Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions/2004 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuevo Rico[edit]

Not encyclopedic. It seems to be a disagreement with a piece of information in Tintin. Delete, or move to Tintin's Talk page. Joyous 04:23, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • I really wish people would add a "fictional" notice at the beginning of such articles. Non-encyclopedic content disagreement about a fictional nation. Move to Tintin's talk page. If the current article is not replaced with an actual Tintin related article (like the one about Borduria) within five days, delete. SWAdair | Talk 07:55, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RESULT: Delete. DJ Clayworth 20:11, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Raisa Gorbacheva/old history[edit]

  • I'm not sure what we should do with this. Personally, I think it can be deleted. — Timwi 16:18, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it's there to keep the page history around for some edits that were merged into the main article [1]. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not satisfactory at present, as there is no link to this from Raisa Gorbacheva nor from its talk page, so the history is not in practice preserved anyway. I'm not sure how to handle it either. Andrewa 23:52, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • merge the page histories and delete. --Jiang 03:27, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1 E-26 s, 1 E-27 s, 1 E-28 s, 1 E-29 s, 1 E-30 s, 1 E-31 s, 1 E-32 s, 1 E-33 s, 1 E-34 s, 1 E-35 s, 1 E-36 s, 1 E-37 s, 1 E-38 s, 1 E-39 s, 1 E-40 s, 1 E-41 s and 1 E-42 s[edit]

Typical content is:

To help compare different orders of magnitudes this page lists times between 10-26 s and 10-25 s.

I don't see anything of any use here. So far I've only noticed two of them that have any actual content; 1 E-28 s lists "10-28 seconds after the Big Bang: start of cosmic inflation." Any content that belongs on these pages would, in my opinion, be better located on a single page in list or tabular format. Dpbsmith 16:29, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

P.S. No, I haven't got VfD notices on all them... will try to get them all before tomorrow. Dpbsmith 16:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
P.P.S. There seem to be more. In the positive direction, they go as far as 1 E19 s. Dpbsmith 16:38, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all - they have zero content - Tεxτurε 16:36, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    Delete any that are so short nothing has happened/can happen. Rmhermen 16:48, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep 'em. The fact that there is no content yet is not indicative of anything given that they were only created very recently. -- Schnee 17:01, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What's the advantage of doing it this way over combining them all on a single page and creating individual articles only when it is clear that the page is too long? Having them all on one page makes the relationships clearer. Dpbsmith 17:08, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Personally, I don't think any of these can contain much of use - the time intervals are already less than about a millionth the period of gamma rays, and I can't think of too much that falls within any of those orders of magnitude. Delete them unless someone adds anything useful to them, which I doubt will happen. StuartH 18:15, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I've also just noticed that the highest one - 1E19s is actually 1E19s and more (even going up to 1E(10^76)), so maybe any content on these pages can find a home on the smallest reasonable time. StuartH 04:28, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I like this idea the best. The ones in the middle ranges have semi-useful content. Perhaps compile everything below 1 E-15 s as 1 E-15 s and shorter times, and redirect the others to that page. -- DrBob 17:59, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is there any previous discussion on this? I think there should be before listing what's obviously a lot of work by a good contributor for deletion. I can think of many places it could happen, so has it? If so, where? (And it would have been good to link to it in the initial listing, but that's history now.) If not, I may well vote keep to allow it to happen. No vote for the moment. Andrewa 23:25, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • This is odd: I left a note on the contributor's talk page, User_Talk:Schneelocke, about three days before listing on VfD, asking whether the material wouldn't have been better placed in a single table on one page. I never got a reply. However, on going to that page now, I do not see my note on the page or in the history of that page. I can't explain this, except to wonder whether it could have been lost in the database problems earlier this week. So, although I did not mean to list it here without giving the contributor prior notice, it appears that that's what happened. My apologies. I'm not aware of any prior discussion. How much time do you think is needed? My suggestion would be that you propose a date and that I add a note at the top saying that I am requesting that the VfD discussion time be extended to that date before action is taken. Dpbsmith 16:50, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If they have nothing, they should be deleted. But all those long times should stay on one page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Archived_articles_for_deletion_discussions/2004_June_11&oldid=1089103842"