Metapedia

There's no proof presented that this web site should have its own article. There are just 461 unique Google hits ^{(hits 1 to 100)(hits 401 to 460)} ... and some of those are for sites that have confused Metapedia with our own Meta-Wiki. A. B. ^(talk) 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

• en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metapedia

--A. B. ^(talk) 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable competitive wiki encyclopedia of Wikipedia. No problem with secondary sources. --Dezidor 17:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great -- can you supply something in English that's from reliable, secondary source? Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 17:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Czech and Swedish. --Dezidor 17:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., on re-reading my own comment above, "Great" might have sounded sarcastic -- I did not mean it that way; I meant it in a positive sense. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not care about some "great". You surprized me that you want sources in English. For example Czech Wikipedia only prefer Czech sources but also accept source in other languages. --Dezidor 18:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dezidor, could you give links to the reliable and independent reviews in non-English languages here please? - Huji ^reply 20:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that present various points of view: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] .... --Dezidor 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete small and unimportant wiki. Article obviously spam. --Isis§^(talk) 18:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam.Oysterguitarist 03:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - in spite of the many links provided by Dezidor in the above, it doesn't seem that any of them were a robust review from a professional source (as far as I could translate them). The notability problem pushes me towards voting for deleting the article. - Huji ^reply 15:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete nn, and copyvio--Werdan7^{T @} 00:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Too funny someone seeing copyvio about free material... Keep. ONaNcle 12:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What's funny about it? The original authors of the mission statement must be attributed, which didn't happen.--Werdan7^{T @} 14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable and half the page is the mission statement. Jordanhatch - talk 21:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: delete. · Tygartl1^·talk· 18:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikislavia

There's no proof this site is important enough to get its own article. Google returns just 46 hits, none of them from a reliable source. A. B. ^(talk) 17:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

• See extensive discussion at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Wikislavia
• Deletion log for the Wikislavia article on en.wikipedia -- deleted 4 times

A. B. ^(talk) 17:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, pure attempt at POV-pushing, brought here to circumvent its deletion at EnWP. Might even support a quick deletion. Phaedriel - 17:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable fork of Russian Wikipedia with 133 103 articles. More google hits than A. B. claims, see Google hits for Викиславия in Cyrillic alphabet. --Dezidor 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable references in English that we can read? How many of those 133k pages are scraped from site like Wikipedia and how many are original content?

Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 17:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 700 or so google hits isn't very much, either. --Isis§^(talk) 17:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Phaedriel. And Isis, right. 700 google hits is not that much. ionas ^talk _contribs 17:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Isis. - Huji ^reply 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Oysterguitarist 03:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't be too notable, our article is the first google result.--Werdan7^{T @} 01:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Phaedriel's reasoning. Maxim 13:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: delete. · Tygartl1^·talk· 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Days of Abby Hayes

Not notable. Google search brings up about 128,000 results. Overall, not the kind of article that belongs in Simple. --Isis§^(talk) 21:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. --Isis§^(talk) 21:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Oysterguitarist 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral unknown in France but we could wait a little if it's notable somewhere else. ONaNcle 08:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Those Google results show basic notability, it's just the article needs sources, so Improve it and be BOLD! ionas ^talk _contribs 15:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - per Ionas68224. --Dezidor 17:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, admins, Dezidor is not another sock of me. ionas ^talk _contribs 17:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of someone? Of course not! I am administrator of Czech Wikipedia? --Dezidor 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said that to clarify that Dezidor was not another sockpuppet like David. ionas ^talk _contribs 03:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Actually, that Google Search linked above was not good enough. This one, with 29,300 hits is more accurate. Anyways, we shouldn't measure the notability of a subject based on the number of Google hits. As long as there is no reliable source referenced (preferably a review or criticism), we cannot be sure about the notability of this subject. - Huji ^reply 21:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Huji. Phaedriel - 11:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete, non-notable stub and too many brackets to be understandable. Jordanhatch - talk 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: delete. · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Warner

Not notable. --Isis§^(talk) 18:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. --Isis§^(talk) 18:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the person in question here doesn't seem to be notable enough. Besides, I think that article should become a disambig, because we have more than one Craig Warner; even more than Craig Warner in cinema world (example). - Huji ^reply 19:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the current version, until we need to recreate it with different content for another notable people who share the same name. Phaedriel - 19:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, probably turn into disambig. Oysterguitarist 02:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reason for keeping. --Dezidor 17:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Deleted--Eptalon 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Armenia-bio-stub

template subdivides articles which would otherwise use ((stub)) and is thus unneccessary. It is presently used by only 3 articles, each of which are now also in the ((stub)) template -barliner--talk--contribs- 13:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as already community decided on. ionas ^talk _contribs 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - so far we do not classify stubs. Whether we should is a different question --Eptalon 09:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Eptalon mirrors my thoughts accurately. Phaedriel - 11:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - put all the people in this category in the already existent Category:Armenian people, as simple grows we can always reintroduce this category. -- LoNdIuM   ^{Speak to me}_{Contributions} -- 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Eptalon. Jordanhatch - talk 22:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted · Tygartl1^·talk· 20:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BARNEY HEBREW

