Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2004 December 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 28

[edit]

Delete

  • I'd guess the reason for deletion would be "non-notable computer game". I vote keep because computer games from established publishers are interesting and verifiable, and articles on them stand alone. Also this article explains the game well enough, although more detail would be great. Kappa 01:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Had a multi-platform release, and spawned a sequel and reissue, it's not Sonic the Hedgehog but I don't really see how its violated any of the deletion policies. Rje 01:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It was successful enough to arguably be noteworthy, and it's not violating any policies. Shimeru 02:36, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable enough that the title occasionally pops up from time to time. :: DarkLordSeth 03:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mike Feldman was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.


vanity or policruft DCEdwards1966 00:33, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, and I doubt that the Deputy Mayor of Toronto is creating vanity articles about himself. - SimonP 01:18, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. If he was an ordinary councillor I would have voted delete (there's around 30000 of them in Britain alone), but as he's deputy mayor of a major city I guess he must be somewhat notable. Rje 01:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The positions are quite different in Canada and the UK. Each Toronto city councillor represents some 57,000 people, and we have articles on many of them. - SimonP 02:01, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
      • The size of the article would be the problem, not the position par se. Some councillors are noteworthy, some are not, a sub-stub just saying "Person X is a city councillor in Toronto, they have 4 grandchildren" would look like vanity to me, or at least a page for a non-notable person. A deputy-mayor for a major city is notable, in my view. Rje 02:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, there seems to be potential for expansion. Shimeru 02:38, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep All city councillors of major cities deserve pages. Earl Andrew 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. —RaD Man (talk) 03:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Spinboy 03:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't see how being the debuty mayor of any city is inherently notable. Has the man done anything of note besides holding this position? DCEdwards1966 03:39, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a verifyable public figure. Bryan 06:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Neutralitytalk 06:59, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since vfd posting, YUL89YYZ added two paragraphs and I just added three, hopefully putting Feldman in much better context and showing even greater notability than in the original two sentence stub. Samaritan 07:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. YUL89YYZ is a respectable user and won't add stupid articles. utcursch 10:48, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ignoring my Toronto residency during the week, Feldman's article has expanded greatly. Ironically, he doesn't have as much of a public recognition as former deputy mayor Case Ootes, one of my personal favourite councillors ever. -- user:zanimum
  • I don't think there's much chance of this one being deleted, but put me down for keep all the same. CJCurrie 01:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Public figure, inherently noteworthy and encyclopedic. GRider\talk 17:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. Dan100 11:04, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable. Megan1967 03:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bomberman II

Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.

Article written by a POV pusher, from what I can tell from the contribs. Notability is iffy at best. Comments? I'm leaning toward some sort of redirect. Neutralitytalk 06:30, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Horrible article, but I do think there is some notability. I've NPOV-cleaned the article which doesn't leave much, but I suggest we leave that as a stub. Making it a redirect to The Skeptical Environmentalist would be acceptable though. --fvw* 08:12, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
    • Never mind. I added a bit and I think this can stay. Seems to me like all this global warming articles are infested with an ultra-cynical POV. Neutralitytalk 08:32, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks OK now. I don't see why the comment about The Skeptical Environmentalist was removed; I suspect that it is the only thing this body has been in the news for. Isomorphic 08:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep The Lomborg ref should have been NPOV'd (it's a matter of fact that they ruled on his book) not erased. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but some statement at what its purpose is supposed to be might be helpful.Icundell 12:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's impossible to redirect it to The Skeptical Environmentalist because DCSD is not only about this event. On the other hand, this event is important for DCSD so it must be included. I also think that this event has shown that DCSD is analogous to the Inquisition - because its goal has been proved to be to prosecute the scientists who publish politically inconvenient results - and if the article were objective, this would be mentioned. But I realize that there are too many people who prefer to obscure and deny this analogy. The people with the average ignorance who consider anyone who goes beyond their average ignorance a "POV pusher". --Lumidek 17:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment None of that is hard to deal with. Section 1: Whahat is its constitutional and legal role and status? Section 2: What do its supporters say; Section 3: What do critics say? Section 4: Outline the TSE incident. All of this can be done from NPOV while giving every side a fair hearing. Average ignorance is not a factor. Icundell 20:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Sure, I agree. That's what I intended to be there. --Lumidek 20:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Wyss 20:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Megan1967 22:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has the potential to be encyclopedic. The SE incident is the basis for the committee's current notability and should be retained. I would like to know of the background of the committees, what their intended purpose is, and more about why there was a disagreement regarding whether the SE decision was within their remit. --BM
  • POVvy-ness is absolutely under no circumstance cause for deletion. Keep article as it presently stands. GRider\talk 17:50, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ghodbunder Road

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jingle Bells, Batman Smells

Voice mail was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.


