Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions/2004 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cybofree[edit]

9 google hits. Entry written by User:VRmanoj, which claims the term was coined by "V.R.Manoj". Maximus Rex 19:34, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Umm, it says it was written about in some journal, so perhaps it's worth keeping. The page needs rewriting, though. --Tothebarricades.tk 20:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not everything written in some journal merits Wikipedia entry. Andris 20:28, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • If anyone knows if that journal is reasonably respectable, its probably worth keeping. If its a minor journal, might want to wait for a second occurence before actually wiki-ing it. siroxo 22:32, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Vote to keep; while the term is certainly ridiculous (in my opinion), we shouldn't use that as a basis for removing the article. This article provides valid information about this term, and would be useful to people looking up 'cybofree'. Anyone else would not even know it existed, and would thus not be bothered by it in any way. --Jeff 22:47, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • This completely ignores the real argument: the article should be deleted because the term has no currency whatsoever beyond the two people who wrote a paper about it. WP does not exist for the promotion of their invention. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • It's not promotion if nobody reads it; but if people want to read it, then they should have that option open.
  • Delete. A term a couple of academics made up in hopes that other people would adopt it. Google returns 17 hits for "cybofree", every last one of them associated with the Manoj and Azariah. -- Let me explain that invention of neologisms is very common in some fields. It is a form of advertising: every time someone mentions the neologism, it reflects well on the authors. There are hundreds of academic journals, and they generate many neologisms every year, the vast majority of which do not enter common use. Until someone comes up with some evidence, we should consider "cybofree" an idiosyncratic neologism. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Promotion of personal neologism. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Rossami 15:44, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, for goodness sake. If I invent a word and then write about it on the Internet, it can be a Wikipedia article? Please. Delete. RickK 19:36, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP VRmanoj 20:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC) : Just because a new term has only 9 hits on a controversial search engine does not entitle it for deletion. The very purpose of WIKIPEDIA or any encyclopaedia is to enable people to find obscure or rare terms on any given subject. In this context, Cybofree is a relatively new term in the area of cyborgs. The journal in which it has been published ;Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics is a well respected and credible journal. You don't just delete it assuming that the author wishes to advertise. Deletion would be justified only if the purpose of the internet is to prevent new information; however rare or crazy, from reaching the people.Please read and understand what a term means before blatantly deciding it's worth. This is a request, not an argument. VRmanoj 20:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The referenced paper is a proposal for this new term, which does not seem to have been adopted in the relevant fields. The paper seems to have been peer-reviewed in the field of bioethics, so perhaps a new title could be found, and the article written as more than a stub. As it stands it seems to relate to psychology more than bioethics. --Zigger 04:01, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

Wikipolice[edit]

now Wikipedia:Wikipolice --Jerzy(t) 01:47, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)

Vandalism? Move to Wikipedia:Wikipolice. Delete to BJAODN? Dunc Harris | Talk 22:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

