Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Log 11

From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change

This log documents completed deletion requests from May 2008 to June 2008.

Contents 1 Archives 2 Marking a page for deletion 2.1 Discussed deletion 2.2 Quick deletion 3 Discussions 4 June 2008 4.1 Messiah Foundation International 4.2 Bratz Girlz Really Rock (video game) 4.3 List of mathematical symbols 4.4 BeWelcome 4.5 Guitar Hero: Bratz 4.6 Voting templates 4.7 Category:Current surveys 4.8 Alexander von Zweigbergk Väggö 4.9 Rubén Serrano 4.10 Category:Formula 1 4.11 Wikipedia:Image copyright tags 4.12 Jesse James (disambiguation) 4.13 Template:The Graphic Designer's Barnstar 5 May 2008 5.1 H. John Heinz III 5.2 Network of european technocrats 5.3 Dimitris P. Kraniotis 5.4 Costa Rican Basketball 5.5 Sonic legends 5.6 List of Pokémon

[change] June 2008

[change] Messiah Foundation International

Messiah Foundation International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Could possibly be a spam; no article on en Microchip 11:53, Saturday, June 21 2008 Utc}}

• Actually, I don't think there is a related article in all of Wikipedia... -- RyanCross (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - The google test only returned 31 results. In the results, two websites literally dominated them. Chenzw  Talk  12:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable. Skimming through the article sounds like a spam, but not as bad. No reliable sources either I don't think. -- RyanCross (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Scratch the "not as bad" part. I read it more carefully this time and see it is a spam. -- RyanCross (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Shall we QD it or leave it here? Chenzw  Talk  12:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it's a spam, I think so. Yes. But let's have a few others decide to QD it or continuo this debate first before any action takes place. -- RyanCross (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete It's not notable and written like an advertisement. Bstone (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - not all organizations are notible, this article doesn't show that it is. Delete -- America ^†alk 02:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete possible speedy cause it meets QD A4.--  † ChristianMan16  00:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as it is non-notable spam that, if anything, should go on a regular wikipedia.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  02:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Result: Speedy delete as spam/non-notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

[change] Bratz Girlz Really Rock (video game)

Bratz Girlz Really Rock (video game) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

I generally don't object to us getting articles about video (or computer) games; I just have my doubts here regarding the notability of this (unreleased) game. Perhaps, I am old school, but there are more notable games out there (eg. Arkanoid) that don't have their page yet - It is true, Arkanoid is one of those games generally found in Arcade salons (no idea what these places are called, what I mean are localities with "Video game" machines, that are not slot machines). I'd therefore vote to delete this one; there really are more notable games out there.--Eptalon (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. To Eptalon, they are called Arcades :). This video game has won no awards, and therefore, means it does not meet the notability guidelines outlined at this page. Cheers, Razorflame 23:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Quality and notability are two different things. Many things are considered notable and have not won awards. It is not released yet, but it is not far off, and is bound to have added information over time. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, you just helped solidify the non-notable statement that I just made. Things that haven't been released yet are not notable according to this page. Cheers, Razorflame 23:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • That's simply not true. Being unreleased does not establish non-notability. Spore, an unreleased game, is very, very notable, and has not been released. Duke Nukem Forever is unreleased, and is practically cancelled, but it is known by many. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm...but this game?? Cheers, Razorflame 02:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It's certainly not nearly as notable as those, but being of low or unknown quality or being unreleased shouldn't be used to determine notability. The game is covered. We're really not big enough to quibble over deleting existing games for apparent non-notability, honestly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's been commerically published by a very reputable company (THQ), has already been rated by the ESRB, and will get the reviews and acclaim needed to satisfy WP:N. If this was vaporware I would say delete. Cassandra 23:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable since it was reviewed by some famous companies. That should establish notability right there. Tell me if I'm wrong. Cheers, RyanCross (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep --  † ChristianMan16  05:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The game is already confirmed by THQ --Princess34 (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Microchip 11:32, Saturday, June 21 2008 Utc
• Keep - per Cassandra -- America ^†alk 02:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: keep Oysterguitarist 15:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

[change] List of mathematical symbols

List of mathematical symbols (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

