Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 July 9

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Android79 (talk | contribs) at 01:08, 9 July 2005 (Victor augusto nieto righetti). 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 article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was speedily deleted as an attack page. FCYTravis 9 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)

Matthew tong

Vanity. Joyous (talk) July 9, 2005 00:15 (UTC)

  • Delete - vanity, anti-vanity, something like that. FreplySpang (talk) 9 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
  • Delete - Until I get further information on this page, I will say this is a vanity page.--Anti-Anonymex2 9 July 2005 00:55 (UTC)
  • Delete. Would be nice if these kinds of articles could be speedied. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 00:56 (UTC)
    • Actually, re-reading this, it's definitely an attack page, and ought to be speedied as such. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 00:58 (UTC)
  • Speedy - Why are we even wasting time on things like this? --IByte 9 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)
  • Speedy as obvious vandalism. Gazpacho 9 July 2005 01:47 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.

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 keep. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:08, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Afro-Mexican

Article has been merged into Afro-Latin American#Mexico. There is no article for Latin Americans so there is no no reason to separate this group out, let alone have several articles about them. If Afro-Latin American survives it's Vfd it should be merged, otherwise deleted SqueakBox July 9, 2005 00:20 (UTC)

Keep. If you are planning to delete Afro-Latin American then Afro-Mexican would be lost. There is a group for Latin Americans which is the Latin America article itself. There is an article about African Americans so an article about Afro-Mexicans is well justified.

Keep. or... merge all the articles in only one about black outside africa.

You don't have to merge the two articles because they don't talk about the same topic, one talks about people with African descent in Mexico the other one about people with African descent in Latin America. By your own argument then Mexico should be merged with the Latin America article?

I would argue that the Afro-Latin American article needs the Mexican bit to make it a full article, otherwise it is too bitty. If that article survives I will start a Latin American article preciselty in order to stop what I see as the insidious rascism in the way this topic is being treated (starting with the name). BTW Mexico is a part of Latin America, SqueakBox July 9, 2005 00:41 (UTC)

SqueakBox, So, we must delete the article about US, and England because there is an article about anglo-saxon?. Of course not, We are speaking of very diferent things. Latin-american and hispanic are cultural terms, withouth regard of country or race. The history of black people in Mexico is very diferent from the history of Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama, or Brazil. Honestly i see to option, or have an article on the history of black people outside africa, that would include subchater regarding each contry.. or keep with indepndient articles, like afro-american, afro-cuban, afrom-exican , etc. I found the clasification of "afro-latinamerican" too artificial.
  • While the article needswork, I think it is a potentially viable article. Keep - Guettarda 9 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
  • Keep. Your logic is very flawed: there IS a Hispanics article, and even if there weren't, it wouldn't represent a value judgment that Hispanics are inferior to Afro-Mexicans; it would just mean no one had written one yet. Sorry for repeating points from the Afro-Latin American VfD; I will also repeat the point that SqueakBox should stop making accusations of racism. Dcarrano July 9, 2005 00:52 (UTC)
The hispanic article is about people in the US. BTW I haven't accused anyone of rascism. We should not veer away from discussing rascist attitudes on Wikipedia. Please don't try to censure that, SqueakBox July 9, 2005 00:59 (UTC)
True, the hispanic is about people in the US, so was Afro-Latino and you merged it into Afro-Latin American which is about people in Latin America. You didn't accuse anyone in particular but wrote "Comment. Latin American redirects to Latin America. If Latin Americans aren't deserving of an article for what reason do we need an Afro-American article. Sounds rascist to me, SqueakBox July 8, 2005 18:39 (UTC)" at the Vfd page. I assure you nobody is trying to denigrate Afro-Latin Americans by writing an article about them. --Vizcarra 9 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)
  • Keep. Distinct community - recently in the news objecting to the Memin Pinguin postage stamp. -- BD2412 talk July 9, 2005 03:19 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major ethnic groups deserve articles. If there are problems with the article, it should certainly be fixed, but it would be a serious omission not to have an article on this topic. To me, this is a really clear case. Would you also VfD Malaysian Chinese and Mizrahi Jew?--Pharos 9 July 2005 03:37 (UTC)
  • Keep. There will be (and should be) some overlap between the two, but this needn't be merged. -Sean Curtin July 9, 2005 04:26 (UTC)
  • Keep. notable community. Merger not necessary. carmeld1 22:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A no-brainer to me; of couse we should keep. Moncrief 06:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A clearly distinct and forgotten community that deserves its own article. Asereje 19:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Wikipedia itself is only a few years old and articles are continuing to grow. There are far more obscure articles that Wikipedia is not considering for deletion. For example: Lepontic language is not considered for deletion. WHy then should a living group of people now be ignored on WIkipedia. Squeakbox, your logic is biased (not flawed, but biased). If the mere mention of "Afro" or "Black" people, or culture, or identity even raises the possibility of you considering it to be racist, then it's obvious that your point of view is far from objective. The Black experience in the world has been stratified since the European focus on stratifing Blacks (for discrimination, slavery, etc) began. Therefore the end result is real, and we should not pretend to have a polarized comparison to "whites" or "others". The Black experience in mexico is worth expanding as for merely academic use this particular stratified group of people are being characterized right now on a silly postage stamp to look like gorillas. Memin Penguin should be enough reason for you to realize that it's necessary to keep the article.

