. They're rather more extensive than the stubs we're discussing here. RickK 04:17, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  - Comment - It doesn't matter how extensive the article is if it is about something of no importance. We've deleted some very long vanity articles in the past. Average Earthman 10:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - An article about a known fictional character in a known universe read by millions of people is not vanity. Do we really want to start this downward slide? Because if the Numenor articles start getting deleted or merged, I WILL start doing the same thing with the thousands of Pokemon articles. RickK 19:24, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Delete Agree with RickK, this is just too far down for an encyclopedia. Ireland Information Guide is not a simple compilation of election results. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. What's next? School treasurer? Parks superintendent? For all 10000 counties in the U.S. (or however many there are)? Terrapin 15:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've just been told that encyclopedic means comprehensive in reaction to my proposal to limit excessive detail copied out of works of published fiction. Does that have any bearing on this discussion? Acsenray 16:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- For the curious, this discussion is located here on DP. • Benc • 16:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Weak keep. This is borderline notable, but consider that Montgomery County, Ohio has over half a million people living in it. Also consider that this is really a subpage of the main county article. It would be in the article itself if it weren't too long. Ask yourself this question: would the Montgomery County, Ohio article be stronger without its election data? • Benc • 16:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge. I'm actually from the area, and I really truly don't care what the election results were in Montgomery County at any given time. However, the information isn't hurting anyone by being there, and it might be very interesting to someone who is interested in the state of Ohio local politics - it would, however, be more useful if it were all merged into one Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio. Also I would recommend removing the red links. If any of the officials or candidates mentioned merit their own articles at some point, the links can be added later. --Aranel ("Sarah") 23:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, excessive granularity. Also, see Ireland Information Guide:Avoid statements that will date quickly. SWAdair | Talk 04:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Link to the appropriate part of the county website instead. --Michael Snow 17:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Merge as per Aranel's suggestion (though I suggest Election Results of Montgomery County, Ohio).

[edit]

Jiacam -- Add to this discussion

(Jiacam) Significant portions of www.jiacam.org are still under construction a month after the journal's projected launch date. Also, the current article appears to be an advertisement. If and when the journal becomes notable, an article about it can be created anew. —Triskaideka 21:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

delete, but allow to be recreated if it is launched, and everything goes okay. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: there is no article here, just a link with a sentence or two saying what the link is to. An article would look different, even if the journal were up and running. Geogre 00:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert. Ireland Information Guide is not a web guide. — Gwalla | Talk 02:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ireland Information Guide is not a web directory, especially for sites that aren't finished. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

BlueHereNow -- Add to this discussion

Site with Alexa ranking of 1,492,052. Links in List of websites and Open source journalism from same anon user. --Ianb 22:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)--Ianb 22:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Ireland Information Guide is not a web directory. Andris 22:06, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - I responded to the original tag for speedy deletion (it doesn't qualify under the guidelines) and was surprised to discover that it was an interesting site. I was expecting it to be just an advert for a single blog but instead it seems to be a continuous news photo community. (My interest in it may not make it notable enough, however.) - Tεxτurε 22:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Looks like just another collaborative moblog. Is it the first, or particularly popular, or something? Abstain for now. — Gwalla | Talk 02:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It may be an interesting site, but Ireland Information Guide isn't a web directory. Is it a notable site? Can anyone provide evidence of significance? Average Earthman 10:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable based on Alexa Traffic Ranking. Interesting site, but the developers thought it so interesting that they took the liberty of disabling my "Back" button. We should not knowingly link to any site that tampers with a user's browser settings without permission. SWAdair | Talk 04:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not voting. Tested with three web browsers, no disabling of the Back button... however, (for IE only) going to http://www.blueherenow.com/ does make some sort of immediate redirect to http://www.blueherenow.com/blueherenow/now/home_mar_12.php, which means that (again, for IE only), hitting the back button repeatedly hits the redirect back to where you are. Recommendation: (1) Use the history list to go back, (2) don't use Internet Explorer, (3) don't use Internet Explorer. ;-) P.S. I'm on a Macintosh. AdmN 05:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, so that's what happened. Yes, I'm using IE. :-) SWAdair | Talk 07:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Dartmouth Review -- Add to this discussion

A student newspaper, not significant. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm admittedly the author of this article, but: the most famous right-wing independent college newspaper in the United States ought to be considered encyclopedic. 6,130 Google hits, including articles from The Nation, National Review, and New York Review of Books. Keep. -- Jmabel 23:07, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
Strongly keep. The Dartmouth Review is probably the most well-known right-wing college newspaper in the U.S. Neutrality (talk) 23:42, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I thoroughly hate the paper and all it stands for (off campus right wing groups funneling money into college causes because they think they're fighting the "liberal bias" of universities, said papers losing money hand over fist but proclaiming the virtues of the free market, etc.), but it's the college newspaper that started the whole trend. Every college, just about, gets its own version these days. Most of them don't end up with off-campus angels and therefore go under or file numerous frivolous lawsuits about getting the regular university paper's newsboxes, etc. Geogre 00:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Definitely notable. — Gwalla | Talk 02:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Quite possibly the most influential college newspaper in America.--Samuel J. Howard 03:56, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. No reason not to keep it. — LegCircus 04:02, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. For all the mess we've been getting with Dartmouth articles lately, this one actually is worth having- it's widely read outside of the immediate community, and has historical and political significance. -FZ 13:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. I've heard of it for years. Gwimpey 23:01, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. An important part of US conservative history. ffirehorse 06:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, good start for a perfectly legitimate article. Kudos to everyone for not reflexively voting delete just because it's from Dartmouth. --Michael Snow 17:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, but the key is that it's about Dartmouth but not from Dartmouth. I wrote this piece partly because I couldn't believe that with all the trivia they added, they neglected one of the most encyclopedia-worthy institutions on their campus. -- Jmabel 21:14, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

August 31

[edit]

Maine Mall -- Add to this discussion

Utterly nonnotable mall. Check out their official site (http://www.mainemall.com/html/) to see this straight from the horse's mouth. Looks totally average. Postdlf 02:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. -- Decumanus 02:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Um, why? Postdlf 02:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Since you ask: My opinion is that malls, like city neighborhoods, are inherently noteworthy. As much as I would prefer otherwise, malls form the nexus of the culture of the U.S. throughout many cities and suburbs. They tend to be the center of social life and economic vitality in their communities. In my opinion, a mall need not be noteworthy or exceptional as a mall to be worthy of inclusion. The fact that it exists, like a city neighborhood, is usually enough. It's very easy to turn up one's nose on malls and their importance in American culture, but this is wishful thinking, and does not reflect the reality on the ground. To limit the inclusion of malls in Ireland Information Guide to only famous ones, like the Mall of America, is to leave out what is actually the most important part of communities in the U.S. As I said, I am no defender of malls, but I recognize that to ignore them is to ignore the essential in U.S. architecture and city planning. -- Decumanus 23:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - If it were a real article, you might find some sympathy. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  - Then let that article be a discussion of Maine Mall as social nexus, or the new commons. I think the Malling of America arguments are a little out of date, these days, although there was always some truth in them. However, individual iterations are notable to atlases. Individual intellectual and cultural activities are notable to encyclopedias, in my opinion. Can the mall be discussed, or will it be presented here as a collection of stores? This is an article about a collection of stores. Were it otherwise, it would be considered differently. Geogre 02:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, advert. — Gwalla | Talk 03:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: WP is not the Yellow Pages, and this is a Yellow Pages ad. You get less information here than you would in a newspaper ad, and there is no evidence of notability. Geogre 03:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete yellow pages entry. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It needs work, but this appears to be a rather substansive regional mall, with 126 stores, at least 85% of them major names. -- user:zanimum
Delete. Much as it pains me, as a former Maine resident, I can't think of any reason I'd link to this page outside of a directory. -- SarekOfVulcan 21:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. SWAdair | Talk 04:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree w/ Decumanus. Keep. Lacrimosus 08:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep (for now) -- as much as I despise malls and the whole mall/consumer culture, I think pages like this, which haven't proven their notability yet, should be given a little longer to make their case (this one's been around since march), perhaps a year (taking into account critial factors such as system resources, etc.). The page's presence, however sparse the content, may just trigger an unsuspecting passer by to recognize it and add something noteworthy about it... its architecture, history, or a "this was a Nixon stop-over in the '72 campaign" tidbit. Amirak 08:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If someone can make this into a real article, then I'll change my vote to keep. However, the requirement of notability doesn't mean much if we just keep articles on the off-chance that there might be notable facts out there somewhere of which we're unaware—this is about what the article is and what it will likely grow into, not what it has the remote possibility of becoming based on pure speculation. Postdlf 09:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete for non-notability -- for the same reasons as e.g. Central Catholic. - KeithTyler 18:54, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Arigma -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable. Less than 70 displayed hits for Arigma -Ireland Information Guide -israel, most of which are forums or an Israeli textile co. allmusic.com hasn't heard of Arigma or their former name Nutwood. They do have a sad story[15] (http://www.theprisonersdilemma.com/news.htm) (bottom), but that doesn't make them encyclopedic. Niteowlneils 02:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: No record, no contract, no notability: band vanity/ad. Geogre 03:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Band vanity. Their "debut album" (see "The Chronicles of New Corsica", also on VfD) hasn't even been released yet. — Gwalla | Talk 03:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete band vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