List contains mathmaticial symbols with explanations I cannot understand, therefore it is complex. Futhermore, I don't even know some of the symbols, and I'm in an advanced learning program! This article is clearly beyond our scope, and is too complex. Thank you --  Da Punk '95  talk  20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• neutral While it is complex, there may yet be a place for it on Simple. Perhaps is a simplified form could be found? Bstone (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Very informative, useful, and complete. Maybe a tad bit {{complex}}, but as are hundreds of articles here. Keep as useful -- America ^†alk 22:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, although it could use some simplification, there is no reason for this page to be deleted. It is encyclopedic and informative, even if it is a bit complex at this moment. Just tag it with the {{complex}} tag and someone will simplify it to conform to our needs. Cheers, Razorflame 22:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - perhaps with simplified descriptions. And these are really just the tip of the iceberg. --Eptalon (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Could use some touching up, but no reason why to delete in really. It seems like it belongs this encyclopedia and all it needs is some fixes. -- RyanCross (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Although complex, Wikipedia will be "the sum of all human knowledge". Chenzw  Talk  02:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Although notable this Wikipedia is not the place fort this.--  † ChristianMan16  05:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Can you please state why the article isn't a place for Wikipedia? -- RyanCross (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• It such a complex thing...the Simple English Wikipedia is a Wikipedia learning English as a second language or children just starting to speak English as their first or second language. People who want to know that more than likely have a wonderful grip on the English language and can learn that easily from the Main Wikipedia.--  † ChristianMan16  06:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but work on its current level of complexity. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• keep, usefull --vector ^_^ (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Result:Keep Oysterguitarist 15:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

[change] BeWelcome

BeWelcome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

I would like to nominate this for deletion for a number of reasons. The most important reason why I want to request this article for deletion is because it is not notable. Even though it gets 64,200 hits on Google, most of those are to unreliable sources and/or self-promotion websites. This reason ties into my next reason. The next reason why I want to nominate this article for deletion is because it has been deleted 3 times in the past at the English Wikipedia. While I believe that the English Wikipedia sometimes has stricter notability guidelines than we do, I do not believe that this applies in this case. Some of the most recent deletions were for unnotable biographical articles and/or groups or organizations, and also for non-notability. Razorflame 02:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - This article is no different than an article advertising some neighbourhood interest group. Chenzw  Talk  03:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

:Very weak keep. I would say delete, but the sentence "BeWelcome had about 3,100 members in about 100 countries around the world." Because it's in hundreds of countries and has thousands of members, I can say that it has enough notability. --  ✰AmericanEagle  19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - it's spam. Also, the claim of membership which American Eagle refers to is unverifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Delete. Now that I think of it, without that being confirmed, I'll say delete. --  ✰AmericanEagle  16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I created the article some weeks ago and wanted to expand it but didn't find the time yet. I didn't mean to advertise here but clarify a subjekt. I heard on different occasions people asking "What is BeWelcome?" and thus thought it might be good to explain it to the people by creating a Wikipedia article on it. There have been various newspaper articles [1] written on the subject and there is articles in other languages about it. Deleting it would be from my perspective like deleting articles about mules because other articles about more widespread animals already exist. If there is notable differences, it's something worth to mention, no? I have to admit that I'm new to Wikipedia and want to improve my article (this is why it's a stub and why it's on simple wikipedia, no?). So I'm open for suggestions. I will add the references. Roadtrippin (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to not only add references, but add reliable sources as well. Cheers, Razorflame 19:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails notability. The article seems like a spam to me. Taking a look from a few google results, non of them are reliable, why should the article? Delete. -- RyanCross (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: delete Oysterguitarist 17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[change] Guitar Hero: Bratz

Guitar Hero: Bratz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

The game isn't real, and is not on any major game site. A Link to the Past (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - nothing verifying this game's existence. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reult:qd a4 Oysterguitarist 17:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[change] Voting templates

I believe we're voting on everything again, which according to meta:Don't vote on everything, is bad. It replaces discussions with votes. Not only does it make some people a little uncomfortable with coming up with new suggestions, I also just find it really annoying as well. Although people could argue that people will do the same anyway but without the templates, this didn't happen when we didn't have the templates - people seemed to think more about whether it's a discussion or a vote. I'd like to nominate:

• Template:Oppose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Support (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Strongly support (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Strongly oppose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Weak oppose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Unsupport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These templates are the ones that can cause the problems - I don't think the others in Category:Voting templates are really going to be much of a problem, as many of them are used on RfD only. As I said on RfA, these templates are supposed to make things easier to read I think, but as not everyone uses them, I can't just count the pluses anyway (and it's not that hard to read a vote). Therefore, their only purpose must be to make things look nicer, and I don't think they do that either. They do seem to be causing some problems though. Archer7 - talk 19:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Even though I liked the idea of using the templates on this site, I agree that it has gotten out of hand. We are voting on everything, which is replacing discussion, and we need to eliminate that problem from this site so that we can get on with the discussion aspect of this site. Hope this helps, Razorflame 19:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Changing my deletion to Keep per the completely legitimate keeps that have been relayed below. Razorflame 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment We should have just used the # system that's in place for the enWP RFA system. Cassandra (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I like them, they save the trouble of having to do the markup and I think they look nicer. RazorFlame, you just said delete but you used Delete which is just like the other templates. SwirlBoy39 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Archer, why wouldn't you want to delete {{Delete}} and {{Support}} also? They are voting templates. SwirlBoy39 19:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The delete/keep/merge templates (along with all the others that I haven't listed above) would be kept. It's just the (strongly) support/(strongly) oppose/withdraw support templates that I've nominated. The others don't seem to cause any problems. Archer7 - talk 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Not needed - they're better for multilingual projects. Majorly ^talk 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - they are purely aesthetic and add no actual value to the processes in which they're used. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - It would cause red links everywhere. They do make things look better. They haven't really caused any problems, as you say. They're just voting templates. They're not hurting anything, they just make things look better. Keep --  ✰AmericanEagle  20:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree that peoples' mentality has changed since the introduction of these templates. If people only used them on so-called voting pages (i.e. RfD, RfA, PGA, and PVGA) it'd be one thing. But people are using the templates in place of discussion everywhere. It's quite ridiculous actually. I only hope that people's mentalities haven't changed to the point that they'll just put '''support''' instead of {{support}} if we delete these; I hope that people will once again begin a healthy dialogue on issues that should be discussed like thoughtful Wikipedians--not a mindless, unhelpful one-word reply. · Tygrrr... 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - As one of the people that moved them here, I don't think that they're the problem....it's the editors them selves. All them templates do are show what you think of the situation...It's up to the editor to add an reason or add to/start the discussion. If there's not, that's the editor being lazy.--  † ChristianMan16  00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep For the most part I am in agreement with CM16 (possible for all the parts, but I didn't read that far..). There is nothing wrong with the templates themselves. There is a problem with the people using them. A perfectly good template should not need deleted just because people need to be poked with pointy sticks (multiple times in some cases) for repeatedly abusing them. I get accused of being too blunt.. and ok, not denying any part of that except the "too" part and I can accept that people will use the "too" part.. but this is the exact opposite. Rather than stepping up and telling someone they are an issue with their actions dealing with a certain template, we go about deleting the template. Rather than telling someone to "cut it out", we try to remove what they were causing issues with. If a kid is throwing rocks through your window, you do not remove all the rocks from the neighborhood, you tell the kid to stop throwing rocks. The template isn't the problem, the abuse of the template is. The abuse is a user issue, not a deletion issue. -- Creol(talk) 08:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Creol; ChristianMan16; Swirlboy39, and (adding my $0.02) that they are usful here. --  Da Punk '95  talk  10:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete — they're meretricious eye-candy. They encourage scanning the discussion rather than actually reading it. (Comment; this project also has rather more attention-seeking sigs, so think about reducing the dazzle-factor, folks). Cheers, User:Jack Merridew aka David 13:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Chenzw  Talk  14:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - They are not needed and are being used mostly for decorative reasons. -Djsasso (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per usual. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 13:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Result:keep Oysterguitarist 02:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[change] Category:Current surveys

Category:Current surveys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This is an unused category other than one inactive since 2007. It also goes against the philosophy that polls are evil and that one shouldn't vote on everything. Microchip 17:54, Friday, June 6 2008 Utc

Oh, and: linky-winky! Microchip 18:08, Friday, June 6 2008 Utc

 Comment Voting is bad Razorflame 19:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, no link. Microchip 19:54, Friday, June 6 2008 Utc 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Wiktionary gives the definition of a "survey" as "an examination, especially an official examination, of all the parts or particulars of a thing, with a design to ascertain the condition, quantity, or quality". This means that surveys are not votes, they are more like looking for consensus (or opinion). I will say delete however, as it has been inactive for a long time. Chenzw  Talk  08:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Almost empty cat + surveys = bad. SwirlBoy39 00:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per SwirlBoy39. Surveys are not good for the Wikipedia environment, and having a category of them is almost as bad as voting on every single discussion. Razorflame 20:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Result:deleteOysterguitarist 02:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[change] Alexander von Zweigbergk Väggö

Alexander von Zweigbergk Väggö (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This Swedish model lacks notability. He seems to have an article only because of his connection to Paris Hilton, and the only source mentioned is actually a short gossip column item dealing with that connection. Tim Ross (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable. Notability is not inheirited. -Djsasso (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete notability by association? No thanks. Plus similar article underwent AFD at en-wiki, result was clear delete. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a boyfriend doesn't make you notable. --  ✰AmericanEagle  16:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Tabloids would disagree with you there, American Eagle. Anyways, Delete. Microchip 17:08, Friday, June 6 2008 Utc

" Comment - Very, very, true. --  ✰AmericanEagle  18:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable per above; notability is not inherited. Midorihana (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails en:WP:N and en:WP:V. It is both non-notable AND it doesn't establish notability. Razorflame 02:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: deleteOysterguitarist 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[change] Rubén Serrano