by User:Irismeister, oh golly, here we go... Dunc Harris | Talk 22:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Almost an interesting concept, but its a very subjectively written page, and has no real basis yet. It also fails to clearly state what Wikipolice are, just alludes to thier necissity and formation. Definately at least move, perhaps delete. siroxo 22:42, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • So gentlemen, I work and you just vote for deletion! Moreover, you are using gobbledygook like vandalism (an editor who initiated hundreds of enclycopedic articles is, by definition not a vandal) and oh golly. What is the purpose of Wikipedia if contributors write, and Wikipolice deletes. You see the point? This proves that the page is badly needed. So, gentlemen, just thhhinkkkk again, before you offer VfD, with a stress on thinking not on your POV :O)!
    • It sound like you would be more at home with the editorial policies at Wikinfo, so if you don't think the people here will give you the chance to write the article as you want it, why not just go there? This certainly doesn't seem to be accomplishing anything with your time. Thue 23:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • No thank you, Thue! Redirection is not a good, constructive, genuine authoring policy. Have gone through months of research only to see my criticism of Conventional Medicine dismissed in a second by an imbecile, and put beyond Wiki traffic. If Wiki has articles on tampons and fists, which do nothing to improve the Wikipedian image, Wikipolice is here to stay, for it certainly improves it - and they need their own police :O) Besides, I'd rather lose a bit to earn a lot of my time, in the "tolerance with the wolves is cruelty to the lambs" line of thought :O) - irismeister 23:36, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
        • Couldn't redirection be good? If there we a positive and a negative article for a topic then the reader would be forced to consider both and make up his own mind. Articles could still have review, and be improved, but the problem of wikipolice with a totally different worldview would not exist. Thue 23:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • siroxo thank you for constructive criticism, this is only a first proposal, not even a stub yet. So thanks for your SPEED :::::O)- irismeister 22:47, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • This is part of Irismeister's ongoing attacks on User:Theresa Knott. Speedy delete. Consumerium might want it, though - David Gerard 23:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Nope, David, don't Wikicacadevaca me :O) It's a genuine legitimate NEW article, on policing the police, you bent mind over contorted ratiocinations :O) - irismeister 23:06, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • Whatever its merits, it doesn't belong in the namespace. Move it to Meta or delete it, it's that simple. There are no alternatives. RickK 23:53, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Does 'move' work across namespaces? If so, do that promptly - David Gerard 00:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not move. Not funny, so no BJAODN. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:22, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia.org is an anarchy. We don't need police. Mob rules.--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 00:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote yet. I moved it to Wikipedia:Wikipolice, on the grounds that it is not encyclopedic but may deserve more than 5 minutes consideration on meta. Even if the editor deserves sactions for vandalism, for pretending not to understand the difference between meta and articles. --Jerzy(t) 01:47, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Not sure what to do with this but it doesn't belong in namespace. Certainly not vandalism.It is POV and original research, but Irismeister does make a few good points. Personally, I'd park this at Village Pump, or create a Wikipedia:Op-Ed (oh, be honest. Wikipedia:Rant) in Meta. We need something like that anyway. Denni 03:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme predjudice. Snowspinner 05:34, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only long enough to be considered as part of Irismeister's arbitration case. Then delete. Content like this belongs on Meta, so if Irismeister wants it, he can recreate it there. --Michael Snow 05:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP-A charming article/project page on one of everybodies favorite pastime activies. -- John Gohde 09:00, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move or delete - it's 'original research' and non-neutral POV, so not qualified to be an encyclopaedia article. Average Earthman 12:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is also a proposal. As such, it has no place in an encyclopedia. Sir Paul 17:28, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep in Wikipedia namespace or move to meta. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 19:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not move - Original work proposal - Tεxτurε 20:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to personal subpage, or delete when arbitration is over. -Sean Curtin 22:17, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, although the arbitration committee may be interested in this. Maximus Rex 22:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rick K. Delete or move to meta. Interesting POV, but not inclusive in an encyclopedia as such. - Lucky 6.9 22:56, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Whatever is done with it, it doesn't belong in the article namespace. Also, does anyone else think it's inappropriate for Irismeister to be engaging in personal attacks and abuse of the article namespace after being banned once already for such behavior? I really don't understand why the Wikipedia community puts up with this sort of nonsense. Isomorphic 00:34, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, if Irismeister wants a page to complain about the behaviour of other editors, he can put it in his User namespace and deal with the consequences there. --Stormie 06:11, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this junk. Agreed with Stormie. -- Stevietheman 04:23, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It gets worse. Delete. Andy Mabbett 21:02, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This does not belong in the main namespace nor Wikipedia: namespace. Move to arbitration subpage, if this could be useful for Arbitration Committee. Andris 22:13, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not the sort of thing I expect when I open an encyclopedia. Gwimpey 07:24, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, if irismeister wants to make personal attacks against me he can do it on his user page like John Gohde has done. theresa knott 09:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A disgruntled self-justifying editorial, not an encyclopedia article. Fire Star 17:18, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mind-Brain Society[edit]

Shawn Mikula again, in between his ego explosion he did post some useful stuff on some mind-brain stuff, been away for a while, better to work with than against. I still suggest delete though; if it's notable enough someone else will post. The following was snipped from copyright problems: (Dunc Harris | Talk 20:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC))

