December 2006

List of slang words

The list isn't sourced, and most of the things on it would only be seen on the Internet. Internet slang already has an article. Also, the page doesn't say what kind of slang should be included so the list could go on forever. J Di 22:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The amount of English slang couldn't possibly be covered just by one article. PullToOpen^Talk 22:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete impossible to be anything more than a sample of slang terms. All but 1 is entirely Internet slang (BS) -- Creol(talk) 12:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is doubtful, a certain word or phrase can be classified as slang (for a certain group of people). Even so, such content would belong to wiktionary, not here. -- Eptalon 20:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Deleted. PullToOpen^Talk

Post-rock

WP:NEO. This article isn't the same thing that is discribed as "post-rock" on the English Wikipedia. Comments? PullToOpen^Talk 01:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no authority is given for this arbitrary division, apart from a scratchpad wikia. Blockinblox - talk 01:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with the other pre-rock generation we had here a few weeks back. -- Eptalon 02:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per pre-rock -- Creol(talk) 06:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete --vector ^_^ (talk) 13:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ksbrown 16:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Result: Deleted.-- Tdxi a n g 09:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot, Maine

It is not notable enough to have a article here. We should only have articles on notable things here.--Sir James Paul 21:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have come to realise my article is not notable enough to be here. Wikipedia should not be a collection of junk. —This unsigned comment was added by Sir James Paul (talk • contribs) 21:33, December 23, 2006 (UTC)
Keep - There is certainly room enough to have an entry on a town of 6000. One thing an Encyclopedia can be is a gazeteer. Blockinblox - talk 01:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep city of 6000 is notable. --ZimZalaBim 15:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not extremely notable, but not unnotable to the point it has to go. -- Creol(talk) 06:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep --vector ^_^ (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
week keep small town, but the article has potential for growth and 6000 is not that small Ksbrown 17:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per Ksbrown's comments.-- Tdxi a n g 05:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Content is there, so why redo the work? -- Eptalon 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Keep PullToOpen^Talk 19:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial, Limp, and most of Category:Definitions

Looks like a dictionary definitions to me. As such, can be taken care of by Wiktionary -- Eptalon 10:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creol pointed out that in the Category mentioned; there are a few more such pages;I would opt for replacing such entries by wiktionary, wherever possible.

Delete - as per above -- Eptalon 10:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Sir James Paul 11:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete or merge as it's better off on Wiktionary. Xania 04:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete. PullToOpen^Talk 01:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedians by number of edits

Promotes editcountitis, and isn't updated enough to be useful in my opinion. PullToOpen ^Talk 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. J Di 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Eptalon 10:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete above.--Sir James Paul 11:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add ((rejected)) template--TBCΦtalk? 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Delete. PullToOpen^Talk 03:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite

I am 'quite' tempted to delete this page, but wanted to get some other comments first. I see it is a BE850 word, but I don't think this article is necessary or even helpful. It is already 'wiktionaried'. Blockinblox - talk 16:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Dar-Ape 18:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current content of the article is more suited to Wiktionary. --Eptalon 08:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kress Stores

Complete fabrication, see: en:S._H._Kress_&_Co. -- Creol 06:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How is it a fabrication?--TBCΦtalk? 15:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The company was started by Samuel H Kress in 1896, not Karl J Kress in 1933. He was born in Pennsylvania in 1865, not a german immigrant in 1898. The first store opened in Pennsylvania not in Illinois. Kress is not still selling merchandise (albeit Chinese instead of german) now since it was sold off and started closing stores back in 1980 (unless you happen to be living in Puerto Rico where there still is Tiendas Kress and they sell mainly clothing apparently). Kress died in New York city in Sept 1955, not in an inner city Chicago public hospital in July 1948.

The only factual statements are that Kress was a 5 and dime, and the US and Spain were at war in 1898. Comparing the en:wiki version to simple -- Creol 01:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fix to reflect the English article - The guy who made this page was getting a little punchy with his comments as well, and users might want to keep a close eye on the person. PullToOpen ^Talk 01:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provided factual inacurracies are fixed to match the facts (also compare Spanish-language wikipedia perhaps?) -- Eptalon 12:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, cleanup tag added --Eptalon 08:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consecutive numbers

Tries to explain the concept of consecutive (as following one another). As such either delete, and let Wiktionary do it, or extend to say that it is next in a mathematical sequence, or ring. -- Eptalon 15:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and then delete, dicdef.--TBCΦtalk? 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as delete.--TBCΦtalk? 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unique

This is the type of article that is unencyclopedic and belongs in a dictionary, not here. You can usually tell when the title is something other than a noun. (In this case it's an adjective) It's not easy to categorize these non-noun word definitions either. I suggest we delete it, unless there is some special reason not to. Blockinblox - talk 14:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As for categorizing the term, Category:Characteristics is potentially being set up to cover terms like this one. It already has a handful of other articles that may need to be considered in the same decision as Unique. -- Creol 03:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and replace with Wiktionary entry. -- Eptalon 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and then delete, dicdef.--TBCΦtalk? 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as delete.--TBCΦtalk? 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-rock generation

Non-notable neologism; Google shows few relevant results.--TBCΦtalk? 06:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- Creol 06:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (together with Rock generation, which is very similar) -- Eptalon 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as delete.--TBCΦtalk? 16:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Bow

Article is created by a vandal or troll, we do not know if the person is even real, this article needs to be deleted.