Rubén Serrano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Article har been spammed into more than 60 different wp editions. Now deleted in 9 and with ongoing discussions other places. See en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubén Serrano; and pl:Wikipedia:SDU/Rubén Serrano; and de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/2. Juni 2008#Rubén Serrano. This article is deleted even in es:wp, his native laguage, because of itsspamming/selfpromoting nature. Orland (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - While we do have a much wider notability scale en:wp due to our main aspect of reaching out to users who are learning English but have another language as a mother tongue, the main language wiki of the subject (the language all his works seem to be in and the wiki linked to all of his titles which is a totally different issue I have with this article..) has deleted his article as self promotion. If the Spanish wiki thinks this Spanish writer who wrote several books in Spanish is not notable, I would have to accept that they know the subject matter far better than we can and support their opinion on the matter. That they also deleted all the articles to his books that are linked to in the article is just icing on the cake. -- Creol(talk) 08:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• NOTE. I've re-written the article and taken out everything but the purely informational paragraphs. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 08:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  Still not seeing any notability (press secretary for a small Spanish town who makes occasional local reports to a newpaper and wrote a couple children's books along with a million other people wishing they were the next JK Rowlings). An unsourced cleanup of a non-notable NPOV self promo is still a not notable, unsourced self-promo. -- Creol(talk) 08:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Even though it had some good pictures, as I read it, I didn't notice any clear notability or purpose to keep. So then I must say a weak delete. --  ✰AmericanEagle  19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• REFERENCES: I have added references that demonstrate the validity of the article.--80.32.164.112 (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  There are weak refs to social networking websites or local Madrid community websites, so that's not validity. Szwedzki (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. Tosqueira (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. Interestingly the anon IP providing the "REFERENCES" is editing as a single-purpose account both here and on en-wiki. I suspect further investigation would reveal similar patterns on other Wikipedias. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete because it is non-notable and because it is spam. Also delete because of the fact that it has ongoing deletion discussions on multiple Wikipedias and because the Spanish Wikipedia (which is where he lives) deleted his page from their Wikipedia. Razorflame 19:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

result: delete Oysterguitarist 02:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[change] Category:Formula 1

Category:Formula 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

All other articles in this and English Wikipedia refer to the sport as Formula One, not Formula 1. This is the only category which is inconsistent and, coincidentally, is now empty. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

DoneQuick deleted, as Empty category. :) --Eptalon (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfecto. Just wanted to check it wasn't a controversial move on my behalf to clear out the old cat. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Empty categories can be quick deleted; I have done it numerous times, as Categories unfortunately cannot be moved.--Eptalon (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[change] Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Wikipedia:Image copyright tags (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

We don't need this page as we don't allow image uploads. Chenzw  Talk  08:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Chenzw, no images therefore no image copyright tag info needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Have Move d it to Wikipedia:Image use policy. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 08:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - we still have got some uploads here - and we need copyright tags. --  Da Punk '95  talk  10:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No other reason needed.--  † ChristianMan16  12:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - We don't allow uploads here. If they need deletion do that at Commons and the bot will remove the picture here. SwirlBoy39 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Swirlboy, we don't allow IMAGE uploads.--  † ChristianMan16  19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I think it should be noted here that the page nominated for deletion is a redirect page to Wikipedia:Image use policy.--  † ChristianMan16  19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep We still allow some uploads here, just not image uploads. This page is and needs to be used for such uploads as spoken articles to help denote what license they are being released under. Cheers, Razorflame 23:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: Redirected by Gwib. Chenzw  Talk  02:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[change] Jesse James (disambiguation)

Jesse James (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Microchip nominated it for quick deletion at first as the article was not needed with all red links. However, I think it doesn't really meet A1 QD criteria. Chenzw  Talk  12:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep This article does not meet deletion requirements, as there actually is an article with Jesse James in it's name. It is the very first link that is blue. Therefore, I believe that this disambiguation could be used in the future. Razorflame 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete: You say it may be needed in the future. However, what is the point of having it if we will not use it? If, for some reason, we need it again, then we can recreate it. For now, however, one link in a disambig page makes the disambig worthless. Microchip 15:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep, per Razorflame and also that redlinks can very easily be made into bluelinks with the addition of some quick stubs. No need to whack it. TheWolf 16:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep Although it is sort of overkill for the size of this Wikipedia, there's no need to delete. Why delete if it will simply be recreated eventually? However, I think it can be trimmed to the most notable, for now. Also, the words can be made simpler. нмŵוτнτ 20:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. The year pages were deleted because they were "a collection of red link". --Gwib ^-(talk)- 12:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep Weakly It may be to some just red links, and I understand that, but those articles will be made eventually. Just showing people that there are more people named "Jesse James" when they are looking for a different person then the American outlaw, is useful. Overall, I understand why it could be considered for RfD, but I think that is has a purpose here. --  ✰AmericanEagle  19:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia is not paper. There is no reason to delete it and have to recreate it later. In fact keeping it might make those articles with red links more likely to be created. -Djsasso (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment

“	Certain red-links are fine (highly notable people and occurrences), but entire pages of slightly notable people and relatively unknown events ("Earthquake kills three people in Uganda") is overkill. Using redlinks to judge what articles we need is currently not useful since we have no easy way to tell what our "most wanted" articles are anymore.	”
—Creol, Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_25#Year_pages

--Gwib ^-(talk)- 16:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Either way, I have now created two of the articles, so its not just a page of redlinks. -Djsasso (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment I'll give you a hand. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 16:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

 Comment I think that it is alright for a normal user to close this under WP:SNOW, is it not? I won't actually close it until I get the OK from an administrator. Cheers, Razorflame 00:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Turned from a collection of redlinks into one of stubs. No reason to delete now. --Eptalon (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep now a useful disambiguation page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Is everyone alright with me closing this early as WP:SNOW? Razorflame 17:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: Closed early due to WP:SNOW. Result was keep. I decided to use en:WP:BB and go ahead and close this early per WP:SNOW. If you think that I am not allowed to do this, feel free to remove this message/revert it. Razorflame 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC) - was not closed early - Request lasted seven days (30 May - 6 June) -- Creol(talk) 02:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: Kept - 6 keep, 2 delete -- Creol(talk) 02:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[change] Template:The Graphic Designer's Barnstar

No reason to have this template as we do not allow image uploads. Razorflame 16:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete, if needed it can always be made from other barnstar templates. mC⁸ 16:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above comments. the wikis really do have an awful lot of stinking badges. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew _{a.k.a. David} 09:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - No image uploads are allowed.--♠  Lights  talk  11:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - If we are good graphic designers, we will get something on Commons instead. Chenzw  Talk  12:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete, completely unnecessary per everyone else. (What an insightful vote!) TheWolf 16:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete While the thought was positive, there is simply no reason for this here. нмŵוτнτ 20:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 12:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: Delete Chenzw  Talk  03:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[change] May 2008

[change] H. John Heinz III

H. John Heinz III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Very small article, little to no context; given the info that is there the atricle is barely notable --Eptalon (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep am reworking the article now. Razorflame 16:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - As stated above contains litlte to no info to why this person is notable. --Eptalon (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Clearly notable and has been made into a proper short article. I think we can close this nomination...? · Tygrrr... 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Snowball Keep - this is John Kerry's wife's first husband and he's obviously notable for having been a Representative and Senator. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 13:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: kept · Tygrrr... 14:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[change] Network of european technocrats

This is an article on a European offshot of the Technocracy movement. It is entirely self-sourced, and appears to be the work exclusively of single purpose accounts associated with the movement. Google finds 57 unique hits - http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Network+of+European+Technocrats%22&start=80&sa=N - and there is no evidence that this is significant independent of the Technocracy Movement, which is itself not actually that important. I can't actually find the claim of notability within this article, but the owners will obviously dispute deletion so it needs to go to AfD. This looks to me to be vanispamcruftisement.

• Delete per nom, does not assert notability. I encourage the IP to register an account however. Majorly (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non notable. SwirlBoy39 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs a re-write, but the Google search is wrong. It gets 3960 hits. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 05:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Incorrect. There's still only 61 unique hits. And a Google search without even looking at the results properly is not a way to determine notability. Majorly (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • How do we get unique hits? I've put quotation marks around the term, doesn't that isolate any other results from coming in? --Gwib ^-(talk)- 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable.--Lights Deleted? 09:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I have not heard of the movement; it is porbalby very hard to assess how big the core of it really is. Note also, how there are no websites cited or listed, and the two references given are in Swedish? - Can any Swedish speakers (do we have any) check this out? - On the other hand, I think that we do not risk a great deal deleting it. If it is notable enough, there will probably be English-language references, and it can berecreated. --Eptalon (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Here is one english language reference for having been deleted elsewhere and why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Network_of_European_Technocrats

It is noted that after the article was deleted it was repeatedly copy and pasted back in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Network_of_European_Technocrats

Net Deletion log... until the NET director Andrew Wallace was told he would be blocked for spam if he did it again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Isenhand User talk:Isenhand/Andrew Wallace. (bottom of page currently) This is public info. 75.73.3.230 (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable, as User:Lights has already mentioned. Alexhl (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: Delete.--Lights Deleted? 20:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[change] Dimitris P. Kraniotis