The author has now posted on the discussion page, and claims to have permission for this material. I have no reason to doubt that the permission is genuine. I still think the page is simply an advert, perhaps it should be changed to a VfD? --gadfium 01:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm supporting VfD. Note that this page is a Shawn Mikula vehicle; see the talk page of that article to get a link to what I mean. VfD may spawn a truly enormous discussion again (between anonymous supporters and everybody else) but I'm all for it. Martijn faassen 19:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agreed w/ Martijn, VfD is the place to list it. Probably someone should check for additional Shawn Mikula promo articles. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I see my comment is copied over already. I was actually starting this procedure myself but it looks like I don't need to do a thing. Martijn faassen 20:38, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Likely an advert for website. Andris 20:30, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
  1. Speedy Delete. The Mind-Brain article has already been VfD'd once. --Starx 20:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Delete, of course, for reasons given above. I'm afraid I see it as almost but not quite eligible for speedy delete, because: I can't find a separate VfD debate on Mind-Brain.com; the discussions on Shawn Mikula and Mind-Brain.com were sufficiently mixed up that reviewing Template:VfD-Shawn_Mikula it's not 100.00000% clear that there was consensus on Mind-Brain.com; and the titles and content of the two articles are very similar but not absolutely identical. Title and text are close enough for speedy delete had there really been a well-articulated consensus on Mind-Brain.com, as opposed to "throw 'em both out." Text of old Mind-Brain.com article was (reformatted for compactness, external link omitted)
Mind-Brain.com is a brainchild of Shawn Mikula which was established in 2002 to develop, implement and support a wide range of neuroinformatics tools, services, databases, and information, and to foster communication and collaboration between neuroscientists, scientists from other fields, technicians, and engineers for the purposes of facilitating and accelerating the development of neuroscience and neurotechnologies. Objectives: Core Objective: To develop neuroscience and neurotechnologies with the intent of using them as tools for the enhancement and expansion of normal healthy human consciousness. Tangential Objectives: 1) To increase public awareness of the potentials offered by neuroscience and to educate the lay public in neuroscience matters; 2) To bring together highly motivated and competent scientists and other individuals for the purpose of achieving our core objective. 3) To provide useful neuroscience services, tools, databases, and information for the facilitation of neuroscience research.
  • Personally, I think ANY article that is recognised as being the work of Mikula should be speedily deleted. I guess that's kind-of fascist, but we don't have room for his BS in the Wikipedia. blankfaze | •­• 23:55, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If this is a Mikula article, it needs to go swiftly due to its author's prior declaration that his content was not licensed under the GFDL. (Which, inexplicably, we agreed with, and deleted the content on copyright grounds, thus effectively validating this claim, which means we should stick with it.) Snowspinner 05:49, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
This article was actually on the copyrights page before, but it apparently (according to the creator) got permission. So we can't delete it for reasons of copyright, unless this turns out to be a lie or something. Martijn faassen 17:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The issue was that, back in the first Mikula flareup, this user posted a bunch of articles that mentioned Shawn Mikula. The articles were kept for a while, but eventually the mentions of Shawn Mikula were taken out by various editors. This user then claimed that, unless the articles kept their mention of Shawn Mikula, Wikipedia did not have permission to use his copyrighted material. The pages were all deleted at this point, as sort of a good faith "Oh, you ddn't quite understand the GFDL" thing. My view is that this action means that it is uncertain whether a given contribution by this user is GFDL or not, and that we need to err on the side of "no lawsuit". Snowspinner 04:35, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a general policy I dislike authors starting articles about themselves or their projects. If it's worth writing, someone else will eventually do it. Isomorphic 00:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for all reasons already stated, and that Mikula is a has proven bubbleheaded jackass an extreme egotism in his behavior, and this works against the very nature of the Wikipedia. -- Stevietheman 04:38, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons stated. This is just senseless. - Lucky 6.9 07:47, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dept of Botany, University of Guelph[edit]