Strong, clear, powerful, non questionable delete created by a troll or vandal and it has something to do with nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.130.56 (talk • contribs)
Keep with cleanup. One of the first big movie stars. One of the most recognized faces from the start of motion picture history (along side Chaplin, possibly more recognized than him) -- Creol 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -- Eptalon 11:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slysoft

No assertion of notability. J Di 21:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They make products that allow to get around DVD-copy protection measures. This makes the products illegal to sell, and perhaps to own in some EU countries, and the US. However, this does not make the company notable in that it is worthy of an entry here. Earlier, it was decided to delete a certain CD and publishing house. We should do the same here. Hence, my vote is to delete. -- Eptalon 13:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as delete.--TBCΦtalk? 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles in the Category Cowboy Bebop

I have nothing against people putting Anime characters (or other fictional characters) into simpleWP. However, where there are name collisions with other (possibly more popular) meanings with our intended audience, we should make sure that these more popular meanings come up first. This is true for Ein (listed below), but also of vicious (which should redirect to a Wiktionary or SimpleWP article about vice, and not to one about a character in Cowboy Bebop. Of course, this may be just my opinion of things. -- Eptalon 16:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make the Ein and Vicious articles into disambiguation pages then merge and redirect the other articles to the Cowboy Bebop article.--TBCΦtalk? 18:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Both Ein and Vicious articles were moved to non-ambig pages and the current situation has been handled. Whether to merge all character articles together, leave as be, or merge into main article, is still at question I believe. -- Creol 03:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (edited my comment as I didn't see the new vicious article)[reply]
Note: I have made a Disambiguation page for vicious, redirecting to vice, Sid Vicious, and Vicious (Anime) the Cowboy Bebop character. This should resolve the situation for vicious. -- Eptalon 10:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ein

This means either a (as in one of) or one in many Germanic/Nordic languages; that is what English Wikipedia lists as primary meanings; thus this is what most SimpleWP users will look for. However, in SimpleWP, Ein seems to be a character of an animated film. I therefore think it should be moved to a more appropriate title; failing that, it should be deleted -- Eptalon 16:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it seems a user has already changed the article into a disambiguation page.--TBCΦtalk? 18:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Situation has been resolved by the original creator correcting the article as TBC said. The page linking to it has also been changed by the user. I re-created the article under the title Ein (anime) (as it was where he had it linked to in the new version.) -- Creol 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have added the Cowboy Bebop article to the Ein page (which is now a disambiguation page). I have also unlinked eine (we do not need that article for now. Looks like this situation is resolved too..

Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee lounge

We come to wikipedia to edit, not to chat. This could make wikipedia a chat room, I do not think anyone wants that. Also the last time someone used it was November 17. It is a total waste.--Sir James Paul 12:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Sir James Paul 12:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add the "((Rejected))" template to it, since no one seems to be using it. Otherwise, delete.--TBCΦtalk? 14:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete because we never use it. I think this page is a great idea, but we just let it fall into inactivity. PullToOpen ^Talk 14:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this wiki isn't very active and any new users that notice this coffee lounge may try to use it and never get a reply. Discussion should be as centralised as possible on as small a wiki as this, and having other forums advertised doesn't help that. J Di 15:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - practically dead now. RaNdOm26 10:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please see also an earlier discussion.-- Tdxi a n g 10:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It could have been really good, but if no-one wants to use it it's not exactly going to help us. Archer7 - talk 10:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. ...Aurora... 13:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as delete.-- Tdxi a n g 03:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia

The reason I gave to delete it was because it is not encyclopedia content. It is about a non-notable website. We are not a web directory.--Sir James Paul 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Sir James Paul 01:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a notable website. See en.Wikipedia article and references therein. ZimZalaBim 01:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per ZimZalaBim; notable parody of Wikipedia.--TBCΦtalk? 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as speedy keep. Archer7 - talk 14:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davina McCall

The article is about somebody that is probably not known of outside the UK, and thus is not a core article. J Di 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Presenter of numerous notable shows, including MTV, Big Brother, and Popstars.--TBCΦtalk? 15:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Although she has presented numerous shows she is probably not very well known outside the UK. Ksbrown 19:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per TBC -- Creol(talk) 10:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- no consensus; kept Blockinblox - talk 03:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 2006

