Those articles should be deleted because they are not core articles. Panda Bear 14:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (I have merged the two other requests into this one, my guess is the verdict will likely be the same on all three articles; but feel free to treat them separately in your replies). I fully agree with Panda Bear, that certain Dragonball Z characters are certainly not a core concern of this wikipedia at the moment. This is especially so, since mangas are serials that may develop many different characters. On the content side, all the articles are about 2-3 screens long. Frieza is about double the size of the other two. A quick look told me that these articles are low on links, both inside the wiki, and to other wikis. Very likely, the language is also complex. This means that it could be simplified. This wiki lives from the contributions of its editors, so if someone takes an interest in Dragonball Z, there will be more articles about Dragonball Z. I very much hope, that if we keep the articles, they will be simplified (and perhaps wikified more, where this is possible), possibly by their original creator. There are definitely too big to be merged into a catchall article. I think we should give the articles a chance, and keep them. They need a complex, and a wikify tag, in any case. --Eptalon 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete. The Dragon Ball Z article is only one sentence and a list of characters. As the main character only has about three lines of text, Zarbon and Dodoria barely need mentioned and while Frieza is a fairly important character, the overall state of the main article doesnt warrant an entire article on him. (and delete the category Frieza's henchmen as well) -- Creol(talk) 13:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - just give it more time. I plan to add pictures in a few weeks. Recoome
• Keep I can make these articles better. Please don't delete them. they are fine the way they are and I too want to add images soon. Zarbon
• Keep - yes please don't delete them. I don't care about Zarbon's though you could delete that. Wiki-star
• Definitely keep Zarbon worked too hard and he will be mad if you delete the pages. Taracka 14:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not bad articles if i may say so myself. YogaKing37
• Super strong keep Well then, everyone is saying keep so I say keep. those articles need cleaning too. El Sparky
• I totally agree with Zarbon please just keep the articles. it would be heavy abuse to just delete them like that. Andymack1986 14:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete it I am a friend of Zarbon and I do not want these pages deleted here. They banned them from wikipedia but don't do it here. Dodoria 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no point just sticking up for your friends. They're pointless on English Wikipedia, so they're also pointless here. Billz (Talk) 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've just looked further into this and have discovered something a little strange about some of the people who have voted for this article and that is that they all joined Simple English Wikipedia today. I am not accusing them of sockpuppetry, but it's certainly very suspicious that these people joined within 39 minutes of each other and voted within five minutes of joining. I'd like to note also that all of these people are begging to keep the article and that YogaKing37 keeps trying to close the RFD when he has no power to do so. I have noticed how the signatures of these users are similar. All of them do not use the standard ~~~~ as instructed. Instead they all use a link to their user page (Except YogaKing37), possibly in an attempt to hide the time of their vote. Also, several of these other users keep reverting this page to delete my comments, which leads me to think that they must be guilty, otherwise they wouldn't mind them staying.

• Wiki-star - Joined today and voted exactly one minute after joining.
• Taracka - Joined today and voted exactly two minutes after joining.
• YogaKing37 - Joined today and voted exactly one minute after joining.
• Sweetness34 (El Sparky) - Joined today and voted exactly two minutes after joining.
• Andymack1986 - Joined today and voted exactly two minutes after joining.
• Dodoria - Joined today and voted exactly four minutes after joining.

• Comment - Look at this...Dodoria, Andymack1986, Taracka and Wiki-star --Isis§^(talk) 12:39, 18 June 2007

• I'm filing an RFCU, checkuser, this will determine whether they're socks.-- Tdxiang 02:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've marked their discussions as null, due to the fact that their edits came right after each other.-- Tdxiang 09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed as sockpuppets and blocked.-- Tdxiang 10:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: kept the articles, but put them into the Category Dragon Ball Z. Also marked the main article Dragon Ball Z as needing cleanup (Mainly a listing of names at the moment). Open for requests to merge. IMO there should be more story and less noise in both Dragonball and Dragon Ball Z

