User:Mailer diablo/The Mailer Diablo Deletion Project/Comparison history

Journey Through Time contains selected samples of the formal deletion process through the times. Veteran editors are likely to find a sense of nostalgia in these deletion debates.

Deletion utility, early-2002

• 362 Rappaz - wikipedia is not a web directory
• Pre-automatic dictatorship -- idiosyncratic nonsense
• Light rail/USA - copyright violation
• William Shakespeare/How to upload Shakespeare to Wikipedia--a good cause - as well as being an orphan, this article promotes a now abandoned way of doing things. Most of the debating part likely exists on other pages.
• IOC/Olympic Movement - Orphan contains only an old note saying that copyrighted material was removed.
• History of Science and Technology/Chemistry - old format orphan with limited simplistic content that's included elsewhere.
• Wikipedia/Code - redundant orphan with no content
• Wikipedians/Todo - someone's old misplaced to do list
• Mark Shuttleworth; Danny Fischler;

Votes for Deletion, late-2002

• Israeli-Palestinian violence
  • July 25, 2002: This is not a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia, and people who feel strongly about the topic will be distracted from working on proper articles by the need to purge it of propaganda for one side or the other. GrahamN
• Talk:Palestine/Commentary
  • Nothing but a series of questions that appear to be aimed at answering some homework question. --mav
    • I don't think this is homework at all. They sound like fairly reasonable (relatively speaking) rhetorical questions on the issue, designed to argue that Palestine was not a historic homeland for Jews for the roughly 2 millennia between 135 and 1948, which is a common claim. I've moved the material to Talk:Palestine where I hope it will be seen and properly archived. I don't know where it should be archived; hopefully you do. I also don't know if I redirected the page to proper spot (again Talk:Palestine); hopefully you can fix that too. But I do think that it's as legitimate commentary as any of the other stuff on those archives.
• American Communists (essy moved to meta -- page ready for deletion)
  • Article by Helga essentially claiming without basis that Communist infiltrators determined American policy during the Truman administration. Danny
    • Why not redirect it to "Communism in the United States" and it can be an overview of CPUSA, SWP, and all the various communist parties and thinkers that the US has seen? djk
• MP
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary - Zoe
  • OTOH, we could certainly use an article Member of Parliament, which MP could redirect to. Alternatively, discuss this in Parliament, which currently doesn't even mention the abbreviation. — Toby 07:54 Aug 3, 2002 (PDT)
  • If there's going to be an article called MP, it should be a disambiguation page, since the abbreviations is also used for military police (or even mounted police), mezzo piano (music) and melting point - at least, that's what my dictionary tells me. Jeronimo
  • Sure, of course it should be a disambiguation page instead of a redirect — if there's another meaning for "MP"!!! Which, erm, there is, I guess .... — Toby 00:00 Aug 5, 2002 (PDT)
• personal relationship
  • Not an encyclopedia article at present; so general and vague a topic its going to be difficult to make it one.
• Obituary and its sub-pages
  • As a group these form an orphan; information is also on the normal year pages. Andre Engels
• Non-English Wikipedias/OldTextToTranslate
  • Looks like this stuff is no longer of any use, or is it? Jeronimo
• Image:Star-black-d.gif
• Image:Talab.jpg
  • Might this perhaps be used in the Arab version; does anyone know how to check that?
• Image:Nf01511.jpg