Answers

The article sounds like an advertisement. PullToOpen ^Talk 02:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree!!! I've been on all the sites listed and there is NO spam. You don't pay for anything. Also, Google and Yahoo are competitors, and they are both so popular no one needs to advertise. Why would the person advertise both?? Anyway, the person shouldn't use "you" that much, prehaps that is why. Obviously, in this case, the person who wrote the article is trying to help. ___~In disagreement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceata smart (talk • contribs)
Just so you know, we can tell that you are the same person who wrote the article. PullToOpen ^Talk 02:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Web directory. – Minh Nguyễn (my talk, my work) 02:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC

These sites are OK, so don't delete. Anyway, I like them. All except Google answers. You have to pay. Wahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by torra (talk • contribs)

Delete This page can add no encyclopedic content to this wikipedia. And WP is not for simply giving a list of internet links. -- Eptalon 02:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not deleteYahoo Answers? I'm not wasting my time trying to gain points. I'm not going to waste money on google. But AskAceata is pretty good. And AskAlice is okay. No one is perfect. So there --Bobo

Delete and redirect to answer. Titles if possible are supposed to be singular, not plural, and this title seem like just a front for a non-article. Blockinblox 03:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per, well, everyone with enough edits to know to sign their posts properly. Non-encyclopedic. -- Creol 06:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Spamming.-- Tdxi a n g 10:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is useful, and it isn't spam, but it doesn't belong here. Perhaps we could add some of those links in our articles, eg Go Ask Alice in 'Health'. Archer7 - talk 12:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling on this request for deletion. Administrators, do look out for any further activity on these suspected sockpuppets. Thank you. *Delete after all. Just to get revenge on google answers.Just joking. but one question: why are you allowed to have a page on google or yahoo, but not answers. this is injust. (I still fight for justice)--Bobo 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Deletejustice for all!! Bobo 02:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has spamming. -- AbbyItalia 02:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Deleted and redirected PullToOpen ^Talk 03:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Christian cults and Cult

These articles are not NPOV. There is no way I can see to make Christian Cult NPOV - any group or doctrine listed will only be opinion, and somebody will disagree. Cult currently is doing the same. It points out groups that some think are cults and others do not. TK421 06:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for Christian Cults. Keep with npov editing for Cult. Listing Cults would seem to alway be a matter of opinion (see talk:Mormonism) but a general definition of what constitutes a cult should be included as it is encyclopedic. Much of the Cults page is NPOV, as far as I can tell, only the listing of examples of a cult are questionable information dependant on opinion. -- Creol 06:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite both so NPOV. Both currently are not. Cult has a see also for Protestantism which is a little inflammatory and I'm not sure why chirstianity is added, but the main part of the article is NPOV. Having read both on en they could both be written with NPOV. Cults should only be named when there is general international consensus that they are cults, which is going to be very rare. Ksbrown 13:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up both articles and remove POV content.--TBCΦtalk? 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clean upThe article is notable but is not written with a NPOV. —This unsigned comment was added by Sir James Paul (talk • contribs) 04:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Christian cults. This page can only end up as a list of such organisations. Drawing the line between a Sect, a Cult, and an established religious group worth mentioning is very hard to do. Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, too. -- Eptalon 18:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup cult, and prevent it from becoming a listing of less-than-common (sectarian) movements of established religious groups. -- Eptalon 18:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
clean up --vector ^_^ (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no diff --AbbyItalia 04:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian cults: 3x delete, 5 x cleanup/rewrite
Cult: 7x cleanup/rewrite, 1x delete

Result: Both kept; marking both with cleanup

Chronology

Dictionary style reference. I don't think dictionary entries are a good idea over here at Wikipedia; that's what Wiktionary is for. PullToOpen ^Talk 15:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've created wikt:chronology. - Tangotango (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unecyclopedic; there is Wiktionary for such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eptalon (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I forgot to sign. -- Eptalon 17:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete --vector ^_^ (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as per here.-- Tdxi a n g 06:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done-- Tdxi a n g 09:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ravicherla

Article about a small village in India (pop 1300) with nothing to show it is notable. No en:wiki, no notable google hits. -- Creol 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, and extend, if possible. There are about 5 pages of Google hits (SimpleWP is first of all those :) ). Can anyone check if there is an entry in the non-English-language-local-Indian-dialect WP on that subject? -- Eptalon 14:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I don't see any problem with the project eventually including a gazeteer of every town and village in the world... Blockinblox 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We have other articles on wikipedia simple english about towns, cities, vilages, and some of them is just as short, or shorter than this. It would be unfair if we deleted this.--Sir James Paul 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - 1,300 people isn't enough to warrant an article in my opinion, unless there is some sort of defining landmark in the down. PullToOpen ^Talk 22:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep --vector ^_^ (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acid

