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

Pointless but has content. Belongs more on Uncyclopedia JameiLei 11:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Creol(talk) 10:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wiktionary after simplification and cleanup. This actually a legitimate topic.--Werdan7^{T @} 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If I am to believe the en.wikipedia definition of handwavium (here and here), the article describes situations where handwavium could possibly be found, without actually saying what handwavium is. Also, to name Mohammed or Prime Minster John Howards' hair as example of handwavium is either offensive or funny, but not encyclopedic. Write a wiktionary definition if you will, but not based on this article. --Rimshot 10:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• •  Done, deleted.-- Tdxiang 09:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dimakis (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Vanity page. Page was previously quick deleted as vandalism/not notable (by me) but has been remade and as such is no longer QD candidate but requires RfD now to delete it. No google hits at all for the complete title of the page. -- Creol(talk) 10:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable nonsense (the surgeon refused to operate, on the grounds that the cat was his daughters pet, etc.). Wodup 10:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Utter nonsense. --Rimshot 11:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom.--Werdan7^{T @} 21:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's complete nonsense. Even though it can't be quick deleted, it should be deleted as quickly as possible :-) Tygartl1 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done, deleted.-- Tdxiang 09:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EnWP has various Menendez, amongst others (redlinked) Ed, as a Software developer. Spanish wikipedia has nothing interesting. Google finds a doctor of Anthropology, of the University of Buenos Aires. It is well possible that this is a hoax. --Eptalon 21:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless it can be sourced. --Eptalon 21:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Creol(talk) 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. unverifiable.--Werdan7^{T @} 23:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nomination. --Rimshot 17 February 2007

• •  Done, deleted.-- Tdxiang 09:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King of Germany (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I moved King of Germany to König von Deutschland. The latter is the title of a German song, the first its literal translation. I don't think anyone would search for "King of Germany" to find the song. Therefore, King of Germany is not needed anymore Rimshot 13:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Leave as a redirect. I don't see how this is misleading..--Werdan7^{T @} 22:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, add a dab link from König von Deutschland to Kaiser.--Werdan7^{T @} 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I also repaired the for template. --Rimshot 09:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kaiser. When I think of "King of Germany", I immediately think of the the Kaiser of Germany. If I were someone who didn't know English well or didn't know history well, I might search for information about the King of Germany actually looking for Kaiser. I believe that a redirect to Kaiser would be appropriate or perhaps a disambiguous page. Browne34 14:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• •  Done, deleted.-- Tdxiang 09:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a vanity page, therefore I think we should delelte it. -- Eptalon 10:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per above --Eptalon 10:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity page. Also, the text is from here: gaiaonline.com, I'm not sure about the copyright status, but looks like copyvio to me. --Rimshot 12:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above. Ksbrown^talk 10:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete --vector ^_^ (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity page and possible copyvio.--TBCΦtalk? 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete QD-A4 nn person.--Werdan7^{T @} 23:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as Copyright problems JameiLei 11:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity page, questionable on copyvio as it is apparently a copy of the editors own self description of their character on that site and as such seems to be more a case of OR 0R (Vanity OR..) than copyvio.-- Creol(talk) 10:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Result: Deleted PTO 00:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Advanced Techologies (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This page has stood there as a straight copy of the intro paragraphs from en.wikipedia for two months now. No progress has been made on making this a simple wikipedia page. Rimshot 18:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTABILITY - Google search for Centre for Advanced Technologies has no hits relevant to the article's context; article. The education notability is further questioned by the fact that the subject is in a Secondary school, rather than a University which further questions the integrity and notability of the CfAT. Finally, the article's deletion can be justified by WP:BASE - if the article does turn out to be worth a space on our servers, it can be added when we have all of our primary articles up to standard.