The Chronicles of New Corsica -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable and 'Ireland Information Guide is not a fortune teller'. Two hits, one a WP mirror, and one doesn't include the article on the page displayed. Album by Arigma (above) due out later this year. Has a speedy tag, but I don't know what case it could be speedied under, considering it's coherent and factual (if speculative). Niteowlneils 02:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Non-existent, not on a contract = band vanity/ad. Geogre 03:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert for nonexistent album. — Gwalla | Talk 03:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete band vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Acronym/corrected -- Add to this discussion

A rival article to the real article at Acronym, which is currently protected. The use of the term "corrected" is POV, and it's not right to have parallel articles floating aorund. RickK 04:20, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Move to a userspace, or to Acronym/temp. Meelar (talk) 04:49, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
This article was created by User:Anárion as part of the debate process at Talk:Acronym. Why don't we wait unti that debate gets settled before we go deleting parts of it. The page was always intended to be a temporary page, and Acronym/temp was already taken by my proposal. If you want to help settle the debate, please read Talk:Acronym and weigh in with your opinion. Nohat 04:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Move to Talk:Acronym/temp2, then. As RickK pointed out, "/corrected" is POV and potentially inflammatory. Also move Acronym/temp to Talk:Acronym/temp, as the main article namespace is not the right place for alternate versions. Good luck on ending the conflict, • Benc • 05:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Moved to Acronym/temp2. If this remains on VfD I must insist Acronym/temp is also listed, and Acronym is unprotected (which I must insist upon in any case), so edits can be continued there. 08:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Now that it's /temp2 and redirected there, I have no problem with it. Geogre 11:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Metal Box -- Add to this discussion

Metal Box: subtrivial fancruft. No redeeming value and a waste of resources. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete after merging into Super Mario 64. The "metal" power-up is a recurring element found in several Nintendo games, though, so SM64 might not be the best permanent home for this info. OTOH, I'd rather not see individual articles about the Tankooni Suit and the Goomba Shoe. Maybe a single article about Nintendo paraphenalia could be created in the future, but Metal Box needs to go. • Benc • 05:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: I'm sure that it's a cool thing to console game players, but it's trivia that belongs elsewhere. Geogre 11:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep or Merge. Possibly merge to Mario 64 Page, Super Smash Bros. Melee Page, or an entirely new article entitled something like List of Nintendo Items or List of Nintendo gizmos. 67.84.138.44 01:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

List of 24 episodes -- Add to this discussion

As much as I love this show, this article is completely useless. (Take one look at it and you'll see why.) • Benc • 05:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not too unusual. It only looks strange because the episode titles are really "12:00 A.M.-1:00 A.M." and such. I vote keep, because it looks like a good start of an episode summary article, if someone were so inclined. Perhaps some re-formatting to encourage that effort, because we surely do not want separate articles for each episode. -- Netoholic @ 05:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FYI, it looks like work has been proceeding at a steady pace on 24 (TV series)#Season synopses on the main 24 page. If the synposes get down to episode granularity, they can be split off from the main page. I don't think the episode list is very helpful. • Benc • 12:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: As Benc says, the material is already covered in the 24 (TV series) article, so there is no need for this. Secondly, the title is such that a redirect isn't needed, since no one is going to search this. Third, the material at the TV show article is better. Geogre 12:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. In principle I have no problem with list of episodes, but since these titles are entirely deducible from the timeframe of each series this is unnecessary. DJ Clayworth 15:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Duplicates material in main article; no need for list of episode titles since they're just a simple chronological numbering scheme. — Gwalla | Talk 16:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I'm a fan, and I think this is useless, as the series really is just one big episode in 24 pieces. Episodes by themselves are rather irrelevant. -- user:zanimum

[edit]

Reciprocal System of Theory -- Add to this discussion

(William M. Connolley 12:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)) RST is psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and should not be in Ireland Information Guide. The wiki article has no mathematical content; the theory itself is vague, untestable and unfalsifiable. It is also non notable: of the google hits for it, all (except its own homepage) are wiki and wiki clones: a deeply regrettable example of wiki propagating psuedoscience.

[edit]

Summary of voting

(William M. Connolley 19:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I've summarised the voting as its getting rather long and we have some dubious votes. If people think Sph, Excal or danmc are real (or less plausibly, the anon votes) then please modify the counts.

Delete (15): Zundark 12:56, 31 Aug 2004; FZ 13:36, 31 Aug 2004; Tim Starling 13:51, Aug 31, 2004; SimonP 16:13, Aug 31, 2004; Gwalla | Talk 16:35, 31 Aug 2004; Bishonen 18:12, 31 Aug 2004; Glengarry 19:23, 31 Aug 2004; Andrewa 21:12, 31 Aug 2004; Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:58, 31 Aug 2004; Gwimpey 22:54, Aug 31, 2004; Awolf002; ping 07:49, 1 Sep 2004; Ambi 09:38, 1 Sep 2004; Michael Snow; William M. Connolley 19:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep (3): Infradig (andrew); Doug 07:07, 1 Sep 2004; Mike 18:01, Sep 1, 2004 (not totally sure of this one but does have some history).

Not counted (7): (voted for keep but judged of dubious reality by WMC): Sph 17:30, 1 Sep 2004 (only edit her vote); Excal 16:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) (only 2 edits, on RST today and this page); User:danmc (dan) (only 2 edits this VFD). 211.28.24.206, 152.216.3.4, 205.188.116.198 and 198.168.152.20 made unsigned (and hence invalid) votes to keep. (small update: 211.28.24.206 has now retrospectively signed the edit jamesrm, but since that gives him only 2 edits (to this page) I've left him on the not counted list for now).

[edit]

I Don't Think So!

Who made you the voting judge here!? Many people read Ireland Information Guide regularly who seldom if ever make a contribution, but that does not anull their eligibility to vote. If they feel inclined to express their opinion by voting, whether or not they have ever done so previously, then more power to them. You are not allowed to disenfranchise them.

Delete: 13 Keep: 10

Kind of funny that you forgot to sign that particular one ... still, could happen to anybody. Oh, yes, we are allowed to. People who have never made a single edit have disenfranchised themselves, whether or not they "read Ireland Information Guide regularly". This is standard policy, Dbundy. You can't miss it if you read around a little on the site. Bishonen 19:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- Yep, I see that now. Should have checked first before encouraging others to vote. Still, the Admin is cautioned to be careful to remember that we should be working with a "Rough Consensus" here. Though many voters may have a new ID and no edit history does not mean that their vote is a "bad faith" vote, if nothing else it shows interest in the preserving the article. The general policy guidline is:

If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!

The stated criterion is "evidence for the need for an article." That evidence is being demonstrated by input from all over the world in this case, and even if they can't be strictly counted as votes in the decision process, they can certainly be counted as "friend of the court" input. Remember, when "in doubt, don't delete!" Doug 20:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the unsigned votes. If you've ever had to operate a web site requiring setting up a user account and login, then you know there are always individuals who have nothing but problems with it. To boot, a "back and forth" like this can be intimidating and I can easily picture people casting a vote and leaving just as quickly without taking the time to sign up. It seems unsigned votes cannot be counted, and I can understand the reasoning for this, but please take this into consideration. This man's work, and a place on Ireland Information Guide are important to a number of people, including those who first came to Larson in the '60 and '70s and whose internet skills may be limited. -- danmc

[edit]