User:Sir James Paul sees this article as too difficult (and no longer worth rewriting). Therefore, he proposes a rewrite-from-scratch. -- Eptalon 15:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This article is way beyond repair. If you would take out all the unsimple words then it would not make any sense and the unsimple words can't be replaced with simple ones. Trying to fix it would just be a waste of time.--Sir James Paul 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite, NOT delete - I will be glad to rewrite this article, but wouldn't it be easier just to write the page from scratch than delete it and re-create it? PullToOpen ^Talk 22:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite - Its a basic850 so even an unsimple article waiting for fixing would be better than a blank page. -- Creol 22:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite - As Creol. It is ok to write it again in simple english but I do not see how you can erase an important chemistry concept because it is thought of as too hard. I will wright it again if need be. Deleting it to remove it permantly seems to me as if we are saying that people who use this encyclopedia should not be able to understand concepts that arn't simple. Ksbrown 18:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up. Cleaning up an article is much more easier than starting one from scratch.--TBCΦtalk? 12:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just rewrote this article today. It needs some work, but it isn't as bad as it was when it was nominated. PullToOpen ^Talk 15:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowley publications and Guard us Sleeping

Two entries marked for deletoion as non-notable; is there an argument that can be found to keep them? -- Eptalon 20:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Else we might end up with every publisher and every CD in simple WP. -- Eptalon 20:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not highly notable CD or publisher. Ksbrown 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt is about a publishing company owned by a monastery of 30 monks. It is not the most notable thing but it is notable. —This unsigned comment was added by Sir James Paul (talk • contribs) 04:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Done Deleted.-- Tdxi a n g 10:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual reproduction

Not kid friendly and wikipedia simple english is made for children.--Sir James Paul 03:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Wikipedia is neither censored or "kid friendly".--TBCΦtalk? 03:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As per TBC. Wikipedia is about providing infomation, not forcing morals on people with censorship. The Simple project is also not designed to be kid friendly at the expense of content and information. -- Creol 07:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia simple english is suppose to be for children. This is anything but kid friendly. —This unsigned comment was added by Sir James Paul (talk • contribs) 04:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - SEWikipedia is not intended only for children, but for learners of English as well. In any case, Wikipedia (in any language, including Simple English) is not censored. Hiding information does nothing; children will find out anyway, and there is nothing to be gained by hiding this information from them. - Tangotango (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The Simple in Simple English Wikipedia refers to English. This means that the language used should be easier to understand than what is there in the English Wikipedia. The entry in question basically points out that in sexual reproduction, two different kinds of cells merge, to form a new type of cell (called Zygote). From this cell, a new organism is then created. As such, this information is not kid-unfriendly, because that is exactly what the biology teacher will tell those kids; If the talk is about a certain kind of flower, or tree, or if it is about bonobos or humans is irrelevant. It is also no good believing that if this article was taken out the kid in question would not find the information elsewhere. When the talk on Simple was about making this resource kid-friendly, the main focus is to see that if there are images with an article, that those images are more or less fitting the article. -- Eptalon 13:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep - Come on, now. PullToOpen ^Talk 14:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is an informative, legitimate article, obviously not one intended to offend or provoke morals. Also, nom's remark that this wiki is for children are incorrect; this is for anyone who wants an easy-to-read reference. I have heard there is a project somewhere called jr.wiki (I think, or something like that) that caters specifically to children. Blockinblox 15:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Covers most of the important concepts of the topic from biology. It is child-friendly. The worst part is the title, which is a technical term and therefore, should not be rude. This is a side issue, as simple wikipedia is not a childrens encylopedia. The article is very informative and is written in quite simple english.Ksbrown 18:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. No policy stating we must be kid friendly. :)-- Tdxi a n g 10:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Speedy keep. - Tangotango (talk) 09:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Girls of the Bible

Not much content, and not encyclopedic at all. PullToOpen ^Talk 00:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And on top of this, far from neutral. If not delete, then at least make it neutral and move it to Women of the Bible. Torte 12:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are different female characters in the Bible. If those are good or bad, also is a matter of interpretation, and how the authors of the texts put them.. (Question, could Eve have been any other way?). Therefore, getting a more neutral page title seems to be worthwhile. If the content merits an article, is something else, though. -- Eptalon 12:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, recreate under a more neutral title, if necessary (Just summing up what I said above) -- Eptalon 21:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't useful at all for anything, in my opinion. Archer7 - talk 13:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not belong here.--Sir James Paul 21:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Blatantly POV. --TBCΦtalk? 21:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best a List or catagory entry (Women in the Bible). Most the women in the bible (and women in general) are made out to be bad, "Bad Girls" could like include almost any female in the book. -- Creol 21:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete --vector ^_^ (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted per this discussion. - Tangotango (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chi