To me, this is a definition. Move to wiktionary. Smoddy | Talk 16:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I disagree, and I urge people to look at the article--it's not even a stub, by my reckoning. There's much more to say about voicemail. Article could be expanded, but is certainly a keep. Meelar (talk) 16:48, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC) Keep redir. Meelar (talk) 19:35, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Invalid VfD — no notice has been put up on the page. The article is at voicemail, voice mail is a redirect. Clear non-example of a dictdef. JRM 17:01, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is an article, certainly not a dicdef, and is encyclopedic. I can't see why this was list for deletion. Rje 17:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • To all of you, sorry. I definitely placed the {{subst:vfd}} heading and followed the procedure. Clearly other events have occured. I can't say I'm entirely sure what happened. Strong keep Smoddy | Talk 17:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      I have no clue either. My best guess would be that Voice mail got (speedily) deleted and then replaced with a redirect to Voicemail, but it's not in the deletion log. In any case, let's close this vote. JRM 18:19, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
      No, it's more subtle. You're not talking about Voice mail, you're talking about Voice Mail! That has the proper notice on it, and that was a dictdef. However, you should have checked whether it couldn't have been made a redirect. I've gone ahead and made it one. JRM 18:24, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I guess I was rather impressed by it as a dictdef! Smoddy | Talk 18:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, this could become a very helpful article. Wyss 19:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Summarized: Smoddy put up Voice Mail for deletion, but accidentally listed it as Voice mail, which was an existing redirect. The first version of Voice Mail was a dictdef or a substub (take your pick), which I have turned into a redirect to voicemail. No further voting should be done. If anyone thinks Voice Mail should not exist, it should be taken to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. If anyone thinks voicemail should not exist, make a new VfD nomination. JRM 20:29, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  • Keep. Megan1967 22:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, obviously. -Ld | talk 00:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Viriditas | Talk 11:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • 'Keep. Reasonable redirect page for Voicemail. So is Voice Mail. (Would be nice if the software handled these capitalization differences automatically.) Anyway, if it isn't a reasonable redirect, Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion is the right place to get rid of it, as JRM says. --BM 14:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • An obvious and strong keep. GRider\talk 18:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article about a piece of technology that has become a substantial part of everyday life. Could use a bit more historical context, tho. 23skidoo 00:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously more than a dictdef, and an entirely valid topic. neckro 09:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nelson Ricardo 02:06, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. Dan100 11:07, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

Prous Science was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.


This page seems to solely be an attempt to direct traffic to a website. No apparent potential to be a helpful or encyclopedic entry. Smoddy | Talk 17:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I was just cleaning it up as you were VfDing. They do appear to be marginally notable. Tentative Keep. --fvw* 17:08, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Wyss 19:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Megan1967 22:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep; Newfoundglory 19:35, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

Khulm was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.

It seems to me that this is on Kabul, so not needed--Thewayforward 23:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Merge what's possible into Kabul, there is some good stuff. However, Do Not redirect, Khulm is an old name for the northern Afghan town of Tashkurgan. As far as I know Kabul has never been known as Khulm. Rje 00:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Sounds like Merge and then redirect Khulm to Tashkurgan if someone can put something there. Kappa 00:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I've put something there, but it sounds like a different town of the same name. Andrewa 04:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm looks like the Afgan one has been renamed back to Khulm:

"Khulm , formerly Tashkurgan or Tash-Kurgan, town, N Afghanistan... Khulm is commonly identified with the ancient town of Aornos...was destroyed in mid-16th cent.; the ruins are to the north of present-day Khulm". bartleby Kappa

  • Keep. Stubified, and the material about Kabul moved to talk:Kabul. Andrewa 06:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep with Andrew's edits. —RaD Man (talk) 07:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • keep]]]. JuntungWu 15:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Megan1967 01:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Please explain your delete vote. We'd all love to know. Thank you. —RaD Man (talk) 11:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • keep and you're really supposed to read more than the first line of the debate. Kappa 01:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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