This person is not notable. This article contains only links to personal or amateur homepages. Person is spamming international Wikipedias with stubs. Person is barely notable enough for Ordinary English Wikipedia. But is he notable enough for Simple English Wikipedia? See also en:talk:Dimitris P. Kraniotis. Plauz (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep I see no reason for this page to be deleted. The page on the English Wikipedia here has plenty of interwikis, and I found about 8,000 hits with a Google search. Therefore, he fits my bill for notability. Cheers, Razorflame 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's his game. Overwhelming readers with a huge number of interwiki-stubs and weblinks. Once you actually follow some of the Google hits, you'll notice that almost all of them contain copy of his home page. DPK also actively uses countless self-promotion websites. That's a lot of hot air. And, by the way, there are two contemporary Greek poets with the same name. Google numbers are misleading in this particular case.

I appreciate good marketing! But I also like a well-researched encyclopedia. :-) Please take the time to read some of the interwikis and weblinks. And then compare what you read with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

I recommend you read at least w:en:Dimitris P. Kraniotis, 3 random interwikis and 7 random links from Kraniotis' personal homepage. I'd love to hear a qualified reason why he's notable. :-) --Plauz (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think that way, then why haven't you nominated the same page on the English Wikipedia? Why nominate it here? Did you actually think that you would have a better chance of getting the page deleted on here if you nominated it for deletion here instead of on the English Wikipedia where it is much harder? If that was your main purpose in getting in nominated on here just to help get it deleted on the English Wikipedia, that is not cool. Cheers, Razorflame 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

1. You haven't read w:en:talk:Dimitris P. Kraniotis, have you? Just do. If you follow the links to the 2006 deletion discussion, you'll find the first part of your answer, and why I think that it is a good idea to keep en: but not the other Wikipedias. User:-zzz is me. By the way, the en: article has been deleted, but it came back. You'll find the en:-article history worth a closer look.
2. The second part of the answer can be found in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Simple English Wikipedia is not another English Wikipedia. … Simple English is not the correct place to put the same articles again. Instead, we write about the most common subjects so that people from every language can read and translate the pages easily. So what's the point in adding here a stub about an unknown poet?
3. I'm also wondering, what quality standards you're implying for Simple English. A stub without any reasonable references is OK? Wow. Actually, I expect Simple English to have higher standards than Ordinary English!!!!! The article in en: sucks, but at least has some references. But the article here is just nothing. So the easiest way to improve the quality of simple: is to delete a really bad and irrelevant article.
4. By the way, I'm the guy who actually verified and added references to en: and de:. I want to improve the quality of Wikipedia. That's it.--I'm doing my homework. Please do yours. --Plauz (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the English version of the page, and to me, it looks like a bonefied article. Therefore, that only solidified my keep vote. Nothing you say will get me to change my mind here because I find this to be an appropriate subject for this Wikipedia. If you don't, then vote here that you don't, but please don't attack me for what I say based on my opinions. Cheers, Razorflame 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. You asked several questions about the en-article and my motivations, I answered politely… --Plauz (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep Appears to be a notable published poet. No reason to delete. Majorly (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, my definition of notable and published includes 3 criteria:

1. The books actually exist. If you're able to find a trustworthy reference to "Dunes", please let me know. I'd be more than happy to add it to en:, but not here, because I don't think it belongs here. The other 3 books exist, it took some time to find them, but it was possible. You'll find the references in en:. Still, the (lacking) quality of the publishers is also a good indicator for the notability of an author.
2. The books are read. People buy these books and write about them. If you find any references to Kraniotis' books, that are not part of his self-promotion network, please add them to en: or en:talk:
3. The books are reviewed by reputable reviewers. If you find any reviews of Kraniotis' work in a major newspaper or a reputable literature magazine, let me know. I haven't found any qualified reviews at all, not to mention a favorable one.

How can an author be notable, if nobody takes note of his work? --Plauz (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be a single purpose account, only here to get rid of this article. I do not feel obliged to answer you, based on this (and I don't care who you are on English Wikipedia or whatever, you seem to have an agenda here, and it isn't welcome). Majorly (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Notable. нмŵוτнτ 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep The article could use come cleaning up, and worked on some more, but I think that it is a notable article. The links are questionable, I'm not sure about them. But I think the article is a go. ~ AmericanEagle 19:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete (SPA) Author and his work not notable. Lack of external references for even most basic verification. Wikipedia is not a homepage and not a vehicle for advertising. --Plauz (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User has made 10 edits and appears to be a single purpose account. Majorly (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I signed up here today, that's accurate. But if you bothered to check en: and de: you'll find a rather long history of contributions. I have a question back to you: let's say you noticed spam in multiple Wikipedias. What would you do? Ignore it?