Keep I'm incline to vote keep because of the ramblings about 'primary articles, blah blah'. This kind of talk just scares people away from SE Wikipedia because they feel their article is unwanted. Xania 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have nominated the article, and now that some more days have gone by I still think it should be deleted. Someone copied it here in the hopes that someone else would do the hard work of simplifying it. That hasn't happened, and now I think it is time for the article to go. On the topic of notability: the subject matter of the article does not seem notable enough to make up for its shortcomings. --Rimshot 12:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. nn school.--Werdan7^{T @} 23:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted -- Creol(talk) 23:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

My thoughts on InuYasha character pages: There have been a number of pages on InuYasha characters added to SE lately. I would like to suggest that a single page be created called List of InuYasha characters and that the following pages be deleted and the information on them be moved to the new "List" page: Kikyo, Kagome, Naraku, Onigumo, Midoriko, Sango, Miroku, Kirara, and Shippo. I would also suggest that the information on Shikon no Tama be merged into the main InuYasha article. It seems unnecessary to have pages on each of the characters. English Wikipedia has a page for each individual character, but Simple English Wikipedia is not another English Wikipedia and I think that a list page would allow us to have the information while not dedicating too much time and energy to a topic that is not among the most important for a developing encyclopedia to have. Tygartl1 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no overview of the current situation; at the least a common category looks appropriate (if it is not already there). The merging of smaller articles into bigger ones also seems logical; since I do not know how simple (or complex) inuYasha is, I cannot judge what to merge where. -- Eptalon 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half of the articles linked above are already longer than the average simple wikipedia article. They are written in rather simple English, even if it is not perfect. Also, they are already categorized under Category:InuYasha. A combined article, I think, might become too long. As it stands now, I vote to keep the articles, because deleting or merging them would not benefit simple.wikipedia. Rimshot 19:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large articles. What's the problem? Xania 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Kept.-- Tdxiang 02:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nasal hair (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Direct copy from en.wikipedia Rimshot 20:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it is a copy from en.wikipedia. Unless someone wants to rewrite of course, but I don't think we want to encourage the copying of complete articles from en.wikipedia.Rimshot 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite or delete. It seems notable enough to keep but if it's not simplified it should go. Tygartl1 17:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep + Simplify: keep - the article does seem valid to be included in an online encyclopedia, and therefore passes the basic principle of WP:NOTABILITY; however, I also suggest simplify - the article is clearly copied and pasted, word-for-word, direct from w:en:Nasal hair, and therefore does not conform to simple english.
  Anthonycfc (talk • connect)  20:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep + Simplify - as per above arguements. Xania 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Kept--Eptalon 01:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article states that Acker is a tennis term named after Ian Acker. There is no tennis player Ian Acker. There is no such term. Rimshot 14:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Amazingly, the article survived for half a year. ackered tennis gives only one useful google result, namely a blog. Rimshot 14:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable. Tygartl1 17:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOTABILITY: Google search for Acker move returns no results related to tennis; Google search for Acker, Tennis returns a blog result, per comment above. Therefore, the article clearly fails notability and does not constitute an article on simple or any wikipedia.
  Anthonycfc (talk • connect)  20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Eptalon 09:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as nonsense. "Acker" is Somerset dialect for "friend" or "mate", as in Acker Bilk.[1] Even if corrected, it wouldn't be notable. Totnesmartin 18:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ksbrown^talk 17:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, non-notable neologism.--TBCΦtalk? 07:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Amusing but time for it to go. Xania 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC

Result: Deleted --Eptalon 01:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General semantics (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

General semantics is not the same as semantics. This article describes semantics, even though it shouldn't Rimshot 14:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment en:General semantics is an educational discipline that deals with semantics but is distinct from it. Rimshot 14:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite - actually I already rewrote it based on the en:wiki article since the article in question was effectively moved to the correct page already. Still tagged as RfD though just in case. -- Creol(talk) 15:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the rewrite. I will remove the RfD Friday evening, if there are no more votes. Rimshot 19:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - enough Google hits to demonstrate notability; article is clearly high enough quality to deserve a place on our encylopedia. The fact that the article is benefiting, and is a pride of, the encyclopedia (in that it is not a stub) is enough for us to keep the article.
  Anthonycfc (talk • connect)  20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Kept - Re-written -- Creol(talk) 16:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ness' Dad (EarthBound) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Minor character in a video game that's no longer sold. Archer7 - talk 09:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to main article -- Creol(talk) 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge --Eptalon 13:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Tygartl1 14:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Marcin Suwalczan [our talk] 15:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merged -- Creol(talk) 16:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Strong (EarthBound) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Minor character in a video game that's no longer sold. Archer7 - talk 09:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to main article -- Creol(talk) 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge --Eptalon 13:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Tygartl1 14:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merged -- Creol(talk) 16:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial diamonds (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Looks like an advertisement. What is needed is an article on cremation not an article on one particular way of processing the remains. Also, precisely the same text can be found on en.wikipedia. Rimshot 12:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Create cremation, rewrite memorial diamonds and merge into cremation article. Tygartl1 15:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I have created a page for cremation and included info about what to do with the remains, including turning them into diamonds. It's just a stub for now, since I didn't include any of the religious reasons and rules about cremation but it's a start. Tygartl1 16:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the info is now available elsewhere. Tygartl1 14:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this one. Come up with something about cremation if it is more than a dicdef. --Eptalon 16:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Marcin Suwalczan [our talk] 15:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the article is clearly an advertisement:

"...having a hue does nothing to restrict the brilliant fire flashes and sparkle associated with diamonds..."

--paragraph II

This is a clear attempt to brush aside the negative issues assosiated with the process, therefore qualifying as a WP:NPOV-violating advertisement. Ergo, I vote delete this article.

• Delete Badly written (for a simple english encyclopedia) advert. Ksbrown^talk 18:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleted -- Creol(talk) 16:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no Final Fantasy X page yet. We don't need a page on a character from a game without a page. I would suggest that a FFX page gets created with a section on characters. Tygartl1 16:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: it appears the Jecht article (along with Spira) was created once before by User:JarlaxleArtemis. Last time he simply copied the text from en:wp. He was warned that if it was not simplified, it would be deleted. I still argue that we do not need it in a simplified version until after FFX has a page (and only then if the page becomes too long with character info). Tygartl1 19:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - since merge is not an option. -- Creol(talk) 09:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Eptalon 13:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is no content to merge and no article to merge to . Rimshot 15:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted --Eptalon 22:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bowers (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Questionable notablility. No en.wiki page exists. Reasonably high google hits, but it is a fairly common name. Hits on this precise person tend to be self-genereated. -- Creol(talk) 13:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, he had an article on English Wikipedia but it was nominated for deletion twice (first nomination (group nomination), closed as no consensus; second nomination, closed as delete). I also found en:Bowers style acronym, which appears to be related but was deleted after it was nominated for deletion. J Di 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Google search for Jonathan Bowers receives the following: (i) Blog mentioning him; (ii) Simple's actual article; (iii) w:en Wikipedian's subpage on it; (iv) Answer.com's article on him...which was forked from Wikipedia anyway. Considering they are all either on Wikipedia English's space (where the article was deleted anyway), on Simple which can therefore be discounted, or on a fork of the discounted article, I nominate deletion on the grounds of Notability. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 13:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 13:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is actually hard to tell; a first glance would point to in the direction of a vanity page, an article created to glorify the work of someone hardly noticeable. This guy seems to be a store worker interested in certain fields of maths. As outlined by Anthony_cfc, all relevant pages are either blog entries, copies of pages from Wikipedia, or self-created pages. I see (in the first pages of google hits, no pages of academic publication houses or universities. Whatever this person did, it has not yet been noticed by the academic community. So either it is not worth their effort or time (aka. Notability), or this person is a newly emerging star of maths (who has not yet had his breakthrough; in which case this would classify as original work). In either case, the vote would be to delete the article. --Eptalon 15:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Delete --Eptalon 09:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babel (DS9 episode) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Simple Wikipedia is not another Wikipedia. Star Trek episodes don't need their own page, especially when the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine page itself is bare bones. Tygartl1 00:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing how big the article actually is, I think it should be merged into Star-Trek DeepSpace 9 page. --Eptalon 01:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this would set a standard for every episode to have its own article, or section; best nip this in the bud now. Anthony cfc 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Main article is basically a stub and this episode is little more than filler. It is not even worth a sentence in the plot section (when the main article gets one) as it really has little/nothing to do with the overall plot of the series. -- Creol(talk) 08:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesnt need its own page (WP:CORE). Ksbrown^talk 17:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable enough yet and no content that can be merged with another article. J Di 15:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No need for an individual page or merge. Deleting this would be best course of action. Nishkid64 18:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Archer7 - talk 11:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: merged into a section of its own, in the DS9 page. Page remains as a redirect to DS9 (to preserve history).

A stub-like/two sentence article, containing nothing verifiable through enWP. In my opinion, we should delete it. -- Eptalon 14:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above -- Eptalon 14:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per QD A4; no assertion of notability. J Di 15:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no notability - the word "home-made" obviously negates notability; possible Speedy per JD. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Archer7 - talk 11:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Deleted

Full English Wikipedia (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Appears to be a neologism, I've never seen or heard this name for English Wikipedia used by anybody before and there are not many Google hits. If this article is deleted, links should probably be changed so they point to Wikipedia or removed, depending on the context. J Di 16:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Hi! although it was me who made it, I agree to delete it, no more discussion necessary. I only created it after I found it at the "wanted pages list", because 'some' people seemed to call it like that. I suggest removing those links instead, as they are only on talk pages. -- Quvar 16:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Well the creator of the article wishes for the page to be deleted, so I guess it can be deleted under QD#G7. Nishkid64 18:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Place a Redirect- Instead of changing all the links, replace the page with a redirect. The life of brian 18:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deleted as per G7: Author requested deletion. -- Creol(talk) 19:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible that this list is complete. In my opinion, such content is unencyclopedic, and should be deleted. -- Eptalon 00:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per above. -- Eptalon 00:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per above -- Andrew 15:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per listcruft. It's something that we can't complete, and the list is not really encyclopedic. It's just a bunch of redlinks and external links. Nishkid64 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks rather useful actually, but I don't think it belongs here. Would look very nice on EN, but I guess it's already there and been copied over. Also I agree that it would be difficult to 'complete' it. Archer7 - talk 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the other good reasons. PullToOpen^Talk 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Delete The content is not encyclopedia content. --Sir James Paul ,La gloria è a dio 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Delete PullToOpen^Talk 20:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Socialist Republic (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

APT41790 requested the deletion of the page, but has not added it to the discussed deletion requests. The argument is basically that this information is already covered by the longer article about the USSR. In my opinion this would mean a merging of the two articles -- Eptalon 23:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not adding it to here. I thought that was done automatically. Thank you for clearing that up! I do agree perhaps a merge is better than a total deletion.-- APT41790 23:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, the other page referred to is Soviet Union. -- Eptalon 23:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge looks like good and thoughtful content, either keep or merge into another article. Jordanhatch 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, looks pretty clean.. -- Eptalon 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Soviet Union Caknuck 22:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: History-preserving redirect. PullToOpen^Talk 02:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT a dictionary. This was brought up in a previous RfD, but this is intended to be more of a centralized discussion on these articles. PullToOpen^Talk 01:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep,delete, and template - The cat itself was never meant to be created. It was just being used as a tool for cleanup. That being said, it is a useful way of dealing with articles. A "This article is a defintion..." template along the lines of other clean up templates (Wikify/Cleanup/Unsimp) with the category may be needed here. The articles themselves are a bit tougher as many are BE 850. Keep for the BE 850 (and any core articles), Delete with move to simp:wikt for the others (with complete re-editting of all pages linking to the articles changing them from here to wikt - 500+edits likely and new ones as pages get added to the list that needs moved). There are likely a couple hundred more articles that will also be affected here since the category is nowhere close to a full listing of articles that are a mere definition. -- Creol(talk) 02:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This doesn't make any sense. If it is being a cleanup tool, then you need to make a template seperately and sort it out from there. Jordanhatch 21:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The process of moving purely definition pages to wikt, relinking all links to the former pages and removing the pages is under way. Currently this category is the one being worked on. The category:dictionary definitions which is added as part of the dicdef template will be next and then any listing from the move to wiktionary template will be handled. The page User:Creol/Wiktionary lists which items have been deleted and which items are on the requests for definitions page at simple:wikt. Certain pages in the categories are capable of being expanded and steps are being taken to ensure those get atleast a basic expansion to full stub status rather than dicdef status. -- Creol(talk) 10:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Creol's solution. PullToOpen^Talk 02:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very much looks like original research.The article is all uppercase letters, and needs wikifying/cl;eanup. Nothing on google, or en WP. -- Eptalon 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per above --Eptalon 12:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (if that exists here). --Majorly 13:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Delete PullToOpen^Talk 02:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Homer they Fall (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Included in this nomination is

Dredrick Tatum (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
.

I don't think individual episodes of The Simpsons or minor recurring characters are not notable enough for articles on this wiki. J Di 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --La gloria è a dio 01:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a reason? J Di 01:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we make a compromise? Like have a article season 1, 2, etc episodes.--La gloria è a dio 01:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We haven't gotten to the point where we can make articles on individual episodes. PullToOpen^Talk 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The main article for the Simpsons is little more than a stub with a list of character names. It doesnt make sence to create articles for individual episodes if the show itself has so little information. Also since none of the main characters have articles, a very minor character such as Tatum would not be considered notable. An article with a list of simpson episodes is one thing (and given the length of series, it may take more than one if brief discriptions are included), but individual articles would be too much at this point. -- Creol(talk) 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we haven't "gotten" to the point where we can make article for individual episodes then why not start now? Wikipedia SE is constantly growing and this kind of thing is catered for on Wikipedia English so why not here? Xania 16:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple English Wikipedia is not another English Wikipedia. Simple English Wikipedia is currently focusing on articles on the most common subjects. Also, as Creol pointed out, the series' article is already very short and provides little information. Articles about episodes can wait until the article about the series provides enough information that we as editors don't have to assume that the reader already knows who is who and what is what. J Di 19:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks a lot Xania. --La gloria è a dio 18:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that wikipedia simple is not another wikipedia. We should not be writing about things only well known in one area. The simpsons is not just in english. It is also well known in non-english speaking countries and that is why your comment is not a good reason to delete it. --La gloria è a dio 19:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This article isn't about The Simpsons; it's about a television episode. Nothing out of the ordinary either. J Di 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it's not from a Wikimedia project (although they are GFDL-licensed), we also need to provide attribution to the original authors under GFDL terms. Archer7 - talk 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't, sorry. We do for everything normally, but it says in the history that Sir James Paul wrote it for Wikia, and he can choose as the author to give it to us. Archer7 - talk 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Creol. Ksbrown^talk 22:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if there was more content on the page, and/or more articles on the wiki, then perhaps we could keep, but I vote delete. Jordanhatch 21:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -- Creol(talk) 11:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dredrick Tatum (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This has been nominated already with the deletion tag, but has not been mentioned on here. Too minor article. Doesn't belong on Simple yet. Jordanhatch 21:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is included in the nomination for The Homer they Fall, here. J Di 21:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neural yes, the article is not great, but it looks like it does not refer to just one episode. IMO, it should be extended, to include more info. -- Eptalon 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as part of original RfD (4 delete, 2 keep, 1 neutral) -- Creol(talk) 11:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Words beginning with A (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Not really the best thing to have a list for; it could go on forever and might encourage people to write dictionary definitions for the words that don't have articles. J Di 14:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete else, we might end up with a list of all words of the language. Something for wiktionary. not for wikipedia. -- Eptalon 14:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nom, but questioning a QD/Blanked on the article. The main reason for the questioning is the fact that the creater blanked it after multiple rfd/remove rfd's. The blank was not due to reasons listed under G7. The creator fully intended to create the article and seems to only of blanked it because she was getting talked to about it. -- Creol(talk) 15:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Xania 16:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Per above. --La gloria è a dio 18:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I say we counter this article with an article entitled: "Words That do not Begin With A.APT41790 03:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it will be too big and more for a dicitionary. Ksbrown^talk 22:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is so Wikitionary Jordanhatch

'Deleted --- Eptalon 01:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is claimed that pope John IX died that year, information which looks false. There is little else useful information on the page, hence we might delete it. -- Eptalon 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete John IX was pope until 900, when he died (unexpectedly); Steven VI(I) was pope 928-931 (Difference in numbering is because Pope Steven was made pope, but died before his ordination as a bishop). In short, the information given on that page is probably false. Given there is little else useful info here, page might as well be removed. -- Eptalon 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looking at all pages linking to 929 and the en.wiki page for it, 929 was a very slow year. No actual pages (only 2 lists) link data and even en.wiki can only come up with 3 events, and not the one we have listed which is obviously wrong. -- Creol(talk) 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because nothing happened doesn't it make it less of a year. The year still happened. Why can't we copy the things from en.wiki?APT41790 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not about just keeping or deleting; it is about putting things right, too. As outlined, no pope died in 929. There are enough years we already have "were nothing happened". So far, general agreement was to have one cat for 10 years, or even per century, to avoid empty cats. A cat only makes sense when there are a few articles in it. By the looks of things, this catgory could be repalced by 920s, which would combine with 924 --Eptalon 13:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite The year still existed and it is very likely that things did happen in it. Maybe rewrite from the english wikipedia's article. Ksbrown^talk 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a focus on Simple's expansion to more articles. We have articles on 2001, so why not on 929? Jordanhatch 21:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Kept, cleanup added to page. --Eptalon 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Interwiki does what this template does better, so it isn't needed. J Di 17:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I edited it but I agree with you. --ﺵ¤ΑΒΓΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩΩΩ 18:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Creol(talk) 16:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Else someone gets the idea we need one of those for every language -- Eptalon 20:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Redundant due to interwiki links.--TBCΦtalk? 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure Couldn't this be useful as a link to the en.wiki from the SE wiki? For example if the concept can not be easily explained in SE. Or maybe there is a way to redirect between English and Simple English.APT41790 03:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what interwikis are for. Not such a nice template, but more useful -- Eptalon 13:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am nominating the redirect page to be deleted because it is a misspelling. --ﺵ¤ΑΒΓΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩΩΩ 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. I've moved the article from courgrette to zucchini, which is where it was before it was moved. Courgette, the correct spelling, already redirects to zucchini. Putting "courgrette" into Google returns only 425 hits, so the redirect can be speedy deleted as an implausible typing error. J Di 00:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Yes, I am aware of it being a mis-spelling (I deleted, and restored it). IMO it does not take up much space, and could serve (as a redirect) now and then. Of course, if the broad opinion is to delete, I'll re-delete the redirecting page. --Eptalon 00:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had no idea what a zucchini was but I've since found out that it's the American word for courgette. This page should be deleted as I can't understand why anyone would misspell courgette as courgrette unless they're really stupid. Xania 22:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are many ways I could misspell a courgette but that does not look like a frequent one. Ksbrown^talk 22:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future changes (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This looks like original content/speculation, and as such is unsuited to an Encyclopedia -- Eptalon 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above -- Eptalon 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Buildings will be so tall they people willned gravity shoes (sic)"? Sounds like original research to me. PullToOpen^Talk 21:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unverified original research.--TBCΦtalk? 20:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it were verified then this would make an good page but it's not so delete it. Xania 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe in a few centuries this could be an article. It's speculation.
• Delete I'm a bit worried about using liquid hydrogen as a fuel without anything to hold it and it looks like speculation, possibly! ;o) Ksbrown^talk 22:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable director. Also, you might refer to a similar discussion here.-- Tdxiang 10:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be a hoax, or some kind of joke. No Google hits other than Wikipedia mirrors. Probably unencyclopedic SunStar Net 00:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as nonsense that has been deleted so many times in so many forms on English Wikipedia in the past. en:Briefsism has been deleted nine times in the past and is now a protected deleted page. See also this AfD, which lists other AfDs for articles relating to "briefsism". J Di 01:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It must be a hoax. Ksbrown^talk 22:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot (band) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This band is of questionable notability and there is no useful information in the article. The band does not have an en.wiki page and a Google search based on the information that is in the article yields 620 hits (once you remove reba's song with the same title as theirs) and is almost exclusively lyrics of the song. -- Creol(talk) 12:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not seem notable. Dar-Ape 03:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above. Ksbrown^talk 17:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per above -- Eptalon 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ditto.APT41790 03:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wax (growth) (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Dictionary definition that doesn't need its own article. J Di 11:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted (along with wax) as part of dictionary definition cleanup. The simple.wiktionary article was edited to include verb definitions of Wax and all links to wax and wax (growth) were changed to Wikt:wax. -- Creol(talk) 12:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wiktionarypar2 (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