It's good, but not wikified and should be best suited for Wiktionary. What do you guys think? Cheers, MoglinFiend 01:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is no dictionary.-- Tdxi a n g 02:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done--vector ^_^ (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usual

Can't be a noun, don't see how it can be an encyclopedia article. Per WP:NOT a dictionary, but thought I'd check here before deleting it. Blockinblox 14:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator.-- Tdxi a n g 02:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a dicdef.--TBCΦtalk? 08:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created wikt:usual. - Tangotango (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted. Archer7 - talk 09:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lied Middle School and Ollie Detwiler

Stub on a school that seems in no way notable. Multiple pages from the same IP address have the same issue. The Cambeiro Folklorico Dancers page being voted on below is included in pages submitted from this source. -- Creol 00:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.-- Tdxi a n g 03:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done --vector ^_^ (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cambeiro Folklorico Dancers

This is possibly unique content, not found in either Spanish nor Portugese, nor English WPs. Keep an eye on it -- Eptalon 21:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable-- Tdxi a n g 03:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small localized group. Not notable. -- Creol 00:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done--vector ^_^ (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Armenianmusic.jpg

It says on Upload File that you should upload at the Commons. It didn't say, "This file is at Commons, blah blah blah."(that text). So, it should be deleted. MoglinFiend 21:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense.-- Tdxi a n g 03:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done--vector ^_^ (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Freeman

Person in question has no en:wiki page. Google brought up 2 hits from one site [1][2], neither of which shows any reason the person is notable. --Creol 16:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be deleted. It lacks content, and I don't even know who this person is. I helped introduce links at one point, but I still think it should go. MoglinFiend 23:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done --vector ^_^ (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Griffin

Notable show, but a little too specific for the kind of level we are at now. PullToOpen ^Talk 01:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep this article. —Mariusz 01:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.-- Tdxi a n g 02:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oana Frigescu

Non-notable television personality. - Tangotango (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no Google hits on this person.-- Tdxi a n g ^Adminship 02:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike

Relatively nonsensical article about a video game. -- Creol 21:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sure the author didn't mean for it to be taken seriously. PullToOpen ^Talk 21:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Possibly a newbie test. But nonsense still must be deleted.-- Tdxi a n g ^Adminship 03:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imaging for Windows

The article is about a imaging/scanning program for windows. To include every program for windows would be a huge task. Non notable programs need not get entries. The original post's only link was to a retailer selling the product which suggests it was intended as spam. -- Creol 17:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PullToOpen ^Talk 17:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Approach sounds reasonable. We might want a (general) article on computer imaging/graphics creation or similar though. -- Eptalon 18:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Creol.-- Tdxi a n g ^Adminship 03:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Lehner

At first glance this looks like a valid article (Hence my tagging). Looking closer though, the info cannot be verified, and tends towards absurdity. I think deletion should be in order (Checks with Google, german WP, english WP do not show any noteworthy hits). -- Eptalon 17:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per talk on that article, looks like someone's pulling our leg Blockinblox 17:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Not notable. Likely random spam someone wrote about their teacher. Details are reasonably accurate but not worthy of an article even if the odder parts were removed (arrested in the cellar) Creol 17:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Creol.-- Tdxi a n g ^Adminship 03:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nutshell

At the moment, this tries to explain the meaning of in a nutshell. As such it would probably be better suited for wiktionary. And if we are talking about shells of nuts, we should do so under nut. -- Eptalon 12:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as explained above -- Eptalon 12:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also notice the author in trying to explain nutshell has needlessly chosen words that are less simple, like concise and colloquial, like someone pulling our leg again... Blockinblox 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Eptalon.-- Tdxi a n g ^Adminship 03:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Created wikt:in a nutshell. - Tangotango (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible timeline

Doesn't make much sense, and isn't core at all. PullToOpen ^Talk 22:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Glad to know someone agrees with me. zephyr2k 22:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem understanding what it is trying to say... I may try cleaning it up a bit if you say it doesn't make sense... To live up to the title it really should include a bit more Blockinblox 00:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link in the article's talk page that might help in the clean up. Though, I still think it is delete. This info could probably be merged to the Bible article if it isn't going to be a lengthy article. zephyr2k 20:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and perhaps a timeline could be made.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamefaqs

Not much content, and somewhat non-notable. PullToOpen ^Talk 17:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. It has been listed as a good article in ENWP. Else, delete and recreate. zephyr2k 22:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup! Rather notable article.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, notable website.--TBCΦtalk? 18:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Duffus 18:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result:kept -- Blockinblox 17:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney characters

