Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Epopt (talk | contribs) at 01:21, 11 July 2005 (Phuk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Conti|✉ 02:58, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Socio-Nationalism

Neologism. Denni☯ 00:30, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Conti|✉ 03:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Amir farmanesh

Vanity--an accomplished individual, but unfortunatedly not a notable one. tregoweth 00:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 03:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Farmanesh

Vanity--an accomplished individual, but unfortunatedly not a notable one. tregoweth 00:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Power Rangers monsters --Conti|✉ 03:13, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Silo Monster

Monster from one episode of power rangers. Non-notable to the extreme.--InShaneee 00:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. --Conti|✉ 03:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Jeffries Projects

No claim to notability. Just some buildings with a history of falling apart and housing drug dealers. — Ливай | Ⓣ 01:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unlike Cabrini Green or Robert Taylor Homes, there is no indication that this particular project served any role in history, was the locus of any particular action, or is an exemplar of the misguided project mentality. The number of persons passing through it is totally irrelevant, because, by that logic, again, every pizzaria in New York City would be more "notable" than the Battle of Little Big Horn. Rather, it is the effect that a thing has had on the world, and it is that solely because that indicates the likelihood of a need for discussion and explanation and the likelihood of a term being sought by researchers. There is no rule on tenements, projects, height of buildings, etc. To suggest such is to abrogate your voting responsibilities entirely in favor of "rubber stamp" votes. Each article is an individual entity. Geogre 15:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not some corner pizzeria; it was a community of thousands of people. If the community was sited in nice private homes spread out over some suburban tract, presumably there would not be an objection, because there are thousands of such articles on Wikipedia.--Pharos 18:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There would be an objection from me. We do not cover subdivisions, housing estates, etc. We don't do that for the rich or the poor. We only do little subdivisions of perfect homes if they have some interplay with history or the wider culture. The same should be true of tenements. Again, saying "lots of people live there" is ridiculous as a criterion for inclusion or deletion. You don't feel a sudden need to look up 225 Smith Street in Shanghai just because there might be 1,000 people there. You need to look it up if it has some significance other than being a big box of people, if it has some place in history or politics or literature or some other way in which it needs contextualizing. To think otherwise is to think that encyclopedias are about good and bad, that they are passing values by inclusion. Not so. Geogre 23:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It becomes no less notable for being a notable neighborhood belonging to poor people. A. J. Luxton 22:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying it's not notable because poor people live in it. Rather, because there is no claim to notability in the article, besides simply housing a lot of people. Like Geogre said, how do these buildings affect society at large? Should I be encouraged to write articles on each dormitory complex at my university? After all, lots of people live there, even if there's virtually nothing to say about them, and certainly nothing that would be of any interest or relevance to the wider culture. We live in a world of six billion people. Allowing articles for anything that holds a couple thousand, regardless of whether anything notable ever happened there, would be like allowing an article for every street in every big city. — Ливай | Ⓣ 00:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable neighborhood royblumy 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is this article different then one on public housing high rise projects built in the 1950s? Didn't they all go through the same set of problems? If so, then why is this one so unique that it is encylopedic on its own and not unreasonable to just cover it in a general topic article? Somehow I don't see the number of complaints being filed as encylopedic. Vegaswikian 04:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm becoming more of a rabid inclusionist every time I see a needless VfD like this one. This housing project is notable enough and an interesting part of Detroit's history, a neighborhood of sorts in its own right. Why delete it? It's a symbol of, and an important part of, Detroit's particular social culture, especially as it existed in the era of large housing projects. And it's become a cliche but for heaven's sake, repeat after me, Wikipedia is not paper. Edit: I've read a bit about this housing development, and have consequently added some to the article as well as added a link. Actually, this was rather a notable housing development in Detroit (uh, thirteen separate 14-story buildings; don't minimize it), and serves as a symbol of the failures of the high-rise, isolated public-housing model in American cities. There are many articles about the projects (find them on Google) and I encourage everyone to read the article linked in the article now, from the Detroit News. This isn't, as someone keeps comparing these supposedly "non-notable" VfD entries to, a random pizzeria. Moncrief 06:15, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. These housing projects are a big part of how urban America developed itself. Development like that is a big thing in that it drastically affects how a city grows and shapes itself. They are now a big part of urban America's history. They notable, especially these extreme examples. -maclean25 07:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in the article established notability. As they've been mostly destroyed, I don't see how something new could happen that would make them notable. Maybe they're still known to people from that area, but I don't see how buildings (even large ones) are automatically notable. Friday 14:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is a minor concern for a non-paper Wikipedia. It is not a great article, but it could, with expansion and more verifiability, be valuable to researchers. Such concerns are editorial, and not deletion criteria. Dystopos 15:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencylopedic. Nothing her or in the article has shown that this neighborhood is encylopedic. It could be mentioned in a list of failed 1950s projects or maybe, if they are different enough, in a failed detroit neighborhood article. This would not be the place for a researcher to look for information, they would go to the back issues of the local newspapers. This is not the place for everything non encylopedic. For this resource to be useful there needs to be quality. Without quality articles, this wiki will die. Including articles that should not belong does not help this project. Notability is not the criteria for admission, however lack of notability is clearly a reason to not include an article. Noteable articles that are not encylopedic should be deleted. Vegaswikian 19:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I disagree. Researchers will look here for information on topics that are encyclopedic, even if well below the bar of notability for paper encyclopediae. It is more helpful (and absolutely NOT harmful) to have such information preserved here. This would, of course, include references to the pertinent back issues of local papers. Where there is a lack of "quality", there is an invitation to improve the article, not to axe it. --- And while I'm on it, even if I were going to give "notability" more credit as a criterion for deletion, having witnessed a consensus to keep a fleeting web-meme, I would have to set the bar WELL below the threshold of a major public housing project in a major American city. Dystopos 19:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment so a bad decision can be used to justify more? The issue is encylopedic and I don't see that quality in this article. I do see it for an article about the failed housing projects of the 1950s since they all had similar histories and problems. For a project to be encylopedic on its own it would have to be rather different then a general article. I suspect that you and I would agree that some VfD votes keep moving the bar lower and that may not be a good thing if it gets too low. Vegaswikian 00:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • We probably would agree on some. In this case, I think a single housing project is likely to have as much verifiable, encyclopedic info as entire classes of Wikipedia entries both notable and not notable. The fact that the article does not yet contain much of it is an editorial weakness. Deletion doesn't help us. Wikipedia is blessed with the potential to become much more than a paper encyclopedia. Articles like this should be left open to encourage the development of that potential. Dystopos 03:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 03:40, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