Searching Google for that name has few results, and it doesn't turn out to be mentioned on En WP as well. I request its deletion due to lack of useful content, and not being a notable subject. - Huji ^reply 14:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not useful content and in this case, I can´t find any sources. --Dezidor 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only thing I've seen that may prove it is real is a ten minute YouTube video. So, yes, delete. Not notable. --Isis§^(talk) 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have never heard of it, it doesn't even have a article in the main English wikipedia and I think it might just be a Hebrew version of Barney the Dinosaur. -- LoNdIuM   ^{Speak to me}_{Contributions}
• I love you, you love me Del-eeeete! as nonsense, and possibly hoax, I have seen Barney & Friends, but never anything called "BARNEY HEBREW".ionas ^talk _contribs 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on the (above mentioned)YouTube video, I think it is actually Barney & Friends in Hebrew. --Isis§^(talk) 18:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Super Sonic Speedy Delete per all the above. Panda Bear | Talk | Changes 18:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No context, no claims of notability, unverifiable, etc.--Werdan7^{T @} 00:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not-notable, unverifiable, probably a hoax. Oysterguitarist 02:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy delete "BARNEY HEBREW" and "List of Barney Hebrew episodes and videos". Doesn't exist. · Tygartl1^·talk· 18:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Azeez Adalemo

Abdul Azeez Adalemo

Abdul Rauf Adedamola

Adamu Ibn Abdulmumini

Alhaji Abubakar

Although the articles are good written, I'm afraid the subjects are not notable enough. Google seems to support this idea (repeat the search for other titles please).

I thought I should also express that, this time, I'm really in doubt if we should really delete them. I'm asking here for your opinion, so please don't hesitate to oppose with good reasons. - Huji ^reply 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sorry Huji, can't think of any reasons to keep. Minor colonial politicians, and at least one entry seems copied from Who's Who ---barliner--talk--contribs- 14:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, If the articles are deleted, Because the same procedure and source for inspiration was used for most of my recent articles, I ask that they all should be deleted. They are mostly legislators, regional legislators, and there are far more less important people than regional legislators on Wikipedia. Including on the list is an Emir(basically, ruler). I was not a fan of En Wikipedia and I hate to go through the same process of writing and seeing people who do not have indepth understanding of Nigeria ruin it. I am sorry if I am bitter but that is my point.

Please kindly delete all my articles.

Delete the articles as per copyvio and all other articles I wrote.

Good luck. Okanlawon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okanlawon (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okanlawon, I think you've taken some things personal. I'm going to write to you on your talk page. - Huji ^reply 16:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important: Regarding what Okanlawon said, it seems the articles in question violate copyright and should be deleted. - Huji ^reply 18:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it is a copyvio then it should be deleted. Oysterguitarist 00:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - If it is copyvio, delete as copyvio. --Dezidor 17:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: All deleted as copyvio - Tangotango (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of all F1 World Champions

List of all F1 World Champions (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Except for name of constructor the info was available at List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions. There was a proposal, not discussed since February 2007 to merge these two articles. This has now been done hence RfD -barliner--talk--contribs- 15:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge the info, then make the first one a redirect to the second one. If everyone agrees, I will do that. - Huji ^reply 16:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had added the merge tags some time ago. Once merged, it is supposed to be redirected, not listed for deletion, per WP:MM. Blockinblox - talk 16:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Blockinblox. As the info has already been merged I want to withdraw the rfd nomination and have redirected as appropriate. ---barliner--talk--contribs- 17:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:redirected to List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions. --Isis§^(talk) 17:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZXCVBNM

I think these two redirects are not useful. We don't have such redirects on En WP. I've never seen anyone, refering to Querty as ZXCVBNM. So all in all, I think these are useless, and although they don't waiste too much space, they can be deleted. I didn't QD them, becasue I thought we should discuss this. - Huji ^reply 19:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Those redirects are on En WP, see en:QWERTYUIOP. ZXCVBNM, i dunno. ionas ^talk _contribs 03:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for both (and any others). While en:wp may have multiple redirects for the term Querty, only one or two of them seem to actually have pages which refer to them. Should other language keyboards have a layout that requires a redirect from their keyboard layout to the querty one, that layout should also be included in the article to give a reason why it would be redirected there. Redirects should be use for common misspellings or variations of the name of an article (or sub-parts of an article such as characters of a topic who do not warrant their own article being redirected to the main topic where they are included). This article shows no reasoning why these relatively random keystroke choices should redirect to it nor that they are commonly referred to as other names when dealing with the topic. -- Creol(talk) 08:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, these are not likely to be actually used by anyone. They are not completely random, however: they represent the top and bottom rows on a QUERTY keyboard. --rimshot^talk 10:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nobody could remember those if they tried. Jordanhatch - talk 22:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, while certainly not random, they are rather unnecessary. Phaedriel - 05:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Phaedriel. -Isis§^(talk) 12:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Those are not really necessary. Oysterguitarist 03:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete random keyboard phrases ---barliner--talk--contribs- 11:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I wasn't thinking when I created them, so I vote delete. ionas ^talk _contribs 06:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted ZXCVBNM and QWERTYUIOP · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor Restaurant (Port Dover)

The subject is not notable enough. Good to notice that the article was deleted on English Wikipedia as well. - Huji ^reply 18:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, delete Majorly (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would say keep, but how often would a person using SEWP look at an article about a restaurant in Port Dover? --Isis§^(talk) 19:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Isis, what you said is a form of what we seek in notability giudelines. We have the room to keep information about everything; however, information about a thing which is not of interest of the readers of this encyclopedia (with negligible exceptions) is useless, and should be avoided. - Huji ^reply 05:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no question about it. As Isis said, who needs to know about a single restaurant? Jordanhatch - talk 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; our project is not a restaurant guide. Phaedriel - 05:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable ---barliner--talk--contribs- 11:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a restaurant. We have an artiocle for IHOP, why not this?David g. Non-valid vote by a self-proclaimed vandal/test account. · Tygartl1^·talk· 23:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable reasturant. Oysterguitarist 01:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amasebail

