Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Log 5

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 April 2007

[edit] April 2007

[edit] Hard

WP is not a dictionary, and this article is basically a dictionary definition. Dreyderswinson 16:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary - I have added a {{dicdef}} tag, which nominates the page for moval to the wiktionary. --rimshot^talk 16:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawo

No assertion of notability as far as I can tell, and not really suited to this project at the moment. J Di 14:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete under quick deletion criteria A4. PTO 16:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the Garter, Franks, ist of Byzantine Emperors, Privy Council of the United Kingdom

These four articles are direct copy-pastes of en:wiki articles. The user who created them was warned on March 29th that if s/he did not make an effort to simplify the articles, I would put them up for deletion. The editor has made no effort to simplify in the last week. In their current state, the articles serve no purpose. · Tygartl1^·talk· 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have gone through the List of Byzantine Emperors article and simplified/trimmed it down so it is a lot easier to read and just has the more basic information needed for the article (did not need causes off leaving office or greek names, could also remove son/husband/wife of info but that seems minor and yet provides a little bit of a trail through the history) -- Creol(talk) 08:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete, and re-create in a form better suited to SimpleWP. --Eptalon 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Simplification might also be an option; if anyone feels like it. --Eptalon 08:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete per request. BrownE34 talk contribs 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There are GFDL copyright issues with copy-pasting, too. PTO 19:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete for all but the list of Byzantine Emperors. As a list, that one just needs a light simplify. -- Creol(talk) 10:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Simplify - then we won't have to delete. These are all good encyclopedic topics with many inbound links (they came off the top of the redlink list). There is definitely no copyright illegality with pasting an En: wikipedia article here though, and many people have always done so on the understanding that the articles were to be simplified within a short time. Blockinblox - talk 12:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done., deleted.-- Tdxi a n g 09:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- List of Byzantine Emperors was 2 1/2 delete, 2 1/2 simplify (and it was simplified). The others were 3 1/2 delete, 1 1/2 simplify. The list did not reach a majority so I restored it. (Also, it's deletes were before it was cleaned up so those could have been a change of position after the simplify) -- Creol(talk) 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yochanan Vollach

The article is a direct copy-paste of the English article. It was done by an IP address 2 days ago so I can't really give the user a chance to simplify it. I would suggest giving people a few days to simplify and then delete it if no one wants to. · Tygartl1^·talk· 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think it is too early to judge. Also the English reads quite simple already. I would propose to take up the discussion in about a week, if no attempts at simplification have been made (by the original author). Given the article is rather short, I would also opt for the community to help simplify. --Eptalon 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: I did some simplification (rewrite would probably better fit it, the English used in the article was terrible). At least sentences are shorter now. I have not checked the facts though. --Eptalon 09:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - This is a personal opinion of mine, obviously, but I am not a fan of copying over from English. I think that if editors want to copy and paste and then simplify, that is fine; however, I feel that they should do the simplification in a very timely manner, preferably immediately after doing the copying and pasting. In my opinion, two days is more than enough time for deletion. Browne34 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete (unless someone steps up and simplifies it). We have enough articles already in need of simplification to keep our limited group of editors busy for quite some time with all the other things on our plates. The person who copy/pasted it made it clear they have no intention of simplifying the article (check the talk page - they went so far as to inform us that we need to simplify it for them... ). En:WP copy/pastes have been brought up at least twice on simple talk with the same result basically - case by case basis, leaning to delete/quick delete on articles where simplification is definitely needed and there is no attempt from the creator to even try to do the job. Our editors can not be expected to pick up all the slack from people who just want to copy/paste their favorite topic over here from en:WP and leave the work to us. Copy/pasting is a valid tool for creating strong articles, but only if the person doing it follows up with the needed steps to turn it into an article that meets the guidelines for Simple English. -- Creol(talk) 05:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, unless the original author or the person that left the comment on my user page and the talk page of Yochanan Vollach (or anyone else) at least show an attempt to simplify it further; deadline is April 16. --Eptalon 07:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done., deleted.-- Tdxi a n g 09:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico (state)

Delete: This is supposed to be about the state not about the country Mexico. As it stands now (and has since the beginning), it is about the country. Also, it does not have any information not in the article on Mexico. Deleting it now may give someone the incentive to create an article about the state later. rimshot^talk 09:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost every wikipedia has a proper article about the state, and so should we. Ideally someone might correct the article now without having to delete it. Blockinblox - talk 12:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Keeping or deleting the article does not really change the effort needed to do that, however. --rimshot^talk 12:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the info to be a valid stub for the State of Mexico (within Mexico). Therefore, I do not see any reason for deletion any longer. --Eptalon 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

closing as kept since the original criterion for deletion no longer applies. Blockinblox - talk 12:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Result:Kept --Eptalon 08:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magic christian

Probably non-notable. Vote to delete it. --Eptalon 15:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Update:en has a short article about him, which is pretty similar to what is in simple; in addition, there seems to be a book and a film. --Eptalon 16:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, on grounds of notability? --Eptalon 15:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, but perhaps merge into article Magic, on a section about magicians?-- Tdxi a n g 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Result:Deleted --Eptalon 09:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Glamorgan

Listed as up for deletion, comment of Author was not needed; two articles in cat, Glamorgan and Cardiff. Propose to delete it. --Eptalon 15:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Rimshot put up the RFD; all I did was take that and put it here. --Eptalon 21:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per above --Eptalon 15:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, provided it can be filled with at least two more articles (as proposed), within reasonable time.

--Eptalon 21:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - The category was not nominated by the author; it was nominated over a year and a half after creation by another user. Glamorgan is the 2nd largest county in Wales and home to the capital city, Cardiff. While we currently only have 2 entries in the category, there is certainly potential for expansion of the category. The en.wiki category has 62 pages and 12 subcats for the county so expansion is there, and we could add 2 more pages to the category or a sub category with little effort (Martin Amis is a native of Cardiff, Torchwood is set in Cardiff and takes place all over Glamorgan). It is one thing to not create categories for just one or two pages, but if the category already exists, and has potential for expansion, I do not think it should be deleted. -- Creol(talk) 16:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Creol's reasons Blockinblox - talk 17:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not putting it here. I really don't know why I forgot that. The reason I added the rfd tag was that the category at the time contained only one article: Glamorgan itself. The point of this discussion is (also) to find out whether there is potential for growth. It now looks as if there might be some. Therefore I am now neutral on the topic. Again, sorry for the confusion. --rimshot^talk 09:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)