Little content given to article.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PullToOpen ^Talk 14:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Duffus 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

result:deleted Blockinblox 17:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seßlach,Schalkau, Sonneberg, Steinach, Teuschnitz, Themar, Wallenfels and Schleußingen

Another ~~city~~ cities' articles which have only a categoryies. Nominated by Eptalon, and my vote is 'delete.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ultra-short stubs with little or no context are not useful. - Tangotango (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless they can be extended i such a way as to warrant for their existence. There are quite a few such towns (with less than 50k population). If they have some history, it should be there, at least in part. -- Eptalon 11:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fast delete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Duffus 18:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they have been expanded by now Blockinblox 17:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee_lounge

Deleted with no discussion by User:Netoholic. Edit summary on deletion was: write articles, Wikipedia is not a social club. What does everyone think? Archer7 - talk 19:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's value is not plainly visible, but I think it does a lot to stregthen our sense of community. Archer7 - talk 19:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Wikipedia can be a really uptight place sometimes. I think it is good to have a place where people can ignore the policies for just a while. PullToOpen ^Talk/_Contribs 20:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I agree that the page should be kept, note that Wikipedia's policies apply to all pages, regardless if they are in the article namespace or not.--TBCΦtalk? 20:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to clarify my statement, I should have said "policies like NPOV". I didn't mean policies like civil or others like that...I apologize. PullToOpen ^Talk/_Contribs 21:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Great place to take a break from editing, and as Archer7 said, the page does do a lot to stregthen our sense of community.--TBCΦtalk? 20:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:Sandbox/Coffee lounge. Keep per everything said above as a pressure release valve, but even on en:, the pages with games and such-like have first found their niche of tolerance as extensions to the sandbox... Blockinblox 20:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coffee lounge is the place to relax, and a good place to go to if having stress around Wikipedia. I think the chess game could be moved to a new page, like in the English wiki. RaNdOm26 06:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who comes here looking for social networking or "fun" is in the wrong place. Other Wikipedias have turned down the wrong direction by accepting this nonsense. I'm actually coming to the mind that the page is useful only in that it helps identify non-productive users who need to be kicked in the ass out the door. Many editors and those few admins here spend many hours trying to make a respectable alternative English wikipedia. You wanna play games, go there. I have -no problem- with establishing a sense of community, but lets REWARD GOOD WRITING and punish distractions. I see anyone playing chess or other non-productive crap on this wiki, and I will start using blocks to discourage that. If the other admins or users want to take this up with the Foundation, go for it... but be ready to explain why you are wasting their resources for trivial pursuits. -- Netoholic @ 07:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice choice of words - "crap" and "kicked in the ass". Just TOTALLY nice. RaNdOm26 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its good that you want to "reward good writing". I am sure that most of us do. Netoholic, not a single person in this discussion showed the desire for "social networking" or "fun". The most used phrase above was "strengthen the sense of community". You mentioned that as well in your message. I certainly hope you don't start blocking "unproductive users". Wikipedia isn't fascist, and isn't meant to be. Your blocking policy sounds like weeding out the weak to me. PullToOpen ^Talk/_Contribs 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not going to use blocks to enforce your own rules on everyone else. Archer7 - talk 15:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic, you can enforce rules. Now what I may be saying to you... might be viewed as wrong or controversial...so no hard feelings on my part if you think so. But try not to resort to blocks to make rules known, okay? Thank you.

Keep. And Netoholic, no matter how angry or unhappy you are with us, chill us. You can voice your opinions nicely, but there is no real need to get so fed up. Chill.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ...Aurora... 03:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? This discussion has been here for nearly two weeks. Are there any more things that can be included now? I hope this thing can be solved soon, PLEASEEEEEE. RaNdOm26 10:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- We still need to reach a consencus on this issue. Looking at it, it seems as if it will be kept, after all.-- Tdxi an g @ 09:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Duffus 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guard dog

Sounds like an essay, point of view slanted as it tells that guard dogs actually attack people. Delete.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be an unverified, original research FAQ on guard dogs.--TBCΦtalk? 04:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The foundations of my article came from the English Wikipedia, and then my own viewpoints were added slightly as I believed that guards dogs SOMETIMES attack people if they are guarding something. I will go back through my article and edit it so the view is not so slanted.Mcc 23:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a thorough going-over (trim the intro, citations, etc...), but this is a worthwhile encyclopedic topic. It needs to be less conversational in tone. Caknuck 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As such, are you proposing cleanup?-- Tdxi an g @ 03:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly clean-up. Caknuck 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provided it can be rewritten/cleaned to meet basic quality standards. We also lack a history of guard dogs; Help in defense is probably one of the prime reasons dogs were raised (The other being helping to hunt, and keeping warm). -- Eptalon 11:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Duffus 18:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Kept -- Blockinblox 17:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2006