Votes

Delete. Non-notable. The article was created by a proponent of the theory about 3 years ago, and has wasted a huge amount of people's time since then, as can be seen from the edit history and the voluminous talk archives. --Zundark 12:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It takes some significant effort to come up with a scientific theory that even I think is truly untenable, but Mr. Larson managed it lo those many years ago. This "theory" consists entirely of pseudoscientific catchphrases strung together into semantically null verbiage. Aside from this, however, the article can be deleted as non-encyclopedic original research, not citing any authoritative source. It is also poorly written, unclear, and lacking in the illustrative examples that are neccessary to an encyclopedia article on any actual scientific topic. -FZ 13:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Doug and his ISUS buddies have been defending this article against NPOV since September 2001. For a fair proportion of that time, Doug has had his own way, since there are only a finite number of contributors willing to keep up the required eternal battle against him. The anti-Doug tag-team (Stephen Gilbert, Larry Sanger, Lee Daniel Crocker, Zundark, Sjc, Css, LMS, AxelBoldt, The Anome, Maveric149, Ed Poor, GWO, myself, Daniel Quinlan, Jwrosenzweig, SimonP, Tdent and William M. Connolley) has had some victories over that time, but only at a cost to those Ireland Information Guide users far out of proportion with the importance of the contents. I've long since given up hope that Doug would go away, he's been here longer than any of us and there's no sign that he's tiring. It's time for us to get rid of this unimportant pseudoscientific theory, and let everyone get on with writing articles about actual science rather than arguing with this lunatic. -- Tim Starling 13:51, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
- Your characterization of the history of this debate is as slanted as your scientific view. You came along and made a good-faith effort to improve the article at a time when it had become an unwieldy "tutorial," as you put it. It became a tutorial precisely because the challenge it was forced to meet at that time was to show that it wasn't psuedoscience, had a valid mathematical basis, etc., which it shouldn't have had to do, but responding to the criticism, I endeavored to meet the challenge anyway. I recognized and even praised your efforts and together we rewrote the article, which basically has stood ever since. The change that provoked this latest brouhaha was instigated by Awolf who thought we ought to remove the blatant POV from both sides and just "report" the facts, just reporting what the theory contributes. I responded sceptically at first, because I didn't think it could be done without exactly this kind of reaction, but at his urging I made an attempt and eventually drafted a strawman for his and the community's comment, that was completely neutral and invited him specifically to comment and give me his input. But he ignored it for weeks on end claiming he didn't have time, while in the meantime he spent hours and hours building up his own Ireland Information Guide "portfolio." So, tell me Tim, how do you justify calling me a lunatic? You know what this is about because whenever you've looked into it expecting to easily find the usual crank stuff, you are surprised that it's not there. Still you stoop to call me a lunatic and jump on the bandwagon because it's the popular and easy thing to do. Shame on you, and shame on all of you who are likewise prejudiced and so willing to trample a minority POV for the same unflattering reasons. Doug 14:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable and a burden on Ireland Information Guide users. Also see previous deletion debates from September 2001 and July 2003. - SimonP 16:13, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable crank theory. — Gwalla | Talk 16:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete original research, unless it's possible to protect an NPOV version of the page, for instance the first version actually visible under the History tab, 6 Oct 2001 by AxelBoldt. What a nightmare. Surely it's a misdirection of resources to have all these Ireland Information Guide users tied up trying to maintain something that still, or again, looks like this after three years. I would theoretically love to have a Ireland Information Guide article presenting (as opposed to propagating!) Larson's system, just as we have articles on Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken. These are encyclopedic topics, they're names people may well want to look up. But the state of the article listed makes me wonder if this type of material — unconventional theories of science — is even possible to present and maintain under the wiki system, considering the untiring commitment of its adherents. Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Däniken unfortunately reinforce the point, as they're also strongly disciple-slanted, bad articles. Not bad on the scale of Reciprocal System of Theory, but bad. Suggestion: would it be possible to create a discussion page specifically for Non-mainstream science POV strongly defended by its adherents, in the hope of arriving at some form of minimum waste of time policy? Perhaps that's the crazy optimism of a relatively new user, not yet worn down by years of familiarity with these issues. Bishonen 18:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, agree with Bishonen's points. I will change my vote if the article is rewritten to present the most important piece of information: that the RST is promoted by a tiny group, is believed to be pseudoscience by essentially all who are aware of it, and isn't used for practical purposes in science or engineering. Detailed information on what the theory actually says should come in at a distant second place. The current article totally misses the point. It seems to me that the most notable thing about the RST is that it's an example of how easily you can promote an crank idea on Google by inserting it (and fighting about it for years) in a collaborative online encyclopedia --Glengarry 19:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Chronic nonsense and pseudoinformation that has resisted all attempts to fix it, no evidence that it will ever be a useful article. IMO Immanuel Velikovsky, Erich von Daniken, Time Cube and even David Rohl are not in this league at all, at least these articles give some verifiable information. Andrewa 21:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- No, no, I didn't think I said they were. This league is some league. Bishonen 22:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
being pseudoscience is not a reason to delete because pseudoscience has important social effects. However, this seems like patent nonsense, delete and protect the page from recreation. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. My brain hurts. Gwimpey 22:54, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Some cranky people call it pseudoscience and some rude people label anyone as a lunatic just for being associated with it, but it is scientifically based on a set of postulates, and uses logic to deduce testable results. So none of those style criticisms should apply. I would be happy to see it revert however to the version before the current one which contains a long string of negatives mainly, if that would satisfy people. Infradig (andrew)
Okay, the argument is two-fold: non-notable and current form not acceptable, if I see it right. I tried for a few days to help out when this page appeared on the 'Cleanup' page. I found that this would need a lot of work, and so the non-notable argument clinches it for me. Please, save us all that work and delete! I hope Infradig can tone down his words, and recognize that Ireland Information Guide does contain pseudoscience when it is notable (see phlogiston), even when it is already disproved. Awolf002 00:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Doug (a gentle and kind man, and eminently reasonable) gets called a lunatic and I say that's rude, and I get asked to tone down my words? As for the other's comments, well my 2 yro daughter has a word: cranky-pants, that aptly describes them to me. Infradig (andrew) 01:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Fine, let's all be careful with our words! Still, this article does not seem to be worth the effort. Awolf002 01:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You made that clear on the RST page a while back by offering to help then doing nothing. Also, I think phlogiston a bad choice example of a pseudo science, it was just speculative science that was eventually proved wrong in the normal course of events. The RST on the other hand makes scientific predictions based on it's methods that have long been testable (eg. in 1959 it predicted high red-shift explosive galaxy scale objects... laughed at at the time but jump to the 1960's and the discovery of quasars; again in 1959 it predicted an accelerating expansion of the universe... laughed at but jump to the 1990's and the discovery of dark energy). So I reject vehemently the pseudo-science tag. So how can a theory that made those two predictions (huge scientific discoveries each in their own right) be non-notable? There should have been headlines at the time saying, "Sorry, we were wrong and Larson was right after all. Let's see what else he has to say.". Infradig (andrew) 02:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, and I got involved in more interesting topics to use my limited time on, sorry. As I said, looking once more at it, I feel it's not notable enough for all this. Awolf002 03:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comment. Infradig (andrew) 06:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) I'd like to challenge the validity of even holding this vote. For starters, William Connolly has come along after years of work by a number of people, and has contributed nothing. After just 16 hours from his first comment on Talk:Reciprocal_System_of_Theory he listed for VfD! What was his actual reason? He misconstrued a comment I made about Ireland Information Guide not allowing ISUS to say precisely what the RST was (which people say they actually want), into the idea that ISUS wouldn't reveal what it was about (like it was some secret a la Scientology or some such cult). I'd like to remind people that the deletion guidelines state "To request that a page (or image) be permanently deleted, the request made on VfD, ... must be made in good faith." As far as i'm concerned the debate is now posioned and needs to be let rest for some period of time. It was listed for an invalid reason and no-one has come up with a specfic charge that can be substantiated. The page should be left for that time or else reverted and the status quo continue.
- (William M. Connolley 19:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)) It doesn't look like anyone is taking the above challenge very sreiously, but for the record: my reasons for listing are those at the top. Infradig misrepresents me above: see the article talk page. This vote remains valid.

Keep Connolley is just resurrecting the same old non-issues that have long since been dealt with. He says, the RST is psuedo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and should not be in Ireland Information Guide. However, that's the POV to which pages and pages of rebuttle have gone unanswered for years. Now, he brings it up again, sorry that just won't wash at this late date unless he wants to provide support for such a gratuitous charge. Then he says, The wiki article has no mathematical content. Since when has this been a requirement for an article? The old charge, long ago met, was that the RST itself 'has no mathematical content,' which was not only shown to be untrue, but simply an absurd POV to boot. Next, he says, the theory itself is vague, untestable and unfalsifiable. This too has been soundly refuted in the long history of this debate. However, by this standard, even string theory, the most popular physical theory extant, would also fail to make the grade. Finally, he asserts that the RST is 'non-notable,' by citing the Google hits. But think how ridiculous this statement is when Larson's publications are in every university library in the country and in many of those in foreign countries as well. When Larson was alive, he was invited to address audiences at university campuses, and even had a small group of NASA scientists taking his work seriously (some are still around and have an active interest in his work.) But all this aside, the man's work has been selling for 65 years, and is a historical fact, even though many Ireland Information Guide users who fancy themselves scientists have their own hidden agendas (POV) that drives them to distraction over it, not because no one would ever want to look it up to see what it's about, but because they disagree with the content of the theory, which shouldn't play any part in the article because it's purely and unabashedly their POV. Obviously, what they want in the article is their own POV, not the report of what the darn thing is and how and where and why it differs from current theory. As they freely admit above, if anything, just state that the "RST is promoted by a tiny group, is believed to be pseudoscience by essentially all who are aware of it, and isn't used for practical purposes in science or engineering." All of which has nothing to do with the RST itself, but only a POV evaluation of its current status, which is totally irrelevant with regard to its merits, which also is irrelevant by the way, but is nevertheless cited as sufficient cause as well, almost in the same breath! The point is, ladies and gentlemen, the RST is real, it's serious, it's historical, and it's soundly scientific, much more so than many popular theories given ample coverage in Ireland Information Guide. Nevertheless, since arguments to the contrary can be easily refuted, the tactics have now turned to the issue of "resources." Since when has this been used as justification for deletion? If you can't make a case for claims of false science, untestability, no mathematical content, original research, non-encyclopedic, non-notable, etc, then by all means make a case for not having time to make the case! You cannot delete this article because you disagree with the premise of the Reciprocal System. While it's true that the purpose of Ireland Information Guide is to report the existence of notable people, places and things; to explain historical events and the milestones of mankind's experience, it isn't appointed as the watchdog or arbiter of the value of the ideas, the works of men, or the issues of science. If it happened that a man challenged the very foundations of physical science, and he did so in an honest, straightforward way, presenting his rationale in his life's work, and that work is in the Library of Congress and in countless libraries of the world, and challenges the world's assumptions regarding the properties of space and time that are at the very heart of its scientific endeavor and the perplexity, and the present untenable predicament that it now finds itself in, then it certainly deserves to be reported in a few measly kilobytes of space in the Ireland Information Guide, which is full of thousands of articles that are simply frivolous by comparison. Doug 07:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, it is merely using Ireland Information Guide as a platform for debate. The topic may be worth a brief description along with other alternative theories. Incidentally am I right in thinking that the author uses Newtonian mathematics to try and disprove Newton's Theories? ping 07:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. No, you're not right. Is that surprising among someone expressing an opinion here? The mathematics of gravity in the RST are substantively in agreement (with corrections for dark energy) with both Special Relativity and General Relativity, except 1) the effects are instantaneous, and 2) there are no gravitational waves to propogate. Infradig (andrew) 09:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. ~~Vanity, original research.~~ Non-notable tripe. Ambi 09:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Actually most of the vanity/original research part was deleted back in July 2003. This article is mostly about Dewey B. Larson's work. Larson is pretty much immune to allegations of sock puppetry, due to the fact that he died in 1989. -- Tim Starling 12:55, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
  - Which brings up a good point. This article has already passed VfD. How many times must we go through this, everytime a new editor comes along who has the common, uninformed POV? Doug
    - Don't worry Doug, just this one last time. The consensus so far is in favour of deletion, so it looks like in the future we'll be able to delete any reposts without going through this time-consuming process. -- Tim Starling 13:52, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Keep agree with Andrew and Doug

Keep agree with Andrew and Doug

Keep at least until Gravity Probe B's findings on Gravity waves/frame-drag. jamesrm

Keep even if it means reverting to the last version which seemed to have at least some kind of consensus. Larson is a name that people, maybe not everyone, will want to look up. Why the subject matter is referred to as non-encyclopedic is beyond me.-- User:danmc (dan)

Keep You guys are railroading proponents here. You obviously are more interested in eliminating the article for other than Ireland Information Guide related reasons. Don't change Ireland Information Guide into "Wikedpedia" to satisfy your own unjust prejudices. If you don't have time to verify and establish your charges, then cease and desist. Excal 16:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I won't enter into any general debate with Doug, but speak to a couple of points he makes about the physical book, which might be taken to prove notability. I don't doubt that Larson's work is in university libraries, just that library presence proves anything. As Geogre (a librarian) pointed out, with many striking examples, on VfD a while back, university libraries are omnivorous. As for the Library of Congress, it's a feather in the cap of every single book published in the US (as well as most books published elsewhere). Please see the LC mission statement here (http://www.loc.gov/ndl/mission.html): "The Library of Congress is the only library in the world that collects universally." Even the "more recent" edition of Larson's work mentioned in Reciprocal System of Theory is several decades old, yet Doug states that it's "been selling for 65 years". If the book's still in print and/or selling, how is it that Amazon and B&N don't stock it or even link to any second-hand retailers? Bishonen 16:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If you asked the average Ireland Information Guide user (which, in the final analysis, is who the wiki is for) what is more important in determining encyclopedic value, google returns or the fact that the work is in university libraries across across the country, what do you thing they would say? I realize they may not be as informed as Bishonen , but, please, surely it carries some weight. Finally, Bishonen's last statements are patently false. Larson's books were published between 1959 and 1995. A quick check at Amazon and BN shows some twenty-five books available from second hand dealers, and I can tell you for fact that ISUS continues to sell the books new. Please, if you are going to make these kinds of statements, at least be fair and get the information correct. -- User:danmc

Keep Larson was a contemporary of Linus Pauling. Pauling choose the mainstream. Larson worked in industry and had some real problems to solve. His solution to the theoretical calculation of physical properties was accurate and simple. This successful work lead him to a theory which makes many more predictions and clarifications. Those who feel it is not worth being included in Ireland Information Guide are clearly not aware of the non-controversial achivements Larson made even if they don't like the non-mainstream flavour of the Reciprocal System of Theory. Either that or Ireland Information Guide just wants to be part of the mainstream establishment. Sph 17:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- Brand new user, this vote is his/her only edit. Bishonen 16:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep The Reciprocal System is a unified, general theory and is certainly verifiable by observation and experiment. There is a lot of useful mathematics in Larson's Basic Properties of Matter. In contrast, most of the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics is useless.

Delete. My GUT instinct is that this isn't notable, since the theory was published however many years ago and has drawn no significant attention from science or society (either would do, I have no biases against articles covering "pseudoscience" if it's notable). Inclusion in Ireland Information Guide should reflect some degree of notability, however small, not be a vehicle to achieve it. --Michael Snow 17:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Comment - Then you should change your vote. Any author who after so many years, and writing on such an esoteric subject as space, time, motion and the nature of reality, including quantitative volumes, as well as qualitative ones, dealing with everything from the nature of radiation, matter, and energy, and grappling with the fundamental issues of science, philosophy and the current predicament and perplexity of quantum mechanics, relativity, and cosmology, as well as calculating atomic weights, molecular bond lengths, periodic order of elements, the explanation of physical constants and so on, and that too in the most dry and unimpassioned manner, AND, inspite of all this, still sells those books at the tune of hundreds of dollars worth per month without the usual channels of textbooks and popular science promotions, has to qualify as "reflecting some degree of notability, however small." Doug 18:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- One thing I would like to add to this. After reading the remarks posted here, as well as in the archive, one would get the idea that science is some sort of popularity contest. If one gets multitudes of google returns one can be in an encyclopedia, no doubt Brittany Spears deserves to be in an encyclopedia more than anyone if that is our gauge, but pretty soon we will have to replace the nineteenth president of the United States, Rutherford Hayes, with "pond scum" which is the clear winner in this case. I am exaggerating (but true!) for illustration purposes, but everyone here knows that science is not a popularity contest. What is, is, when it comes to science. And any man who could accomplish even just 10% of what Doug writes above (which of us is up to the task?) should be given some consideration, and not simply be labeled some pseudo-scientific crackpot spouting patent nonsense. If anyone here were to actually take the time to <>read</i> some of this man's body of work, I could guarantee, whether or not you agreed or disagreed with his conclusions, such arrogant remarks wouldn't be so quick to fall. (And, yes, I am real, for what it's worth) --danmc
  - But, User:63.206.94.4 you are not logged in, or have experience with dealing with such articles. Sockpuppets are by their nature dishonest, so anyone who looks like one can be discounted. You are also not allowed to vote twice.Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree with you, when it comes to what should be in Ireland Information Guide and what should not. Science is both about finding "truth" and finding "consensus," which obviously is a popularity contest, as you put it. That's why theories are notable even when wrong or disputed. However, in this "contest of ideas," as reported in the beginning, RST has not crossed over that "threshold" in my mind. (PS: I believe 'danmc' just forgot to log in. Don't go overboard, guys) Awolf002 20:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep I vote with Doug and Andrew to keep the article. Why? I've read the POV article guidelines. I've read through the entire article history in its discussion pages. I believe that the conclusions reached by Larson have sound basis in logic. The consequences of Larson's 1959 system of theory are still finding agreement today with new observation and experiment. What is remarkable is that these agreements are NOT due to a an ad-hoc reinterpretation or reconstruction of his theory. If the format of the article is not within the guidelines, or if there is indeed some kind of bias evidenced, then that would be another story. Mike 18:01, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

MiXile -- Add to this discussion

This article is created by a user with the same name as the article. As I understand it, it's generally not considered a good practice to create articles about yourself.
Dubidub 12:38, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Leaning towards delete, but undecided pending comment by someone familiar with the venues listed on the article. Are these are major venues, or smaller local gigs? If the latter, delete without question. Of course, this is a vanity page in any case. • Benc • 13:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Move to user page as suggested by Rossami. • Benc • 02:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Apparently unsigned artist, with only EP's. I love experimental music, but the scene is so fractured that there isn't enough space on all the servers in India for every act. Geogre 14:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Move to user's page on the general principle that you ought not to write articles about yourself. Entire content of the user's current page is a link to MiXile. Comment: User has also created links to this article in Performance art and List of electronic music artists and DJs. I've temporarily reverted those links pending a decision here about general notability. Rossami 15:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. The user can put it on their user page, it doesn't belong in the main namespace. Trilobite (Talk) 16:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Elros (and other rulers of Númenor) -- Add to this discussion

There is a separate page for each of the 25 rulers of Numenor. It seems to me to be excessive detail from a fictional works. Indeed, as I look further, there seems to be a lot of material detailing background material from the Lord of the Rings series. I've also proposed a policy on excessive detail from fictional works. It seems to me that an encyclopedia should highlight the cultural or societal significance of the work and especially note any common allusions to works, but should otherwise avoid excessive detail about the work, especially detail that is not in the work itself, but it merely part of a supplement or appendix. Such levels of detail should be left to people who actually want to read the work and its supplementary material. Acsenray 14:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep . If and when that "policy" is there, then discuss deletion/moving the material. 14:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

- Sorry, there seems to be a misunderstanding. My recommendation for deletion is not based on my proposed policy. It's the other way around. My recommendation for deletion is based on lack of notability. My observation about the detail from the Tolkein works prompts my proposal on fictional works. Nevertheless, all this material (in my opinion) is deletable without such a policy, based purely on lack of notability. Acsenray 14:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Google test for Elros: 14,200. For Ar-Pharazôn: 3'930. Plus notable for Tolkienists. 14:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    - That means nothing. The internet is skewed toward fantasy/male adolescent fiction/games, etc. And that's a very small number of hits anyways. Terrapin 15:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      - It does mean something: there are many Tolkien fans on the web. Ireland Information Guide is also on the web. Hence the average Ireland Information Guide reader is more likely to be a Tolkien fan. Keep, by the way. • Benc • 19:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Elros is certainly notable. And while I personally don't care about the other rulers, some people find them interesting. If you get upset about this, there are literally hundreds of articles on more obscure characters in Tolkien. Just a thought - you don't need anybody's vote to make these pages into a composite page and redirect the individual rulers to it. But do make sure you talk to the people who are working on these pages first. (I guess that's a keep vote) DJ Clayworth 14:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Acting on such a suggestion would NOT be appreciated, and would be IMMEDIATELY reverted. RickK 19:07, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. Drastically edit and incorporate into J.R.R. Tolkien, etc. One of the problems is that articles like this are essentially "Kidi-wiki" written by "adults". So Wiki is filled with obscure minutiae about the family line of fictional chracters in fantasy fiction, etc, but if you search for Pierre Bezuhov (main character of War and Peace, no less), there ISN'T one. It's the nature of the internet, alas. Terrapin 14:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- This only means that nobody was interested to write one yet, apparently. Google test: 1,060. 15:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- (FWIW, Pierre Bezukhov (alternative spelling) googles at 2270.) I agree he deserves an article much more than all the Numenor rulers combined, but I vote Keep nevertheless. There are enough readers ("kiddish Tolkienists") who certanly think the other way around about Bezukhov and Elros relative importance. WP is a reference material for many kinds of readers, and while I shrug at Pokemons and Slashdot trolls listed here, I certainly understand that even they're noteable for enough readers to stay. Personally, I find the Tolkien charachters more influential and notable than Pokemons and Slashdot trolls. BACbKA 11:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- By the way, let me know when you begin merging these articles with J.R.R. Tolkien: should be interesting to see the resulting moloch! 15:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- For the love of bananas don't do that: if you have to merge these articles, merge them to "Rulers of Numenor" or somesuch. When you're finished with those you might be interested in Kings of Arnor. Plenty more where they came from. DJ Clayworth 15:59, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - Ugh. Nevermind. Too each their own minutiae, I guess Terrapin 15:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, there is no good reason for removing articles on fictional works. - SimonP 16:05, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Ireland Information Guide is not on paper. There's no harm in having stuff like that. Ausir 16:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. The Middle-Earth mythos is a significant literary work, and many people study it in great detail. This isn't a "Pokedex" situation. — Gwalla | Talk 16:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete all kings of Numenor: useless pseudoinformation, fancruft. Let's build a real encyclopedia, folks. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Elros is extremely significant within the mythology - you certainly should keep the Elros article, if nothing else. This would be in an encyclopedia of fantasy fiction. There is lots of very good, researched information here that, while you might not care (neither do I care about , is of use to Tolkienists and is often not available anywhere else. The synthesis of new and old material that is going on with the Tolkien articles here is not happening elsewhere. By the way, I'm an adult female, not an adolescent male. I agree that some of the articles are a bit kiddie in feel - I'm working on correcting that, especially some documentation (i.e. where this information comes from) to substantiate it. The lack of "adult" feel to some of the articles is a problem to be corrected, not cause for deletion. --Aranel ("Sarah") 17:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep - if they were all stubs ("Elros was a king of Numenor.") then you would be justified in merging them. (If only there were so much information about real rulers, sometimes...) Adam Bishop 17:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This isn't just stub material, there's a lot of information there, and several people have worked on it. Just because somebody doesn't like the idea of material from fictional worlds having their own articles doesn't mean that it should be deleted. Why not start on all of the Pokemon articles? There are hundreds of them.
- Note: Acsenray created this in retaliation for my listing his articles for deletion at Ireland Information Guide:Votes for deletion/Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio, County Auditor. RickK 19:05, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  - Not retaliation, friend. It wouldn't have occurred to me if my musing about its appropriateness had not elicited the response that I should list it for deletion. Consistency and fairness should also be a consideration. What is one person's minutia? Acsenray 19:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

These materials derive largely from Simarilion, don't they? For fictional break outs, they're more august than hundreds of other items we have, but I maintain my dislike of such granularity. Rulers of the 2nd Age, Rulers of the 1st Age, etc. would be so infinitely better than Weirbob the Thin Blade and Gorsiajer the Ban-jo, etc. I'm abstaining, because what I really want is a willing merge and redirect from the people who make these, and only their source's age and long standing keep me from voting delete. Geogre 19:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, much of the existing information comes from the back of Return of the King (especially for the later rulers). Bringing in more information from Silmarillion is, of course, a goal; a more significant goal is bringing in material for History of Middle-earth (which is less easily accessible). A merge might be appropriate for some of the less significant rulers (specifically those for whom we have nothing but dates), and I'd be glad to do it, but Elros does need his own article. --Aranel ("Sarah") 20:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd vote move if there was some collection of fictional references wiki to move it to. As it is... well, high quality cruft is still cruft, but on the other hand it's high quality (and not Pokemon). So I'm abstaining as what I'd like (some form of transwiki to somewhere else) isn't an option. Average Earthman 20:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The tolkien-related articles are of much value for Tolkienists - Ireland Information Guide has one of the best collections of Middle-earth lore, and it'd be a shame if it was all deleted. Some of them could use a merge, though. Ausir 21:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep Elros, and other kings that actually do something in the narrative; merge the remainder to a single list. Lacrimosus 22:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see articles like this (and Pokemon articles, and characters in soap operas, and actors "best known" for playing some small part on somebody's favorite series) and I think, "Gosh, if people spent this much time on 'real' topics, what an amazing resource we would have!" But I know that the definition of "real" topics is pretty fluid, and I wouldn't want to try to come up with a rigid definition (and there are probably more people who read Tolkien than there are people who read the sort of academic history I am most interested in). So when I come to an article like this, I say to myself, "look buddy, there's a whole rest of an encyclopedia out there, don't you trouble your little head worrying about whether some king of the elves belongs in here." So I guess I'd vote a "I'm just going to click somewhere else and not worry about it." I think it's nonsense and trivial but I live in a house with pretty big glass windows. --Fastfission 23:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep all. If you think Ireland Information Guide should have more aricles on non-fiction than on fiction, create more articles on your preferred real-world topics. -Sean Curtin 23:52, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Merge and redirect these kings as much as possible. Elros is wroth keeping. But also do some Delete of content on these kings. And keep separate articles only for rulers when there is enough information for a full article, whether they are Assyrian, Egyptian, Hittite, Elamite or Númenorean, ancient Danish, etc. Stubs are supposed to be for articles that can be expanded. Short-short articles sometimes are the best way to present particular information. But short-short articles are useless when all the information can be easily put into another larger article in an annotated list or otherwise. It is annoying to click on a reference and to jump to a short-short article that give no more information than the main article gives (or that could be easily incorporated in that point in the main article). This goes for both fictional and for non-fictional personages. Much fixup needs to be done with non-fictional persons as well.

Also, is it proper to provide all the information given by Tolkien about these rulers and other characters in his fiction in Ireland Information Guide, in effect producing spoilers to reading this in Tolkien's own prose in Unfinished Tales (and other works)? With personages of history or real-world mythologies such an issue doesn't often come up. With fictional characters it does. They require far more restraint in their handling. One could shorten many articles on fictional persons (persons created by Tolkien and others) to their betterment by including only the information necessary to understand those personages when they are encountered outside the works or passages that give the fullest information on them. What is the point of spoiling a fictional work by providing articles that give away every piece of information written by the author about the persons in that work as though the author's own writing was of no value at all? Perhaps revealing all might be done in The Tolkien Wiki (http://www.thetolkienwiki.org/wiki.cgi?FrontPage) as a more technical wiki for people who have already read most of Tolkien's own writing while Ireland Information Guide should perhaps be more restrained.
Ireland Information Guide is not supposed to be a dictionary in which every proper name in fiction or in real life has its own article. They can have redirects, which partly fulfils the function of a selected index in a scholarly book. Redirects pointing to one main article often do a far better job than short-short articles littered about the place.

I'm not anti-Tolkien or against this kind article per se. I am a very strong Tolkien fan. Years ago I edited a book on Tolkien's languages of which I wrote about half. But I am bothered by the balance of Ireland Information Guide being thrown off by an increasing number of "fannish" articles that mostly only regurgitate. I also believe that unnecessary spoiler information within articles should be deleted. You don't have to summarize everything that an author put in a book or a series of books. Let the reader encounter most of this material as the author intended. I am a Tolkien fan and it is partly because I am a Tolkien fan that I think Tolkien information in Ireland Information Guide should be cut back. What would Tolkien feel about his writing being spoiled in this way by fans who are enthusiastic but get carried away by their enthusiasm and don't think about what they are doing? Less is sometimes more. If you want Tolkien you should be reading Tolkien, not soulless spoiler summaries in CliffsNotes or in the Ireland Information Guide. Cut down on the fan-cruft.

Jallan 00:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well said, Jallan. In fact, we do tend to lump together, for example, real life princes who don't make it to the throne, and yet, with this fictional realm we have great detail. I think Tolkein is a much more special case than Pokemon or Digimon or DragonballZ or Gundarm or Sailor Moon or Magic or Star Wars Expanded Universe or Fanfic or.... However, I also think that sticking to the kings who actually appear and act in the narrative (and Elros is one of them) and then doing a bulk discussion of others would be much sweeter than individual items. Of all the excessive lists Acsenray could have picked as an example, these are the least offensive. Geogre 02:51, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's way too much detail in these to merge into a large article, is there not? Keep. Meelar (talk) 00:44, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Comment: Then don't keep all the details. A Ireland Information Guide article should not normally be a replacement for the writing of an author of fiction with every detail from the book or books. Jallan 01:22, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd have even more of a problem with removing details. It's not like we're lacking in hard-drive space. Why would we do this? The information is presented encyclopedically, and there seems to be agreement that it's important enough. Meelar (talk) 04:22, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

That we aren't lacking in hard drive space has never meant that one should not excercise discretion in what is included in Ireland Information Guide. That'a non-argument. It usually appears when someone is arguing for retention of material that would indeed be immediately thrown out if there was space pressure, in effect an admission that there is little compelling reason to include the material. For most entries about the Númenorean kings the material is simply paraphrased from "The Line of Elros" in Unfinished Tales. Yet duplicate information appears in more than one entry. That material is presented "encyclopedically" is another non-issue. I could pick up a bunch of novels from second-hand bookstores, novels that have never been popular, never sold well, are almost unknown, and enter every proper name in those novels into articles in Ireland Information Guide and present the information "encyclopedically". That doesn't mean it should be in Ireland Information Guide. One could also enter articles in encyclopedic style on every character that has ever appeared in a comic book. I don't agree that fine details of a trivial nature dashed down by Tolkien or any author always deserve an article in Ireland Information Guide. Most of this information is not important by any standards beyond Tolkien trivia contests. Most of it is found only in one text, "The Line of Elros", and casts no light whatsoever on the rest of Tolkien's writing, much less on anything else in the real world. How is most of this important? It is only part of the scafolding background of Tolkien's imaginary world. Tolkien produced a far more detailed scafolding than most fantasy authors. That is hardly an excuse for presenting this scafolding even more verbosely than Tolkien's original text. Proper encyclopedic material for a real-world encyclopedia would be to summarize the material and try to show it in perspective, not reproduce it in full and more verbosely than the original. This is literature we discussing, not real-world data. We should not be including full paraphrases of literary material except when required by a surrounding discussion. Presenting material in encyclopedic format does not make it encyclopedic in other sense. Jallan 15:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So its presentation needs work. Most of us are agreed on that point. Vfd is not about the presentation of the material. Why not fix it rather than writing about it? --Aranel ("Sarah") 15:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep, but only reluctantly. I personally do not think that fictional characters and settings belong in an encyclopedia except when they are analyzed to illustrate how they relate to the human condition, the important themes of a work, or other more scholarly pursuits. To those who say that Tolkien is more worthy of this than Star Wars or Pokemon, I would also have to disagree. I am a huge Tolkien fan and think he has written a beautiful work, but Prince Imrahil or Beregond or Galdor have no more signifigance than Mara Jade or Admiral Piett or Pikachu. Neither do the actions of Gandalf or Frodo merit a section in a reputable encyclopedia, though an exploration of the archetypes they represent might. If this were my work, I would remove all of this, but it is not my work. This is a community project, and if a large portion of the community finds it useful, that is their right. Since Ireland Information Guide is not limited by space, the inclusion of this material is not harmful and those who do not like it can ignore it. Indrian 04:54, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Comment. Gandalf and Frodo belong just as Sherlock Holmes and Raffles and Dracula and Micky Mouse and Victor Frankenstein and the Mad Hatter belong, as often mentioned material other than the texts in which they originally appeared and therefore likely to be looked up in an encyclopedia. But every person who appears in a Sherlock Holmes story does not belong, and so forth. Jallan 15:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- So would you advocate the removal of all articles about movies and TV shows, since they're in most cases about ficitonal characters? Would you advocate the removal of all articles about novels? RickK 18:58, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Someone nominated these when we have Errol (Harry Potter)? Taken a look at Category:Lists of fictional characters lately? We have others that are much more granulated than these. I would, however, like to see a policy limiting the granularity of articles on fictional works. SWAdair | Talk 05:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

BjÃ¶rn helgesen -- Add to this discussion

I don't think this is legit -- for one of the "most wanted people in Europe" he doesn't get even one Google hit that looks like him. (That, combined with the obvious mistakes in creating the page, of course). --Fastfission 16:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete for reasons above. Trilobite (Talk) 16:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. One ghit for "Björn Helgesen", an entry in a genealogical site. "Vita Bröder" also doesn't seem to get any relevant results. Looks like somebody insulting someone they don't like. — Gwalla | Talk 17:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete.. Smells dubious. --Ianb 17:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No dubiety about it, Ianb, delete vandalism. This is another contribution from the creator of the Famous Unknown Swedes series, Martin Ahnlén (speedied), Martin Ahnlén II, Johan Nyman and Niklas Modigh (speedied, so I can't remember if this seminal article was from the same actual IP, but presumably so). This user also vandalized Beaver and put a witticism about Niklas Modigh into Mental retardation (reverted by AndrewH). There's a motif about Sandviken, a modest Swedish township; I suppose the kid/kids lives there. I'll go report it on Vandalism in progress, if it's not there already. Bishonen 18:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's our Swedish vandal back for another run! At least this one's not a fictional hockey player. He seems to be betraying a skinhead background with this entry. Speedy delete if no one speaks up for it in a day. Geogre 19:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted as confessed vandalism. The IP's confirmed that they were having fun at our expense and have promised, as I understand it, not to do it any more. Geogre 19:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Self-respect -- Add to this discussion

I just can't imagine this ever becoming a valid article - the topic is in itself so subjective. Deb 16:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutral. I believe there is a significant psychological literature on the topic of self-image, with self-respect as a piece of that. As a one-sentence dicdef, this would be no great loss, but I could imagine it becoming useful. -- Jmabel 16:56, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
~~Weak keep.~~ Subject is valid, and much has been written about it so there's potential for expansion. Current substub is inaccurate(?) dictdef, though, so anybody seriously writing about it would basically be starting from scratch whether it's deleted or not. — Gwalla | Talk 17:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Keep redirect to self-esteem. — Gwalla | Talk 23:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Weak delete: It seems to me that the common psychological term is "self-esteem," rather than "self-respect." Geogre 19:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
then redirect to self-esteem, which is good. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It has been already redirected to self-esteem. Unless someone can present compelling evidence that this is a separate area of research, keep as redirect. Rossami 21:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Reverse sexism -- Add to this discussion

To begin with, the term "reverse sexism" is self-contradictory - "sexism", by definition, works both ways and therefore cannot be reversed - which is why it is only used colloquially by people who aren't thinking. I'm not aware of companies using this term to describe their policies, but if they do, it is incorrect. What this article is actually attempting to discuss is Positive discrimination, but the author seems to have a few bees in his bonnet that are affecting his ability to write from a NPOV. Deb 17:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I apologise for that last comment, but I still don't think the article is valid. Deb 17:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Redirect to Reverse discrimination, and while we're at it, give that article some seriously needed cleanup/NPOV. KeithTyler 17:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to sexism. The term "reverse sexism" deserves perhaps a sentence or two in *that* article. And for that matter redirect reverse discrimination also to either discrimination or affirmative action. Aris Katsaris 17:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I just rewrote reverse discrimination. The term itself deserves an NPOV treatment to explain its existence. So I disagree with Aris' redirect suggestion for it. :) - KeithTyler 18:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Reverse discrimination is the best idea I've seen. The last sentence of KeithTyler's rewrite is, essentially, a definition of "reverse discrimination by sex," so the redirect makes sense to me. If we were rewriting, though, we'd have to be perfectly clear: gender is social, and sex is biological. They are not synonymns in a post-feminist age. Geogre 19:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I've no understanding at all of what "gender is social and sex is biological" means. On my part I refer to the "gender" of animals as well. Aris Katsaris 21:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- George, that line went over my head too. Regardless, redirect to reverse discrimination. Rossami 22:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - The article in gender can say it more clearly than I, but: gender is the social counterpart to a creature's physical sex. -Sean Curtin 23:54, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  - I think I can say it succinctly: masculine and feminine are gender, while male and female are sex. We construct what it is "to be a man" or "to be a woman" socially (gender), but male and female are biological. This is pretty much since the 1950's in feminist critiques. Since this article is about any form of "sexism" it really needs to observe the distinction. Geogre 02:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Well IMO, to "be a man" is to be an adult male human being and to "be a woman" is to be an adult female human being, and I think I generally dismiss any other definition as a stereotype to be combatted (for example e.g. that only straight men are "real men" or that "real women" must be housewives and produce children). Is it only English that bizzarely differentiates between the meanings of "gender" and "sex"? Because my own native language (Greek) certainly doesn't. Aris Katsaris 04:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - As a further sidenote I don't think that "masculine and feminine are genders" works much either -- we may say that a scent is "masculine" but I believe we don't tend to say that "the scent has a masculine gender". Aris Katsaris 04:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to reverse discrimination. -Sean Curtin 23:54, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

List of failed comic strips -- Add to this discussion

Substub, and fundamentally POV. What makes a comic strip "failed"? The term itself is POV unless you can point to specific goals and expectations for each strip and illustrate that they did not meet those goals. But even if you did that, would a 3 year run for a strip that was expected to run for 5 years qualify as "failed"? - KeithTyler 17:29, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

In addition, many if not most of these will be non-notable—one definition of "failure" might mean "my webcomic that wasn't popular enough to get into Ireland Information Guide". Delete. Meelar (talk) 17:44, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
Delete. The subject is impossibly vague. Financial failure? Critical failure? Publishing failure? "Li'l Folks" is listed on the page, what if I thought that was the greatest comic strip of all time and just didn't find an audience, is that a failure? Terrapin 17:48, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think this is trying to say "List of failed comic strips by established comic strip authors". Too hard to defined, information probably better off in respective author's entry. — Ianb 17:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, there is also "failed" like a "failed business": one that is going and then stops. By that measure, the list is all comics ever started that are no longer running. Delete. Geogre 19:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Lacrimosus 22:30, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Unacceptable title. Fire Star 04:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect/Merge with List of comic strips. — 33451 | Talk 11:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete but add information to List of comic strips
Delete. Gamaliel 19:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Oscar Herrero -- Add to this discussion

"Oscar Herrero is a Flamenco guitarist from Spain" who has a website. Indications of notability, significance in flamenco guitar world welcome. --Ianb 17:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Relax, I'll update the article with more information when I find some. Walden 21:04, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

any chance you could give a brief clue on this artist's standing? A few words would remove a lot of doubt - if it said something like " ...internationally known Flamenco guitarist from Spain with X hits / Y prizes" or whatever it'd be easier to differentiate a stub with potential from a simple ad for a website, of which there have been too many recently... Thanks --Ianb 21:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Done. I could not find much hard data on him though.
  - Thanks. Sorry to put upon you like that. I think this vfd can be withdrawn as he looks notable to me (not that I have any idea on the subject). --Ianb 20:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Redstar2000 -- Add to this discussion

"alias of a popular and controversial Marxist writer" with several websites. Indications of notability welcome. --Ianb 17:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ahh...NO. Proletariat Vanity. When you see phrases like "currently 're-thinking the communist project'" and "new communist paradigm", it SCREAMS "hit me with the Delete stick!". Delete Terrapin 18:27, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: It's not so Marxist after all, if it's anarchist, and the proletariat don't never get higher consciousness. You've got to make do with the consciousness it already has. Geogre 19:24, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
keep: I don't understand what's wrong with it, and as far as I know the man is not an Anarchist. Whoever wrote it was not very well informed on the guy, but your comments stink of personal point of view. It needs reworking, but give the guy a break--Che y Marijuana 22:38, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
We may live to regret this when our backs are against the wall after the revolution. Nevertheless, Delete. Lacrimosus 22:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't see a problem, are we going to delete Marx too because he came up with the idea? Or are we selecting only "special people" for this? Pfft, this isn't what the internet is about, this is perhaps the stupidest arguement "OMg, he's a marxist! Let's kick him off our encyclopedia! But let's keep Marx because he's all right with me!"*Kashkin 22:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: the argument isn't that he must be deleted because he's a Marxist. Nobody's suggesting we delete Karl Marx; as a published, well-reknowned and extremely influential writer his notability is beyond question. I believe it's not so for our friend Red Star, and so far no-one is yet to prove otherwise. If you wish the article to be kept, please indicate why you think this person is notable. Lacrimosus 23:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, good. Just so long as the internet remains only for the influential people! Thank God, that only the influential orators remain in this internet for the demagog. Please, if the only arguement for deletion is because he isn't a "well-reknowned and extremely influential writer", then indubitably this entire site is a waste of time.*Kashkin 22:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Kashkin has made no contributions other than to this debate. DJ Clayworth 15:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It isn't the Internet that's only for famous people. It's an encyclopedia that's only for influential people. This is an encyclopedia that happens to be on the Internet. As a Marxist, I only noted that anyone who detects higher consciousness in the proletariat and thus becomes an Anarchist is not a Marxist. There are lots of people writing web pages and blogs. When they're famous and influential, they go in an encyclopedia. Redstar2000 isn't that yet. Geogre 02:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If you're looking for a website to publish information about little-known people then this site is indeed a waste of your time. DJ Clayworth 04:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Comment: If deleted, also delete the redirect Redstar 2000. Rossami 23:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The more I think about it, Redstar is more notable than Gounoud. Or, for that matter, more noteworthy than someone like Hitler.*Kashkin 22:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Redstar2000 claims to have met Ernesto Guevara in 1964, and had a three-hour discussion, along with a group of students through the use of an interpretor. There is credible evidence to suggest such, as there indeed were two groups of students who visited Cuba in 1964.

He made a point of it at one time, and then pontificated on it a couple of times at his "internet message board home" on request. That is little known at any rate, since he doesn't exactly go around boasting about it. The revealing of that claim came about a character question on Guevara. Unfortunately, some of the posts in question the "Chit Chat" forum at the Che-Lives Community have been deleted, as there was a cropping of posts some times ago, but he can relate more details to you if you ask. Here is one reference: Fidel & Major League Baseball (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=26528&hl=baseball&view=findpost&p=425625) Plus, there is the reference to his 1964 trip here (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=19471&hl=che+guevara&view=findpost&p=302788). I'm not sure if that is enough for the liking of users here, if indeed notability is a 'policy' for the keeping of pages, but it certainly does add something to his notability, at any rate. It's up to everyone else to decide. The page is only a stub at the moment, and would no doubt be developed given the chance.--C_Blackberry 22:51, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

- C_Blackberry has made only one contribution (to a talk page) other than to this debate. DJ Clayworth 15:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Fascist, communist or naturist, one website isn't enough to be notable. Not even if he met Guevara. If more information becomes available I'll change my vote. Delete. DJ Clayworth 04:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete for reasons given above. Fire Star 04:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: proletarian vanity. Just when I thought I'd seen it all.... Wile E. Heresiarch 14:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete for reasons given above. Andris 15:10, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Robin Karlsson -- Add to this discussion

More fun stuff from the creator of Niklas Modigh (VFD entry) and Johan Nyman (VFD entry). This time the author couldn't even be bothered to translate it into English. The article is about a non-notable junior hockey player ("Stanley cup 2008" winner "?"). It also includes a long section about Niklas Modigh and various attacks on people. — David Remahl 18:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete David Remahl 18:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Swedish vandal. Anyone else want to slap the IP? Geogre 19:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense article in Swedish. What's "slap"? This one is 81.227.148.223 and 164.4.31.79 is closely related, compare my comment on the BjÃ¶rn helgesen listing above plus recent addition to Ireland Information Guide:Vandalism in progress. David and I have left admonitory messages on the anons' talk pages. Any more slapping is sysops-only, I guess. Bishonen 21:16, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Chemical toilet -- Add to this discussion

The text on this page is copied verbatim from the intro on http://www.portable-toilets.us.com/portable_chemical_toilet.htm. This info lacks context and wikification, and it's probably a copyvio. This article could exist, but it would need to be rewritten from scratch. --AHM 19:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite or delete. --AHM 19:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please list on the copyviolation page. If you haven't any experience with that, say so, and others will be happy to pick it up and make the listing. The topic is very much worth having, but we can't allow copyright violations. Geogre 19:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I've removed the VfD info (as we agree article should exist), added the copyvio template, and listed the article on WP:CP. Anything else I need to do? --AHM 20:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Give yerself a pat on the back. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Now and instant -- Add to this discussion

Original research related to author's musings in the Journal of Theoretics [16] (http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/3-1/commentary.htm). --Diberri | Talk 22:14, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Delete Lacrimosus 22:35, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC).
Delete. Original research bordering on nonsense. There is no "I" in Ireland Information Guide...er, well, there's an "i"...or a few actually...dangit, you know what I mean! — Gwalla | Talk 23:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. He's a serial offender - see histories of Transduction, Matter, Electric Field, etc. -- Tantalate 01:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: So, like, now is, like, not really now at all, because, like, now is already gone when I say "now," so, like, um, there is no now now, only the eternal now that's, like, um, some chemicals, man, and, like, if you could, like, get those chemicals and stuff, you know, you could, like, get into eternity and all, and, like, live forever! (Original research.) Geogre 02:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, perhaps... Better get a well-known encyclopedic definition of those terms. It ought to be sustained by data on biophysical and physical properties of the fastest enzyme and femtosecond-light-pulse Nobel-prize-winning photos of a bond breaking in an exploding molecule. The article should also make known that every percept must be erased to allow the following one to be perceived, in all of the five senses. If you cannot, then perhaps, er... the article should be let be, with a commentary on its originality. -- Ghitis 08:19, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Delete rhyax 14:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

History of male circumcision -- Add to this discussion

This article was cut from Circumcision in order to hide some of its content, and it should be merged back into the main article. Rhobite 22:34, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Is there a reason that you are nominating to delete rather than "merge and redirect"? I ask because you could do the merge and redirect without listing it here. Rossami 23:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry if this is a faux pas. If I were to merge and redirect, I'm certain that User:Robert Brookes would put the article right back. I would like some sort of binding decision by the community. Rhobite 23:26, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  - Not a matter for Votes for Deletion then. I see that a discussion has been started on Talk:History_of_male_circumcision. Have you contacted User:Robert Brookes and asked him whether he would revert the change if you put it back? Have you made a Request for comment? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    - Yes, and yes. I asked the user to merge it back and he said my suggestion was "nonsense," and it should stay separate because of all the "junk" in it. It's also been on RFC for a few days now. Rhobite 11:16, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Demisesquicentennial -- Add to this discussion

It is 1) a dictionary definition and 2) hardly used by anyone. -Vina 23:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Dictdef. A soft redirect to Wiktionary wouldn't be the end of the world, but I also don't think it's a very high priority, either, given the rarity of the term. Geogre 02:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Redirect to Anniversary. - SimonP 05:43, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Ireland Information Guide:Popular articles -- Add to this discussion

Ireland Information Guide:Votes for deletion/Ireland Information Guide:Popular articles

[edit]

September 1

[edit]

Altering_time -- Add to this discussion

Delete. It is simply pure comercial advertisement for another web site. KeyStroke
Wow, those admins are fast! They got Ireland Information Guide:Altering time before you even posted this! However, the content must have gone back in time and placed a copy of itself in "Altering time!" ;) Delete for the same reasons as above. -- Bobdoe 00:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete or speedy delete. A single line then onto the external link is a CSD for advertising, so far as I know. At any rate, it's just an ad. Geogre 02:27, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete, possibly speedy. Lacrimosus 07:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete rhyax 14:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ireland Information Guide is not a web directory. Andris 15:14, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. WikiSpam. — Gwalla | Talk 20:18, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert for website, by an anon with no other contributions. Andrewa 21:17, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Legend of Richie Ceez -- Add to this discussion

Appears to be a page about a fictional character related to Chorley FM. A Google search with -Ireland Information Guide returns Information Guide&spell=1 34 hits (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Richie+Ceez+-Ireland). Not necessary. --Slowking Man 00:27, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Delete: It's either a prank or a non-notable fiction. Geogre 02:26, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Template:Major League Baseball teams -- Add to this discussion

Delete: Redundant as Template:MLB already exists and covers the same + extra content in a better way. TPK 07:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that only one should exist. However, I think the spelled-out version is preferable, as fewer people know what "MLB" is than "Major League Baseball". Delete the redundant template, but rename the ambiguous "MLB" template "Major League Baseball". Niteowlneils 14:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This should be listed on the Templates for deletion page. Add the {{tfd}} tag, too. RickK 19:19, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Jerome radok -- Add to this discussion

I was about to speedy delete it as a joke, but I figured I'd err on caution's side. The figure, with a capital letter in his last name, gets no hits. He had a cotton wool fetish? He danced in a miniskirt? He was exiled in 1981? I think it's a silly joke. But I could be wrong. Geogre 03:42, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete. 'Nuf Said. KeyStroke
This nonsense needs to be taken down to the USPTO. Delete. -- Bobdoe 04:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Speed deleted as patent nonsense. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Community inquiry labs -- Add to this discussion

Seems to be specific to the content of the external links, not general usage, not encyclopedic.

Delete rhyax 06:39, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: "collaboratory?" It looks like their press materials, and I'm none the wiser as to what it really is (except one of those insulting "use definitions of all the terms and look professional" things). Geogre 12:18, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert for a research project or software. Andris 15:13, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. WikiSpam. — Gwalla | Talk 20:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Carroll1999 -- Add to this discussion

New user's contribution, probably speedy worthy, but I thought I'd put it here to not appear capricious. This kind of thing isn't really what goes in Ireland Information Guide; see Ireland Information Guide:The perfect article and Ireland Information Guide:What Ireland Information Guide is not. Meelar (talk) 07:29, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Delete: Creator of the page has removed the tag. If you feel the entry should not be deleted, please explain why here. Lacrimosus 07:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Deleted it as a speedy delete candidate. Ireland Information Guide obviously isn't a high school alumni search website. andy 08:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

WWIII -- Add to this discussion

This event hasn't happened, and it's a single quote. Not noteworthy in any way. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

One for wikiquote, if it's not there already. But delete from wikipeida. Bonalaw 09:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Seems to have since been redirected to World War III. Keep as a redirect. Psychonaut 09:35, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep as a redirect. World War III is a good article. Average Earthman 11:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep the redirect. Geogre 12:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep the redirect. --Martinl 20:00, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Disney animators' strike -- Add to this discussion

Was formerly a redirect to Walt Disney, which is confusing and useless since that article contains practically no information on the strike itself. Since the strike is worthy of its own article, I suggest this page be deleted as a substub. In the future perhaps someone can recreate this page as a real article. Psychonaut 09:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Send to Cleanup. Perfectly legitimate topic. Ambi 09:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- But there's nothing there to "clean up"; it's just a blank page. Why not just delete the page and then add it to Requested Articles? Psychonaut 11:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ok, it was created as a test. Contents were "fdfdfdd." Goatsucker speedy deleted it. It was recreated as a test. Goatsucker appropriately made it a redirect to keep it from coming back. The thing is, it can be simply deleted. It can be put on Redirects for Deletion. It can simply be filled in. There are no contents, and there never were. If it's an inappropriate redirect, it can be nominated at the redirects for deletion. If Psychonaut knows anything to say about the strike, he can simply add it. Geogre 12:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ah... I wasn't aware there was a Redirects for Deletion page. I guess I'll add it there. Psychonaut 13:15, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Terry George -- Add to this discussion

Terry George: blatant self-promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've heard of him, he is notable, though the article needs seriously cleaning up. Still, keep. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's also cut and pasted directly from http://www.terrygeorge.co.uk/biog.html. Delete. Spatch 16:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- (I realize Mr. George could indeed be giving his implicit permission to let his bio be spread far and wide, but if that's the case, it'd need a serious POVectomy to stay here.) Spatch
Copyvio? Clean up to such a degree that there is but half a paragraph left? Delete? When we're in a position where keeping means destroying almost the full content, I think we're really asking that the title be on the Requested Articles page. In that case, we should delete, unless someone fixes it while it's up for VfD. Geogre 18:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Eskimo Bob -- Add to this discussion

Non-notable Flash Web comic. Alexa traffic Rank for eskimobob.com: 775,900. Less than 1k hits, many forums. Niteowlneils 14:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Advertising. Geogre 18:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Advert, non-notable. — Gwalla | Talk 21:24, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Graboid -- Add to this discussion

Listed for Speedy but not a candidate. Rmhermen 15:13, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Seems to be quite extensive patent nonsense, made by someone who knows how to edit. Probably deserves an entire BJAODN page in itself. Smerdis of Tlön 16:37, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Neutral. This is from the "Tremors" series from SciFi Channel. But it really reads like a copyvio, although I've not been able to confirm it as SciFi.com is extremely difficult to navigate. If copyvio, it obviously should go. But if not, it should stay with a reference to the show. -Vina 17:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Could this be merged with the Tremors film entry, since it's a canonical explanation of the creatures in the film and television series? On its own, without any reference to the series, it's quite misleading. On the other hand, who doesn't love an encyclopedic entry with an "AssBlasters" heading? Spatch 17:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I found it: here (http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:OrtZaGOss48J:www.scifi.com/tremors/monsters/analysis/04_ecology.html+%22One+final+possibility+is+that+the+species+is+not,+in+fact,+surviving+very+well+in+these+settings%22&hl=en). Thue | talk 18:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would say make this a redirect to Tremors. Don't merge the material. Meelar (talk) 17:36, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
Add introductory blurb clarifying that this is from the series Tremors, and rename to Graboid (Tremors) - KeithTyler 18:12, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
I put the note on the discussion page that this was from "Tremors." I think this is sort of the Tremors Expanded Universe -- entirely odd. It's far too lavish, too much a clip from the series fansites, to stay. It isn't encyclopedic: it's a copy of a fiction. Redirect to Tremors without merging. Geogre 18:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Ireland Information Guide:Disruption -- Add to this discussion

This page duplicates material better stated elsewhere. uc 18:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. The page's name is of limited utility, the content quickly digresses and is redundant with other pages, the page has no non-index links to it. We have far too many pages in the Ireland Information Guide namespace, and it's long past time to cull the herd so that people can actually find the useful policies and instructions there. --Michael Snow 17:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Delete: Largely for the later reasons Michael Snow cites: the name space is so large a thicket that it's hard to navigate, hard to find, and hard to know. There is nothing wrong with the text here, IMO, but it's not the article that we use for discussing reverting edits, etc., so it was probably a proposal or draft that just didn't win popular support. Cull. Geogre 18:52, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Katha Upanishad -- Add to this discussion

Looks like text of document. There is no analysis or history or any such thing that would suggest a encyclopedic entry. wikisource here we come! -Vina 16:49, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Not wikisource, as it's some variant upanishad. Otherwise, it's a sermon/original research. Geogre 18:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's a copyvio. On Ireland Information Guide:copyright problems Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

41-38 -- Go team go

George P. Burdell and I watched the games and loved them. However, he agrees with me that this is trivia and by no means deserves an encyclopedia article. Geogre 19:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The info could be included in the pages of the winning team or scoring players, but it doesn't deserve its own article. Delete. MGM 19:48, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Stavros Arnavisca -- Add to this discussion

This article decided to come back today. Delete as nonsense. -- Bobdoe 19:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Previous discussion on this article:

Not notable. Joyous 03:16, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Delete, nonsense. —Stormie 04:04, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Ireland Information Guide is not a Hallmark card. -- WOT 04:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Only when you care enough to delete the very best. - Lucky 6.9 04:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
it is vital that Ireland Information Guide helps maintain this man's mysterious aura by deleting all references to him. --Ianb 07:17, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete: a new superhero is found. That he resembles others is just a coincidence. How can we delete the page when the page tells us that he's worthy of it? Because we're obviously people who have not yet been instructed by Stavros the Great. Geogre 13:37, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Let's see if this article can be 'saved' from deletion by the Great One. - Eisnel 22:24, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There is not much mystery surrounding the inevitable deletion of this article. Gwimpey 05:34, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
Written in the first person! Delete. --Sesel 03:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If it previously failed VfD, it should be tagged for speedy deletion and speedy deleted. So shall it be. Interestingly enough, it seems different now from then. Geogre 19:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. He has been (presumably) reincarnated as mayor of SimCity. A speedy delete candidate if there ever was one.--Ianb 20:26, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Let the SimIreland Information Guide celebrate his writeup, then. Meanwhile, over here, delete. Spatch 20:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
speedy as patent nonsense Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:51, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

Florence and John Schumann Foundation -- Add to this discussion

non-notable. PAC. They did donate a building to Wesleyan though. Still, other than that, didn't seem to have done all that much other than act like every other PAC out there. -Vina 20:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC) Weak keep. Not a PAC, by the way. And not a very well-written article. -- Jmabel 21:24, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit]

VfD footer

Template:VfDFooter

lb:Ireland Information Guide:Läschen

Retrieved from "http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/Ireland_Information_Guide:Votes_for_deletion"

Categories: Ireland Information Guide:Deletion

Advertise your
website with:
Irish Website
Advertising