Votes for Deletion, mid-2003

Summary

see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/August 15

• Love-Hate relationship
• Shit sandwich
• HUA quotient
• 16 words

Debate

• Shit sandwich and HUA quotient - I don't think these articles add much to the sum of human knowlege. Mintguy 16:29, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • Without considerable expansion or revision, which I am at a loss to see how it would happen, the former should be gone. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:26, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't know, I've heard this typically southern expression all my life. It might be better off as a wikidictionary entry rather than an encyclopedia article.Ark30inf 17:34, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • No, it's clear that Wikipedia, not Wiktionary, must function as the idiom dictionary. There are thousands of such expressions and almost all need much more explanation than a conventional dictionary should offer: culture, history, etc. For instance the fact that it's a US South and military expression should be mentioned in the article. EofT
  • I'm against deletion. We aren't here to "add to the sum of human knowledge", but perhaps, we can save some poor bastard who only barely speaks English or has only recently moved to the US South, from a few hours of anxiety between the time his colleagues tell him that the boss will "feed him a shit sandwich" in an upcoming meeting, and that meeting. If we move this, let's move it to Simple English Wikipedia, where maybe simple idioms can be explained more justifiably than here. EofT
  • Leave 'em. -- Infrogmation 19:41, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • The shit sandwich article has been expanded into something resembling a real article, keep it. --Dante Alighieri 19:42, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • Upon further reflection, I think that shit sandwich, cluster fuck, SNAFU and the like should be combined into a new article (U.S. military slang terms perhaps) which can deal with the phenomenon on a larger scale. Some sociologist out there must be interested in this sort of terminology. --Dante Alighieri 20:18, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • "Shit sandwich" is found in USA slan far beyond military usage. --Infrogmation 22:03, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • I'd say move to Wiktionary. Etymology, regional usage, and so on of both words and phrases are all the proper domain of a dictionray, not an encyclopedia. More general sociological articles like U.S. military slang terms would be okay of course, but ones like this really don't belong in an encyclopedia. --Delirium 00:43, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)
  • Many of these terms aren't US-specific. Martin 09:24, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • I'm with Delirium here: The meaning of phrases and proverbs, and in what (geographical or cultural) environment they are use is dictionary information, not encyclopedic information. Andre Engels 15:04, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For crying out loud, this page had got to be deleted. It's basically the most offensive web site that exists on wikipedia. I've learnt that two schools have banned wikipedia because kids have found this definition and emailed it acroos the entire scool mailing list.

---

Votes for Deletion, late-2003 to early-2004

December 10

• Post-colonialism in literature consists of 2 references to books, has been on clean-up for a month with zero progress. Maximus Rex 04:00, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with Maximus Rex - while a potentially interesting article, it's languished on cleanup long enough. -- Finlay McWalter 04:16, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, I changed my mind about this one, I voted to keep last time to give it a chance. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • How does deleting it help anyone? The references are a start, better than nothing. Keep. --The Cunctator 04:28, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not an article. Angela. 08:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. BL 18:37, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Why? Maximus Rex 07:25, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's just footnotes. BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:07, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• Casti Connubii - wikisource? Secretlondon 14:10, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
  • Not an article. Delete. Bmills 14:18, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Replace with an article about the encyclical. --MIRV 15:12, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. BL 15:52, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Agree, not an article. Delete - Marshman 05:39, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, move to wikisource is optional. Daniel Quinlan 07:32, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)
  • Keep. The content isn't too good yet, but there's nothing wrong with having an article about it. It should be improved, not deleted. Tualha 06:08, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete, not an article -- wikisource sounds good. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 18:07, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• Bonnie
  • Deletion vote continued at Talk:Bonnie

Votes for Deletion, mid-2004

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Ubitsa.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

---

Looks like some sort of inside thing of gamesplayers, or something like. Unless someone knows what this is about & can do something encyclopedic with it, delete. -- Jmabel 07:37, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

• Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. Delete. DS 17:47, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
• Oh no, it belongs to an 0wner. We'd better keep it or we'll get 0wnz0red. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998 20:24, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete it. And if you ever see this Ubitsa on EFnet or AtomicChat or even UT2k4 or Tribes (sic), be sure to 0wnz0rz his sorry 455. Cymydog Naakka 21:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
• 0h L0rd, is this s0me kind 0f s0rry. 0bliterate. - Lucky 6.9 21:56, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
• Ubitsa is Russian for "killer"? Let's kill (delete) this article. Andris 02:22, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

---

References

---

Part of The Mailer Diablo Deletion Project   < Return to Main Page