Sikkimonline

Ok.. got it! thanks for the message.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikkimonline (talk • contribs)

How to delete?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikkimonline (talk • contribs)

Non-notable article, so deletion is necessary.-- Tdxi an g @ 09:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages

Exact copy-paste from english. Personally, I don't think that SE Wikipedia needs a policy like that. PullToOpen ^Talk/_Contribs 15:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify. Policies like that should be made known.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Netoholic deleted it already. Oh well. PullToOpen ^Talk/_Contribs 20:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It has been re-created, apparently...-- Tdxi an g @ 03:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted it because it was at the top of the redlink list with 23 redlinks, and have simplified the merge part so far, but not the move part yet. Care to take a stab at it? Blockinblox 03:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kept necessary page, has been simplified Blockinblox 01:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Ganesan

Biologist of unknown notability. English Wikipedia does not have an article on her, Google searches do not seem to turn up anything notable. - Tangotango (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Tangotango, deletion is necessary.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drum and bugle corps

Point-Of-View slanted, saying it is the "ultimate marching band".-- Tdxi an g @ 03:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cleaned up and stubbed. zephyr2k 04:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PullToOpen ^Talk/_Contribs 20:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept Blockinblox 01:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodworking

More like a guide to woodworking rather than an article.-- Tdxi an g @ 09:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Very notable form of art, though (as with many other Simple articles) the page needs to be cleaned up.--TBCΦtalk? 15:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up.-- Tdxi an g @ 04:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article needs a lot of work (grammar clean-up, wikifying), but this is an important craft worldwide. Caknuck 18:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite ...Aurora... 03:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Kept Blockinblox 01:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Reluctant Dragon

Nonsense article.-- Tdxi an g @ 10:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flailing

Dictionary style article, unencyclopedic. Delete.-- Tdxi an g @ 09:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Is My Life

Non-notable webcomic, that doesn't seem to be a core article. Possibly also a hoax, as Google[3] and TV.com[4] shows no relevant Google results.--TBCΦtalk? 23:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, this article has been edited over 140 times by a group of anon IP address [5]--TBCΦtalk? 23:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it. ...Aurora... 15:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable, that means. Deletion is my descision.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted but replaced with message to stop recreation. Blockinblox 21:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colour in world

Unencyclopedic and point of view is slanted on beauty of colours. Please delete.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; unencyclopedic and POV. For some reason, the article's description of all these happy "fun and exciting" colors reminds me of Bob Ross...--TBCΦtalk? 04:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tdxiang and TBC, unencyclopedic and POV. - Tangotango 08:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i realise that my article has some unencyclopedic information in it and i have cut it out now, thankyou59.167.207.50 23:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i think that article is fine except that it said that the three primary colors were red green and blue but it should have said red yellow and blue but i edited it so now it is a perfectly fine article so just leave it alone!!!

-hilari

Moved to color, no need for separate article. Blockinblox 21:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dora the Explorer

Seems to be more of a game description rather than of a TV series. Delete.-- Tdxi an g @ 04:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird... I thought Dora the Explorer was a classic Nick Jr. TV series about this latino girl and her monkey, but I've never heard of a viedo game about it. But if there is proof that there "is" a video game about it (cite links), then simply move that info to something like "Dora the Explorer (Video game)" but keep the core article. --§ Alastor Moody _{(T + C)} 05:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the TV series, Dora is always asking viewers for help. So it is a bit like a game. There's even someone clicking the answer after a time lapse. ...Aurora... 15:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised none of you noticed it was a copyvio of http://nickjr.co.uk/shows/dora/index.aspx Blockinblox 14:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:En

There's really no point to having this template since basically all the articles on the Simple English Wikipedia could be considered simplified versions of articles on the main English Wikipedia. Also, it doesn't define clearly how much content is simplified from the main Wikipedia for this template to apply.--TBCΦtalk? 04:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with TBC about this. Nearly all of the pages here have been adapted from EN Wikipedia and would require this useless tag on them. Billz (Talk) 06:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No real need for this tag. Information on articles would be good enough.-- Tdxi an g @ 09:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree. The interwiki links on the left that are standard MediaWiki fare are good enough for this purpose. - Tangotango 08:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Four for delete, none for keep. Blockinblox 14:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collingwood Magpies

Nothing written in this article, as it seems.-- Tdxi an g @ 09:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, blank article.--TBCΦtalk? 19:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon Hall Open Farm

Non-notable tourist attraction. Few relevant Google results [6] and no article on the English Wikipedia [7].--TBCΦtalk? 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per TBC.-- Tdxi an g @ 04:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One party democracy

A neologism for political systems in some African countries. Doesn't have an article on Wikipedia [8], and few relevant Google results [9].--TBCΦtalk? 21:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, per TBC.-- Tdxi an g @ 09:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newgrounds BBS