We are currently far too small to be having WikiProjects created yet. Included in this nomination are the Category:WikiProject_Taiwan_articles, Template:WikiProject Taiwan, and all associated redirects. Sean William 18:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As you can see in the goal section, one of the goals is to "create missing articles," so I believe we should keep this. And I just left a note on your talkpage, but I'm gonna mention what I said again: The project not only serves as a project to improve Taiwan-related articles, it also helps interwiki translation, although I believe the project isn't functioning yet as I haven't completed the project page.--Jerrypp772000 18:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think there are currently between 20 and 40 different people who do have a named account, and contribute regularly (i.e. at least one edit a week). I do not know this from statistics, but I guess the number looking at the recent changes. Given such a limited number, we certainly do not need a WikiProject for it. I do however think that to coordinate translation/proofreading etc, a common repository/space/scrapbook is useful. If there was no wikiproject we would either have a collection of talk pages where this was done, or some other (perhaps unrelated) page. So I think we should give the idea a chance. We can always delete it in 3 months, when we see that it did not work out (eg. for lack of editors). --Eptalon 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if it's going to help us work together with other projects. However, I'm not sure whether interwiki translation efforts would be better centralised rather than split up into Chinese to English, Russian to English etc. It sounds to me like you'd just end up with a large mess of inactive translation projects. But this project should be given a chance to meet that aim I think. Archer7 - talk 19:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with Sean on this. I think that user talk pages would provide room for coordination, if needed. My definition of an 'active' editor is a lot higher than 1 edit per week, and I am afraid that as Archer mentions there could be a lot of inactive projects. I'm not opposed to projects; however, I believe a need for a project page needs to be demonstrated before creating one. Right now, I don't see a need, there hasn't been a huge influx of Taiwan articles, not a lot of editors on those pages, only a promise. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  20:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The size of our community is just too small. This is a good idea, but who can maintain it?-- Tdxiang 09:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is not logical to have a WikiProject with one member, who is a new comer with no prominant edit history. I disagree with "We are currently far too small to be having WikiProjects" part, but I agree this special case should be deleted. In regard to Jerrypp772000's comment, I would say, yes we can have WikiProjects if they are really going to let some interested users to manage their work about specific topics. However, I believe it is more logical that such types of users make such a decision prior to creating a WikiProject, and not to create a WikiProject beforehand. - Huji ^reply 19:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Maybe after we grow we could start some projects. Does Simple English need this right now? This is a good idea, but... --Isis 20:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. per User:Jerrypp772000 and User:Archer7. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 01:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Per Isis. --'Choos'nink ^TALK 03:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This should be kept if there are a number of people here who are willing to join WikiProject Taiwan. It appears that there's only one interested user in the project, and you really can't have a collaborative project with only one person. The WikiProject is a good idea, but unless there are more people who are interested, then it shouldn't be kept. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: kept, despite a 6:4 vote. Give it a chance. Delete, if there is no develompent or evolution occurring within 3 months time. --Eptalon 12:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone sort this out or should I just speedy it? Archer7 - talk 12:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main problem (if it wasn't clear) isn't the article's subject, but the lack of content and the 'looking like boyfriends' for the other anime bit. Archer7 - talk 19:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very tolerant, and I think that the page might well have its place here some day. I do however think, that at the moment, there are more pressing things to do (look at the list of unsimple pages, for example). I would therefore vote to delete it. --Eptalon 16:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Eptalon. Alright, I change to keep now that it's been expanded.--Isis§^(talk) 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I can create a stub on the television show afterwards. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article cleaned up. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been cleaned up and expanded. Problem solved? -- Creol(talk) 06:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so. --Eptalon 09:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's a real article now. --rimshot^talk 08:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, that's looking great now, well done. Archer7 - talk 10:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per current version. And sorry for being late - Huji ^reply 19:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy keep · Tygartl1^·talk· 16:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Towelie is a minor character on South Park, and shouldn't be included in its own article. I suggest a list of South Park characters be created, and then this article can be merged there. Also, see [1]. Towelie does not have its own article on the English Wikipedia; it's part of the list of South Park residents. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but create a list of characters and merge this one there. --Isis§^(talk) 17:40, 17 June 2007
• Determine where it fits best (probably a listing of some sort, may be South Park. Then merge to there, and delete --Eptalon 22:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then merge.-- Tdxiang 02:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to South Park#Other characters and redirect. -- Creol(talk) 13:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per lack of conent (too short article).- Huji ^reply 16:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are shorter articles in this Wikipedia, for examle Fort Bragg, California, besides we already started the process --Eptalon 23:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete then merge. It makes a lot more sense to have fewer articles and more content then small articles with little content.--Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Content merged with South Park, article deleted. Archer7 - talk 10:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page largely explaining where the name Nicholas is from; I have written a page Nicholas of Myra, dealing with Saint Nicholas (other than the Russian Nicholas I), who is also considered a Saint. I therefore propose to delete this page; perhaps merging the info on the name into the newly created page. --Eptalon 15:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- see above --Eptalon 15:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - I'm kind of split with this. I don't see what this page is needed for, yet I don't think it should be deleted. --Isis§^(talk)
• Delete, per Eptalon.-- Tdxiang 02:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Keep the very first lines, change the remaining into a disambig page, linking to Nicholas of Myra, Nicholas II of Russia, and perhaps Nicholas Sarkozy. Remove the link on the bottom. - Huji ^reply 12:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate - There are enough possible entries for people named Nickolas to warrant a simple page stating it is a male name with a disambiguation list. Huji listed several, there are also 5 popes named Nickolas (though we don't have articles on any of them yet), Santa Claus (seperate article from St. Nickolas of Myra, but a likely enough mislink) and there is likely to be other people we haven't even remembered. -- Creol(talk) 13:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  According to enWP: 5 popes, one antipope; 4 patriarchs of Constantinople; 3 regents; 2-4 saints; one ancient greek (and no, Sakozy is not in yet)..; deWP has about 4 screens of them; including placenames --Eptalon 16:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: replaced with disambiguation page, as this comes closest ot keeping. Can someone come up with subs for the 15 redlinks created? :)--Eptalon 11:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, we need to stay far, far away from non-babel userboxes. Userboxes have caused a huge amount of strife at en.wiki, and I think it would be wonderful if we could avoid the whole problem. Sean William 15:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - does it really hurt anything? I really wouldn't call them a "problem". --Isis 16:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - In contrast to English Wikipedia, Simple English is a much smaller community. The number of active admins is so high, that I believe they can manage through such issues, and control the usage of non-babel userboxes. It is good to know, as well, that not having that page doesn't prohibit creating and using non-babel user boxes. So all in all, although I see no use of this page right now, I see no harm in it as well. - Huji ^reply 18:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete. In time to come, if our community gets bigger, I'm worried about people quarrelling over userboxes, like the Great Userbox War, "pedo-box" and many other unhappy political events. We can just place userboxes on our userpages. I'm not totally opposing this, but I'm just concerned that in the long run, things may worsen.-- Tdxiang 02:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, leaning to keep it not hurting the project, but it's not helping the project, either. It might become useful in the future, but not now. --Choosnink (talk · contribs)02:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps I am going a bit far to justify my verdict here. This is a small wikipedia project. There are very few regular contributors. To make this project more interesting to contributors, there are user pages. On these, the users can give an image of themselves to the rest of the community. In that view, I think userboxes may help attract new editors. Therefore, I do not think that deleting alll non-language-related userboxes. I therefore think we should keep the ones we have now. When we get new ones, however, we should see that they are simple to understand, to fit this project. --Eptalon 14:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment userpages don't really make the project, and if fact is true, the people would really only be making accounts because of userboxes. And people can manually create their on userboxes, much easier so we CAN delete. However, your fact is still correct. --User:Choosnink 17:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Moderate Keep. The english wikipedia has non-Babel userboxes and still gets along pretty well. I don't think userboxes will do any harm in here. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 06:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Userboxes have caused quite a bit of problems on the English Wikipedia. Sean William 18:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  True. That's the "pedo-box" war I was talking about.-- Tdxiang 04:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:kept--Eptalon 11:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains way too much info on a minor (or a young person under the age of 18), and as other wiki policies go, it is illegal to do this. In adittion, the person descibed in the article isn't notable enough to qualify as an article, Also the only contributor was User:Reinerdiz. (Maybe this user was writing an autobiography of himself, I think.) --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 05:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted (by Billz). I will therefore archive it. --Eptalon 11:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the items listed are random household items (and red links), there are no other wikis with an article of this title, and a Google search brings up no hits. I can think of no possible uses of this article. --Isis 15:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Creol(talk) 21:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominator -- Isis 15:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator - Huji ^reply 18:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Evilclown93 19:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination as well. Wikihermit 04:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. --Eptalon 19:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of it is a bunch of original research. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Result of the discussion was delete.-- Tdxiang 02:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Person in question is a local celebrity with little to no notability outside of a limited area. Google only reports 85 hits on the name (including homepage and a comment from the creator on his own en:wp userpage). Page does not exist on en:wp. (page was QD in June 2006 at author's request -- Creol(talk) 01:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(note from author)
I am currently gathering more info about him to put on the Main Wikipedia Page. Also about the google hits...google hits shouldnt matter. Mark Anthony Garrett has more hits than 85, Just because you get a low hits when you type his name but he is all over the internet. And the links on his page (besides his) homesite back up what his article is all about. That page shouldnt be deleted, The Point of Simple Wikipedia is for those wanting to know basic information about a topic, including Mark Anthony Garrett. This page is like a starter leading up to his page on Wikipedia. This article was made in good taste and I dont want to see it deleted because it does not offend anyone and meets all standards as other pages. -User:MarkDonna

• Delete as nominator. -- Creol(talk) 01:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I QD'd this article earlier today and was questioned by author as to why. I deleted per lack of notability, few hits on google. The author did provide more information, however, I still don't think its enough. I would need cited (other than the guy's website), quality sources to be convinced we need this one. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  02:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously nn.Kfc1864 05:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Besides what is already discussed, regarding that the article is a biography of a living person, and having en:WP:BLP, it should be deleted (or even speedy deleted, when it lacks valid and independent sources cited). Huji 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No assertion of notability has been made. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nominator. --Eptalon 09:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for the reasons already discussed. --Isis 13:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I dont think that this page should be deleted because this is an important person, Also when I orginally made the page, others said give more credibilty besides his website. I have provided the info so the page shouldnt be deleted. The page meets wikipedia`s standards. I dont know what more to do... And thats why the page should not be deleted. -User:MarkDonna

  The Other websites that were added only go to further indicate the lack of notability of the subject. In searching for verifiable sources of information on him, you came up with 4 pages which when combined come up with little more than a paragraph about him. One of the links just states he was speaking at the conference at a specific time/date. The most informative of the links (the .pdf) reads as if it was copied directly from his promo package/brochure. None of the links would qualify as reliable second party source as is the basic requirement for notability. This page in no way meets wikipedia's standards for notability nor Biographies of a living person.-- Creol(talk) 23:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stakes are currently 8 deletes, compared to one keep. It is therefore very likely that this page will be deleted. --Eptalon 16:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- Creol(talk) 04:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that our article about sponges is not great. This article here is so poor in information that placing a simple interwiki becomes a problem. After a thorough reading of the enWP sponges, I have no idea what a tube sponge could be (that makes it different from a sponge). I therefore propose this article for deletion, in the hope it will be re-created with more info.

• Delete- no choice really, have I? ;) --Eptalon 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - with sponge, as an example. Huji 18:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with sponge. It has encyclopedic content, so merging would be the best option here. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged to sponge --Eptalon 22:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LDS mission (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I am putting this up for deletion. Sure, I understand this is a mormon movement, even with Google hits coming up, but I would prefer to have it merged into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under (my proposed) section of "missions".-- Tdxiang 10:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Most of the article is describing what LDS is. The part on it's mission is all of two sentences which could easily be merged into the main article. -- Creol(talk) 21:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The page was marked with a QD tag so I didn't realize it was under discussion here. Working under that assumption, I merged the info onto The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under the section heading "Missions" and redirected LDS mission to that page. It sounds like the problem is solved and, unless there are any objections, the RfD can be closed. · Tygartl1^·talk· 00:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: See bove, merged into main article --Eptalon 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted because of a couple of reasons. First, a Google search doesn't show up anything, secondly, it's uncited, so I have no clue whether it is real. Evilclown93 15:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google search brings up results if you type in "Video Relay System", which is its proper name. Isis 15:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree about Google results with Isis. The article is acceptable as a stub. - Huji ^reply 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although I don't spend as much time with the deaf/Hard of Hearing as I used to, I am very aware of this service. I will attempt to work on citing it. --DizFreak 19:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept --Eptalon 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No page on planetary wind belst exist on en.wiki, and this term doesn't seem to be used in any of the articles here or on en.wiki. This should be deleted, or renamed so that it encompasses many more wind-related terms. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge all linked pages (most are one sentence pages stating they are windbelts) into a section in the article wind. -- Creol(talk) 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into article wind. —This unsigned comment was added by Tdxiang (talk • contribs) 22:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Categorize! If the content is correct (I mean, if those are really the names of major planetary wind belts) then we can put them all in a category named Planetary wind belds, under category:winds. I will do it if we reach a consensus on this. Huji 03:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• (The link in the title is unnecessary if the same link is one line below it). Just because there is no article in EnWP yet, does not mean that the topic is not important. A search at google revealed that such belts do in fact exist. See here, for an example. As it is now, the page is merely a listing. If it were not deleted, it should be extended to explain more of these phenomena. I think it is sufficiently different from wind, to warrant its own existence. Therefore my vote on this one is to keep & extend. If it has not been extended within a month or two, we can still delete it. --Eptalon 09:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not deleted, renaming it would be best. The link you provided does not explicitly categorize them under "planetary wind belts" but as "Planetary scale tropospheric systems" or more specifically under "General global circulation". Nishkid64 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the corresponding enWP articles are w:Prevailing winds and w:Atmospheric circulation. --rimshot^talk 10:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge article and all linked pages to wind. Notwithstanding the fact that these might one day warrant separate articles, the content is just not there yet. Putting it all on one page will make the information easier accessible, which should be the major criterion in my opinion. --rimshot^talk 10:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Kept for now, marked with mergeto Wind, already did the merging for the Planetary wind belts --Eptalon 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a short, unreferenced article, with no interwikis. The validity of the content and its notability cannot be verified. Huji 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nominator.-- Tdxiang 02:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought per naminator means as the nominator, but you have used it with the meaning of just like the nominator. Am I misunderstanding the phrase? Huji 03:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Per nominator would be that his reasons are the same as those stated by the nominator (..as per what was said.) As the nominator is a seperate reasoning from per the nominator. -- Creol(talk) 03:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to Nurse, if the info is considered important enough --Eptalon 08:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to Nurse per Eptalon. If it's useful information, then we can have a separate section at Nurse regarding nursing in Australia. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Information merged to Nurse, Article deleted. -- Creol(talk) 14:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this looks like a listing of laboratory equiment (which is supposedly present in most chemical laboratories. However, there is no explanation as to what it is, or what the items are supposedly good for. Also, some of the intems are red links. In short, I think this article should be deleted. It can be recreated in a better form afterwads, if anyone feels like it.

• Delete - see above --Eptalon 13:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. redundant to Category:Laboratory equipment and no context.--Werdan7^{T @} 15:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is more like a list. Perhaps move it to List of chemical apparatus?-- Tdxiang 06:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Lists are used not only for categorizing (listing) existing articles, but as a means for developing future related articles (en:WP:LIST). I believe renaming the article to "List of common chemical apparatus" or a similar name, and adding a definition about the list, will solve the problem. Huji 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I love lists although most Wikipedians hate them but as much of this information is redundant it's not needed. Xania 22:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename to "List of chemical apparatus". Common is a subjective term, and shouldn't really be used for an article title. If possible, we can incorporate a greater number of apparatuses into "List of chemical apparatus". Nishkid64 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nominator --Isis

Result: Deleted -- Creol(talk) 14:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4Kids (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

It is a short unrefenreced article about a subject with an unclarified notability. Huji 18:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. ONaNcle 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ONaNcle, it is a good idea to explain why you think the article should be kept. This is because we are seeking consensus here, not simply counting votes. Thanks Huji 21:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Being short should never be grounds for deletion if there is usable information and room for expansion. As the production company responsible for many of the most well known Anime shows on American television for children, it is certainly notable. Its notability in increased for also being the main source of criticism based on the editing practices used in adapting a series from Japanese television to American (and UK/Irish) television. Being the source and owner of a multi-hour nationally syndicated block of television shown on a major US network (4Kids TV on the Fox network) also adds to notability. I expanded the article (as well as wikified, cats, iw, infobox) to include many of these subjects already and there are still areas from the en:wp article about the company which can be added to the article. -- Creol(talk) 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Creol's changes. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  02:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:I canceled my request for deletion, per changes made to the article by Creol. Huji 07:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic terrorism is a short article without a neutral point of view. This isn't very useful and the article should be deleted rather than left alone for people to try and correct it.

I don't believe this article is a "core article". I don't think this wiki is ready for a page for every episode of every tv show. I can't recall any recent rfd on a similar subject and want to see what the community thinks about this.

• Delete as nominator. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at this time, unless it becomes standard for such pages to exist. Majorly (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely not a core article. The only precedence I can think of was when I put a Star Trek:DS9 episode up for deletion (here). I think it's a slippery slope to be adding articles on TV episodes. Besides, this isn't what Simple English is about. We should be used as a resource to help people understand difficult concepts in simpler language. Frankly, I feel that we've got more important things to be working on than the SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. At this stage in our development, we should be focusing on quality, not quantity. · Tygartl1^·talk· 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These articles are seen on en.wiki and haven't been deleted due to the sheer number of such articles there. Here, it's another story, and I don't think we need to clutter up the encyclopedia with unimportant TV episode articles. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Articles such as this one would certainly be worth keeping. I see however several problems with this article. It is not a core subject here to provide the content summary of certain episodes of certain serials. Notwithstanding, I think the article is poorly written and could be improved quite a bit. Since the select few editors we have are usually busy with other articles, I think we can safely delete this article for now. --Eptalon 20:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not worth keeping. If it were English Wikipedia, I would say keep, but Simple English Wikipedia doesn't need articles such as this one.

• Delete. Not a core article. Also has the wrong title for a article. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 04:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted --Eptalon 09:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice and useful guide, but I reccommend that we delete it and move it to SE Wikibooks.-- Tdxiang 04:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the page came from Wikibooks, but I would like to try and modify it for here. Revised title would be Energy conservation at home. -- Clarity 04:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a move to wikibooks would be a good thing; Especially since over here, Energy is mostly seen in its definition from physics. It is therefore not about using replacing light bulbs by other sources of light. Over here, most "energy" is probably wasted by heating the envirnoment, ie. not properly insulating buildings. --Eptalon 10:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The article comes across as more of a guide to me, than an article, so I'd agree to transwiki-ing it to Simple English Wikibooks. Majorly (hot!) 10:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although only few people voted on this, the consesus seems to be to move this to wikibooks.--Eptalon 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just one more agreement. move to wikibooks. It seems like a guide, not an encyclopedia article. Isis 23:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: I have copied over the contents to Wikibooks (here) and deleted the page in Simple Wikipedia. --Eptalon 10:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not discuss why this is a notable military formation. A google search comes up with very few legitmate hits. Nothing links to this page. If the page does need to exist, it should be merged with the Waffen SS page. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  17:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  17:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not assert notability and there appear to be very few outside sources. · Tygartl1^·talk· 17:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Nishkid64 18:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Waffen-SS. In total there were 38 divisions of the Waffen-SS; the German entry has them all, probably with half a screen or more per entry. Unless we find someone able to provide a translation for all of them (ie. more than 3- sentence articles); I think the first step would be to list them all in the Waffen-SS page. --Eptalon 18:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps for now we could have a sub-section of Waffen-SS titled "Notable divisions". That section could contain information on the 23rd Waffen and we can combine it with some other information from en.wiki (if it's there; I didn't check). Nishkid64 20:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    With such a thing in mind, i have started to elaborate on the Waffen-SS; Anyone in the mood to write something about the SA? (Sturmabteilung?--Eptalon 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and the full listing is here, just as a reference. --Eptalon 12:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the whole fuckin' Wikipedia! I don't care. Fuck it!--80.213.213.126 19:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vote above is invalid, as it was given by an unnamed editor. The user has been blocked for being rude towards an editor (tygartl1) here as well. --Eptalon 19:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another proof of rudeness towards a user of this ip above is here --Eptalon 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article. I can't see why it should be deleted.--Wiking 21:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it!--The Nordic Flame 22:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's really necessary to have an article on a division of the SS, when we can just expand the existing Waffen-SS page by introducing all of the divisions there. It would seem like a more logical thing to do. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's necessary to have articles on all the Waffen-SS divisions, just like it's necessary to have articles on every album from a band.--Wiking 23:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albums from bands are completely different from each other. I perceive this divisions to be the same thing, except with some minor differences here and there. (such as date, location, etc.) Nishkid64 (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Keep in mind that Simple English is not another English Wikipedia. Our criteria for what we need to have or not have is stricter. At this time in our development we are trying to focus on core articles. It is certainly not necessary to have articles on every album and every military division. · Tygartl1^·talk· 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The SS divisions are completely different from each other. But do what you want, I really don't care.--Wiking 10:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable. It's own reference states it only existed 5 months and never got past the training stage before being disbanded. (its reference also contradicts the article on date of disbandment.) Of all the divisions to chose from, this one is likely the least notable of the group and yet it is the only one with an article. -- Creol(talk) 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:All those of you that voted to keep the article, please say if you want a separate article or a section in Waffen-SS, with a redirect. Makes things easier. --Eptalon 20:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. oh please delete. Not notable for Wikipedia. Isis 23:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current votes: 5x delete, 2x keep, 1x keep&merge ; I therefore deleted the article--Eptalon 10:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed now that we have SE Wiktionary. It looks like the article failed RfD the first time because SE Wiktionary was not getting many contributions at that point in time. I'm not sure eactly why it failed the second time. Something about keeping it for historical reasons. I don't think we need it at all. The page has pretty much been abandoned. Here's a link to the first nomination (scroll down a little to find it...) and here's a link to the second nomination. · Tygartl1^·talk· 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. · Tygartl1^·talk· 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  19:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per nomination --Eptalon 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because all the useful information is at Wikipedia:Word list abbreviations--Werdan7^{T @} 21:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Werdan7. Majorly (hot!) 10:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: 1/2 the page is on the word list abbreviations page and Wikipedia:VOA Special English Word Book covers what would be on the rest of the page. -- Creol(talk) 11:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Werdan7. It doesn't seem to be needed. Nishkid64 18:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless to the extent of stupid. Isis 22:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted. · Tygartl1^·talk· 14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Names (edit|[[Talk:Category:Names|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

These entries list names, where the name comes from, and perhaps what the name means. In my opinion, this information does not belong into a general-purpose encyclopedia; I therefore think these articles should be deleted. They may be moved to another suitable Wikiproject, if desired. --Eptalon 11:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Perhaps after moving) --Eptalon 11:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.-- Tdxiang 10:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question/comment - Are you proposing we delete:

1. all of the subcategories under Category:Names (this would result in the same number of articles but they are all in the Category:Names) or
2. all of the articles in the subcategories of Category:Names (this would delete all of the articles that are in Category:English Names, French Names, Gaelic Names, German Names, Hebrew Names, Latin Names--leaving only the articles that are in Categpry:Names) or
3. all of the articles in the Category:Names (thus resulting in the deletion of Category:Names) or
4. something else entirely?

I ask only because I am confused by your wording and do not know exactly what you are proposing we do. Thanks. · Tygartl1^·talk· 22:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sidenote: if the subcategories are kept, the Ns all need to be changed to ns (for example, English Names-->English names). It's really not worth going through the effort of changing them until we know if they are being kept or deleted. · Tygartl1^·talk· 02:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tygartl1. I am suggesting that we delete Category:Names. We leave the sub-categories untouched. :) Hope this clears any misunderstanding.-- Tdxiang 09:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Eptalon, what do you suggest?-- Tdxiang 09:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the currenlty 15 articles in category Names, 8 look like they are worth keeping (one is a redirect). If we find (or make) another category for these, the whole cat:Names, with all subcats, and all articles can be deleted. SEWp is not the place to look up where the name Max came from, what it might mean, and if there were any notable people with that name. --Eptalon 10:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Anonymity, Family name, Given name, Maiden name, Name, Nickname, Pen name, Pseudonym, Stage name. We could try to find them new homes, but I don't see much harm in keeping them in the Category:Names. We can use this vote to set precedence in not having articles on first and last names and delete any new additions to Category:Names in the future which are actual names. Delete all other articles in the Category:Names. Delete the categories English Names, French Names, Gaelic Names, German Names, Hebrew Names, Latin Names and all articles that are in them. · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tygartl1's proposal; keep the articles listed, delete the other articles; subcategories and articles in them. --Eptalon 09:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tygartl1's proposal. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  19:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept the 9 articles Tygartl1 listed, plus Kunya (needs a cat now, but possibly useful content). Frank was/is a disambiguation page, and has been cleaned up (to only list the meanings we actually have here). Diaz also was such a page; however all were red links, so I redirected to Bartolomeu Dias, the only one of the meanings we have. Abraham, Gabriel and Joseph have been rewritten to only fit the Bible category. One or two others also had minor characters from the bible in them. They were deleted. If the character is important enough, the article about him/her will be recreated. Deleted the now obsolete subcategories as well. --Eptalon 18:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exact copy of the english language article;no interwiki links even in en. Very much looks like a vanity page. --Eptalon 17:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original requestor --Eptalon 17:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If one internet blogger can have a page on a wikipedia why can't any blogger have a page? Where do we draw the line, how is popularity and importance measured? It would be good precedent to delete this page, otherwise it's a slippery slope. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  05:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity page, as per Eptalon.-- Tdxiang 10:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Majorly (hot!) 21:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Archer7 - talk 13:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted --Eptalon 10:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

These three pages are copy-pastes from English Wikipedia. The editor who created the pages has had one week to simplify and has made no changes to the pages. Unless someone wants to step up to simplify, they should be deleted. They serve no purpose in their current state. · Tygartl1^·talk· 18:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have simplified Rostov on Don, to a state that I think could be generally acceptable for this Wikipedia. There are still quite a few red links left, and the language is not yet as polished as it could be. I do not know if the generaly bad English is for the original translation (I cannot speak Russian). In short, I no longer see a need to delete the article. Therefore Keep & improve for Rostov on Don. --Eptalon 20:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• NKVD is most certainly a notable article. Many people from the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc are now learning English. It might take a long time to simplify this article and bring it into a form which is good for our Wikipedia. I therefore see two possible choices: Either Keep & Tag (Major effort needed) or get someone with a decent knowledge of the subject or the Russian language re-translate it (also a major effort). In the second case, the article we have now should be deleted, once the translation is done. --Eptalon 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Move to Wiktionary for Amnesty. --Eptalon 21:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted amnesty, kept the two others --Eptalon 10:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]