Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions/2004 June 13
This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of many pages.
This page is kept as an historic record.
The results of these debates were to delete the relevant articles.
Please do not edit this page.
- Delete. blankfaze | ?? 04:33, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a vanity press. - Aaron Hill 12:13, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- We just have to get this guy together with the idiot who keeps posting the TV and movie substubs I've been screaming about! Delete. - Lucky 6.9 06:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete unless significantly more notable than is obvious. Rossumcapek 18:33, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Wikisource and delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:43, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Moved to wikisource Theon 14:26, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Isn't this the sort of stuff that can be found on hundreds of websites? Do we need it here? RickK 06:05, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, if there is anything there which can be added to Emoticon (which is a reasonably nice article on the topic), then someone may wish to do so. —Stormie 06:10, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't need a list on this, there no standard definition of what emotions some of them stand for or how they are supposed to be represented (ie :) or :-)). The emoticon article (and wikipedia as a whole) is fine without this content. --Starx 00:08, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Emoticon is fine. Actually I find most such lists irritating because only a relative handful are actually used with any frequency; the rest appear only on lists of emoticons, need to be explained whenever used, and are used only in order to have the pleasure of explaining them. :P :\ Dpbsmith 01:19, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Isn't that what encyclopedia entries are for? Voyager640 04:41, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- People not only say things should be deleted because they CAN'T be found on hundreds of websites, but also because they CAN? Seems kind of absurd. Keep. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:26, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. There are a few interesting ones in the Emoticons article. This further list of 15 is just a waste of space. It doesn't link back to the main article, it isn't comprehensive and it is already all over the internet. Michael L. Kaufman 05:09, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Another borderline speedy. Ongah Monopa gets zero hits. "monic tribes" gets no hits. "monic tribe" gets no relevant hits. Unfortunately there a language branch named "Monic" (although it looks like the culture's name was "Mon") and a bunch of other Monic hits that don't seem relevant, but there's too many to really wade thru. Mediterra gets hits, but I think it is Italian(?) for Mediterranean (the languages are SE Asia). Niteowlneils 04:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: If this article is about the Mon culture, the most generic statements are true. It is where specific information is given that it seems unverifiable. That always makes me suspicious. If anyone wants to follow up, try reading , , . SWAdair | Talk 08:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- This was removed from VFD by an anon user. (Would you like to explain why?) -- EuroTom 12:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) (Incidently, my vote would be to Delete.) -- EuroTom 05:06, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- He was targeting my edits because of my delete vote for Godlike27 (see above). Already listed on Vandalism in progress for vandalism of multiple pages. I don't think he had anything against this listing -- he just saw my name and decided to blank this one as well. SWAdair | Talk 04:18, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This discussion is now closed. With two clear votes to delete and no clear votes to keep, the result is DELETE.
DJ Clayworth 15:41, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debates and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issues or the deletions should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.