I know this was put up for deletion not too long ago, but I think that keeping was a mistake. Not only is the place not notable, but the information on the page is not verifiable because there is almost no information available about this place (see en:Wikipedia:Verifiability). · Tygartl1^·talk·

• Delete, why was it kept? There was only 1 Keep vote. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was kept because the person who nominated (Ionas68224) withdrew his request. · Tygartl1^·talk· 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This just survived a delete vote less than a week ago, when the nominator withdrew his nomination and asked it not be deleted. Blockinblox - talk 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That just means Ionas changed his mind that he wanted it deleted. Anyone else is certainly allowed to re-request a discussion on deletion, which is what I'm doing. · Tygartl1^·talk· 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - at least for now. The last one is less than a week old. --Eptalon 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with anything? If Ionas's withdrawal had been counted simply as a vote to keep rather than closing the vote, it likely would have been deleted. · Tygartl1^·talk· 20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reason to keep it. Oysterguitarist 22:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Blockinblox's original reason for keeping. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 03:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not believe size should ever be a limiting factor on municipalities. We have near unlimited space and no municipality is entirely not notable. -- Creol(talk) 07:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reason to keep.---barliner--talk--contribs- 14:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no article on English wiki, also couldn't search anything about the place using Google. RaNdOm26 16:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is stated in deletion request that the information on the page is not verifiable. I guess this will solve it for now (look at the page title too). - Huji ^reply 03:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So there is a company with the name. The address line lists a place with a slightly different spelling and the city line does not match. I don't think that site solves much of anything. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  13:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Creol. I agree with Tygartl1 that this is a valid re-nomination, I just think it should be kept. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above "delete"s. --Isis§^(talk) 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, not worth it and unverifiable. Majorly (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although this is likely heading towards no consensus. I wish to denote, tho, that the information is completely verifiable; it merely takes a Google search on "Amasebail+Karnakata" to see the place is authenthic, and the information provided, correct. My objection, however, is that this appears to be a very small, barely significant neighborhood (take note that the article's creator simply designs it as "a place"), and therefore not notable enough to deserve an article of its own (in fact, not even an entry on it has ever been created at EnWP, which has a much larger coverage on small places and a huge number of Indian editors). Phaedriel - 06:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsignificant. There doesn't seem to be lots of hope that another editor will rewrite it with lots of new info. Jordanhatch - talk 09:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rewrite per Ionas68224. david g Non-valid vote by a self-proclaimed vandal/test account. · Tygartl1^·talk· 23:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: deleted (60% delete to 40% keep) · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Country and territory templates

already covered by Category:Navigational templates by region. Was automatically created by Template:Flag, but the template has been changed and this category is now empty surplus to requirements -barliner--talk--contribs- 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unnecessary. Phaedriel - 23:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless. Oysterguitarist 03:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: quick deleted per C1 · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kichijyouji

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

Badly written Oysterguitarist 22:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteKeep/rewrite. While I am sorely tempted to want to keep this, and if badly written is a valid reason to remove an article we are instantly down some 10K articles, there is just not any valid information about the section of Tokyo (the precinct, not the city of) to clean the article up enough to keep it in my opinion. Changed: Changed opinion based on Phaedriel locating valid information for rewriting the article. -- Creol(talk) 07:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it is pointless to keep the article in its current form. With that spelling, there is also no article in EnWP, and google turns up most links to Japanese sites (sorry, I do not understand Japanese). The image given in the article is that of Koishikawa Korakuen Garden. I therefore think there are 3 options we have:
  1. We can delete the article
  2. We could ask the original author (Mina) or another Japanese-language editor to expand/rerwrite it.
  3. Faling both, we could turn it into an article on the Koishikava Keruaken Garden (basing ourselves on enWP).

Personally, I am leaning towards a keep, asking the original author to expand-rewrite, or turning it into an article about the garden. Unrelated to this request, I think we could use more Japanese-language editors. :) --Eptalon 10:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We can always recreate if we find material on it. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 03:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite, failing that, delete it. Majorly (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite "badly written" isn't a reason we should exclude things from an oonline encyclopædia. A simple rewrite, that's all that's needed. ionas ^talk _contribs 15:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite, very unencyclopedic, but with a bit of work and research we can fix it up to standards. Jordanhatch - talk 22:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep (tho by all means, let's rewrite it). Actually, EnWP does have an article on it that we could benefit from, it's just located at its appropriate Japanese spelling, Kichijōji; and it has plenty of material to rewrite this entry in Simple English. Now, why on Earth would the original creator of this article illustrate it with the picture of a park located so far away from this neighborhood (which happens to have its own, Inokashira Park) beats me completely. I'll try to have a go on this article this weekend, (and if I have the time, maybe translating and adding a little more material from Japanese sources); but please, don't let this stop anyone who feels like rewriting it! :) Phaedriel - 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to title on enWP, and rewrite. --Isis§^(talk) 12:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Will someone be bold and rewrite it? It'd be nice to clear this out ;-) · Tygartl1^·talk· 02:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working on it, dear Tygart! :) Thanks for reminding me, and for your patience! Phaedriel - 06:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - I've created a mid-sized stub, basing myself on the most relevant parts of the EnWP article, and simplifying it for our purposes. I also took the liberty of fixing some of the resulting red links, and we also have redirects from other spelling forms now. I hope this is enough to archive this VfD already :) Best regards, Phaedriel - 06:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Rewritten and kept · Tygartl1^·talk· 14:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew MacGregor