The template is no longer needed; ((wiktionary)) has been modified to do what it does and it is now not used in any pages. J Di 12:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as we already have a template similar. Thank you!-- Tdxiang 09:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily deleted as per QD G6.--TBCΦtalk? 18:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egg vibrator (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Deleted by User:Blockinblox, but was overturned in a deletion review. A more formal discussion should be held here at RFD. PullToOpen^Talk 20:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Result was merge with Vibrator (sensual). J Di 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We should be focusing on more core articles. --Sir James Paul ,La gloria è a dio 20:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also we are not suppose to be another wikipedia. --Sir James Paul ,La gloria è a dio 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there's nothing wrong with this article that a cleanup won't fix. J Di 20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• the vibrator page lists a total of 11 different kinds of vibrators. It is currently about 1.5 screens (of my screen, 1280x1024) in length. It consists of one section of text, and many kinds of lists, and quite a few images. The pages in discussion above, are each about one screen in length, have many images, and mostly text, to explain things. Few to no lists. Therefore I think that merging the two pages above into the vibrator page would probably best suit the needs. The pages, and their history, would continue to exist, but they would be redirects to the vibrator page. This would make the vibrator page more important too. Not merging the pages might lead to 9 other one-screen articles about a certain type of vibrator. Sure, vibrators are non-core, but if people have fun writing about them, let them do it. This project can use any editor available. And this is probably too long to simply say merge. --Eptalon 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article does not meet notability standards. Provided citations can be found in valid source, Merge with Vibrator (sensual). -- Creol(talk) 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / redirect to the vibrator (sensual) article Blockinblox - talk 22:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Vibrator (sensual). We can tidy up the article so it will become less in volume. Sil 09:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sorry for not participating in the previous debates (they were really accute), but I didn't have a chance to. I guess I made a mistake with restoring my quick deleted article, but I was a too young wikipedian at that time. Let's try to tidy up these two article, but since J Di has already worked on my article I'll try to improve the other. Green Tanya 11:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with vibrator (sensual). It certainly is notable enough information to be kept. It makes sense to me to list the different kinds of vibrators on the vibrator page. Perhaps eventually "Types of vibrators" could have its own page. Until then, merging seems like the best option. Tygartl1 01:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with vibrator (sensual), we only allow core articles.-- Tdxiang 09:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or merge a consise but simple version to Vibrator (sensual)#Types of erotic vibrators Ksbrown^talk 17:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If someone like Green Tanya is prepared to clean this up, it should be kept or merged as they see fit. Sue W 01:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Vibrator (sensual). ...Aurora... 11:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with vibrator (sensual). It's best to have this seen with other topics in this subject, rather than have an individual article. Nishkid64 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-spot vibrator (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Deleted by User:Blockinblox, but was overturned in a deletion review. A more formal discussion should be held here at RFD. PullToOpen^Talk 20:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Result was merge with Vibrator (sensual). J Di 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We should be focusing on core articles. Also we are not another wikipedia. --Sir James Paul ,La gloria è a dio 20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there's nothing wrong with this article that a cleanup won't fix. J Di 20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Lengthy explanation at Egg vibrator, above. --Eptalon 21:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article does not meet notability standards. Provided citations can be found in valid source, Merge with Vibrator (sensual). -- Creol(talk) 21:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / redirect to the vibrator (sensual) article Blockinblox - talk 23:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Vibrator (sensual). We can tidy up the article so it will become less in volume. Sil 09:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with vibrator (sensual). It certainly is notable enough information to be kept. It makes sense to me to list the different kinds of vibrators on the vibrator page. Perhaps eventually "Types of vibrators" could have its own page. Until then, merging seems like the best option. Tygartl1 01:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or merge a consise but simple version to Vibrator (sensual)#Types of erotic vibrators, as egg vibrator. Ksbrown^talk 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If someone like Sil would like to clean up and simplify the article (it is not simple, IMO). If they see fit to merge them that would be better. I think that both these articles would fit well into the framework of the current Vibrator (sensual) (which was nicely done BTW).Sue W 01:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Vibrator (sensual). ...Aurora... 11:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with vibrator (sensual). As stated for Egg vibrator, merging would make more sense per WP:CORE. Nishkid64 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]