ZAG

Seems to be a hoax, google returns zero hits. PrologFan 01:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neologism, probably just a joke. — Ливай | Ⓣ 01:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably a hoax. Jaxl 01:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. -mysekurity 01:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unverifiable. The article helpfully tells us that the organization lacks any tangible existence. There's nothing to rewrite about, moreover. Although quite a few ZAG University departments exist, Zentrum für Angewandte Geowissenschaften and Zentrum für Anthropologie und Gender Studies aren't the English names that they are known by. Delete. Uncle G 01:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence such an organization actually exists. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a hoax or is not noteworthy. The irony in the ZAG is pretty funny. DarthVader 02:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems more like a bad joke and unverifiable. Poli (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. royblumy 00:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Original author here... perhaps it should be deleted: ZAG is indeed a joke. I guess the question is whether the joke is widespread enough to make note here. Or perhaps just the article tone is wrong. Much like TLA and GNU, ZAG is an amusing self referential joke on the tendancy to turn everything into an acronym. I guess calling it an organization is misleading... it's just that that is the form of the joke: someone complains about acronyms, and then the jokester asks if they'd like to join the association for "zero acronym growth", or ZAG. Ha ha ha. Well, that's the deal. If it should be deleted based on that, I won't argue. If it should be modified, that sounds good too. Thanks. 05:00, , 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just made an attempt to wikify and expand the page. It isn't a hoax, simply a joke that I believe deserves an explanation. -- Reinyday 16:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, is it a notable joke? How popular is it? There are no Google hits for "zero acronym growth", and I can't fathom why an English-language joke notable enough for an encyclopedia would not appear anywhere on the web. — Ливай | Ⓣ 23:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Dcarrano 00:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 03:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

MentalBot

Somewhere between "not notable" and "vanity". There are some 26000 hits for the Beehive Forums, which might merit an article (although not in my opinion). However, the bot itself gets very few hits, and none from the aforementioned article. Nothing links here, and only two edits -- from the same anonymous user -- grace the article. Avriette 01:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • Add "nonsense" to above two reasons. Avriette 01:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I would have said {{db|inspid rubbish}} but probably people would have called me prejudiced, or a deletionist, or whatever. I figured it wasn't a speedy, and that the vfd would bear it out. Last time I thought something was completely deletable, 40mm grenade, the article was vastly expanded within a week. I am generally not generous. Avriette 07:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Conti|✉ 03:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Phuk

hoax with zero (0) relevant Google hits ➥the Epopt 01:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_11&oldid=18567540"