I would (and do) remove any spam I see on multiple projects (this isn't spam by the way, so cannot be compared). Majorly (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I did: I created a proper user account. I created interwiki links to my user pages on other Wikipedias, so that you can verify my online identity and earlier contributions. I followed the proper rules for an Rfd. I point to verifiable references and related discussions. I stay polite and on topic. What else do you ask for? --Plauz (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You signed up simply to get this article deleted. I'm not interested in who you are elsewhere really. You have an agenda, clearly, and users with an agenda (aka Single Purpose Accounts) are not welcome here. I'm only pointing out that you have made only 10 edits. So far it seems that the regulars here disagree with your stance on this article. Maybe that's showing you something. Majorly (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is. And I don't like, what I see. Of course I have an agenda, like everybody else. I strongly believe in verifiability. This discussion thread now contains all relevant points and links you need for an informed decision. The decision is up to you. "The best encyclopedia pages have useful information." :-) --Plauz (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete -Being a poet does not make you notable.--  † ChristianMan16  00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Nearly all of the interwiki links are for stubs created from 2 narrow Greek IP ranges or the account DKran (wonder who that could be). There are claims of international awards, but searching as to what these awards are makes these claims a cross between comical and sad. Most are from basic internet "Free poetry contest" scams. The subject meets none of the qualifications of en:wp notability (the general basis we tend to use). No reliable secondary sources, not instrumental in any form of notable contribution to the field or notable work. Plenty of awards, but not any notable. This is nothing but self-promotion. -- Creol(talk) 02:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep (SPA) Notable. See the page of National Book Center of Greece : http://www.biblionet.gr/srh/showauthor.asp?personsid=61441. User: Readgr

The above link does not give sufficient evidence about notability. Chenzw  Talk  10:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Creol. · Tygrrr... 14:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per en:Talk:Dimitris P. Kraniotis, nom and Creol. Chenzw  Talk  13:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. -  EchoBravo  contribs  13:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - NN SwirlBoy39 00:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - see above The life of brian (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment It appears quite clear that the poet exists and has published works. That can be verified. However, the biographical information comes from primary sources. Of course using primary sources is not inherently wrong, but the fact that they must be relied upon suggests a low level of notability. Apparently the author may have created all the articles on himself on all the different Wikipedias - if this is true, do we want to give him a vehicle for self-promotion? Notability appears to be on the borderline, and it is difficult to establish whether keeping or deleting would be proper in this case. EJF (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: deleted. 2 struck votes (one keep, one delete). -- Creol(talk) 12:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[change] Costa Rican Basketball

Costa Rican Basketball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Seems to be advertising the country. Also, do we really need an article about basketball in Costa Rica? Razorflame 16:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Possibly something worth an article, but not like this. Majorly (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - into Basketball and re-write...something like this could be notable but needs to start out as a section.--  † ChristianMan16  17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I saw nothing wrong with it. Why delete it? AmericanEagle 21:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am changing to Merge, per Werdan7 AmericanEagle 02:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Article best qualifies as an essay; Something like this should start as a section in the Basketball article; when it's large enough, it can be moved to its own article. --Eptalon (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment - That's what I said.--  † ChristianMan16  21:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I would tidy it and add some links like this [2] and this[3] — This unsigned comment was added by RTG (talk • changes).
• Conditional Keep, it can be worked on and it'll be good. Relist in one month if it dosen't get improved. --  Da Punk '95  talk  07:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or merge a rewrite into basketball per Eptalon and ChristianMan16. нмŵוτнτ 22:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Costa Rica. Chenzw  Talk  11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Costa Rica. · Tygrrr... 19:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Costa Rica, summary in basketball Mⁱc_rochip ⁰⁸Sign! 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge the second paragraph into Basketball.--Werdan7^{T @} 17:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment - Why hasn't this been closed?--  † ChristianMan16  02:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: redirected to Costa Rica --Isis♠(talk) 15:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[change] Sonic legends

This is an article about a video game that does not exist, and does not appear to be planned Inclusive disjunction (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Not real game. SwirlBoy39 13:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Can it be QD'd as vandalism? Chenzw  Talk  13:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• I thought it might fall under the "hoax" part of the deletion policy, which isn't QD'able. If I hadn't looked back at the English Wikipedia, I would have thought it was a real game. It's not obvious vandalism, unless you're a fan of video games. Inclusive disjunction (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is definantly touchy on the vandalism QD, but does not state notability (A4) and for the most part much of it makes no sence anyway (G1). Can't slap it one way, but there are a couple other ways it fails. -- Creol(talk) 13:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Result: Speedy deleted per A1. SwirlBoy39 18:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[change] List of Pokémon