Article only quotes the "adelaide institute" which seems to be a home for right wing conspiracy theories. The pictures which accompany the external references (andrew macgregor being attacked by a rubber masked devil) cast doubt on his scholarly research. It is impossible to refute many of his claims because he presents no evidence. Events are written off as not being as commonly understood but as "psy-ops" - big government bombing its own citizens, or even shooting its own police women. The "solution" to the London bombngs seems based on an appraisal of Israeli newspapers.

I can find few references to this person on google, and no article on en:wiki. Suggest deleting article as the subject is "not notable". I have a copy of the article as its material may be useful in an article on conspiracy theories  Barliner  talk  14:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article should have independent sources, which is not the case here. The notability of the subject stands in doubt. - Huji ^reply 03:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: While EWP may not have every single notable article, its presence or absence there is an important index on notability. If Google doesn't have much, that makes it even less notable. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 03:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nominator --Eptalon 16:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Majorly (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nominiator. I would also suggest the deletion of other linked articles for "Port Arthur Massacre" conspiracy related articles such as Wendy Scurr and Stewart Beattie as not notable nor verifiable for the same reason as the main article listed for deletion. If we delete the main conspiracy theorist, it would make sense to take care of the other articles which were created with it to push the conspiracy.-- Creol(talk) 09:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if references are found, delete otherwise. ionas ^talk _contribs 15:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unencyclopedic and lacking sources. Jordanhatch - talk 22:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and strongly recommend to put Creol's suggestion regarding the related articles for the other minor conspiracy theorists in practice. Phaedriel - 05:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Isis§^(talk) 12:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted (Wendy Scurr and Stewart Beattie also deleted) · Tygartl1^·talk· 02:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Who Dared

Ten Who Dared (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This is not a notable movie (no awards for example). It doesn't have a page on En WP as well. - Huji ^reply 11:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep needs expansion, also, over a million Google hits. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 15:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong Ionas. You had to search with quotaions, like this and you'd see there are only 848 google results. - Huji ^reply 03:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In its current form it could be quick deleted, I believe, for having little content that does not explain why it is notable. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  15:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Browne34, do you mean "speedy deletion"? I don't thihnk there is such a thing as "quick deletion". Also, consider modifying your sig. It takes up 8 lines of HTML code. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 15:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it's quick deletion see Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Quick_deletion. As for my signature, I have no plans to change it. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no assertion of notability made. --Isis§^(talk) 15:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not explain why it's notable. Oysterguitarist 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We have room for it, it's information, maybe notable to someone some day... Blockinblox - talk 17:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I see only two possibilities for this article. If it is not changed, it should be deleted because in its current state it could be quick deleted per A1. If, and only if, the article is expanded and proves its notability, it can be speedily kept. (This is purposely italicized instead of bolded since it is my second choice.) · Tygartl1^·talk· 22:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep&Extend to our usual 3-4 sentence stub article. Delete if this cannot be done. --Eptalon 12:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is a proper stub now. --rimshot^talk 12:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I still look into it as a non-notable movie. (As we don't have local notabilty guidelines, I'm refering to en:WP:MOVIE.) - Huji ^reply 03:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Made by Disney? Surely that's pretty notable. Majorly (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added a couple of lines and an infobox to it, in order to comply with stub length requirements. Regarding notability, the entry appears just as notable as the average motion picture to me. Made and distributed by a major Film studio; produced by Walt Disney himself; features at least three famous actors, Brian Keith, Ben Johnson and John Beal; and covered by nearly every major online movie website:
  • Rotten Tomatoes
  • IMDb
  • AllMovieGuide
  • Yahoo! Movies

In fact, I think I'll recreate an entry for this at EnWP as well (it had one, but was speedily deleted for being just 6 words). Best regards, Phaedriel - 06:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We've made articles on other movies, why not this one? Jordanhatch - talk 09:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: kept Blockinblox - talk 12:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

transwikied numbers

Delete all of them. I've transwikied all of the numbers above to wiktionary. For now, I've done nothing to the number pages that have even the slightest bit of non-dictionary content. --rimshot^talk 11:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Huji ^reply 13:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination --Eptalon 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - RaNdOm26 20:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (for the most part). As is obvious by all the redlinks, I deleted many of these per the RfD on Dictionary definitions. Trillion was the one exception because as a main number group (1, 10, 100, million, billion, trillion) I was uncertain of it not being capable of being purely dicdef and not encyclopedic. There are still several numbers left which need to be included in this process (see Cat:numbers) -- Creol(talk) 06:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oysterguitarist 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (apparently done!) but recreate any/all if/when encyclopedic information is put there. And a big thank you to Rimshot for helping out with transwikis and the SEWT in general. We have definite signs of life, ladies and gentlemen! Actually, we recently passed the 2000 entry mark, not to mention passing Portuguese Wikinews and Polish and Dutch Wikibooks, among other projects. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 04:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Transwikied to SE Wiktionary and deleted the following articles: eight, eighteen, eleven, ninety-nine, nineteen, nine, twelve, trillion, sixty, sixteen, six, seventeen, fourteen, four. · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knight's Cross