It was certainly Menim that made me aware of this series of articles on Afro Latinos. I haven't actually read Menim, though I have fears (perhaps misplaced) that it is an example of the US accusing Mexico of rascism. Which seems a bit off to me. Who are the Americans (or Brits) to criticise other cultures. I think the name Afro is very patronising as the Afro-American concept is purely American. If you want to write about stratification in Mexican society it would be a good idea to create White Mexican and Indigenous Mexican, SqueakBox 17:05, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

There are many articles about indigenous Mexicans (Azteca, Mayas, Chichimecas, Olmecs, Mixte, Toltec, [[Yaqui], Totonac, Tarascan, etc.). There aren't many about White Mexicans (only one, Chipilo, that I'm aware of), so you are free to write it. --Vizcarra 17:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By indigenous I meant something that covers the whole indigenous experience (of stratification etc). And I may start an Indigenous Latin American and White Latin American article if these survive the Vfd, SqueakBox 17:36, July 14, 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. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The UK Board

Delete. A bunch of people from some game forum sitting around and talking about it in Wikipedia article space. FreplySpang (talk) 9 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 00:51 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's lame. — (81.86.186.31's 6th edit.)
  • Speedy delete drini ☎ 9 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)
  • Delete and condemn the article and all its contributors (save for the VfDer). -Splash 9 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)
  • Delete all traces. Bad, bad and bad. It is the perfect exact opposite of encyclopedic. And bad. --A D Monroe III 9 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)
  • Delete agreed with the above
  • Delete. Article is, um, cheesy. humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 9 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)
  • Delete without honor or humanity. ShadowMan1od 9 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)
  • For the love of god, just delete it before it makes my brain collapse in on itself Cyclone49 9 July 2005 10:53 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikeplokta 9 July 2005 11:13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like vain patent nonsense to me. tregoweth July 9, 2005 17:14 (UTC)
  • Delete- not because I got mad reading it, I want to save others going my way.--Bhadani 9 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity, non notable, written so horrifically that it makes reality TV look intelligent, and POV beyond all knowing

Lord Patrick 20:56, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Same reasons as above --Joelito 01:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, that's just too much. — THOR 09:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This is an entry in an encyclopedia for who's benefit exactly? Stephenb 13:23, 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 redirect to Stone Cold Steve Austin. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 02:21, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Stonecold

Seems to be a hoax. Googling for "stonecold" seems to be hopeless, getting a bunch of wrestling crap. However, the UK govmnt mapping site[1] can't find anyplace named "stonecold" or "stone cold", and "butskill hill" gets zero google hits, and just butskill gets nothing relevant. Niteowlneils 9 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

  • Delete - Definitely seems like a hoax. Stilgar135 9 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Stone Cold Steve Austin. Gazpacho 9 July 2005 01:48 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Gazpacho. Pburka 9 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. I've never heard of "Northern England" (as opposed to "Yorkshire" and the like), so a hoax, and even if not, it's NN. --A D Monroe III 9 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
    • Comment: Northern England is a term in use, (for the north of England surprisingly.) Of course, it would be more useful if it did include the county. Sonic Mew July 9, 2005 10:54 (UTC)
  • Delete, mapquest.co.uk reports non-existence. This is not the purpose of redirects. You've never heard of where,A D Monroe III? It's that little place in between Scotland and Southern England. :-> Splash 9 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)
Okay, guys, I relent. I'm sure that Northern England is a fine place, full of good people, and I won't put Northern England up for VFD.  ;) Thanks for all the helpful comments, and sorry for starting a side discussion. I just meant it seemed like an odd way to describe a real town -- like saying "Las Vegas, Western US" instead of "Las Vegas, Nevada". --A D Monroe III 20:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a signpost for stonecold last weekend. It's a couple of miles from Todmorden. Never been there though.

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 --Allen3 talk 12:49, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Victor augusto nieto righetti

  • Delete. Vanity, notability not established. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 01:07 (UTC)
  • Delete. No notability beyond being a student. 23 google hits. Pburka 9 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. The article itself makes no claims to notoriety. I say we take the article's word on that. --A D Monroe III 9 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)
  • Delete it. -Splash 9 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)
  • Delete, and I sugguest whomever wrote it get a userpage, perhaps?, mysekurity 9 July 2005 03:14 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable vanity. JamesBurns 9 July 2005 04:17 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like a user page. Vanity --Joelito 01:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn student vanity. --Etacar11 02:59, 10 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_9&oldid=18435543"