Per consensus at the English Wikipedia. Non-notable forum that doesn't seem to be a core article (in fact, we don't even have a Newgrounds article yet).--TBCΦtalk? 19:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-core articles are not allowed.-- Tdxi an g @ 09:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swordmetal

Non-notable, article not found on EN.-- Tdxi an g @ 10:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page appears to have been deleted from en: in August, didn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. Appears to be an invented genre, most Google hits are links to the same single site (swordmetal.com). Caknuck 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ...Aurora... 03:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Chile

Unencyclopedic, nothing related to the article.-- Tdxi an g @ 10:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. ...Aurora... 03:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfid

Unencyclopedic, more like an essay.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - also seems like POV pushing, given their controversial nature and the uproar against them. Blockinblox 11:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed. --Bhadani 15:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite ( I voilunteer for the initial stub). ALternatively delete and recreate. -- Eptalon 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wrong caps anyway. ...Aurora... 03:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rybka

Point of view slanted. Delete.-- Tdxi an g @ 09:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable subject, though it needs cleanup. Also, there doesn't seem to be any major POV violations as claimed by nom.--TBCΦtalk? 15:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. ...Aurora... 03:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rawk

Non-notable myspace band. 4 google hits searching "Eric Landa" and "Rawk" zephyr2k 10:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...Aurora... 03:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Movies

Redundant due to Category:Films.--TBCΦtalk? 21:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems backwards. EN uses en:Category:Films, we should also. -- Netoholic @ 08:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I'll change the nomination. Thanks for the suggestion.--TBCΦtalk? 13:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be a LOT less work to merge films over to movies. Look at all the subcats! And isn't movies is a better title for simple English? Blockinblox 14:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Just move it.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - It's not that simple with categories, they can't be moved like other pages and every single article containing the cat that is moved will also have to be changed. Blockinblox 13:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake! I'm sorry, it can't be moved, as it is a MediaWiki based page! Sorry.-- Tdxiang @ 04:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I prefer to delete films and move the articles over to the movies category. I agree with Blockinbox. Deleting movies will mean a lot of work and films is less simple. zephyr2k 14:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I will delete films once it is depleted and merged with movies. Blockinblox 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Only 6 entries were left in Cat:films, so I changed them all to Cat:movies. Creol 16:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CERN

Spam. Also articles from the same ip- Advanced Research Projects Agency, Tim Berners-Lee, Privacy, User, ICQ -- Creol 11:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shaka repon

Nonesense article, link to an unencyclopedic site only.-- Tdxi an g @ 09:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abel and Buffy (Motley's Crew)

Unencyclopedic content.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - English WP states that the comic strip in question hasn't been regularly published since 2000. So characters that don't appear often shouldn't be notable enough for inclusion here. Also Motley's Crew should probably go, too. Caknuck 02:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? It is notable, so I do not think Motley's Crew should go at all. :)-- Tdxi an g @ 09:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Cato Pleeda

Nonsense. No google hits, no EN wiki article. zephyr2k 00:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page may need to be protected. Author keeps recreating the page. zephyr2k 11:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reprotect.-- Tdxi an g @ 10:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Protected. ...Aurora... 03:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0irc

Non-notable, unencyclopedic. zephyr2k 00:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google only gets 698 hits for 0irc. PullToOpen ^Talk/_Contribs 00:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic.-- Tdxi an g @ 09:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cacophony

Unencyclopedic, dictionary style and only one link, from Guitarist, which the link has nothing in relation to the word "Cacophony".-- Tdxi an g @ 09:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Young people

Title is trivial for an encyclopedia subject, content is unreferenced as to pov. Blockinblox 14:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; unverified and pov. --TBCΦtalk? 00:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to youth.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to delete. I apologise for any confusion caused.-- Tdxi an g @ 03:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2F teacher

Unclear context, is extremely POV, does not even have an article on the English Wikipedia. No Google results for the phrase. - Tangotango 09:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a definition given to teachers that is meant to be taken in a positive way, as a guide, or possible guide, to improving the learning experience of students. It in no way implies that this is what is required of all teachers. (We can not find Fat Tax on English Wikipedia either, even though it is a real tax on fat products desighned to prevent obesity.) —This unsigned comment was added by 80.98.56.139 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please note our Neutral Point of View policy - pages should not be intended to be "taken in a positive way". Nor should they be intended to be used as a guide; this is an encyclopedia, after all. In addition, on the Simple English Wikipedia, we are concentrating on our core articles, which I doubt includes this topic. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. If it is non-notable, consider deletion.-- Tdxi an g @ 11:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to delete, unless context can be shown for example, what country educational suystem are they talking about? Blockinblox 13:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google offers no help, but may suggest that this is particular to Turkey. Caknuck 18:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives