Template:VfD header
Current votes -
1st
31st
30th
29th
28th
27th
Old votes -
26th
25th
24th
23rd
22nd
21st
20th
19th
18th
17th
16th
15th
14th
13th
12th
11th
10th
9th
8th
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.
See also Category:Pages on votes for deletion
Decisions in progress
August 27
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
- Delete, non-notable. --Ianb 07:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Band vanity. Geogre 12:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
"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)
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)
- 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
- 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!
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Non-noteworthy. He's some oncologist in Hamilton, Ontario. Mike∞Storm 21:11, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
- 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)
August 28
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 carri