Article is a stub about a department of a University. Do individual departments really derseve their own articles? Krik 23:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Not in my book. Merge with University of Guelph and delete. blankfaze | •­• 00:02, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The magic eight ball says "probably not". At any rate, this is a sub-stub. Delete -- Cyrius|✎ 06:09, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not noteworthy. I guess we can use this article as a test case / precedent for Plant Sciences at Wageningen University, Plant Biology at Cornell, and Plant Sciences at Rice University. BTW, the author of these pages has made some very good botany-related contributions, but this trend should be nipped in the... No, I won't say it.  :-) SWAdair | Talk 06:32, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, a valid topic that is imortant to many. - SimonP 12:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, because the article is useless. Entire content is "The Department of Botany at Guelph carries out research and teaching in Botany," plus a link. You don't have to go to Wikipedia to know that any big university has a department of botany, or to find out what such a department does. Anyone who wants Guelph's published Web information can find it easily via Google. Since the topic itself is not obviously encyclopedic, having a stub placeholder contributes nothing. Anyone who knows enough notable things about this department to write an article about it can just go ahead and write it at any time; it's not as if this stub gives them a useful head-start or will serve as a reminder that we really need such an article. Someone could write a bot to generate thousands of such articles. "The Department of Zoology at the University of Wisconsin carries out research and teaching in Zoology." "The Yale department of Genetics carries out research and teaching in Genetics." "The Case Western Reserve department of Economics carries out research and teaching in Economics." These statements are close to being vacuously true. Almost-vacuously-true statements are not encyclopedic. If, say, the University of Wisconsin School of Agriculture operated an ice-cream store, now that would be encyclopedic. Dpbsmith 14:54, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unremarkable academic department. Agreed w/ Dpbsmith. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:05, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Andris 17:25, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:45, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I also agree with Dpbsmith. Furthermore, I believe these sort of vacuous statements should be speedy delete candidates, true or not. Two cents' worth. - Lucky 6.9 22:27, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Academic departments at universities just don't need their own encyclopedia articles. And this one is particularly useless. Isomorphic 00:27, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Uh, oh. There are plenty of similar articles (departments of universities) that seem to be stemming from List of plant science research institutions. -- SWAdair | Talk 12:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jong Park[edit]

This looks like vanity. The article talks about his contributions to biosophy, but "Jong Park" biosophy gives few hits, mostly pages written by himself. He also have another article about himself in wikipedia under Bhak Jonghwa, an alternative transliteration of his name. The other article is also listed on vfd. Thue 15:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • We probably also want to remove the note he left on Biosophy. Biosophy looks fishy in itself too, searching for fx Biosophy "Peter Wessel Zapffe" returns almost exclusively wikipedia hits. Not listing biosophy on vfd for now. Thue 16:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this and all the related pages as vanity. - Lucky 6.9 16:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google shows the person exists and has written some real papers. But this page is bizarre and does not give a reason why he's notable. Andris 20:26, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

.mpfa[edit]

File extension used by Jong Park mentioned above. Searching Google for .mpfa "file format" FASTA gives few hits, mostly irrelevant. Compare with the number of relevant google hits for .fa and .pfamentioned at FASTA format. Remember to remove .mpfa from the FASTA format list if/when deleting. Thue 15:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • It's not even a format, it's a file extension. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:22, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Christine Lee Hanson, Chris Mello, Carol Flyzik, Christine Snyder, Brady Howell[edit]

These individuals did nothing of note to warrant inclusion on wikipedia. --Jiang 00:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Move to memorial and Delete - Tεxτurε 00:51, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Memorial and delete. All otherwise non-notable. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Memorial and delete. PMC 02:17, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Added VfD header to these. Add Sue Kim Hanson and Peter Burton Hanson to the list. All are old entries and pre-date the creation of Wikimemorial. Move all to Wikimemorial and delete. Rossami 02:21, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RESULT:Memorial and delete. DJ Clayworth 17:09, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John Nebthos[edit]

RESULT: Deletion by large majority DJ Clayworth 16:54, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John Nebthos[edit]

RESULT: Deletion by large majority

Patrick van Katwijk[edit]

  • Delete. non-notable, un-googlable. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:46, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • He does seem to have been a photographer, and Google did return his website, but it's in Dutch. I'm not sure how notable he is/was. Not many hits other than his own site. Joyous 15:01, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete, non-notable --Jiang 03:46, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RESULT:Consensus to delete. DJ Clayworth 17:35, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Archived_articles_for_deletion_discussions/2004_June_9&oldid=1174355806"