Knight's Cross (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

all info. and more is included in Iron Cross. This article redundant. en:wikipedia combines the two information, and only has a seperate Knight's Cross article for images and a a word for word translation of the act creating the Knight's Cross  Barliner  talk  19:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to delete it anymore, as the easy solution has solved the problem with duplicate info. - Huji ^reply 03:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks solved --Eptalon 16:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Kept as redirect

Japanese train station/manga articles

Articles created by a Japanese user, who I've just blocked. User has continually moved pages to their Japanese titles and filled articles with Japanese despite warnings in both languages. These new articles that they made are EN copy and pastes. I've speedy deleted a few of them, and then found even more. I can see that a few editors have tried to clean some of them up slightly, so I've stopped my mass-deletion and come here. I think that all of these should be deleted: Unless somebody wants to carry on cleaning these up, I say delete them like we do with all other EN copy/pastes. Archer7 - talk 11:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep M×0, Kyoto Station, D.Gray-man, and High and Mighty Color. They are not en:wiki copy-pastes because I stubified them shortly after they were pasted here. Delete any others that have not been changed since being pasted. · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep those on whom User:Tygartl1 has worked and delete the rest if not simplified by the time this AfD is closed. - Huji ^reply 16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all those that have not been simplified to a level suitable for this wikipedia when this rfd is closed. In particular delete direct enWP copy-pastes. --Eptalon 21:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept M×0, Kyoto Station, D.Gray-man, and High and Mighty Color. Deleted all others (Kintetsu-Tambabashi Station, Takeda Station, Kyoto Line, JR Sannomiya Station, Tokyo FM Broadcasting Company, JR Kyoto Line, Meishin Expressway, Karasuma Line, Tozai Line, Sannomiya Station, Category:Tōkaidō Main Line, Category:Railway stations in Kyoto Prefecture, Category:Kyoto Municipal Subway) · Tygartl1^·talk· 16:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two templates (Top, My favourate)

I believe both these templates should be deleted. Templates should be used as a way to prevent copying the same text on many pages. These templates are only used on two user pages (possibly belonging to a same user). Other than that, they have a very general name; my favourate (possibly meaning my favorite) can have a different meaning based on the person my is referring two. I don't see any way to convert them to widely usable templates, so I request their deletion. - Huji ^reply 11:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or otherwise move to User namespace. --rimshot^talk 12:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Rimshot, if the user wants, s/he can recreate it in his or her namespace. · Tygartl1^·talk· 18:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  18:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if they want them they can recreate them in there namespace. Oysterguitarist 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to the userspace and edit the two pages using it. Too many users to count have created user based templates in the template space which have been quietly moved to their userspace and linked accordingly with a polite message telling them the proper way of doing things here. This is no different and certainly does not need an RfD to handle it. -- Creol(talk) 07:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move - per Creol --Eptalon 10:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is namespace material -- Barliner  talk  14:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Creol. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 03:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move, per Creol. --Isis§^(talk) 13:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: move to user namespace (user:Linay/Top and user:Linay/My favourate) and delete Template:Top and Template:My favourate · Tygartl1^·talk· 14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adaminaby

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

Doesn't meet any of the guidelines listed here (population is 230). Also, A1 and A4. I did not QD because this is the first small community I have come across since the guidelines were established, and we never really clarified if an article like this should be QD'ed or RfD'ed. So to be safe, I am RfDing. · Tygartl1^·talk·

Keep. I fail to see how that discussion on an archived page of "Simple talk" constitutes "establishing a guideline". I was not even aware of such a discussion; if I had been, I would have argued against "minimum population requirements". The "result" of the discussion also seems a little forced, by combining several slots into one. Blockinblox - talk 21:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The line "Guideline will be in place till this WP reaches 20.000 pages of content" seems to indicate to me that it is a guideline. Also, you don't address the fact that this article is A1 and A4. · Tygartl1^·talk· 22:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep "SEW guideline on villages" doesn't mean policy. There is no Simple English Wikimapia, so villages are perfectly acceptable. ~~~~ (!!!!) 00:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article does not say why the town is important or anything else except that it exists. To me, it is the equivalent of saying George Bush is a man from Texas. I also thought this is the exact thing we were trying to quell with the above-referenced discussion. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  01:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like this is a town, in NSW, in Australia. I can locate Australia, I find NSW. I have no idea where this town actually is; or why it is here. I do not even know if it has the 230 people, as claimed 230 are from. In its current form, I think we should delete this article. I have no objections against it being kept, if it can be extended to the usual 3-4 sentence stub. And no, I do not consider the vote on Settlements I started (now in the ST archives) as a guideline. --Eptalon 14:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you say the "guideline will be in place until..."? I believe it is a guideline (def: something that is loosely followed), which is different from a policy (def: something that must be followed). I think your wording was correct and I believe we should loosely follow the guidelines that were laid out. · Tygartl1^·talk· 17:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This has nothing to do with this delete req.- I personally felt that some members of the community wanted a tighter grip on small settlements (Which can usually be deleted on the notability anyway). The idea was to create such a document (Which i have not done yet, btw). Users like User:Blockinblox rightly point our that we do have the space, and there is no harm in stubs of small settlements, always provided they are a proper stub. The article above has a sizeable article in EnWP. I think if we can extend ours to coming close to that stub we can can safely keep the article. But that is just my opinion. If the feeling in the community really is that we need a guideline regarding the size of an otherwise non-notable settlement, then one should be created. References to a Simple Talk (archive) look bad. --Eptalon 20:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't think it looks bad and I don't feel the vote was pointless either, which everyone is suggesting. However, no one is addressing the fact that there is no information on this town of 230 people. The article probably could have been QD'ed for A1. Like Browne34 said, how is it any different from simply stating "George Bush is a man from Texas?" And as far as notability goes, it's not even the equivalent of George Bush, it's more like "Joe Schmo is the mayor of a town of 5,000". Come on people, let's be reasonable here. Some places are less notable than others, just as some people are less notable than others. Like it or not, notability is a qualification for articles on Wikipedia. I cannot see how this town meets this qualification. · Tygartl1^·talk· 20:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If memory serves me right, Adaminaby was the town relocated as the construction site for part of one of Australia's major ecological restructuring programs. The town was originally located in what is now one of the major artificial lakes which were created to provide water for the the country (irrigation and drinking) and was moved to higher ground and acted as the base for the entire construction project in that area. It is also home to one of the earliest of Australia's growing collection of "Big Things", a giant trout sculpture which would seem to be highly notable in Australian culture as a tourist attraction. Deleting a town with such a colorful past and a point of local/national notability would seem wrong. -- Creol(talk) 07:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a notable town famous for one of Australia's Big Things. I agree the article should be kept because of its national notability. RaNdOm26 16:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I should probably read the deletion policy, but I think from the other votes I can form my opinion on this one. A casually mentioned plan for a guideline is not the same as a guideline. If we need one, we need to make one, but even then it probably should not be retroactive. Either way, there are some people here who seem to know something about this town (imagine the statistical probabilities against that!) and the stub can be made into a valid article, including information from the EWP article. The fact that it has an EWP article is an index on its notability. It doesn't decide for us, but it is an index. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 04:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: kept · Tygartl1^·talk· 14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment

disambiguation page to all red links. If someone creates an article about more than one of these topics, maybe we can keep this. Plus, we already have an article on the Establishment, we don't need more. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 15:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - As soon as someone creates two of these articles, my vote should be ignored here. I couldn't do that myself, or I would have done. - Huji ^reply 17:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - were this disambig page to be deleted, It would instantly be the #1 most wanted page with 97 other pages currently linked to it. Most of these are due to template inclusion, but that doesn't remove the fact that the page is four times more wanted than our current most wanted page. Were this page deleted, it would need to be immediately recreated in some other form to fill that need. A redlinked disambig page atleast give a basic idea of what the term means, as well as increasing the most wanted hits for several terms which increases the need for them to be created one day. -- Creol(talk) 06:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete, relink institution and kill that redirect. With the changes to what links to it thanks to Rimshot, I shift my opinion to poking it with a pointy stick until it is gone.-- Creol(talk) 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the page as it is now is highly misleading. Most of the links to establishment are from a template, where establishment as "founding of the country" is meant. This meaning isn't even mentioned on the page. As soon as I have created a wiktionary entry, I will change the template to point to the wiktionary. --rimshot^talk 12:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Templates changed, only four links to establishment are left after changing two templates. --rimshot^talk 13:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The way you have said Done in the above, makes me think that you mean this AfD request is closed. However, it is not closed indeed, as far as I know it. We haven't reached consensus about this item, and the main concerns (like disambiguation to all redlinks) are still present. - Huji ^reply 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  In case my words really were ambiguous, I changed them. --rimshot^talk 09:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am against collections of Redlinks. Disambig pages should be created when they are needed (ie. more that two different articles), not beforehand. --Eptalon 12:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think we should create disambuguation pages unless there is a need to. Oysterguitarist 18:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete · Tygartl1^·talk· 18:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project management

Project management (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This may possibly be a topic of some interest, but as it stands the meaning is totally unclear. I would guess the lists below would probably not be helpful to a reader on Simple Wikipedia. I would suggest deletion unless it can be completely rewritten. Hikitsurisan 16:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I compressed the article, removed most of it, rewrote the rest. I think it is usable now as a stub. I have also reduced the number of External links and bibliographic info, to comply with the length of the article. - Huji ^reply 17:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Huji. Good job. :) --Isis§^(talk) 17:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - much better than before --Eptalon 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 18:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept · Tygartl1^·talk· 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AV VoizGame, Rainbow Web, Rainbow Mystery

As far as I figured, these are non-notable games, and the three articles have an advertising tone. Seasons was also among them, but it was emptied by the original author when I requested its quick deletion. I didn't request of quick deletion of the other three, and decided to request others to comment about them. - Huji ^reply 11:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as Copyvio: Rainbow Mystery, Rainbow Web, AV VoizGame. --rimshot^talk 12:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Treated as copyvio --Eptalon 14:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Nancy Drew

I think this talk page should be deleted. The content is only "This is a designted talk space for the Simple English Wikipedia Page Nancy Drew. You may post your questions, ideas, and thoughts in this space. (Note: Please add your thoughts here before posting them on the page !)" I don't find it necessary to go create a talk page just to tell people that "this is a talk page, go post your ideas here!" Panda Bear 08:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk page was quick deleted as it had nothing to do with the article itself. -- Creol(talk) 08:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Starke

I don't believe a trainer for a soccer team is a notable enough person to have their own page. We don't have a lot of professional atheletes even, so it seems strange that a trainer would have his own page. Most sports fans don't even know the name of their team's trainer. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  16:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable person. en didn't have him and couldn't find anything about him in a google search and I don't think anybody would want to research him. Oysterguitarist 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete -please. --Isis§^(talk) 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - thanks --Eptalon 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Football trainers can be notable, but this one really isn't. --rimshot^talk 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We should have a higher threshhold of notability for articles on persons, expecially living persons. Blockinblox - talk 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. · Tygartl1^·talk· 22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Deleted · Tygartl1^·talk· 14:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several cities, judged too small

West Croydon (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Broad Green (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Thornton Heath (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

All the above are within the London Borough of Croydon (which has a population of roughly 350.000), Broad Green looks like the Election district.