List of Pokémon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

The List consists of 493 entries (without links). The respective category contains 31 of them, plus the list. In my opinion, we should merge all relevant info into Pokemon and delete the rest, as non-notable? --Eptalon (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and {{merge}}. Lists shouldn't count as articles. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 12:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The English Wikipedia has a version of this article, why should we delete this? I agree that this needs work, but I believe that it is a necessary article to have for an encyclopedia. Razorflame 17:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Split - I believe this list includes the Pokemon of only one region. The real list will be larger than that. Split the list (something like List of Pokemon 1-50) and add info about them in the form of a table. Chenzw  Talk  01:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, that is the entire list. There are only 493 in existance. Cheers, Razorflame 02:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, unless anybody wants to write 493 stubs. TheWolf 20:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Import the list from enWP. That list is very useful. This list is just crap, a straight out list. If Simple wants them, I can recruit some users from the PCP, because the debate to merge them into 25 large articles was a rather bitter one. I'm sure they will be happy to write out stubs. They will also be free of the contentious issues of FICT, GUIDE, and other things that frustrated the development of the species articles. Cassandra (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep/expand/merge/import/etc. The topic has strong support worldwide and while it is not a useful article as presented, it does present a better option than what we have. As the Bad Wolf has pointed out (in delete support), this represents 493 stubs. Of all the creatures from the pokemon universe, only a handful have enough info to deserve an article. En:wp for the most part has a handful of lists to provide info on these creatures. We do not need 493 stubs which state "so-and-so is a /blank/-type pokemon. It is found in /blank/ region. {{stub}}" With some expanding, this list can deal with all creatures (and be split to smaller groupings if it gets that large) to cover name, evolves to and from, type and region and possible a notes section. For most of the pokemon, this as much info as is needed. Certain rare or commonly shown/individual pokemon (Ash's Pikachu) can deserve their own article, but a list is best for handling the basic information on the general breeds. We have several articles on general pokemon types which realy should be merged into a central location. This list would be the ideal place for them all to be merged to. -- Creol(talk) 08:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete. Maybe in the future when there are at least one of these characters, it may be notable. But it doesn't even link to anything. When it is needed in the slightest bit we could just copy/paste the Wikitable (that looks better anyway). Anyway, the thing just looks like a poorly done list. --  ✰AmericanEagle  19:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We have one of these characters. Actually we have thirty-one of them. See Category:Pokémon monsters. There are 31 stubs and this list (as Eptalon stated) there in need of a home. Personally I would prefer merging the information to a list rather than the main article as combining all the info (and getting the rest) will likely result in a list in excess of 30K (the names alone are over 6K, location, type and evolution to and from could easily break 30K using all nine fields commonly used for the creatures plus a notes feild and this could be huge). With that information, the article would need to be split anyway. Better to do it from the start (or actually the middle since this started 31 stubs ago). -- Creol(talk) 07:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - while the current format is undesirable and while it may be crying out for a huge number of articles to be created should all the Pokemon be wikilinked, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with this list. I suggest the project takes up Cassandra's offer. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - How can a list of different Pokémon be notable? Do we need a complete list of, say, branches of Barclays in the UK, for instance? Being part of something (such as Pokémon), does not make it become notable in its own right.
  • Bad analogy. By Barclays, I assume the banks...branches of banksa re not notable beacuse they are just satellites of one big company. Each Pokémon is separate and unique, each with their own distinctive back story, stats, and traits. They have also been published in various media such as the television show, the anime, and the video games, whereas I doubt that each branch has garnered such publicity. Cassandra (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If they are indeed kept (imported or not) additional people to write appropriate stubs would indeed be nice to have....--Eptalon (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I confused on this one but I guess I'll vote Keep just because if it's notable enough for enWP it's notable enough for here.--  † ChristianMan16  03:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - This is certainly not an impressive article, and it needs a good deal of work. The topic is a reasonable one, though, and even a useful one once it gets beyond being merely a list of names. Tim Ross (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (and sorry, I don't have an account; I go under the name A Link to the Past on en.wiki) - the list is useful, and is pretty much required. Make it like Wikipedia's. - 75.17.223.114 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: It looks like most editors feel this is useful information, worth keeping and the problem is maninly related to presentation/rearranging this. Cassandra has hinted at the fact she is going to pull over a few dedicated pokemon editors from the respective EnWP wikiproject. As I am informed, these have been contacted. I will therefore close this RFD as Kept, with the option of quick-deleting these articles, if there is no visible action in the next week to 1.5 weeks. (For the archiving people: Do not archive before June 20.) --Eptalon (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)