This log documents completed deletion requests from March 2008 to April 2008.

Template:testwarn

Template:testwarn (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Too similar to ((test1)). Cannot see any reason for another warning template. Razorflame 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have BOLDly redirected it to Template:Test. Revert me if you disagree. Majorly (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Cheers, Razorflame 14:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Redirected.

Template:Cookie

Template:Cookie (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I see no need for this...pretty much same purpose as ((barnstar)).--  † ChristianMan16  00:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Mmmm cookies... :P seriously though,  Keep it's a nice alternative to a barnstar. What's the harm? Majorly (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: - I see no harm but is it really worth the space...I still see no NEED.--  † ChristianMan16  00:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep For once ChristianMan16, I disagree. There is nothing wrong with, and does it really take up that much space? Besides, it's just a greeting, not a $100 bill! AmericanEagle 00:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESULT: Withdrawn by nominator.--  † ChristianMan16  01:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:FAQ

Wikipedia:FAQ (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The page has only one question and I don't think this page is needed since this question is most likely answered by reading Wikipedia and from general knowledge of the site. This page lists frequently asked questions (FAQs) and their answers. SwirlBoy39 21:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom SwirlBoy39 23:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.-- Lights  talk  23:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only one question and one answer, meaning that this page is clearly not being used currently. Razorflame 00:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - Can be expanded or rewritten to something very useful.--  † ChristianMan16  01:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - They can always refer to the help link in the sidebar. Chenzw  Talk  11:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Help page is good enough, that's not very big. AmericanEagle 04:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep, can be rewritten into something useful. --  Da Punk '95  talk  11:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep If we can come up with some good questions, which I can think of some things I wanted to know when I started, I'll vote to keep the page. If it will be extended - AmericanEagle 17:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If we want to write a new one, fine. But this provides absolutely no basis for it other than having the correct page title. Delete it, and if anyone wants to write a new one, go for it. Archer7 - talk 17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep and expand. Why bother wasting time deleting this when it could easily be expanded on. It may be useful. But I don't think we can use "Frequently" in Simple English. --w^{L <talk · hope>} 19:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed.

Result was delete. Majorly (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Bangkok, List of food venues in Bangkok

List of hospitals in Bangkok (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

List of food venues in Bangkok (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Red link lists that aren't likely to be populated by blue links any time soon. Also debated putting up List of palaces in Bangkok as it's also only redlinks but that would at least contain useful information if populated. · Tygrrr... 17:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no one cares about these things except people who live near or there.--  † ChristianMan16  03:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought about it, but their just red links, not useful. AmericanEagle 04:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Chenzw  Talk  07:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Would not contain any helpful information if it were populated. Razorflame 13:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In its current form this list is pretty useless. I will not stop anyone from writing an article about any of those hospitals, or food venues, provided there is notability; We might even classify that entry accordingly, by putting it into appropriate categories. But please check for notability; I also fear that most of this might be more appropriate for Wikitravel. --Eptalon (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete. Chenzw  Talk  12:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Protection templates

Template:Protection templates (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Unneded, there's not really a neeed for all these templates. Oysterguitarist 00:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - all templates needed to state why a page is protected.--  † ChristianMan16  19:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all but the sockpuppet template as they are not used and not needed at this stage in the game. We are currently not that big of a Wikipedia, so therefore, I do not believe that these are needed for now. Razorflame 19:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: - It's a waste of the community's time to delete what just gonna be recreated later.--  † ChristianMan16  20:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, two seconds to delete something, takes a lot of time, besides if the community decided they wanted to do that, they may want to do it differently. Oysterguitarist 23:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was talking about the recreation.--  † ChristianMan16  01:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deleted pages can be restored. Oysterguitarist 01:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • True...but still not the point...they are useful now is my point.--  † ChristianMan16  01:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Their not even used. Oysterguitarist 02:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I fighting a losing battle, forget it do what you want. --  † ChristianMan16  02:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can't just do what I want, there needs to be consensus. Oysterguitarist 03:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Dude, it's called a figure of speech...lighten up. I mean I'm giving up and not fighting anymore and withdrawing my vot for keep.--  † ChristianMan16  03:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Okay Oysterguitarist 03:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep I have no problem with keeping this, and other templates around. AmericanEagle 02:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete except for the sockpuppet template. Chenzw  Talk  02:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Keep - not enough consensus. Chenzw  Talk  12:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gang O' Cock

This does not appear notable. Only got 65 hits on Google. I believe that makes this clearly fail Notability as I have already stated.   † ChristianMan16  04:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result - Quick deleted (A4). It did not even try to clain notability. -- Creol(talk) 04:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neometaphysics

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

This term seems to exist only on the Web site linked. That is, it is self-published spam. Art Carlson (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search only got 181 hits; of those 181, about 15 of those are to us/retailers. I would have to agree that this is spam, or better yet, advertising. Cheers, Razorflame 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Majorly (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--  † ChristianMan16  17:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not worth keeping. AmericanEagle 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hard to tell; in its current form, the article could be merged to Metaphysics, perhaps? - Otherwise delete for not enogh flesh on the bone, despite drooling dog? --Eptalon (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. --  Da Punk '95  talk  07:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree. Certainly not notable. нмŵוτнτ 21:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ~ NN SwirlBoy39 21:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SwirlBoy39, do you realize that you accidentally said this twice? нмŵוτнτ 22:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I didn't. Thanks SwirlBoy39 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - They should have done more research before putting it up on Wikipedia. Chenzw  Talk  02:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: delete Oysterguitarist 13:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clodomiro Picado

Clodomiro Picado (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Notability. Never heard of this and I am pretty sure that this would fail en:WP's BOLP policy. Google search only got 583 hits. Razorflame 14:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I searched Clodomiro Picado on live search and got over 6000 hits. There does seem to be an important Research Institute of Clodomiro Picado in Coronado, Costa Rica who deal with snake venom etc. and he seems to appear on the 1950s Costa Rican banknotes. It is difficult to give an opinion of the biography as most links are Spanish of Portugese. There are many but I cant say what is reputable or not. Find reputable ones in English took a while but here are a few (including National Geographic) who mention the institute and a mention of the Clodomiro Picado National Award for Science by the American National Science foundation (nsf.gov)[1] [2] [3] [4]. It should be moved to Clodomiro Picado Twight but I didnt find any good reference in English for his biography (I only went through some and guess that a good English reference may take several hours if found at all) but I did see some mention that his institute is very important at researching cancer and venom treatment and unsourced claims are that he is the unrecognised discoverer of pennicillin. ~ R.T.G 01:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable on a world view.--  † ChristianMan16  04:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep I am certain he would fail the BLP policies.. mainly because he has been dead since 1944. His en:wp bio comes in with at a respectable 8k, es:wp is about the same size, so there seems to be adequate information on him out there. Two national awards given out yearly in his name, on the 2000 colon bill, multiple buildings named after him, internationally known for development of several anti-toxins and supposedly actually discovered the effects of penicillin before Fleming. All told, he seems notable. The article needs moved to its proper name as well as cleanup and wikified (+cats) but not like that is a deletable offence. -- Creol(talk) 14:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on en.wiki was deleted and reinserted around the first week of March but again there it just seems that his notabilty was not straight forward and he was deleted without a good check. ~ R.T.G 18:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article needs wikifiying, markup, and general adherence to our standards, as well as moving to where people will actually look for it; all this does not warrant ofr its deletion, though. As of Creol above, the guy looks notable enough to be  kept--Eptalon (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Per above comments. Majorly (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I will withdraw my request for deletion of this. I did not realize that he would be such a notable figure. It was my mistake that I requested this for deletion in the first place. Cheers, Razorflame 14:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Result:Withdrawn - Huji ^reply 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fellowship of Saint John

The Fellowship of Saint John (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It is very difficult to see if this is notable; The original seems to be based on Society of St.John the Evangelist. I don´t know how I came to the idea to classify it as an Anglican religious order (the only one so far). There also seem to be the Antiochian Orthodox Church (in America) which has a Fellowship of St. John the Divine and the Orthodox Fellowship of St. John the Baptist, which looks like an Orthodox version of the scout movement in the United Kingdom. For this reason, I think we should consider its deletion, as a regular request; If we don't delete it, we need to clarify, and probably add pages for the other two organisations listed.

• Delete Unclear notability status --Eptalon (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)  Keep Original source is en:Society of St. John the Evangelist; Create/Move/simplify that article, and move there. --Eptalon (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: We also have Society of St.John the Evangelist (a stub of the English page) now. --Eptalon (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per Eptalon. Razorflame 16:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete /MERGE - To place listed on the the article.--  † ChristianMan16  05:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to main topic. -- Creol(talk) 06:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Appears to be notable. Majorly (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Am sure there is a notable Fellowship of Saint John the Baptist! ~ R.T.G 02:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Merged. --Eptalon (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rican food

Costa Rican food (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article seems to be advertising about the country as it consists of only one recipe and does not talk about Costa Rican food in general. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 11:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.-- Lights  talk  12:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it doesn't advertise but it looks like it belongs on a different project like Wikisource or Wikibooks.--  † ChristianMan16  06:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Move to En Wikibooks cooking and delete here. --Eptalon (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Razorflame 16:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not about the topic. -- Creol(talk) 06:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not encyclopedic, but could be something for Wikibooks. Majorly (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: delete Oysterguitarist 14:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPWelcome

Template:IPWelcome (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

A similar template exists. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 08:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is this template? Majorly (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is ((anon)). Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 11:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are nearly identical. Suggest redirect IPwelcome to Anon. Majorly (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Majorly.-- Lights  talk  11:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((anon)). As already mentioned, they are practically identical, except ((anon)) is simpler and has links to a few more helpful pages. · Tygrrr... 13:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Tygrrr. Razorflame 14:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per all above --  Da Punk '95  talk  04:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, guess I'll jump on the bandwagon :). TheWolf 13:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• REDIRECT - I agree, it seems more logical to type IPWelcome than anon. Redirect for sure.--  † ChristianMan16  06:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Redirected to ((anon)).-- Lights  talk  13:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chigakukan

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

No notability. This Google search confirms this. Even though it has it's own website, it doesn't have it's own English Wikipedia page, and I don't think that it fits the bill for notability. Razorflame 15:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Schools, especially high schools are notable. Just because it isn't on English Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not notable - it means no one has made it yet :) Majorly (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. · Tygrrr... 13:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too new. It was established this year, meaning it couldn't be more than a couple of months old. We can give it an article once it starts becoming important; right now it's far too young to warrant an article of its own. TheWolf 13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not all schools are notable, and this one falls inside the non-notable category. - Huji ^reply 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• {Delete - not notable --  Da Punk '95  talk  21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete.-- Lights  talk  12:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob Squarepants episodes

So far, 4 episode pages have been written (1, 2, 3, 4). I can't imagine that we need a page on every episode when a short description on the List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes would probably be sufficient. English Wikipedia doesn't even have pages for each episode, they have a medium-length blurb on each episode but have pages for the episodes in each season (like this). I think this would be a preferable format for here as well. The pages themselves don't add much in the way of content (the pictures don't work properly and the trivia sections shouldn't even be there as they are inappropriate for an encyclopedia). A page on each 10 minute episode not only seems silly, but would also produce a navbox that's twice as long as the current one (which is already ridiculously long). I propose re-formatting to something similar to the formatting at en:wiki. · Tygrrr... 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A wiki at Wikia might accept this, though. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 11:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Majorly (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and repurpose all four pages into the episode list where the episode list is like the page that has the name of the episode and then the short little blirp about the episode. Otherwise, I would say that this article can be Delete Razorflame 18:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete -- EN dosent these types of things, nor should we? --  Da Punk '95  talk  04:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Da Punk '95. TheWolf 13:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted, and parts of these articles merged to the episode list.-- Lights  talk  20:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hair Hares

Hair Hares (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Not notable. Google search gives 6 hits about the short film (not series). · Tygrrr... 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't appear to be notable. But it may become notable in time. Majorly (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Majorly. Razorflame 18:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all above --  Da Punk '95  talk  04:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, though it could probably get an article once it is actually running. TheWolf 13:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete.-- Lights  talk  20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Milestones

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

This page is not needed anymore because it has been superceded by Wikipedia:Announcements. Razorflame 16:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wikipedia:Announcements; I see no harm redirecting this. Users might enter Wikipedia:Article Milestones in the search box when they're looking for all the article milestones.-- Lights  talk  16:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are only two links to the page, this page and a Simple Talk archive page. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 07:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. I don't think it matters much either way. · Tygrrr... 13:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: delete Oysterguitarist 13:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Attaullah

User talk:Attaullah (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It appears to be a propaganda, which shouldn't be here. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 11:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted under WP:QD#G8. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 13:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE Champions

List of WWE Champions (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Unneeded in its current state, gives little information and is not a 'list' at all. Thereen (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deleted as nonsense/test page. Archer7 - talk 13:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Jagodić Tirex

Giovanni Jagodić Tirex (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

No hint of notability. This search on Google confirms my own suspicions as it only lists 2 pages; us for both of the pages. Razorflame 19:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Deleted as vandalism and possible attack page. The image used was a self posted image from a user on the Swedish Wikipedia. Made up name, made up location, real person's picture.. looks like the poster knew he was adding false info there. -- Creol(talk) 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amzat Adebowale‎

Amzat Adebowale‎ (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

No notability. this Google search got only 25 hits. This also falls under the category of African non-notable people that we got deleted earlier. Razorflame 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 02:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ...Aurora... (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted. Majorly (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Mohammad Shafiq Hamdam

Dr. Mohammad Shafiq Hamdam (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Information given in the article is hard to be verified; also give the birth year of the candidate Doctor (1981), I doubt this doctorate is real. --Eptalon (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Eptalon (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Razorflame 20:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QD'd. This is the third incarnation of this article. The others were CV's (Spam) --Bärliner 22:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Black

User:Black (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I doubt this person is really Jack Black simply said, I believe this page is not true and not needed SwirlBoy39 22:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom SwirlBoy39 22:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What really makes me confused is to why the user wants to copy the contents of an IP's talk page into his own talk page. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 02:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted. Majorly (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPS-SCS

UPS-SCS (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

No real useful content. Created by an IP registered to UPS. Archer7 - talk 09:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - This seems to be an advertisement. Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 12:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Advertisement. The life of brian (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per QD rule G11, which is advertising. That is all this seems to be saying. Razorflame 15:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Quick-deleted as an advert. Majorly (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tired

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An entry already exists at Simple English Wiktionary.-- Lights  talk  23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete dicdef, per nom.--Werdan7^{T @} 04:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Quick deleted as per the RfD outcome on all dicdef articles. SEWP definition exists and all links to the original page have been changed to wikt links. -- Creol(talk) 06:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Esperanza

Wikipedia:Esperanza (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

As with the deletion of the the original Esperanza, it's an unnecessary, useless project that's most inactive. Also, with its hierarchy of leaders and members, the project lacks the open and transparent spirit of a wiki. Barnstars, on the other hand, should be split off as a separate project.--TBC 23:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - Even a long absent editor should know that the discussion to change/delete ENWP's esperanza has no relevance here --Bärliner 23:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why is that? The same reasons apply.--TBC 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Barliner thought you were requesting it to be deleted cause of the MFD at en. Oysterguitarist 04:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: TBC, would you mind expanding on what you think the problem is with having this project here? Thank you. · Tygrrr... 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The project, with its hierarchy of leaders and members, lacks the open and transparent spirit of a wiki. Also, other than giving out barnstars, the project has been mostly inactive.--TBC 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not needed--  C h r i s t i a n M a n 1 6 03:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - After 16 months here, I still am uncertain exactly what the purpose of it is and how this purpose is used to help the wiki in any way. Reading all the pages on it comes up with "This is Esperanza, we do barnstars and welcome people". We really need a wikiproject for this? Let alone one that is for the most part inactive? Randomly something Esperanza-ish will come up, but for the most part it sits there doing nothing at all. "After 50 member we will..." and yet we hit 50 earlier than last July and nothing has been done about it. Much of the member list is inactive users. There seems to be a post of "Admin General" though no idea what this post is for and looking at the history of it, no reason why there is such a post (it was semi-vacant for months and no one seemed to notice a difference). While it may be a good theory, in action it seems to serves no purpose at all. En deleted theirs as there was no real useful purpose for it. While we are not EN and we should always decide things based on our situation, the fact that we have as much or less use for it than they do seems to show that the decision they made may be one we should make as well. -- Creol(talk) 05:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does it mean that Non-Esperanzans will be cold-hearted, hiding in the corner and doing their own editing? The community should be friendly even without this project. In addition, anyone can give barnstars, not just people from Esperanza.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chenzw (talk • contribs)
• Delete as per Creol. Razorflame 16:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The project had been inactive for a long time, and doesn't serve a purpose. Oysterguitarist 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Creol.-- Lights  talk  03:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I joined a while ago, and have found it to be largely dead. Very few new posts on the talk page, no real action taken in anything, unfinished debates hanging with no replies. Was a nice idea, but is too inactive to really do much of anything at this point. TheWolf 15:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TBC. Same reasons apply as on en.wikipedia. Justin_(u) 04:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Esperanza has had successes over here in a way that was different to the EN version and I don't think the two should be grouped together, but there doesn't seem to be the community interest any more. Archer7 - talk 13:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's only asking for issues. нмŵוτнτ 05:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: delete Oysterguitarist 00:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currywurst

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

Cites no sources, and does not establish notability. Snack food ad, anyone? TheWolf 16:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed. It doesn't establish notability and there are no sources, so it's not verifiable. нмŵוτнτ 01:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily Improved. ENWP list 7 interwikis, excluding the commons category "Currywurst"--Bärliner 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Barliner IuseRosary? ^(talk) 18:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It does cite one source but still I see no reason to keep it.--  † ChristianMan16  22:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep - Per Barliner. It may also be notable to Germans (I am not). Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 06:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Barliner - Huji ^reply 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep as per Barliner. This article looks to be on a topic that is very relevant to the Wikipedia project, so therefore, I see no reason to delete it. Razorflame 20:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Who opposes to a food dish being an article? I mean, it's not like currywurst is not real. it's useful, actually!--♥Amy Ames♥ (inbox) 03:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: - going to what Chenzw said about it being notable to Germans...It has to be notable on a World scale.--  † ChristianMan16  19:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - With 600k google hits and an article on seven different Wikipedias, I would say that it's notable on a pretty world-wide scale. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 19:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Barliner.-- Lights  talk  22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Per Barliner. SwirlBoy39 02:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: keep Oysterguitarist 02:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Nigerian Politicians

Joseph Adegbite (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Sunday Achara (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Modupe Omo-Eboh (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Isaac Adejare (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Josiah Adedipe (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Nathaniel Adamolekun (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Peter Achimugu (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Dokaji Abubakar (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Olayinka Adekoya (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Dauda Adegbenro (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

All had a minor role in a regional leigslature in the 1950s. Not notable. At one point the creator blanked some of these items for deletion, but was reverted because another editor had contributed grammar, etc, fixes. --Bärliner 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - None of these are notable.-- Lights  talk  21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as per the 9 google searches I ran that came back with 900 or less hits. Razorflame 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QD'd Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Log_7#All_the_pages_listed_here--Bärliner 21:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EnglishVersion

Template:EnglishVersion (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This template isn't needed because of the fact that it has been superceded by the interwiki function. I can see no reason why this template should be needed on this site anymore, as it doesn't look to be very used. Razorflame 21:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - Huji ^reply 21:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.-- Lights  talk  22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not needed. SwirlBoy39 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not needed. Doesn't seem to be used anymore. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Very useful...I can add it to the Wrestling articles now.--  † ChristianMan16  18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, per nom--Bärliner 19:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reason for it to be kept. нмŵוτнτ 19:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It basically says "go here if you want a better entry". I think that's a negative thing for us to say. Also, if they know about SE WP, they undoubtely know about EN WP and can get there quite easily with the interwiki (as others have already expressed). · Tygrrr... 20:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above--Werdan7^{T @} 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 04:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: delete Oysterguitarist 01:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Adamagu

Francis Adamagu (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This has no claim to notability. The Google search given here has only 6 results, 2 of which are our pages on this topic. No claims of notability, and no English Wikipedia page of this name. Razorflame 15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - Huji ^reply 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable.-- Lights  talk  18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redid the Google search and only got 3 hits. Not Notable.--  † ChristianMan16  19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nn. (and what's with all the templates?) --Werdan7^{T @} 03:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. (where's Delta State anyway?) Chenzw (talk ▪ changes) 04:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its in Nigeria--Bärliner 11:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom and here--Bärliner 11:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per all of the above. TheWolf 20:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: delete Oysterguitarist 19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Longish

Template:Longish (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Unneeded template as per 2 reasons. Reason 1: We don't have any articles that are 100,000kbs or more in length (besides that one list), and reason 2: Mediawiki already warns us of a long page when you edit it. Redundant and unneeded. Razorflame 20:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Special:Longpages works fine. -- Creol(talk) 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom --Bärliner 22:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Barliner and Creol. --Isis♠(talk) 22:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.-- Lights  talk  22:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Da Punk '95 (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not needed. TheWolf 20:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bye! Not needed :) SwirlBoy39 18:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the comments above --Eptalon (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete.-- Lights  talk  00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]