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

Small village in Kent, south of Gravesend; IMO worth keeping, just for the disambig with the G-string (which is also called thong)

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

East Sutton (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Emersons Green (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Hopwood, Worcestershire (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Marlow, Buckinghamshire (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

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

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

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

Tiverton (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)
-- Extended; place settled since the Stone Age; Hillfort nearby --Eptalon 22:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of them villages or towns (or settlements) around England. Thong, Marlow, and Redruth are the least developed. I am putting this to a vote, because I am unsure. Thong, Marlow and Redruth are the shortest of the lot, yet I tend to think they can either be extended, or be kept around ot amuse people. They can certainly be extended; just because some are dormitory towns for other cities does not make a reason for deleting them.--Eptalon 21:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep all of them; if it really is a problem we could merge the (relatively well-developed Croydon related articles into Croydon. --Eptalon 21:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The list includes several locations with populations between 10,000 and 15,000. Also in there are the locations of several noted authors (Mary Shelly, TS Elliot), possibly the first town to use gas lights, and the largest (or one of.. not certain) hospital in London. As a large list, it is too hard to determine which is notable and which isn't, so keep them all (only one does not seem to have a en:wp page).-- Creol(talk) 20:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Creol. --Isis§^(talk) 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely Keep These are well written. If we must, merge to Croydon. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 15:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:kept--Eptalon 09:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amasebail

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

Non-notable village, Simple English Wikipedia is not another , and Google test gives only 130 hits. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 00:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete by looking at the google search and looking for it in wikipedia it is clearly not notable. Oysterguitarist 01:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Isis§^(talk) 15:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. - Huji ^reply 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Villages are never non-notable. As I have said before, I envision an encyclopedia some day that includes a gazeteer on every place in the world, without our having to cast subjective judgement on its "notability". It's not like we don't have room. Blockinblox - talk 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion revoked per Blockinblox - talk; please do not delete. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:kept--Eptalon 09:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mu'izzi

Doesn't appear to be notable. No page on English Wikipedia with any of the spellings and variations of the name. Google searches turn up very little, and nothing that I can find about this specific person (see: [21] [22] [23] [24]). · Tygartl1^·talk· 23:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I searched the Persian name as well, and look into some of the references I had at hand. This person doesn't appear to be notable enough, at least to Persian people. - Huji ^reply 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article seems to be about this person. --rimshot^talk 12:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I've moved it the title on english wikipedia and expanded it. Hope nobody minds. --Isis§^(talk) 13:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work! I couldn't find him anywhere! :-) I withdraw my request. · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Result: Speedy keep · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Jigarkhanyan

Non-notable, only one sentence, not important to anything else, and Simple English Wikipedia is not another en.wikipedia. A Yahoo! test only turns up less than 500 hits. j. rand|talk| contribs|email 04:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - Huji ^reply 11:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. --Isis§^(talk) 21:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oysterguitarist 01:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Deleted --Eptalon 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gor Mkhitarian

Not notable - English Wikipedia does not have a page on this guy and a google search turns up 11,000 hits. · Tygartl1^·talk· 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it doesn't fit in any of the criteria of sn:WP:MUSIC, as I get it. - Huji ^reply 16:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely Delete per · Tygartl1^·talk· and per the Wikipedia notability policy. Also, a Yahoo! test turns up only 1,230 hits. bibliotheque (Talk)
• Delete --Yegoyan 04:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Oysterguitarist 05:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. --Isis§^(talk) 21:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:deleted--Eptalon 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Takao

Based on WP:NOT we should limit ourselves to common subjects. A small city doesn't lie within the borders of common subjects, specially when it has no worldwide fame. I'm requesting this page to be deleted, with a little uncertainity. Your comments may lead us to decide better about this article and about the whole wiki. - Huji ^reply 16:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By looking at English wiki plus a quick Google search, Takao isn't a city, it's a mountain in Japan. Takao is an old name for a city in Taiwan with a population over 1 million. We could delete it because it gives wrong info, otherwise, if the article is corrected, it should be kept. RaNdOm26 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If discussing about the notability about cities which I think you want to discuss about, cities like Takao in Taiwan should definitely be kept, second biggest city. If the article is about small city within a metropolitan area, I am inclined to keep them too. RaNdOm26 16:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like Takao is a mountain in Japan, or the old name for a city in Taiwan, or the name of two warships. I therefore think, that this article should be moved/renamed/extended to cover the mountain (and perhaps the location at the base of it). Another article should be created about the Taiwanese city. (Since there are only two meanings, there is no need for a disambig page yet). --Eptalon 20:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge-redirect. The article appears to be about Hachiōji, Tokyo. It is the home of the mountain, contains a campus of the university and is found on both the rail lines listed. The section of Tokyo that makes it up is one of the largest cities in the metropolitan area in both area (185 sq km) and population (over 500K) and would certainly be notable. With over 1/2 a million people, this is anything but a small city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creol (talk • contribs)
• Keep per User:Creol and User:Eptalon. --Isis§^(talk) 21:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Creol. Oysterguitarist 06:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google shows notability; by searching for "Takao Mt. Mount Mountain City" (as not to get the extra results referring to a surname) one gets 157,000 hits. j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 08:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept, current article moved to Mount Takao. Mentioned city at the base. --Eptalon 16:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herl

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

This article is a violation of A4, this is a non-notable group of people, a village with only 250 people, not an article in the English wikipedia, and the only source is in German. Simple English Wikipedia should not have articles that are non-notable, not in the English wikipedia, and only one sentence. -- Ionas68224

• Strongest delete possible. Per nominator. --Isis§^(talk) 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Oysterguitarist 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Huji ^reply 12:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not see anything wrong with keeping articles about small villages, or hamlets. If the community does not think it is worth keeping an article about a hamlet with 300 people, rest assured. This hamlet is part of a bigger collectivity, called Verbandsgemeinde Ruwer, with about 18.500 people (The whole area is known for wines, amongst other things). Like we have done before, we could therefore merge this article into the bigger one, where it could develop as a section). I heard something about a Wikiproject:Cities going on, such things could easily be done by the that project.--Eptalon 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Merged to Ruwer (municipality) with a few others--Eptalon 21:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vpam

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

Non-notable subject, no non-trivial external sources or links, and very complex subject. This article makes references to non-sourced trivial information, plus the article is VERY FAR from a core article. Also, there are only 621 Google hits.--ιονας Δ. ρανδ* 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article has nothing to do in Simple English Wikipedia. - Huji ^reply 13:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Isis§^(talk) 00:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Yegoyan 00:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. reads like an ad--Werdan7^{T @} 05:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete written like an ad. Oysterguitarist 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because if I agree this creation is unuseful now... we'll regret the Vpam deletion when we'll create the entry w:reverse Polish notation. ONaNcle 19:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then, why don't you create the article reverse Polish notation? --Isis§^(talk) 19:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it at once as soon as a consensus renames vpam in w:Prefix notation. ONaNcle 19:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeping it is a good idea. Then rewrite/simplify/adapt, and create the articles about the two other notations (infix, and postfix) --Eptalon 19:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Note:This really looks like prefix notation to me. --Eptalon 19:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:Keep. - Move to prefix notation, and rewrite to fit needs, place in Category:Mathematical notation, do a redirect from Polish notation; create infix notation and postfix notation along the same lines (again link from reverse polish notation to postfix notation. IMO, infix/prefix/postfix are the terms in wider use now, at least in computer science --Eptalon 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byron, Wyoming; Lovell, Wyoming; Basin, Wyoming; Otta, Wyoming; Burlington, Wyoming; Butterfield, Missouri

I don't believe these articles fit the Core Article guideline. They also don't have much in the way of assertions of notability. I don't know if these small towns all need their own page, some have populations under 1,000. I am unsure about whether places can be quick deleted, otherwise I may have done so on a couple of these for sure. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  15:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: very small towns. If we decide to keep articles on towns this small, then we will be keeping millions of small town articles that have no notability. I think we should only keep articles of towns that have some significance in its history. (what about Wiluna, Western Australia for instance?) RaNdOm26 15:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Seeing as minor articles doesn't need to be deleted just because they are not the core articles, I don't think it needs to be deleted. I wasn't aware about how non-core articles are dealt here. RaNdOm26 12:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The only thing which stops me from voting as keep is that, I'm not sure such articles are really needed in a Simple English Wikipedia with its current form. Nevertheless, I'm open to discussing (on a separate page) about the goals of Simple English Wikipedia, again. - Huji ^reply 17:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Big Horn County, Wyoming. Develop the articles/sections there. When one of them gains notabliity in any way, re-create separate article. Delete Butterfield. --Eptalon 13:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC) keep Butterfield as well --Eptalon 12:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Butterfield - Articles don't have to be "Core" to avoid deletion. Let's think far into the future: At some point eventually, say 50 years from now, we can certainly include every town on the planet, like a gazeteer, only better - Why not? Merge the others for now, per Eptalon. Blockinblox - talk 04:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  EnWP had some statistics on the village, of almost 400 people. I added them. Therefore I think keeping may be a good idea. --Eptalon 11:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Big Horn County, Wyoming. --Isis§^(talk) 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:All Except Butterfield merged to Big horn County --Eptalon 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vande Mataram

Even though it scores 131,000 on the Yahoo! test this article has no importance, no categorisation, and is one of the shortest articles in Wikipedia. This does not belong in an encyclopædia that is working on core articles. Ionas68224 23:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep It is expanded, thanks to Isis. -- ιονας Δ.

ρανδ*

• I've expanded it, so keep. --Isis§^(talk) 00:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:kept

Kevin Rolle

An assertion of notability made, so speedy deletion is out of the question. However, I don't think the subject is notable enough for his own article here on Simple English Wikipedia. Per WP:NOT, I think this would be something suitable for en.wiki since the English Wikipedia contains a large collection of articles. In contrast, Simple English Wikipedia is supposed to have articles on common subjects. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per request. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  15:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per request --Eptalon 13:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Isis§^(talk) 12:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, no external sources or links.--ιονας Δ. ρανδ*00:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per request. - Huji ^reply 13:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result:deleted--Eptalon 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]